Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[Bedrockgames]

To be blunt, it doesn't matter what they agree with. The definition of literature is anything written. Period. That makes RPGs objectively literary as they are literature. Those who object to calling RPGs literature can also object to calling Earth a planet, the sun a star or that diamonds are hard. Those objections are irrelevant to the facts and reality.

There is a lot wrong with this, and we've already gone over it many times, but just to focus on the point most important to your own argument: the reason this is a big problem is because your point doesn't just rely on meaning A of literature (written works), it also relies on meaning B ( especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit). This is the equivocation I have been talking about. You have been repeatedly relying on A in order to assert that RPGs should have some kind of quality in the descriptions (which is more a part of meaning B). You need to prove both A and B are the case with RPGs in order to make your argument. You can't just get by trying to make a case for A, and then equivocate with B.

Also, and this is really, really, really important. The 'especially' part of that definition is not insignificant. It matters a great deal.

 

[Maxperson]

So the only pacing that is required in play is keeping the game from grinding to a halt?

No.

This also seems like a weird point. Either something is an element of pacing or it isn't. The things I listed are all clearly pacing concerns that can come up in a game. I've explained that I am only interested in 1 of them. And so your response, rather than just admit I don't seem that interested in pacing, is that those other things are not necessary requirements of pacing (even though they are pacing considerations), so I am still interested in pacing as a GM.

It's more a matter of you don't have to engage all of those for pacing to be present. It's like saying that chickens, pigeons, ducks and geese are all birds. That is true. You only need chickens to be present for birds to be present, though.

Let me ask you this, if a GM showed zero concern for pacing during a campaign, except when the game ground to a halt. The only time this GM literally engages anything to do with pacing is when everything just stops because the players are stumped, would you say this GM cares about pacing very much? The GM is fine with the session ending five minutes into the game. The GM is fine with there being no climactic battle or encounters just happening however. The GM is fine with there being no sense of rising action or tension. The GM is not trying to emulate any of the pacing flow of a story. But if the game grinds to a halt because the players can't put together some clues and they can't think of anything else to do, he nudges them so they are not just trifling their thumbs. Would you say this GM is concerned with pacing?

The answer to your question is yes, the DM still cares about pacing. The only time the DM only needs to care about pacing on rare occasions is when the players are driving the pacing. If you have proactive players who drive the pacing, the DM has to do very little. If you have groups like a few that I've had in the past who just stare at you if you are not providing them things to do, the DM is driving all of the pacing. Pacing is critical to the survival of the game, so the DM has to care about it. The extent that he can ignore it is a sign of proactive players, not his ability to not care.

 

[Maxperson]

There is a lot wrong with this, and we've already gone over it many times, but just to focus on the point most important to your own argument: the reason this is a big problem is because your point doesn't just rely on meaning A of literature (written works), it also relies on meaning B ( especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit).

Referring to this mythical meaning B is the equivocation here. There is no meaning B. It doesn't exist. What you a mischaracterizing as meaning B is nothing more than a subset of the only meaning of literature. The only meaning is written works. Period. End of definition. All else, including the "especially" portion are just subsets of that meaning. Sure, you can more highly prize high quality written works, but that doesn't make what you more highly prize a different meaning of literature.

Also, and this is really, really, really important. The 'especially' part of that definition is not insignificant. It matters a great deal.

Sure, but ONLY to preference, not to what is or is not literature. The especially part doesn't change the fact that all writing is literature.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Referring to this mythical meaning B is the equivocation here. There is no meaning B. It doesn't exist. What you a mischaracterizing as meaning B is nothing more than a subset of the only meaning of literature. The only meaning is written works. Period. End of definition. All else, including the "especially" portion are just subsets of that meaning. Sure, you can more highly prize high quality written works, but that doesn't make what you more highly prize a different meaning of literature.

First, yes this meaning certainly exists. It is only the most important part of the definition itself: "written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit". That is what especially means.

But okay, let's say your right. If that is the case then you have no argument for all your other points. If RPGs are literature because they involve words on a page, that says nothing about whether descriptions ought to be or are of literary quality, or that the literary quality of any of it matters.

Sure, but ONLY to preference, not to what is or is not literature. The especially part doesn't change the fact that all writing is literature.

It is the most important meaning of the word. Literature in the very general sense of words on a page, is very broad. It has its uses. But we are clearly not just talking about words on a page here. You have been specifically advocating for quality. What this means is it isn't enough for you to just prove that RPGs involve words on a page. Getting people to accept meaning A of literature for RPGs has no relevance to all the other points you are making. It is fairly meaningless (except to equivocate).

 

[Bedrockgames]

The answer to your question is yes, the DM still cares about pacing. The only time the DM only needs to care about pacing on rare occasions is when the players are driving the pacing. If you have proactive players who drive the pacing, the DM has to do very little. If you have groups like a few that I've had in the past who just stare at you if you are not providing them things to do, the DM is driving all of the pacing. Pacing is critical to the survival of the game, so the DM has to care about it. The extent that he can ignore it is a sign of proactive players, not his ability to not care.

This isn't just sophistry. It is bad sophistry. Again, you are using an edge case to build a general rule when I've established I don't care about the other six areas of pacing. You are insisting that pacing matters to me because on the rare occasion that the game grinds to a halt, I may nudge the players. Then you introduce absurdly inactive players as the norm in gaming to assert this would be a constant problem if the GM wasn't on top of pacing or didn't have extremely proactive players. I run multiple campaigns at a time. One of my groups has two very non-proactive players. Yet I don't have to worry about pacing because, like most other players I've met, if you give them the freedom, they do stuff with it. I literally only have to worry about pacing maybe once every several months. That is hardly a priority or even a real concern.

What I think is going on is you are taking your experience of playing and running the game, which is totally valid, and then projecting onto the whole hobby. There are lots of different ways to play and to think about playing. And I can assure you, not being very concerned about pacing, is a way.

Now you can try to assert that I am still concerned about it. But we all know discussions about pacing techniques are a big issue, particularly around playstyle. There is a reason this part of the discussion is important to people. And you telling people how they run the game, telling them they are doing X when they know they aren't, is extremely frustrating (especially when your using arguments that don't add up)

 

[Aldarc]

To be blunt, it doesn't matter what they agree with. The definition of literature is anything written. Period. That makes RPGs objectively literary as they are literature. Those who object to calling RPGs literature can also object to calling Earth a planet, the sun a star or that diamonds are hard. Those objections are irrelevant to the facts and reality.

It makes RPGs literature to the extent that recipes make cooking literature or a rulebook for the NBA makes basketball literature. But I think that we can recognize that RPGs, cooking, and basketball are defined by more than their associated literature.

 

[Lanefan]

Description one is excessive and, I think, not what Hussar or Maxperson are pushing for (it is way too long). But it is an example of the downside of a literary focus because I have had GMs attempt this kind of narration and I view it as a product of thinking in terms of boxed text or novel prose. I wouldn't object to a bit of this. Where it goes off the rails for me is giving me every single detail. But the worst part is it assumes PC actions in the inn. It just glosses over so many places where a player character might attempt an action or try to engage someone in conversation. It assumes they hang their cloaks up on their way in for example.

True; though I would assume that if one or more players objected they'd interrupt with their own take, as in "No, I'm keeping my cloak with me - some of my gold is in the inner pocket; no way I'm leaving that where I can't see it."

The DM can allow for this by also pausing briefly between each paragraph, almost as if seeking clearance to continue.

 

[Lanefan]

But you haven't established this and it has been the main point of contention over the thread. I don't think most of the people here agree that rulebooks are literature.

That entirely depends on one's definition of 'literature', doesn't it.

The rulebooks both are literature, in that they have some organized words on paper that are intended to be read by others; and are not literature, in that their quality of prose is for the most part rather mundane.

But even if they did, fewer would agree that the games once played are literary. Even if you are trying to bring in techniques from movies, books, etc (and we clearly disagree on whether you are or not), that doesn't make a game a literary endeavor. At the end of the day, the purpose of a game isn't to produce literary content.

Again, this varies table by table. After each session, for example, I post a point-form game log online which over time adds up to becoming the record and story of what happens in the game.

Is it high-quality writing? Hells no.

Is it literary content? Absolutely.

But the key point is that the literary part mostly comes after the fact, where you seem to be more talking about whether literary content can or does arise during the actual run of play.

 

[Lanefan]

Referring to this mythical meaning B is the equivocation here. There is no meaning B. It doesn't exist.

Actually, and unfortunately perhaps, it does.

At least as far as general common usage is concerned, anyway, the term 'literature' has somewhat taken on the mantle of referring primarily to the high-end stuff...with one notable common exception.

It's not unusual at all at, say, a table at a trade fair or wherever; when after being shown or demoed a product a prospective customer will say "Sounds great. Got any literature I can take with me and read over later?". Here the 'literature' being referred to is stuff like product info sheets, sales flyers, price guides, spec sheets, and so forth - all of which are 99.999% likely to be a very long way from anything resembling high-end prose!

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's not unusual at all at, say, a table at a trade fair or wherever; when after being shown or demoed a product a prospective customer will say "Sounds great. Got any literature I can take with me and read over later?". Here the 'literature' being referred to is stuff like product info sheets, sales flyers, price guides, spec sheets, and so forth - all of which are 99.999% likely to be a very long way from anything resembling high-end prose!

Yes. While the word means both these things. Both these things are not the same. The shift in usage is where the equivocation comes in and I've just found this to be one of the central problems I encounter in any debate about terms and playstyle.