Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[Riley37]

if a new(-ish) GM asked me what is the one thing to do to make his/her game better, I would recommend working on managing framing and consequences to maintain player engagement, rather than (say) working on the portrayal/characterisation of NPCs.

That is true if TRPG is literary, and it is also true if TRPG is not literary.

 

[Lanefan]

My answer to the question in the thread title is a firm No.

RPGing requires narration: GMs describe situations, and players declare actions for their PCs that respond to those situations. But I don't think the literary quality of that narration is important.

I see the quality as important but not vital. A more descriptive and-or evocative narration of the scene, setting and situation is more likely to engage the players than a less descriptive narration...but within reason; it's of course very possible to go right over the top into the realm of overkill and thus lose all the interest you just generated. (I once had a player tell me the boxed descriptions in a module I was running (that I didn't write!) were what Vogon poetry must sound like, for any who get the reference) Also, not every table or even every player is the same - a level and-or quality of narration that will completely engage one player might bore the hell out of the next, for example, and so the DM has to find a suitable average for her table that ideally works perfectly for everyone but more likely just minimizes the collective pain.

What matters to me is that the players feel the significance of the situations the GM describes - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction.

Absolutely, and a more "literary" - as in expressive, evocative, maybe even a little flowery - description and narration gives IMO a better chance of achieving this. And I'll be the first to admit I'm not nearly as good at this as I'd like to be.

That is, that the situation engage and motivate the players as players, not as an audience to a performance.

I'd rather go for a third result: that the situation engage and motivate the players as if they were their characters.

And player narration should, in my view, engage with and build on this fiction in ways that display the player's view of the fiction, perhaps challenge other players (and even the GM), that make the other pariticpants go "I didn't see that coming!"

That can be tough. While one hopes as a DM to get back what one gives out it doesn't always work that way: some players simply aren't that expressive even when in theory speaking in character.

This is how I see RPGs, with their emphasis on participation in the creation of a fiction that is structured through distinct player an d GM roles, working. And it's how I see them differening from more directly narrative mediums such as books and films.

In the moment, yes. After the fact, the game log of said fiction can be very literary.

 

[Umbran]

I think RPGing is not a literary endeavor when examined in this light, because the focus is not on the quality of form of the content of the fiction being generated through play, but rather on the content itself and its potential to engender participation.

I think that enough people play with various elements that they might focus upon that the best you should say is, "RPG play is *usually* not a literary endeavor, because the quality of form is not a common focus."

Going beyond that is making claims on the community that nobody really has the power to do, hey what?

 

[pemerton]

I think RPGing is not a literary endeavor when examined in this light, because the focus is not on the quality of form of the content of the fiction being generated through play, but rather on the content itself and its potential to engender participation.

I think that enough people play with various elements that they might focus upon that the best you should say is, "RPG play is *usually* not a literary endeavor, because the quality of form is not a common focus."

Going beyond that is making claims on the community that nobody really has the power to do, hey what?

I've bolded a part of [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s post that you (Umbran) perhaps did not notice.

The "light" by which Hriston is examining RPGing is the same light as I deployed in the OP. The OP is making a claim about the aesthetics of RPGing: that the strength of RPGing is engaged participation, not artistic performance and narration.

I appreciate that this will not be a universal view: that's why the thread title takes the form of a question, and why the OP offers my answer.

I don't even know if [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] agrees with me - I took his post to be an attempt to restate my position, which he did very well, but not necessarily an endorsement of it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

To the question in the thread title, I answered yes.

If you qualify it by asking if such is a primary concern, or if it is more important than some other element of RPGing, then that answer could change.

In the sense that RPGing involves the crafting of a story and related elements, I think the simple answer is yes. As to the concern over literary quality....that will vary quite a bit, I imagine, not only from group to group, but even within the same group across different instances of play.

Is the literary quality more important than being an engaging game? I'd say almost certainly not, except perhaps in the most extreme of cases. I think the game aspect of RPGing is definitely more important than the literary quality of the narration and story elements.

But those things aren't really mutually exclusive.

 

[Hriston]

I think that enough people play with various elements that they might focus upon that the best you should say is, "RPG play is *usually* not a literary endeavor, because the quality of form is not a common focus."

Going beyond that is making claims on the community that nobody really has the power to do, hey what?

If quality of form is a focus, I think it would be secondary to making meaningful choices as your character in reaction to situations presented in the game. Otherwise, I wonder why RPGing is being chosen as an activity, as opposed to other forms of narrative art that may be more to conducive to quality control.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Gorgon Zee]

I'm going with the consensus from the thread: It CAN be literary, but does not have to be.
My reasoning is that it is indeed cresting story, but "literary" has the strong connotation of producing quality fiction, and that is not a requirement, or even (in my experience as a GM) the norm. Maybe one in 10 of my campaigns have been literary (Dracula Dossier being the most recent).

So, my answer might be that the answer to the OP is the same as "Is RPGing a comic endeavor?" sometimes, yes, but always? No.

 

[pemerton]

So, I think this is what Permerton said in the other thread (on boxed text) that received so much pushback that required (??) this thread

I didn't realise you were the overseer of what threads are allowed to be created, or what topics are approved for discussion on these boards.

Duly noted.

 

[pemerton]

Where we start to go to crazytown is when we get arguments such as this one, which is more theory than actual play

This is also helpful. I'm glad to be informed that I've been theorising rather than actually playing for all these years.