Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[pemerton]

This is why grand pronouncements, or a unified theory of RPGs, seldom seem effective. What works (and may be true) for Burning Wheel or Prince Valiant may not be as true for Call of Cthulhu or an old-school dungeon crawl, let alone a modded Battle Tech.

When I think of old school D&D, I think of something like ToH or White Plume Mountain - it's about information, puzzles and rolling up new characters. I don't see the performance aspect looming that large myself.

As far as Cthulhu RPGing, I've been GMing some Cthulhu Dark recently and the invitation and response have been more important than the "artistry".

I can't comment on Battle Tech.

 

[Hussar]

Hey. Battletech is great! Played it last weekend.

Frankly, I see the “performance “ side of dming as just as important as the “framing” side. One without the other leads to bad games.

 

[pemerton]

Frankly, I see the “performance “ side of dming as just as important as the “framing” side. One without the other leads to bad games.

Careful - there are posters who dissaprove of making aesthetic claims as if they were "unified theories" of RPGing!

(Or maybe they only object to "unified theories" that aren't their's?)

 

[Hussar]

Careful - there are posters who dissaprove of making aesthetic claims as if they were "unified theories" of RPGing!

(Or maybe they only object to "unified theories" that aren't their's?)

Well, again, I think you'd get a lot less push back if you were to take a little less extreme position. And, heck, I can prove my point that presentation is equally as important as content.

You and I both agree that the 4e Monster Manual is full of information about the lore of monsters. We've had that conversation, so, I know you agree with that. But, there are people who will swear up and down that the 4e Monster Manual contains little to no actual lore about the monsters. The reason being, the 4e Monster Manual presents its information differently than any previous Monster Manual - mostly through bullet points and contained within the stat block itself. But, people will, to this day, insist that the 4e Monster Manual is largely bereft of any lore at all.

THAT'S how important presentation is. You gave examples from REH and E. M. Forster and then claimed that at the table, the two versions you gave, while presenting the same information, would make little difference. I think you are very wrong here. The first examples you gave would make for a much better game with greater engagement from the players than the latter examples. Like I said, how you present information is as important as the information itself.

 

[pemerton]

You and I both agree that the 4e Monster Manual is full of information about the lore of monsters. We've had that conversation, so, I know you agree with that. But, there are people who will swear up and down that the 4e Monster Manual contains little to no actual lore about the monsters. The reason being, the 4e Monster Manual presents its information differently than any previous Monster Manual - mostly through bullet points and contained within the stat block itself. But, people will, to this day, insist that the 4e Monster Manual is largely bereft of any lore at all.

THAT'S how important presentation is.

This is a point about marketing, not a point about RPGing.

You gave examples from REH and E. M. Forster and then claimed that at the table, the two versions you gave, while presenting the same information, would make little difference. I think you are very wrong here. The first examples you gave would make for a much better game with greater engagement from the players than the latter examples.

That's not my experience. I've played terrible games under "thespian" GMs, and terrific games under GMs who present their material in the manner of an ordinary person engaged in ordinary conversation.

What makes the difference, in my experience, is what I have called upthread the "invitation" to player response.

I think you'd get a lot less push back if you were to take a little less extreme position.

Your position - I see the “performance “ side of dming as just as important as the “framing” side - is just as extreme as mine! It's just different.

There's nothing objectionable about differences of aesthetic opinion. What irritates me a bit recently on some threads is those posters who argue that anyone expressing an opinion different from their's is (improperly) advancing a "unified theory" or "one true way" - whereas obviously their preference is just common sense!

I hope it goes without saying that you're not one of those I have in mind.

 

[Hussar]

Well, I would say that I'm taking a somewhat less extreme position. To me, the extreme position would be the opposite of yours, where the presentation is the most important thing and content isn't important.

I'm taking the fence sitting middle road here - they're both very important. How you present material and what you present are both very, very important. Brushing off my argument about the MM in 4e as simply "marketing" misses the point. "Marketing" and "presentation" are pretty much the same thing. You need to convince four or five people sitting around the table to listen to you for several hours while you try to paint a picture about whatever scenario it is that you're trying to sell to the players.

They call it player buy in for a very good reason. Bare bones, facts only presentations will engender similar responses. Sure, a game with lots of one or lots of the other will be able to spackle over the missing elements, but, at the end of the day, balance is needed to have a really good game.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[pemerton]

Well, I would say that I'm taking a somewhat less extreme position. To me, the extreme position would be the opposite of yours, where the presentation is the most important thing and content isn't important.

I'm taking the fence sitting middle road here - they're both very important.

Well, you did assert that they're equally important, and that's what I was responding to.

"Marketing" and "presentation" are pretty much the same thing. You need to convince four or five people sitting around the table to listen to you for several hours while you try to paint a picture about whatever scenario it is that you're trying to sell to the players.

What you describe here doesn't really fit with my own experience of RPGing. If RPGing was primarily about "painting a picture" (upthread, I used the term "recitation" which I think covers much the same conceptual terrain) then you would be correct. But that's what I'm disagreeing with in my OP.

 

[pemerton]

there are whole genres of TTRPGs (the horror genre) where many people do feel this fear.

I've posted more than once, in reply to you, about some recent play of horror RPGs. You haven't responded.

 

[Hussar]

Well, you did assert that they're equally important, and that's what I was responding to.

What you describe here doesn't really fit with my own experience of RPGing. If RPGing was primarily about "painting a picture" (upthread, I used the term "recitation" which I think covers much the same conceptual terrain) then you would be correct. But that's what I'm disagreeing with in my OP.

Without "painting a picture" as you say, player interest drops and the game dies. If the DM presents nothing but bare bones facts without any exposition, no oratory, no actual theatricalism (if I could coin a term), then that DM is going to lose his players to other forms of media which ARE far more entertaining. Like it or not, being entertaining is part and parcel to good DMing and particularly important to good scenario design. And part of being entertaining is how you present that information.