Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[pemerton]

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.

Again, all I can really say is that this is not my experience. My group has been meeting every fortnight or so for 20-odd years. If we were young and free like we once were, it would probably be more often! (As it was back in the 90s.)

I've been the GM for most of that time. I'm not notorious for my modesty, but I've also got a reasonable sense of my limitations. I'm not a great performer. The reason I haven't lost "my" players isn't because they find me entertaining. It's because RPGing offers a different experience from other sorts of entertainment.

This is what I mean when I talk about orienting towrads the strengths of RPGing (ie the collective creativity, and from the player's point of view being the protagonist) rather than the weaknesses (ie that amateur performers/storytellers will compete with professionals).

 

[Hussar]

Why would you be competing with anyone? So long as the performance is good enough for that group, things are fine. I suppose if you found a group that didn't bother with any actual oratory, played in complete monotone all the time, never bothered with an adjective or five, or something like that, then, well, fantastic.

But, the flip side is also true. So long as the content is good enough for that group, everyone is happy. I'll freely admit that someone like, say, Eric Mona, can write a better adventure than I can. My ego is not so fragile as to believe otherwise. Yet, I can write a good enough adventure that folks still come back.

IOW, again, you need both.

 

[aramis erak]

For me...
The presentation of the game needs to be good enough to convey clearly the rules.
The rules need to be good enough that they don't inhibit good story from evolving.
The GM (usually me, in my case) needs to be good enough to know when to use the rules or not; when to pick from yes, no, or roll the dice.

Great GMs make bad systems work by a mix of houserules, careful choices, and compelling situations.

For me, my success as a GM hinges on giving my players meaningful choices in play, then following through with appropriate reactions to that.

Aside from initially learning the rules and looking up complex elements when needed, the presentation is mostly immaterial. I make cheat sheets for my own use, extracting what I think is needed, and often, revising mid-campaign....

But, on the getting me to buy and read in the first place, presentation matters.
Overdone actually makes me LESS likely to buy.
Underdone? Doesn't give me confidence in the content... but I'm more likely to look at it than overproduced stuff.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[pemerton]

Why would you be competing with anyone?

You said "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." That seems to rest on a premise, which I think is plausible, that leisure time is finite and hence RPGing has to offer something worthwhile to its participants.

I think that what RPGing offers which is worthwhile is something that is different from what other media offer. Performance isn't a different sort of offering.

 

[pemerton]

So, yeah. I don't know, man. Seems like your experience and the ones that the reviewers had was different (but again, I don't know since I'm not familiar with that particular game).

I suspect they're reviewing the recent Kickstarted version rather than the 4-page PDF that I downloaded 5 or so years ago.

The stuff that you have quoted reminds me of Kenneth Hite's old book Nightmares of Mine.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Hussar]

You said "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." That seems to rest on a premise, which I think is plausible, that leisure time is finite and hence RPGing has to offer something worthwhile to its participants.

I think that what RPGing offers which is worthwhile is something that is different from what other media offer. Performance isn't a different sort of offering.

Well, I'd say that rather depends on how you define "performance". Is a live performance the same as a recorded one? I wouldn't say so. I'd never sit and do nothing but listen to a single band's music on CD for hours on end. But, I'd certainly go to a concert by that band and listen for a few hours. Heck, live music, frequently, isn't even as good as what you get on a CD, but, I'll still go see a live gig over just sitting in a room and listening to the same songs.

And, sure, RPGing does offer something that most other media offer - frustration, arguments, bad feelings... oh, wait... no, that's not it. Joking aside, RPGing does offer different things - direct participation is obviously one of those things. Sure. I agree that it's important. But, again, that's just one of the things. I can get just as much direct interaction in a video game as any RPG. It's presentation that does play a huge role though.

 

[pemerton]

Well, I'd say that rather depends on how you define "performance". Is a live performance the same as a recorded one? I wouldn't say so.

<snip>

RPGing does offer different things - direct participation is obviously one of those things. Sure. I agree that it's important. But, again, that's just one of the things. I can get just as much direct interaction in a video game as any RPG. It's presentation that does play a huge role though.

I've snipped the middle because I think the top and tail are closely connected.

I want to build on the idea of a live performance. I don't know if you play any music yourself - I'm a (very) amateur guitarist, who plays for his own pleasure, sometimes for friends and family, occasionally for students. These are all contexts where who I am, who it is who's making the music, matters as much or more than the quality of the music.

This aspect of participation (when I play for my own pleasure) and of human connection in a creative experience (playing for family, friends, students) is very key to what's enjoyable, for me, in making music. I don't have the talent to even think of being a professional performer, but that lack of talent has only a modest bearing on what is valuable and pleausrable both for me and for my audiences.

I see RPGing as having affinities to this. The particiaption, the human connections, the shared pleasure in creation - and the structures (role allocations, mechanics, etc) that help mediate this and give it direction and purpose and yield a particular experience - are fundamental.

I'm very shocked to read that you can get the same experience from a video game. I'm not sure how much you're exaggerating, or how much is related to the fact that you play online rather than face-to-face. But I assume when you play online you have voice (and camera?) and so still get the human connection.

 

[Hussar]

Meh. Humans are over rated.

Ok, that was a joke. But, the thing is, sure, you're playing music for your friends and family. Great. But, you still actually perform no? You try to play the music in such a way that everyone enjoys it.

Look, I'm not saying that content isn't important. Of course it is. But, to use your playing guitar example, if content was all that mattered, then, well, you could play without actually hitting a single note on a completely out of tune guitar and people would still like it. Since that's obviously not true, then presentation does matter.

OTOH, as far as can you get the same experience from a video game? Perhaps not. It's pretty darn close though. Games have progressed to the point where you have very open ended stories, allowing for all sorts of interactions, creating very personal experiences.

Then again, no, I don't see RPG's as anything remotely like anything other than a (somewhat complicated) game. That's all they are. I could have a great time playing Euchre for three hours as well. And, part of playing an RPG is the performance aspect of it. Performance is a big part - whether it's the art for my virtual tabletop game, or selecting a decent soundtrack to go with the session, or my own personal performance, it's all important to the experience.