Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[Satyrn]

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.

Oh man. I've spent a full day listening to Rush on CD. More than once.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Note no one is claiming it is more important. Just very important.

I understand that. But specific things are being advanced as important under the heading of "performance" and a lot of them are things I don't think are particularly important, and in some cases even find misguided as ideals in GMing. It could be there is some speaking past each other here.

 

[Hussar]

I understand that. But specific things are being advanced as important under the heading of "performance" and a lot of them are things I don't think are particularly important, and in some cases even find misguided as ideals in GMing. It could be there is some speaking past each other here.

Yeah, that typically happens when folks can't agree on working definitions.

Yup, some of the things that are included in "performance" might not be important at your table. Cool. But, that doesn't follow that performance isn's important. It's not like speaking in the 3rd person suddenly removes the "performance" aspect or speaking in 1st person is necessary for performance.

Go back a page or so, and I lay out exactly what we're discussing. Since no one seems to disagree with those definitions, let's use those, please?
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] laid out a bare bones writeup of his session in Evard's tower. To me, I'd be so checked out of that game that I might as well be asleep. No exposition, no description? The tower isn't even important and is completely unremarkable, to the point where Pemerton cannot even remember what it looked like? No thanks. To me, that's a terrible game. I would strongly advise DM's/GM's NOT to do that.

The situation was interesting, the setup was great. The execution was a complete snore fest, at least, judging by that writeup.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, that typically happens when folks can't agree on working definitions.

Yup, some of the things that are included in "performance" might not be important at your table. Cool. But, that doesn't follow that performance isn's important. It's not like speaking in the 3rd person suddenly removes the "performance" aspect or speaking in 1st person is necessary for performance.

Go back a page or so, and I lay out exactly what we're discussing. Since no one seems to disagree with those definitions, let's use those, please?

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] laid out a bare bones writeup of his session in Evard's tower. To me, I'd be so checked out of that game that I might as well be asleep. No exposition, no description? The tower isn't even important and is completely unremarkable, to the point where Pemerton cannot even remember what it looked like? No thanks. To me, that's a terrible game. I would strongly advise DM's/GM's NOT to do that.

The situation was interesting, the setup was great. The execution was a complete snore fest, at least, judging by that writeup.

One of the reasons why I frequently push back against coining new terms and concepts is because they are often just vessels for playstyle arguments, where people try to advance a position in the hobby as the best approach by controlling the language we use to discuss gaming. You can come up with a new term if you like, but my default position is to push back on new terms unless or until they can be shown to be useful and needed (and gain a certain amount of natural traction). Otherwise it is just more jargon that we don't need.

Looking at your post, I just don't understand this division of RPGs into content and performance. What I was objection to wasn't categorizations and terms (though I think this divisions seems a bit artbitrary and not particularly useful to anything). What I objected to, and what I think Permerton objected to, was the way this concept of performance is being used to advance an idea of good GMing that includes things like acting and improv. It also just frankly seems like the wrong term. I don't think of what is going on at the table as a performance.

 

[Bedrockgames]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] laid out a bare bones writeup of his session in Evard's tower. To me, I'd be so checked out of that game that I might as well be asleep. No exposition, no description? The tower isn't even important and is completely unremarkable, to the point where Pemerton cannot even remember what it looked like? No thanks. To me, that's a terrible game. I would strongly advise DM's/GM's NOT to do that.

The situation was interesting, the setup was great. The execution was a complete snore fest, at least, judging by that writeup.

I would need you to link to Pemerton's write up for me to understand this enough to comment.

 

[pemerton]

Just based on what I see people saying, presentation appears to include things like moody and atmospheric narration, which is a technique I've found doesn't work as well as people think (it is in all kinds of GM advice, and I used to buy into it, but over time, I've come to a different conclusion about it). To answer your question, I don't think objecting to an obviously distracting, annoying or disruptive GM narration style, means that performance is prime. Again, I've said I want the GM engaged, invested and speaking in their natural voice. That isn't performance. That is being your relaxed and honest self. Performance is the opposite of that. I don't need the GM to do voices for example for monsters or characters. I don't need the GM to 'act'.

This is all consistent with what I was trying to say in the OP.

Further unexpected agreement!

 

[pemerton]

pemerton laid out a bare bones writeup of his session in Evard's tower. To me, I'd be so checked out of that game that I might as well be asleep. No exposition, no description? The tower isn't even important and is completely unremarkable, to the point where Pemerton cannot even remember what it looked like? No thanks. To me, that's a terrible game. I would strongly advise DM's/GM's NOT to do that.

The situation was interesting, the setup was great. The execution was a complete snore fest, at least, judging by that writeup.

So, tihs is dead on-topic.

And, to me, is strange.

I'll relate it to something you've posted recently in another thread - not as "gotcha", but because I'm trying to work out where you're coming from.

In that other thread, you were discussing approaches to adjudication, and expressed a preference for swift adjudication rather than (what you saw as) a lot of needless narration.

But here, from my point of view you seem to be advocating needless narration. What colour was the box that held the letters in Evard's tower room I don't recall. I suspect it was never established. But why should it be? How is that part of what is exciting about play?

If we had a character with a Belief "I will recreate the cabinet work of the great carpenters of yore", then I'm sure the GM would have approached that matter differently. But we didn't. The GM, correctly in my view, focused on those aspects of the situatiion that mattered. The back-and-forth with the demon (the words as well as the fighting), which tested my character's devotion to the Lord of Battle and to the defence of innocents. The discovery of the letters, which reveaal the unwelcome truth about my ancestry. Why is the tower such a big deal?

I assume you don't describe the hat and cape of every peasant the PCs pass on the road. They're just part of the setting. Likewise Evard's tower.

 

[Hussar]

I don't adventure in every hat and cape in the setting though. I DO adventure in Evard's Tower. And if Evard's tower's description is essentially "a tower", then well, why is it even a tower? Because wizards live in towers?

Again, maybe this is because I play exclusively online. The images that I use in my game are rather painstakingly chosen or created. I could simply use an "O" with a circle around it for an orc, or, I could use a cool image for that orc that shows the players why they shouldn't just ignore said orc.

That's the basic difference, [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], that I'm talking about between content and performance. If a black and white line map a la Dyson Logos along with simple black and white letter tokens floats your boat, then, well, go for it. For me, it doesn't.

How you present is just as important as what you present. Which includes all sorts of things. It's not about simply redefining elements, it's about actually using definitions that we can agree upon. If you don't like the definitions we're working from in this thread, either present your own, or don't bother arguing because, we cannot actually discuss anything until we can lay down some basic ground rules. Apparently Pemerton understands what I'm saying and so does everyone else. Otherwise, I'd have gotten more push back. Why participate in a discussion if you aren't even going to bother with the basics?

 

[Hussar]

Ok, let's boil it down even further.

Content is what you do at the table. What is the situation about? What needs to be done?

Performance is how you communicate that content to the players.

Is that clear enough?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't adventure in every hat and cape in the setting though. I DO adventure in Evard's Tower. And if Evard's tower's description is essentially "a tower", then well, why is it even a tower? Because wizards live in towers?

Again, maybe this is because I play exclusively online. The images that I use in my game are rather painstakingly chosen or created. I could simply use an "O" with a circle around it for an orc, or, I could use a cool image for that orc that shows the players why they shouldn't just ignore said orc.

That's the basic difference, [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], that I'm talking about between content and performance. If a black and white line map a la Dyson Logos along with simple black and white letter tokens floats your boat, then, well, go for it. For me, it doesn't.

I think we play in very different ways for very different reasons.

How you present is just as important as what you present. Which includes all sorts of things. It's not about simply redefining elements, it's about actually using definitions that we can agree upon. If you don't like the definitions we're working from in this thread, either present your own, or don't bother arguing because, we cannot actually discuss anything until we can lay down some basic ground rules. Apparently Pemerton understands what I'm saying and so does everyone else. Otherwise, I'd have gotten more push back. Why participate in a discussion if you aren't even going to bother with the basics?

I feel like I am addressing the points you raise Hussar. I don't think participating in the conversation means I have to either accept new terminology or offer new terminology of my own.