Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[Satyrn]

I agree completely. Problem is, for purposes of presenting a common-to-all 'survey question' I couldn't think of a way to frame it as a level of anticipation without having it be a bit premeditated.

I could have framed it more like "On 1-10, how would you rate a session you had just played where the whole session was spent on in-character conversation that didn't advance the story but did advance the PCs' chaacterization?", and almost did; but the unavoidable variable there that would prevent clear answers would be "What was the conversation about?".

I like the original version better. Because there's no way to know how I'd rate the specific session after the fact. I mean, I've never had a session like that that I'd rate highly, but I fully expect it's possible I could thoroughly enjoy it. Theoretically.

But your original, I can answer well. I would totally dread such a session because the odds are it won't be a session I enjoyed. Or in analogy: Your original was asking me how much I'm looking forward to watching a Thor movie. Totally a 10. Big fan.

This new version is asking me to rate The Dark World.

 

[Hussar]

Notice that you've got three different action declarations here. Two of them are contrasting:

* Grgur walks down the hallway, be cautious and looking carefully to see if anything is out of place.

* Grugr strides down the hallway.​

And one is less specific:

* Grugr moves down the hallway.​

I don't know why you think that the extra information in the two contrasting declarations doesn't count as "content" in the way you're using that word - that extra information is all about what Grugr is doing.

And I don't know why you think this shows that RPGing is importantly literary. I don't care how eloquently or poetically the player conveys the manner in which Grugr proceeds down the hall; but knowing what that manner is may (in some systems) be highly relevant to action resolution.

Not really. In all three examples the character simply moves from A to B. Content wise there is virtually no difference. There is no action declaration other than moving.

 

[Hussar]

If the literary is unimportant, then why do DMG’d include dungeon dressing sections, most of which has little to no mechanical impact?

 

[Hriston]

Because color (dungeon dressing) is content that provides atmosphere when imagined by the participants at the table. The quality of form with which it’s expressed isn’t what’s important but rather whether the odors, noises, furnishings, and items found in an area suggest a torture chamber, a harem, or a wizard’s laboratory. In other words, it’s the actual content that matters, not the particular words that are used and the way they are said.

 

[Riley37]

Not really. In all three examples the character simply moves from A to B. Content wise there is virtually no difference. There is no action declaration other than moving.

"looking carefully to see if anything is out of place" isn't an action declaration?

In D&D 5E, I'd interpret that as taking the Observe action each six seconds, while moving at base rate. Similar rules apply in Hero System.

If a guard were watching Grugr, then that guard might notice Grugr's caution. If the declaration were "Grugr strides down the hallway, as if Grugr owned the place", that gets a different response - possibly leading to the guard assuming that Grugr is a familiar, regular guest, rather than a cautious intruder.

In real life, there's certainly a difference between how guards respond to the former and to the latter, so I'd want the same difference to apply in the narrative.

 

[Imaro]

Because color (dungeon dressing) is content that provides atmosphere when imagined by the participants at the table. The quality of form with which it’s expressed isn’t what’s important but rather whether the odors, noises, furnishings, and items found in an area suggest a torture chamber, a harem, or a wizard’s laboratory. In other words, it’s the actual content that matters, not the particular words that are used and the way they are said.

Disagree... otherwise the most bland & basic description of content would engender the same response as a better embellished and constructed description of the same content... and IME most of the time that just isn't the case.

 

[Sadras]

Evocative words engender creativity.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Disagree... otherwise the most bland & basic description of content would engender the same response as a better embellished and constructed description of the same content... and IME most of the time that just isn't the case.

Well the words the GM uses can matter for sure, but I just don’t think being evocative or emulating literary narration helps as much as it hurts. And I think ultimately it is the content itself that matters most. Personally I favor much shorter description. The old advice of including all the senses in a description, I think loses peoples’ attention more than I gains. In terms of game products themselves, a bit of flavor in the text is fine. But barebones solid content is much easier to deploy. When the flavor gets into novel writing territory then I think it detracts from the content. Doesn’t mean it can’t be well written though. Essoterrorists is a very well written game book, but Laws takes a minimalist approach to the text and the mechanics which I admire. I think some of the monsters just have two to three sentence descriptions for instance.

 

[Imaro]

Well the words the GM uses can matter for sure, but I just don’t think being evocative or emulating literary narration helps as much as it hurts. And I think ultimately it is the content itself that matters most. Personally I favor much shorter description. The old advice of including all the senses in a description, I think loses peoples’ attention more than I gains. In terms of game products themselves, a bit of flavor in the text is fine. But barebones solid content is much easier to deploy. When the flavor gets into novel writing territory then I think it detracts from the content. Doesn’t mean it can’t be well written though. Essoterrorists is a very well written game book, but Laws takes a minimalist approach to the text and the mechanics which I admire. I think some of the monsters just have two to three sentence descriptions for instance.

Ok let me again make a few points...

1. I'm not arguing that being evocative or emulating literary narration matters most... Only that it does matter to the game and it is a core part of the game... in whatever level and capacity one chooses to engage with it.

2. You are setting up a weird (I'd say false) dichotomy here that doesn't exist. There is nothing inherent in minimalist description that is at odds with it being judged as more or less evocative... good or badly written/spoken and so on. So I'm not sure why you keep making a point of harping on length when that isn't what is being discussed.

3. For you maybe barebones solid content is easier to deploy but I think well written boxed text with a nice level of description can be easier to deploy for a new GM with new players... or an old GM whose not good at adding details on the fly. Again you seem to be making a point about length so let me try and express this in a different way... would you rather have minimalist drab, poorly written content or minimalist, well written and evocative description? Or are you claiming that neither matters to gameplay...

EDIT: My personal take is I'm not going to sit through multiple adventures (much less a campaign) of minimalist, drab and poorly written/expressed description... just because the content is there. It's not going to grab me or make me interested enough to get to the content and engaging with it and that, IMO is the problem with claiming it's not core to the game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Ok let me again make a few points...

1. I'm not arguing that being evocative or emulating literary narration matters most... Only that it does matter to the game and it is a core part of the game... in whatever level and capacity one chooses to engage with it.

2. You are setting up a weird (I'd say false) dichotomy here that doesn't exist. There is nothing inherent in minimalist description that is at odds with it being judged as more or less evocative... good or badly written/spoken and so on. So I'm not sure why you keep making a point of harping on length when that isn't what is being discussed.

3. For you maybe barebones solid content is easier to deploy but I think well written boxed text with a nice level of description can be easier to deploy for a new GM with new players... or an old GM whose not good at adding details on the fly but with players who enjoy evocative description. Again you seem to be making a point about length so let me try and express this in a different way... would you rather have minimalist drab, poorly written content or minimalist, well written and evocative content?

I want good, gameable content. I am much less concerned about the writing quality than whether the content itself is solid, inspires me as a GM (this is more about the content than the description), and that the text is easy to navigate during play. What I want is well designed modules and games. I will take good writing if it is present but like I said before I don't think there is a connection with good writing and good design (and sometimes I think good writing clouds bad design). These are not novels. They are not works of literature. They are games that need to function at the table. What I want are good ideas. The packaging is a lot less important to me than the ideas themselves.