Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[Imaro]

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.

Again false dichotomy... you can have good writing quality and good content...

EDIT: They are also games that need to exist in a shared imaginary space and without being well written and evocative in play... well the game has a harder time achieving that with many people.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

As a GM or as a player?

Again, just to be clear. I want the GM to be engaged and interesting. I just can tell from what you and Hussar are saying, my idea and your idea of what constitutes an engaging GM interaction is worlds apart. I really don't want to sit there listening to a GM try to be evocative. Twenty years ago, my answer would be like yours. I've just learned over time, I am not there for a flavorful recital. I am there to play a character. As long as the moving parts are all cool and work, and the scenarios are interesting to engage with, I am good. Not there to listen to the GM say things like "As you peer into the rancid carcass...". Communication matters obviously. If I don't understand what is going on because the GM can't provide some clarity, that is an issue. I just don't need polished prose and I don't need the GM to thrill me with words

 

[Bedrockgames]

Again false dichotomy... you can have good writing quality and good content...

EDIT: They are also games that need to exist in a shared imaginary space and without being well written and evocative in play... well the game has a harder time achieving that with many people.

Imaro, I never said it was a choice between the two. We just have different preferences here. I have no problem with you liking what you like. But I've gamed long enough now to know what works for me at the table. And evocative descriptions are just very, very far down the list of what i look for (same for writing quality).

Here is how I would frame it:

I would rather run and read a module that has good ideas and content, than one that is well written with bad content.

If a module is well written and has good ideas, that is great, but the writing isn't the thing that pushes it over the edge for me. Still if the writing is good enough that it makes the good content easier to absorb, great!

However if the writing is so much of the focus that it detracts from my ability to absorb the good content (because it has long descriptions or just places too much emphasis on that kind of flavor) then that is a mark against it for me.

These really shouldn't t be controversial positions I think. I know a lot of gamers who feel the way I do about this stuff.

 

[Imaro]

As a GM or as a player?

Again, just to be clear. I want the GM to be engaged and interesting. I just can tell from what you and Hussar are saying, my idea and your idea of what constitutes an engaging GM interaction is worlds apart. I really don't want to sit there listening to a GM try to be evocative. Twenty years ago, my answer would be like yours. I've just learned over time, I am not there for a flavorful recital. I am there to play a character. As long as the moving parts are all cool and work, and the scenarios are interesting to engage with, I am good. Not there to listen to the GM say things like "As you peer into the rancid carcass...". Communication matters obviously. If I don't understand what is going on because the GM can't provide some clarity, that is an issue. I just don't need polished prose and I don't need the GM to thrill me with words

Yeah at this point if all I am concerned with are the gameplay mechanics and interacting with interesting scenarios I'd much rather play something like Divinity Original Sin 2 with my buddies... for me, what you claim you don't need from the GM is one of the few things that differentiates roleplaying games from other interactive media, his ability through prose and delivery to engage me at a level a videogame can't.

 

[Imaro]

Imaro, I never said it was a choice between the two. We just have different preferences here. I have no problem with you liking what you like. But I've gamed long enough now to know what works for me at the table. And evocative descriptions are just very, very far down the list of what i look for (same for writing quality).

Here is how I would frame it:

I would rather run and read a module that has good ideas and content, than one that is well written with bad content.

If a module is well written and has good ideas, that is great, but the writing isn't the thing that pushes it over the edge for me. Still if the writing is good enough that it makes the good content easier to absorb, great!

However if the writing is so much of the focus that it detracts from my ability to absorb the good content (because it has long descriptions or just places too much emphasis on that kind of flavor) then that is a mark against it for me.

These really shouldn't t be controversial positions I think. I know a lot of gamers who feel the way I do about this stuff.

Yes but the problem is one side has announced what I like isn't really core to roleplaying games ...

 

[Bedrockgames]

Just to frame it another way, I don't particularly care how good of a writer the designer is. I care how much I like their ideas and how good they are at game design and adventure design. I am not the kind of GM to get infuriated by things like an abundance of passive voice or clunky prose for example. If the ideas are sound and inspired, that is what I am looking for. The quality of the writing doesn't do much to impress me, except in certain cases (like the Essoterrorist book I mentioned because the writing is all in service to the design and to live play).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes but the problem is one side has announced what I like isn't really core to the game...

It isn't core to the game. That doesn't make it bad as a preference. But if you insist it is core to the game, then by the same token you are saying we are not engaging a core feature of the game. That is why this fight is so bitter for people.

 

[Imaro]

Just to frame it another way, I don't particularly care how good of a writer the designer is. I care how much I like their ideas and how good they are at game design and adventure design. I am not the kind of GM to get infuriated by things like an abundance of passive voice or clunky prose for example. If the ideas are sound and inspired, that is what I am looking for. The quality of the writing doesn't do much to impress me, except in certain cases (like the Essoterrorist book I mentioned because the writing is all in service to the design and to live play).

I on the other hand have a ton of ideas, content and scenarios but getting that content into a state where it is evocative and willingly latched onto by my players is as fundamental a part of my game as coming up with said content.

 

[Imaro]

It isn't core to the game. That doesn't make it bad as a preference. But if you insist it is core to the game, then by the same token you are saying we are not engaging a core feature of the game. That is why this fight is so bitter for people.

Wrong it is core (see how easy it is just to declare something).

As to the rest of your post yeah you are choosing to downplay a particular element of roleplaying games that you don't care about... doesn't mean it's not core and it doesn't make your preferences bad. There are people who engage very little with the combat engine when running games of D&D... Is combat a core feature of the game, yep. Does this make their games any less D&D? Nope. Does it make their games bad? Nope. Can they now declare combat isn't core to D&D... Woah! Hold on their buddy.

 

[Ilya Bossov]

RPGs are a creative endeavor, I think we can agree on that. Writing campaign books is similar to writing your own adventure books, and is thus literary.

Writing character backstories would also classify as literary.

For example, if GRR Martin was playing a rogue assassin in a D&D campaign, he could show up to session 0 with the entire Song of Fire and Ice, and say, "Hi, my name is Arya Stark. Here's my story."

The interaction between the game master and players can be thought of as a brainstorm. A structured, rule-based brainstorm. And then it seems a little literary to me, although the method of story creation is a bit unorthodox.

But stories come out of it just the same.

I suppose you would only call it a "literary" approach if you also consider improv theater a literary endeavor.