Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[Imaro]

Obviously I'm not [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION], but I assume that Hriston's answer would be the same as mine: what counts as quality material, in the context of RPGing, is not context-independent.

Yes and that context includes quality of presentation.

Edit: Are you really trying to claim how content or ideas are presented has no bearing on people's reaction to them?

 

[pemerton]

Another thread that has fallen victim to the PRP(Pemerton Redefinition Program).

I started the thread. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is free to say what he likes about the dependence of much RPGing on the logic of genres (it's something I myself have been posting about for maybe 10+ years on these boards). But those things don't rebut the claim in the OP, which is pretty clear:

RPGing requires narration: GMs describe situations, and players declare actions for their PCs that respond to those situations. But I don't think the literary quality of that narration is important.

What matters to me is that the players feel the significance of the situations the GM describes

I don't think Hussar has inadvertantely taken that for a claim that genre plays no role in RPGing.

And your claim that I'm derailing is itself derailing. Asking whether activity A answers to aesthetic criteria X of activity B is standard stuff. Eg is movie-making a theatric endeavour? or is house-painting an artistic endeavour? The only people I know who regularly turn this sort of question into debates about the meaning of words - as opposed to the obviously-intended discussion about the nature of some activity - are all ENworld posters.

You basically have to completely ignore adjectives to avoid being literary with your descriptions

This is not true. There's no general connection between use of adjectives and literary quality. Police use adjectives a lot in their public statements. Builders use adjectives to describe their projects. Children use adjectives to describe their bodily sensations. Etc. Using adjectives is part and parcel of describing things. But describing things isn't, per se, a literary activity.

To reiterate from the OP:

RPGing requires narration: GMs describe situations, and players declare actions for their PCs that respond to those situations. But I don't think the literary quality of that narration is important.​

The OP does not dispute that RPGing involves describing stuff.

 

[Maxperson]

I started the thread. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is free to say what he likes about the dependence of much RPGing on the logic of genres (it's something I myself have been posting about for maybe 10+ years on these boards). But those things don't rebut the claim in the OP, which is pretty clear:

The definition of literary rebuts the OP all by itself. You can't just redefine things to suit your whims.

And your claim that I'm derailing is itself derailing. Asking whether activity A answers to aesthetic criteria X of activity B is standard stuff. Eg is movie-making a theatric endeavour? or is house-painting an artistic endeavour? The only people I know who regularly turn this sort of question into debates about the meaning of words - as opposed to the obviously-intended discussion about the nature of some activity - are all ENworld posters.

You can't derail something that is already off the rails and has been since the OP.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The definition of literary rebuts the OP all by itself. You can't just redefine things to suit your whims.

You can't derail something that is already off the rails and has been since the OP.

It’s been clarified again and again. He’s talking about the quality of the presentation. The literary quality of a GM’s narration isn’t as important as the content of the narration. That’s [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]’s claim. He’s clarified it again and again, and done so specifically in reply to you.

If you think the thread is off the rails, then why not help get it back on track? Why continue to rail on about his choice of word rather than the meaning of what he’s saying, which has been made clear?

I don’t think that RPGs are without literary merit. I don’t think they cannot contain literary quality. But the insistence that they must contain a certain level of quality in that regard is absurd.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You can play the game without being cinematic, but unless you bare bones descriptions to "You see a guy wearing plate mail and holding a sword," you are being literary with your descriptions. As soon as you tell us that he has sandy blond hair, you are being literary. If he has battered plate mail, or gleaming plate mail and you let the players know that, you are being literary. You basically have to completely ignore adjectives to avoid being literary with your descriptions, and I've never played in a game like that. Nor would I ever want play in a game like that.

No, that isn’t literary. Hack novels use descriptions. Doesn’t make them literary novels. And further when the focus isn’t on higher quality narration, a higher purpose or using a plethora or literary techniques to make it feel ‘literary’, it is not literary. That was the point made in the OP and it comes closest to any meaningful use of ‘literary’ that isn’t absurdly broad for the purposes of this discussion. Again like so many play style arguments based on definitions here people are advancing a broad definition of literary so they can equivocate and advance a playstyle position. The argument presents broad definitions of literary in order to claim RPGs are literary but then end up advocating for more narrow definitions of literary when it gets into what RPGs should do and how they should be written. You can’t say RPGs are literary because words are involved therefore they should have the hallmarks of good literature. It is an argument based on equivocation of the multiple meanings of literary. We keep coming back to the should of RPGs that go far beyond the use of descriptions like ‘he’s blonde’ and tread into territory of using advanced literary techniques and treating RPGs like a literary medium.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Is RPGing a […] endeavour?

• Literary
• Creative
• Artistic
• Social
• Theatrical
• Mythopoeic
• Collaborative
• Therapeutic

Etc. etc.

It seems as though you could insert any of these words, argue pro- or contra-, and still be left with definitional issues. Which leads me to suspect RPGing is a complex phenomenon which cannot be easily reduced or construed within the context of other human activity, and the best definition is tautological.

i.e. RPGing is an RPGing endeavour.

You might deploy a variety of hermeneutical lenses to view RPGing to try and understand it (literary, genre, sociological etc.), but none are adequate to the task of fully illuminating what a RPG actually is, as it occupies its own space.

 

[Imaro]

I don’t think that RPGs are without literary merit. I don’t think they cannot contain literary quality. But the insistence that they must contain a certain level of quality in that regard is absurd.

I would say the insistence that the level of quality (even if it's just hitting the bare minimum to grab players interest) doesn't matter and is not core to the game is absurd. And I'd say evidence of this is the hoops being jumped through to narrow the definition of "literary quality" to only encompass long- winded or "flowery" description when it actually encompasses much more..

 

[hawkeyefan]

I would say the insistence that the level of quality (even if it's just hitting the bare minimum to grab players interest) doesn't matter and is not core to the game is absurd. And I'd say evidence of this is the hoops being jumped through to narrow the definition of "literary quality" to only encompass long- winded or "flowery" description when it actually encompasses much more..

But that's just it....there's a range that is being discussed. Where exactly each person's preference falls in that range is going to vary. And that's fine. I provided actual literary examples of authors who are known to provide highly rendered prose, and others who use a minimalist approach. Both are literary in that sense. Applying the term as broadly as that is ignoring the original point that was being made.

It's not about long winded or flowery language, per se, it's more about the craft of the narration being the primary concern. Is it more important that I as GM convey the situation clearly to the players, or is it more meaningful that I do so in a way that attempts to evoke a certain emotion or tone or mood?

I think it's clear that actual communication is more important than evocative description. I don't even know how this can be argued, unless you insist that anything the GM says is literary.

Having said that, I think that using evocative narration is certainly a powerful tool to engage players. I certainly use it at times in my games. I use other techniques that we'd probably classify as literary, as well.

But I think if I'm ever in a situation where I think it's a choice between being clear and establishing the situation, or being evocative and establishing a mood, then I think I have to go with the first option out of necessity.

 

[Imaro]

But that's just it....there's a range that is being discussed. Where exactly each person's preference falls in that range is going to vary. And that's fine. I provided actual literary examples of authors who are known to provide highly rendered prose, and others who use a minimalist approach. Both are literary in that sense. Applying the term as broadly as that is ignoring the original point that was being made.

It's not about long winded or flowery language, per se, it's more about the craft of the narration being the primary concern. Is it more important that I as GM convey the situation clearly to the players, or is it more meaningful that I do so in a way that attempts to evoke a certain emotion or tone or mood?

I think it's clear that actual communication is more important than evocative description. I don't even know how this can be argued, unless you insist that anything the GM says is literary.

1. this most definitely was not what the main disagreement has been about... no one (at least as far as I know except maybe for you) is arguing which is more meaningful between clarity and literary quality... the disagreement has been around whether literary quality as a whole is core to roleplaying or not.

2. This is a false dichotomy since nothing about literary quality necessitates lack of clarity.

Having said that, I think that using evocative narration is certainly a powerful tool to engage players. I certainly use it at times in my games. I use other techniques that we'd probably classify as literary, as well.

But I think if I'm ever in a situation where I think it's a choice between being clear and establishing the situation, or being evocative and establishing a mood, then I think I have to go with the first option out of necessity.

Why, inherently, would you have to sacrifice one to get the other(s)?

 

[Hriston]

If you're not sure what I mean refer to the last post by @Maxperson for a pretty succinct explanation.

Well, here's [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s last post:

Descriptions are what make the situation interesting. I can give you a situation of 10 gargoyles on a hill. One DM will make it bland and dull, the other through descriptions will make it interesting and exciting.



Yep. I've been in RPGs that were dull and played like a board game. Bored game?

From this, it seems that what you and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] mean by presenting a situation well enough is that the situation is described. I agree that description is necessary, but I fail to see how merely describing a situation makes the formal qualities of that description the focus of the activity.

If what you are claiming above is true then if given the same quality content that is communicated clearly there should never be deviation in how players respond to it (either being interested or not interested)... which begs the question if it's purely a question of quality of content and clarity then why can numerous DM's try to hook their players to interact with the same content and get totally different responses from their players insofar as interest is concerned? Are you saying any and every DM who can't get his players interested in quality content must not be clearly communicating with their players? If not what are you saying is the cause?

What some players find interesting, other players will not. Different players have different interests. Is that surprising?

Oh I was just making sure you understood that one did not equate to the other but it appears you already knew that and still chose to use "flowery language".

Well, I'm trying to imagine how you're suggesting a GM make a situation more interesting through focusing on presentation. Embellishment of the language used seems to have been something that was talked about in this thread, but maybe you have something else in mind.