Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[uzirath]

Can I pick up on your example (bolded by me to call it out) and a possible risk in play? Not to denigrate the example, but to try to connect it into how I'm thinking about things.

Yes. Always!

It seems to me that it is possible that the GM might narrate the koblds' drool and bloodshot eyes, hoping and intending to evoke a particular response and engagement from the players, only instead to trigger responses about the kobolds having had a hard night out, being stone/hungover, etc. (Similar to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s reference, I think upthread, to players making d*ck jokes.)

Sure. And, depending on the nature of the fiction, I might let that be... the kobolds will be remembered as hungover dogmen. (Indeed, it may be that the bloodshot eyes were meant to indicate that they were tired or drugged or hungover.) If I felt that it was a misunderstanding that wouldn't likely happen within the fiction, then I would gently provide additional detail: "Hmm, there's something more ominous about it than your typical frat boy after a hard night out. It has a crazed dimension, not unlike a rabid dog..."

And I can see how that response fits with your larger premise that the "dynamics of the here-and-now" are central.


On an unrelated tangent:

This is a fairly common rule of thumb to teach children in America in terms of writing; I know that they do in 5th, 6th, and 7th grade (for the most part).

Yes. Ugh. And a lot of teachers are trying to stamp it out, along with "five paragraph essays" and other simplifications that often squelch the creative joy that comes from learning to craft great writing. I know that at my K-12 school there are no students at any level who are taught that a paragraph has to have a certain number of sentences.

 

[pemerton]

And I have to admit, I love long sentence paragraphs like that because I used to read a lot of turn of the century books when I was younger. So I just admire the style.

In gaming however, I am definitely more focused on talking in my normal style. I Gm the way I would talk with a friend I bumped into at the supermarket.

When I GM I would say that talk similarly to how I would in an enthusiastic hobbyist-type context. Eg if I'd been to a film with a friend and was talking about it afterwards. Or if, at work, I wanted to tell someone what I enjoyed about a seminar I went to.

So probably a bit more focused than a supermarket chat. But still conversation.

 

[pemerton]

Pemerton, that post was an error. I got my posts mixed up and thought I was responding to a poster assertion that paragraphs are in fact 5 paragraphs long. The point I was making was none of my teachers ever said paragraphs had to be 4 sentences long. Sorry for the confusion. There is absolutely no 5 sentence doctrine in America.

Ah, OK - in that case I retract the criticism of your teachers!

For the sort of writing that I do and teach, making decisions about paragraphing - as one component of making decisions about structure - is a fundamental skill. A doctrine about minimum or even typical length would be no help at all.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Lanefan]

I read primary genre stuff these days. While some genre works rise to the level of literature, there is also a lot of schlock. Just being a genre trope doesn't make it part of a literary endeavor, just as if I write a pulp novel about sexy vampires solving murder mysteries in Detroit, that doesn't mean it is literature. It certainly could be. If I were talented enough to elevate that premise and execute it well. But it also could be, and most likely is, just going to a be a schlocky vampire story.

If it's words on paper, it's literature. Literally.

Using "literature" as a term that only applies to high-quality work is a redefintion of the word, though one that - sadly - has come to be somewhat accepted over time.

 

[Lanefan]

Do you see the GM as a narrator and storyteller or do you see the GM as a facilitator or adjudicator?

Yes.

She's all four of these plus referee, game (re-)designer, and setting author.

 

[Lanefan]

Can I pick up on your example (bolded by me to call it out) and a possible risk in play? Not to denigrate the example, but to try to connect it into how I'm thinking about things.

It seems to me that it is possible that the GM might narrate the koblds' drool and bloodshot eyes, hoping and intending to evoke a particular response and engagement from the players, only instead to trigger responses about the kobolds having had a hard night out, being stone/hungover, etc.

What's wrong with that?

You've laid out the description in hopes of getting a reaction, and you got one: the characters* joke about the kobolds' rough night last night. That the reaction isn't what you were hoping for...well, too bad. The point is that you succeeded in your goal, in that you drew a reaction.

* - in this instance I'd 100% rule that the joke was made in character.

 

[Lanefan]

What do you think the GM should have regard to in coming up with situations? [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], in other threads over many years, has posted that the GM should always author scenarios without regard to which players and/or PCs will engage with them.

And to add: also without regard to HOW players and/or PCs will engage with them. (see above post re jokes about the kobolds for example).

 

[Lanefan]

Interesting that no one talked about the Vengaurak on the hill. After all, it’s a situation and it’s just as clear as 14 kobolds.

So. There is a Vengaurak on that hill. What do you do?

I waste it with my crossbow.

 

[Hriston]

If you aren't arguing for dull descriptions, then you are acknowledging that the narrative can have better or worse quality, and you are choosing better. Can people go overboard with descriptions? Sure. Does that mean that quality descriptions aren't a goal of the DM? No. The entire point of the DM choosing certain adjectives over others or over no adjectives at all is to impart his vision to the players so that they can envision something close to what he does. That's narrative quality, and it's present in the vast majority of games, regardless of playstyle.

The choice isn't between narration of literary quality or dull narration. Narration can be both, or it can be neither.

A situation is more than just 2 orcs on a hill. The description of those two orcs, the hill itself, and what the orcs are doing on the hill can turn an uninteresting situation into an interesting one.

The things you describe are content. How the orcs and the hill look and what small actions the orcs are performing are color, which is a type of content that informs the mood. The fact that you're creating this content on the fly and adding it to the situation doesn't mean it isn't content. How you describe it and whether your description has formal quality is orthogonal to what you describe.

Nope. I made no mention of "flowery language." That's your fallacious response to what we are saying.

I'd assumed you were responding to the part of my post you quoted. I said you didn't need to use flowery language to play an RPG. You responded that you've played in games that were dull and boring. If you didn't mean that games without flowery language are dull and boring, then I don't know what you mean.