Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

[Bedrockgames]

Yes.

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

I agree with most of these. I just don't agree with the story teller part. I cut my teeth at the height of GM as story teller in the 90s. Played that way for a long time and realized it wasn't for me at all. I am not there to tell the players a story. I am there to facilitate a campaign.

 

[Maxperson]

The 'especially' means that is the more common use of the word. It does allow for crappy literature. But that means the word effectively has two meanings that form a venn diagram. And those two meanings are what keeps producing the equivocation in the argument about what RPGs should be doing.

It doesn't create two meanings. The single meaning is that the set of all things literature is everything written, and that a subset of literature is more highly prized. That's why both are part of one definition, instead of two like when a word actually does have two meanings.

 

[Hussar]

That is a complete misreading of what I said.

How so? You've been pretty clear here. A more "literary" approach is not something you enjoy. And that's groovy. I'm not saying you should. But, you've repeatedly stated that you don't want certain kinds of description and that you would not enjoy a game that employed certain types of description, specifically a more literary style rather than a less formal, more conversational style.

Is that not your stated preference?

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

I am seeing posts by other Americans suggesting they were given a 3-8 sentence guideline in school. I never encountered this so I don't know its purpose. America varies tremendously from state to state and from school district to school district so it may just be a regional thing. One thing I noticed for example living on different coasts was there were strikingly different attitudes on things like the importance of style (some places treat style as rules, and others are more flexible). But personally I am in agreement. I think the worst thing you can do is teach kids paragraphs have some kind of minimum sentence requirement (okay there are probably worse things to teach kids about English, but I think that is something that negatively impacts their ability to engage writing later in life).

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

Yes, I think there is definitely more focus, and obviously a supermarket chat could be less durable. My point was really that I just speak in the same manner. When I am talking to a friend at the supermarket, I am not trying to impress them with my words (though I will admit to occasionally trying to impress with the content). Same with gaming. I am not putting on a show or speaking in a way that is different from how I always speak.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree with most of these. I just don't agree with the story teller part. I cut my teeth at the height of GM as story teller in the 90s. Played that way for a long time and realized it wasn't for me at all. I am not there to tell the players a story. I am there to facilitate a campaign.

You disagree, because you don't seem to understand what storyteller means here. Even giving description 1 is telling a story. Creating any content at all, improv or planned in advance is telling a story. You are telling a story when you run the game, it just isn't as important to you as to some others, so the quality of the narration of your story doesn't matter to you. You are a storyteller, though. All DMs are.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, I think there is definitely more focus, and obviously a supermarket chat could be less durable. My point was really that I just speak in the same manner. When I am talking to a friend at the supermarket, I am not trying to impress them with my words (though I will admit to occasionally trying to impress with the content). Same with gaming. I am not putting on a show or speaking in a way that is different from how I always speak.

I'm not trying to impress anyone with my words, either. However, if a creatures skin glistens as if wet or something else that is immediately obvious to an observer, I'm not going to make the players jump through hoops to get that obvious information. It's going to be told to them in the description.

 

[Bedrockgames]

How so? You've been pretty clear here. A more "literary" approach is not something you enjoy. And that's groovy. I'm not saying you should. But, you've repeatedly stated that you don't want certain kinds of description and that you would not enjoy a game that employed certain types of description, specifically a more literary style rather than a less formal, more conversational style.

Is that not your stated preference?

You are twisting my argument using sophistry though. My argument is I don't want to describe things in a literary style. You are now making the argument that word choice matters in a literary style and becasuse I objected to the addition of certain words, it proves your point. You are suggesting with that post that this concern is in fact a literary consideration of sorts. I will admit, I am still trying to find the hole in this argument. But I know there is a hole because it feels like sophistry to me (since it runs completely against my point). Whether the hole resides in your post or in one of mine, I am not sure yet. But rest assured there is a hole.

To me it is less that word choice matters, and more that not emulating a literary style matters. For my part the word selection only matters if it is part of an effort to bring us to something more literary or be part of a medium that just doesn't fit the natural back and forth of RPGs for me.

What I will say is, yes I want the GM to have a conversation with the players and I want the GM to speak in an everyday voice, not put on an act. Obviously I am not going to be a jerk to a GM who does things the other way. And I am not going to ruin anyone's fun if the GM at the table decides to describe things in a literary way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not trying to impress anyone with my words, either. However, if a creatures skin glistens as if wet or something else that is immediately obvious to an observer, I'm not going to make the players jump through hoops to get that obvious information. It's going to be told to them in the description.

It isn't about making them jump through hoops. I just don't worry that every single detail in my head like that is automatically conveyed. I assume the players are there interacting with the world and in life you can miss those kinds of obviously details sometimes. The asking part is a bit like the players looking more closely at certain details. I get that you don't enjoy doing things like I do. I am not trying to convince you to change your style. But I can assure you, doing it the way I do, is something I vastly prefer to the approach you are suggesting (and I know because I've been GMing for more than 30 years and in that time made heavy use of the approach you are advocating). My focus is much more on what is going on, reacting to the things the players try to do, etc than on how I am describing things. Like I said, I approach it as a regular conversation. In a regular conversation I may not always give this detail or that (even important details----though I would try to mention things I think are obvious and important). But if I don't, I don't sweat it because it is just a game.

 

[Imaro]

You are twisting my argument using sophistry though. My argument is I don't want to describe things in a literary style. You are now making the argument that word choice matters in a literary style and becasuse I objected to the addition of certain words, it proves your point. You are suggesting with that post that this concern is in fact a literary consideration of sorts. I will admit, I am still trying to find the hole in this argument. But I know there is a hole because it feels like sophistry to me (since it runs completely against my point). Whether the hole resides in your post or in one of mine, I am not sure yet. But rest assured there is a hole.

To me it is less that word choice matters, and more that not emulating a literary style matters. For my part the word selection only matters if it is part of an effort to bring us to something more literary or be part of a medium that just doesn't fit the natural back and forth of RPGs for me.

What I will say is, yes I want the GM to have a conversation with the players and I want the GM to speak in an everyday voice, not put on an act. Obviously I am not going to be a jerk to a GM who does things the other way. And I am not going to ruin anyone's fun if the GM at the table decides to describe things in a literary way.

I'm curious... would you have an issue with a GM who speaks in the first person when stating what an NPC says? What if he does or does not use a different voice for said NPC... does that make a difference?

EDIT: Or do you only run and play in games that stay in the 3rd person?