Who's advocated for such limited description? No one. [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] says that he prefers conversational language rather than trying to create evocative, literary minded narration. I don't think that means that description is absent....do you? When people have a conversation, are they somehow incapable of describing things?
Must you make a strong effort to evoke mood and theme in order to simply describe a room?
No one here has said they don't describe things.
There's a scale when it comes to the literary quality. For some GMs, they want to hit the high end of the scale. Others may be at the low end. Most are likely somewhere in between. If someone says that this is not their main focus when it comes to RPGs, that doesn't mean that they can't still be well within what is acceptable on that scale.
Would you agree with this?
"Poorly" is where I get confused. Who wants poor delivery by the GM? People have said that the quality of the GM's delivery is not the most important thing to them....but that doesn't mean they want or expect crap delivery.
As an advocate of quality narration, and use of evocative language and/or literary techniques to strengthen your game, does that mean that you expect your content to be bland and meaningless?
I don't think anyone is denying that good GMing, or roleplaying in general, is the result of many factors. I think we all know this. However, among those many factors, we each place importance or focus on some more than others. In [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s case, he considers the fictional situation to be of primary importance....he wants the players to feel pressure to act based on the content.
I don't think this is an attempt on his part to simplify RPGing so much as it's just him stating his preference. No more than if I said the most important part of a car is an engine it doesn't mean that I don't recognize the importance of the wheels.
Important. Unimportant. Those things are not relevant to whether or not the game is literary. It is, and the conversational dialogue, along with the quality of it is part of why.
Do you think using at least some of these techniques* is core to running a game?
Okay. This was not a strand of discussion that I was engaging with my post but I will answer your question with earnest.No the question was pretty much on track for the thread but I respect your desire not to answer it.
so where is the line? At what point do you cross from regular description/presentation/performance into whatever it is [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is talking about?
Then he really shouldn't have proclaimed it as not core... I think that ill choice of wording is to blame for alot of the back and forth. You make a statement like that and you're not stating preference, you are trying to define.
Who's advocated for such limited description? No one. [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] says that he prefers conversational language rather than trying to create evocative, literary minded narration. I don't think that means that description is absent....do you? When people have a conversation, are they somehow incapable of describing things?
Must you make a strong effort to evoke mood and theme in order to simply describe a room?
There's a scale when it comes to the literary quality. For some GMs, they want to hit the high end of the scale. Others may be at the low end. Most are likely somewhere in between. If someone says that this is not their main focus when it comes to RPGs, that doesn't mean that they can't still be well within what is acceptable on that scale.
You are promoting the dichotomy. When anyone has said that they place more focus on a game element over the quality of narration, you then insist that their narration must be limited to boring and limited statements.
RPGing being a literary endeavor would suggest that the literary quality of the narration is an important part of the activity. Wouldn't it?
so where is the line? At what point do you cross from regular description/presentation/performance into whatever it is [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is talking about?
Well it's different for everyone, I would think. Would you agree that it's a scale?
Personally, I like to use evocative description when it's called for. Usually at the start of a new scene....I'll deliver a few lines to try and set the scene. If there's a particular mood I'm going for, I'll try and tailor what I'm saying to reinforce that mood.
But this isn't something I always do. Sometimes, I'll just go with basic description in order to make sure things are clear. Sometimes, I don't want to convey a specific mood right away. It really varies a lot for me.
I'm also in no way against leaning on visual media when it helps. Describing whatever creature @Hussar mentioned a few pages ago as the bug at the end of Men in Black works for me. I usually provide an actor in association with my important NPCs to help my players picture what I'm going for. To my mind, that's not a literary technique by any reasonable stretch....it facilitates understanding at the table to say "the captain of the guard is a bit of a brutish man, like Herc from the Wire". But if I was writing fiction, I'd never do that.
So for me, sure, sometimes my word choice is meant to be evocative in the same way an author of literature woudl attempt to be evocative. But other times, I just want to facilitate play by making sure my players understand the situation and the scene.
So in that sense, the importance of using evocative language is simply not as important to me as the situation itself.
Perhaps. To me, I don't know if it is core. I would agree that a certain level of description and clarity is required. So if we apply "literary" as broad as some have in this thread, then I suppose it would be core because the GM has to set a scene, as basic as he may do so.
But if we focus more on the level of the quality of language used by the GM....if we narrow the definition of "literary" a bit to what most people tend to think of.....then I don't know if evocative language is absolutely necessary. I think a game could work without it.
However, I wouldn't cut it out of my own game. I think it certainly adds to the game, and like I said, I include it where I think it helps. All other things being equal, a game that has evocative narration versus on that lacks it would be better, in my opinion.
If you asked me (as this thread tried to) if I think that use of evocative narration is more or less important than creating interesting situations for the characters, then that's something else. Of course these things are not mutually exclusive, but if we're talking about which is more fundamental to the success of a game, then I'd say that interesting situations are more important. I just see this as more important because it's going to be what truly engages the players, and anything else is kind of icing on the cake, so to speak.
I'm sure some folks would say that it's the narrative quality that's more important. If you think that, I'd be interested to hear why in a way that doesn't assume that a game where it isn't the primary focus is drab and uninteresting.
What makes evocative language so important to the game? What does it add? When compared to interesting situations, how is it more important?