# Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?



## pemerton

Some recent threads have discussed aspects of GM and player narration in RPGing. Which hase prompted me to start this thread.

My answer to the question in the thread title is a firm _No_.

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 - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction. That is, that the situation _engage and motivate_ the players _as players_, not as an audience to a performance. And player narration should, in my view, engage with and build on this fiction in ways that display the player's view of the fiction, perhaps challenge other players (and even the GM), that make the other pariticpants go "I didn't see that coming!"

This is how I see RPGs, with their emphasis on _participation_ in the creation of a fiction that is structured through _distinct_ player an d GM roles, working. And it's how I see them differening from more directly narrative mediums such as books and films.


----------



## Riley37

If it is, then what?

If it's not, then what?

If there is zero difference between the outcome of "RPG is literary" and the outcome of "RPG is not literary", then my answer is "Oh, yes, it TOTALLY is", just so that you can have something to disagree with. Also, there's an invisible pink teapot, on the other side of the Sun from Earth, named Russels.


----------



## 5ekyu

pemerton said:


> Some recent threads have discussed aspects of GM and player narration in RPGing. Which hase prompted me to start this thread.
> 
> My answer to the question in the thread title is a firm _No_.
> 
> 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 - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction. That is, that the situation _engage and motivate_ the players _as players_, not as an audience to a performance. And player narration should, in my view, engage with and build on this fiction in ways that display the player's view of the fiction, perhaps challenge other players (and even the GM), that make the other pariticpants go "I didn't see that coming!"
> 
> This is how I see RPGs, with their emphasis on _participation_ in the creation of a fiction that is structured through _distinct_ player an d GM roles, working. And it's how I see them differening from more directly narrative mediums such as books and films.



I have to say that to me the defining difference between "literary" and not is not "participation." As a recent netflix product showed there can be interactive movies where viewer choices determine outcomes (and they are not the first.) There have been books that way for longer than that.

So, I would strongly suggest your title needs a different word than literary or its gonna be very misleading.

I know I came in hoping for a different discussion than participation.


----------



## MarkB

Define "literary", as you mean it. To me, it means "creating a body of written work", so an RPG session only qualifies if somebody is taking _very_ detailed notes.


----------



## Umbran

Depends on what you mean by, "literary."

There's some who will use it to mean, "of a quality and/or style similar to critically acclaimed literature."  Much like we talk about a game having "cinematic action" if we feel it evokes the style and feeling and imagery of Hollywood action movies.  From context, I expect that's in the ballpark of what you mean.  

With that qualifying presumption, my answer to the question is - it doesn't *need* to be literary, but I see no compelling reason that it *cannot* be, either.  Noting that literature is also supposed to make people feel things, and often inspire and engage and surprise them with "I didn't see that coming," I don't see any fundamental conflict.


----------



## Sepulchrave II

Roleplaying games and literature are not inherently mutually exclusory fields. 

But you need to define your terms. Otherwise this thread will just end up arguing about what "literary" means, and whether writing a dungeon module qualifies as "RPGing.".


----------



## Ralif Redhammer

Going with one of the OED's definitions of literary:

"Concerned with depicting or representing a story or other literary work; that refers or relates to a text; that creates a complex or finely crafted narrative like that of a work of literature."

Gaming can be literary, based on that particular definition. We draw influences from a variety of sources, after all. Two of the published AD&D modules are inspired by the works of Lewis Carroll. Many years ago, I ran a campaign that was pretty much Hamlet. Not in quality, mind you, I'd never go that far. But the plot was directly taken from Hamlet, albeit with an evil wizard and whatnot. 

And we can absolutely have a "finely crafted narrative" in gaming. The difference is that that narrative creates itself collaboratively, as we play, rather than being written out.


----------



## dragoner

Some games have been, The Expanse series of novels arose from a RPG game that the authors were (are?) playing.

However, I think this:



> What matters to me is that the players feel the significance of the situations the GM describes - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction. That is, that the situation engage and motivate the players as players, not as an audience to a performance.




Is providing a separation from the GM's and player's narratives, in that the player's are reading the GM's narration as literature? I don't see this being a game as much, it could be, if people want that. 

IMO, "narrative" is players or the GM role playing by describing their actions, vs the mechanics of the game by merely rolling dice. It's not a severe dividing line though, more like a sliding scale, where most games in play fall between the poles.


----------



## MarkB

There are systems where the players routinely help to define the fiction of the gameworld, and there are other systems where the GM generally defines the world and the players influence that situation purely through their characters' actions. Both are RPGs. Neither is essentially "good" or "bad", though for some people one or the other may be "not how I like to play."


----------



## hawkeyefan

Yes.


----------



## uzirath

pemerton said:


> My answer to the question in the thread title is a firm _No_.




I rarely have firm answers to questions about what RPGs can or cannot be. I've played in so many games over the years that have entirely different premises and aesthetic sensibilities.

I agree with you to the extent that playing or running an RPG is not equal to writing or reading a novel. 

But RPGs can certainly have many literary characteristics, as Ralif Redhammer pointed out:



Ralif Redhammer said:


> We draw influences from a variety of sources, after all. Two of the published AD&D modules are inspired by the works of Lewis Carroll. Many years ago, I ran a campaign that was pretty much Hamlet. Not in quality, mind you, I'd never go that far. But the plot was directly taken from Hamlet, albeit with an evil wizard and whatnot.
> 
> And we can absolutely have a "finely crafted narrative" in gaming. The difference is that that narrative creates itself collaboratively, as we play, rather than being written out.




I played in a great Traveller campaign once that we later learned was based on the Goldilocks fairy tale. I've played in explicit Middle Earth games where a strong understanding of Tolkien canon was a requirement. I've played in games where the players were expected to write up each session as a narrative that was later edited and self-published into a book. I'm an advisor for a student who is designing a roleplaying game with deep roots in his study of _Alice in Wonderland_.

And, from another angle, many literary elements are useful in RPGs: foreshadowing, pacing, rising action, climax, denouement, etc. Players and GMs who can describe developments with precision, efficiency, and eloquence tend to be the types of players I enjoy playing with. These are also qualities I appreciate in fiction.

So I'm not sure how to usefully tease apart the differences.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer

Campaigns have elements of the Bildungsroman (the journey from a 1st level scrub to a heroic legend) and Picaresque (scoundrels that get by through their wits through a series of non- or loosely- connected exploits), in varying doses.

 It's no surprise that out of all the appendices of the original DMG, arguably the most discussed and examined is Appendix N, the book list.



uzirath said:


> And, from another angle, many literary elements are useful in RPGs: foreshadowing, pacing, rising action, climax, denouement, etc. Players and GMs who can describe developments with precision, efficiency, and eloquence tend to be the types of players I enjoy playing with. These are also qualities I appreciate in fiction.


----------



## Umbran

uzirath said:


> I played in a great Traveller campaign once that we later learned was based on the Goldilocks fairy tale. I've played in explicit Middle Earth games where a strong understanding of Tolkien canon was a requirement.




For the Ashen Stars mission my players are currently playing I took the Sherlock Holmes story, "The Hound of the Baskervilles" and filed the serial numbers off.  Barely.  Like, the character of the butler in the Holmes story is named "Shiela Butler" in my adventure.  An early name for the real Baskerville Hall is "Clyro Court", so the adventure is taking place on the fourth planet in orbit around the star Clyro, which is a swampy world...


----------



## Immortal Sun

Since it apparently bears repeating, define "literary", otherwise I am unclear on the question.

Being a participant in the thread and the direct conversation that lead to the creation of this topic, I would prefer not to guess at what you mean.


----------



## aramis erak

Literary in the sense of "relating to books"....

Many aspects of RPGs are, to me, Literary - writing the rules and adventures technically are literary endeavors. So is reading them.

But play? Only when playing via textual media. Which is VERY doable. Or writing after-session reports. (Also very doable.)

And many of my players have been unwilling to apply themselves to the literary side of the hobby.

 [MENTION=6786839]Riley37[/MENTION] - the distinction is mostly relevant for external justifications; irrelevant to the player, but not to those critical of, or dubious about, their participation. People like parents, supervisors, background investigations.


----------



## Riley37

aramis erak said:


> for external justifications; irrelevant to the player, but not to those critical of, or dubious about, their participation. People like parents, supervisors, background investigations.




Ah, so it's for explaining D&D to people whose conception might come from "Dark Dungeons" by Jack Chick, or from the "Dungeons and Dragons" movie? (And of those two, which is worse?)

Are movies literary? There are movies which are works of art, and there's also "Ishtar", "Gigli" and "Waterworld".

Are books literary? Keeping in mind that "books" includes Harlequin Romances and Twilight.

If you started with Melville's novel Moby-Dick, and changed *only the epilogue*, adding a choice, "If you join the crew of the Rachel, turn to page 588; if you never sail again, turn to page 590"...

...would that remove all literary value from the previous 585 pages, because this revised edition is now a Choose Your Own Adventure, and has somehow crossed into a category which *fundamentally and innately* cannot overlap with literature?

You might as well ask "Are numbers prime?" Some are, some aren't.


----------



## aramis erak

Riley37 said:


> Ah, so it's for explaining D&D to people whose conception might come from "Dark Dungeons" by Jack Chick, or from the "Dungeons and Dragons" movie? (And of those two, which is worse?)
> 
> Are movies literary? There are movies which are works of art, and there's also "Ishtar", "Gigli" and "Waterworld".
> 
> Are books literary? Keeping in mind that "books" includes Harlequin Romances and Twilight.
> 
> If you started with Melville's novel Moby-Dick, and changed *only the epilogue*, adding a choice, "If you join the crew of the Rachel, turn to page 588; if you never sail again, turn to page 590"...
> 
> ...would that remove all literary value from the previous 585 pages, because this revised edition is now a Choose Your Own Adventure, and has somehow crossed into a category which *fundamentally and innately* cannot overlap with literature?
> 
> You might as well ask "Are numbers prime?" Some are, some aren't.




it is axiomatic to a pedant: a book is never cinematic, a movie never literary. Not in the strict definition of the terms.

I'm a strong bit of a pedant, but not that strict; that said, many of the religious right are _that _pedantic. Having lived through the satanic panic, and the school scares about various RPG's, the only thing that worked with them was pointing out that the books encouraged reading skills, that the play encouraged story-telling, that the books encouraged reading other books. (That they supposedly encourage paganism being a non-starter when arguing with a civil service agency, including school districts without elected leadership...)

That the books, in a fairly strict definition are literary and encourage other literary endeavours is one of the few things that kept the district I worked for from banning outright RPGs in the 80's, the 90's, the 00's... each time when the religious right came calling, demanding the "devil game" be banned. I was a student for one, an employee during another, and in college during the one between. 

That external reference is important. As of 2012, there had been an RPG group in the same spot at my alma mater since 1983... one gm taking over for another through the years... Same for another HS, as well. I've spoken with students overlapping through all the years betwixt... That the game got kids reading was the best defense for principals resisting political pressure to ban RPGs.

Then again, many of the same voices calling for no RPGs also want no fiction in school lit classes.

So, the very narrow definitions are the valuable ones: logic bombs.


----------



## Riley37

aramis erak said:


> each time when the religious right came calling, demanding the "devil game" be banned.




If I wanted to find out for my own curiosity, whether I might have any Roma ancestry, then I would use historical, genealogical or anthropological parameters for determining what counts as Roma ancestry. If, however, I were responding to a census inquiry, in Berlin, in May of 1939, then I'd prefer whatever parameters result in the answer of "no", because *the people who act on that answer are not seeking my best interests in good faith*.

So are we seeking honest answers in good faith with each other, here on EN World, or are we figuring out how to resist censorship by hypocritical fanatics? I can do either - just tell me which one!


----------



## Hriston

There seems to be a fair bit of wrangling going on in this thread over the definition of the word _literary_. I think it's pretty clear, however, from the context of the OP, that what is meant accords well with the standard definition found in Google dictionary, for example, "concerning the writing, study, or content of literature, especially of the kind valued for quality of form." I think the OP intends to put some emphasis on the "quality of form" part of this sort of formulation of what makes something a literary endeavor. I'm sure [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] can correct me if I'm off-base about this. I think RPGing is not a literary endeavor when examined in this light, because the focus is not on the _quality of form_ of the content of the fiction being generated through play, but rather on the content itself and its potential to engender participation. This is why responses to the effect that it _can_ be literary in this respect are a bit orthogonal. It's just not the main focus of the activity. One wonders why so many posters would rather engage in a semantic discussion over the meaning of _literary_ instead of engaging with the content of the OP, but perhaps further inquiry into the motivations for doing so will shed some light on that question.


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] - I'm glad at least one poster found my OP clear enough!

To elaborate - and I see what I'm saying in this post as consistent with the OP, and hopefully you will also - I don't see RPGing as primarily _performance_ (in the artistic sense). Not for the GM - of course a melifluous GM can provide entertainment, but I don't see that as core. And likewise on the player side - thespianism is (in my view) secondary, whereas engaging the fiction from the position/perspective of the character is absolutely central.

And here's one way I would make this more concrete in terms of advice: if a new(-ish) GM asked me what is the one thing to do to make his/her game better, I would recommend working on managing framing and consequences to maintain player engagement, rather than (say) working on the portrayal/characterisation of NPCs.


----------



## Riley37

pemerton said:


> if a new(-ish) GM asked me what is the one thing to do to make his/her game better, I would recommend working on managing framing and consequences to maintain player engagement, rather than (say) working on the portrayal/characterisation of NPCs.




That is true if TRPG is literary, and it is also true if TRPG is not literary.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> My answer to the question in the thread title is a firm _No_.
> 
> 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.



I see the quality as important but not vital.  A more descriptive and-or evocative narration of the scene, setting and situation is more likely to engage the players than a less descriptive narration...but within reason; it's of course very possible to go right over the top into the realm of overkill and thus lose all the interest you just generated. (I once had a player tell me the boxed descriptions in a module I was running (that I didn't write!) were what Vogon poetry must sound like, for any who get the reference)  Also, not every table or even every player is the same - a level and-or quality of narration that will completely engage one player might bore the hell out of the next, for example, and so the DM has to find a suitable average for her table that ideally works perfectly for everyone but more likely just minimizes the collective pain. 



> What matters to me is that the players _feel the significance_ of the situations the GM describes - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction.



Absolutely, and a more "literary" - as in expressive, evocative, maybe even a little flowery - description and narration gives IMO a better chance of achieving this.  And I'll be the first to admit I'm not nearly as good at this as I'd like to be. 



> That is, that the situation _engage and motivate_ the players _as players_, not as an audience to a performance.



I'd rather go for a third result: that the situation engage and motivate the players _as if they were their characters_.



> And player narration should, in my view, engage with and build on this fiction in ways that display the player's view of the fiction, perhaps challenge other players (and even the GM), that make the other pariticpants go "I didn't see that coming!"



That can be tough.  While one hopes as a DM to get back what one gives out it doesn't always work that way: some players simply aren't that expressive even when in theory speaking in character.



> This is how I see RPGs, with their emphasis on _participation_ in the creation of a fiction that is structured through _distinct_ player an d GM roles, working. And it's how I see them differening from more directly narrative mediums such as books and films.



In the moment, yes.  After the fact, the game log of said fiction can be very literary.


----------



## Umbran

Hriston said:


> I think RPGing is not a literary endeavor when examined in this light, because the focus is not on the _quality of form_ of the content of the fiction being generated through play, but rather on the content itself and its potential to engender participation.




I think that enough people play with various elements that they might focus upon that the best you should say is, "RPG play is *usually* not a literary endeavor, because the quality of form is not a common focus."

Going beyond that is making claims on the community that nobody really has the power to do, hey what?


----------



## pemerton

Umbran said:


> Hriston said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think RPGing is not a literary endeavor *when examined in this light*, because the focus is not on the quality of form of the content of the fiction being generated through play, but rather on the content itself and its potential to engender participation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that enough people play with various elements that they might focus upon that the best you should say is, "RPG play is *usually* not a literary endeavor, because the quality of form is not a common focus."
> 
> Going beyond that is making claims on the community that nobody really has the power to do, hey what?
Click to expand...


I've bolded a part of [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s post that you (Umbran) perhaps did not notice.

The "light" by which Hriston is examining RPGing is the same light as I deployed in the OP. The OP is making a claim about the aesthetics of RPGing: that the strength of RPGing is _engaged participation_, not artistic performance and narration.

I appreciate that this will not be a universal view: that's why the thread title takes the form of a question, and why the OP offers _my_ answer.

I don't even know if [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] _agrees_ with me - I took his post to be an attempt to restate my position, which he did very well, but not necessarily an endorsement of it.


----------



## hawkeyefan

To the question in the thread title, I answered yes. 

If you qualify it by asking if such is a primary concern, or if it is more important than some other element of RPGing, then that answer could change. 

In the sense that RPGing involves the crafting of a story and related elements, I think the simple answer is yes. As to the concern over literary quality....that will vary quite a bit, I imagine, not only from group to group, but even within the same group across different instances of play. 

Is the literary quality more important than being an engaging game? I'd say almost certainly not, except perhaps in the most extreme of cases. I think the game aspect of RPGing is definitely more important than the literary quality of the narration and story elements. 

But those things aren't really mutually exclusive.


----------



## Hriston

Umbran said:


> I think that enough people play with various elements that they might focus upon that the best you should say is, "RPG play is *usually* not a literary endeavor, because the quality of form is not a common focus."
> 
> Going beyond that is making claims on the community that nobody really has the power to do, hey what?




If quality of form _is_ a focus, I think it would be secondary to making meaningful choices as your character in reaction to situations presented in the game. Otherwise, I wonder why RPGing is being chosen as an activity, as opposed to other forms of narrative art that may be more to conducive to quality control.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## GrahamWills

I'm going with the consensus from the thread: It CAN be literary, but does not have to be. 
My reasoning is that it is indeed cresting story, but "literary" has the strong connotation of producing *quality* fiction, and that is not a requirement, or even (in my experience as a GM) the norm. Maybe one in 10 of my campaigns have been literary (Dracula Dossier being the most recent).

So, my answer might be that the answer to the OP is the same as "Is RPGing a comic endeavor?" sometimes, yes, but always? No.


----------



## pemerton

lowkey13 said:


> So, I think this is what Permerton said in the other thread (on boxed text) that received so much pushback that _required_ (??) this thread



I didn't realise you were the overseer of what threads are allowed to be created, or what topics are approved for discussion on these boards.

Duly noted.


----------



## pemerton

lowkey13 said:


> Where we start to go to crazytown is when we get arguments such as this one, which is more theory than actual play



This is also helpful. I'm glad to be informed that I've been theorising rather than actually playing for all these years.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## pemerton

lowkey13 said:


> I’m not. Usually, when I create a thread based on another one, I refer to it.



(1) As the OP says, this thread is a response to multiple threads.

(2) Last time I did what you suggest here, I was criticised for linking the two threads. So this time I took a different approach. Apparently I can't please all of the people all of the time.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## MarkB

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] - I'm glad at least one poster found my OP clear enough!
> 
> To elaborate - and I see what I'm saying in this post as consistent with the OP, and hopefully you will also - I don't see RPGing as primarily _performance_ (in the artistic sense). Not for the GM - of course a melifluous GM can provide entertainment, but I don't see that as core. And likewise on the player side - thespianism is (in my view) secondary, whereas engaging the fiction from the position/perspective of the character is absolutely central.




Performance is also absent from literary works, so I don't see how your viewpoint makes RPGs un-literary. Engaging with the fiction is precisely the response that a literary writer is hoping to evoke in the reader, after all. And ultimately, if there's a fiction there in the first place to be engaged with, it's because the GM and players crafted it through playing - which, again, doesn't feel like the opposite of literary.


----------



## pemerton

MarkB said:


> Performance is also absent from literary works, so I don't see how your viewpoint makes RPGs un-literary. Engaging with the fiction is precisely the response that a literary writer is hoping to evoke in the reader, after all.



Literary work and artistic performance have something in common - the goal to evoke a response at least in part through the quality of form. (The two can overlap when the performance is, say, a play.)

Word choice, and meter, and assonance, and sentence length, and the like, are formal features of language that affect how a work evokes a response. Here are two opening sentences, by two different authors (REH and EM Forster). Each has a certain "something" to it:

One may as well begin with Helen's letters to her sister.​
Torches flared murkily on the revels in the Maul, where the thieves of the east held carnival by night.​
We learn that there is a character called Helen, who has a sister, to whom she writes letters. This establishes expectations, and - together with the construciton "one may" - sets a certain tone (_middle class_, for lack of a better term).

We learn that the events are happening in "the east", at night, presumably in some sort of urban area (it has a proper name - _the Maul_) but on a pre-modern street (it's lit by murkily-flaring torches) with sordid partying taking place - drunkenness, streetwalkers, pick-pockets, daggers in alleys are not mentioned, but we can certainly anticipate them turning up.

There are other ways to convey the same information. For instance:

These events concern Helen, and her sister. The easiest way to get a handle on them is to consider the letters the former wrote to the latter.​
These events take place in a mediaeval city in the east, in an area called the Maul. At night, the streets are lit by torches. The Maul is a favoured place for thieves and similar sorts of people to hang out, and at night they really live it up.​
From the point of view of _literary endeavour_, the difference between the quoted story openings, and my restatements, is big. My view is that from the point of view of _RPGing_, the difference between the quoted story openings, and my restatements, is small.

In a written medium, it's harder to convey the same point about performance, but I'll try. Consider the following two episodes of narration:

These events take place in a mediaeval city <pause> in the east <pause> in an area called the Maul. <pause for audience uptake> At night, the streets are lit by torches, which <increasing volume/emphasis> flare with murky light! <pause for audience to form mental picture> The Maul is a favoured place for thieves and the like to hang out <pause> especially at night when <increasing volume/emphasis> they really live it up!​
These events take place in a mediaeval city in the east. <pause for breath> The area of the city is called the Maul. <pause for breath> At night, the streets are lit by torches. <pause for breath> The Maul is a favoured place for thieves and the like to hang out. <pause for breath> At night, they really live it up!​
From the point of view of oratorical performance, I think there is a difference between these two - I hope I've managed to convey that, and to make it clear why the first might seem a more engaging performance than the second. Again, my assertion is that _from the point of view of RPGing_, the difference is not all that significant.



MarkB said:


> Engaging with the fiction is precisely the response that a literary writer is hoping to evoke in the reader, after all.



The writer's purpose is to lure the reader into the _work_ and compel him/her to read on. I think both REH and EM Forster have successful openings in this regard. Moreso than my retellings.

But in my view an RPG is different. The player isn't being invited to _read on_ - to learn more about this engaging work. The player is invited to adopt the perspective of the PC, and from that perspective to _make a choice_. This is a completely different from of engagement. From that point of view neither of the openings is a success, because neither invites action from a protagonist.



MarkB said:


> if there's a fiction there in the first place to be engaged with, it's because the GM and players crafted it through playing - which, again, doesn't feel like the opposite of literary.



In RPGing, the fiction is engaged with qua _fiction_, not qua _work_.

Here's another sentence from The Tower of the Elephant, a little over a page in:

A touch on his tunic sleeve made him turn his head . . .​
From the literary point of view we have multiple alliterations (_touch_, _tunic_, _turn_; _his_, _him_, _his_, _head_). We also have a series of short, mostly one-syllable, words that bring out this alliteration.

If we rework this as a piece of RPG narration, here are two possibilities:

You feel a touch on your tunic sleeve - their's somebody behind you.​
There's a pull on your shirt sleeve. You can feel that the person who's pulled on your sleeve is behind you.​
These are different works. I think they have different literary qualities: neither is anything special, but I nevertheless think they can be ranked from the literary point of view.

But from the point of view of RPGing they convey the same fiction and invite the same engagement by the player. My view is that when we think about things from the point of view of RPGing, this common invitation to engagement is much more important than the issue of which has more literary merit.


----------



## ParanoydStyle

> My answer to the question in the thread title is a firm _No.
> 
> 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._






pemerton said:


> Literary work and artistic performance have something in common - the goal to evoke a response at least in part through the quality of form. (The two can overlap when the performance is, say, a play.)
> 
> 
> Word choice, and meter, and assonance, and sentence length, and the like, are formal features of language that affect how a work evokes a response. Here are two opening sentences, by two different authors (REH and EM Forster). Each has a certain "something" to it:One may as well begin with Helen's letters to her sister.​Torches flared murkily on the revels in the Maul, where the thieves of the east held carnival by night.​






Hey, I'm a writer with the gall to call himself a literary writer even though I write genre stuff--I don't think that genre fiction can't be literary by default like way too many lit crits still think, even in a post Neil Gaiman world. As a PC or a DM I can and _*do*_ make up, on the fly, prose of a quality closer to those opening lines you quoted than your later examples, as well as other dialogue and descriptions which sound more like something you'd read in a novel. So yes, I freestyle novel quality prose to my table, which I realize puts me in the minority if not outright marks me as a freak. But does that mean MY roleplaying is a literary endeavor and no one else's is? (It's a rhetorical question, but my answer is I don't think so.)

For what it's worth, I also usually make an effort to ensure that my dialogue when portraying a character is delivered as well as it would be by a professional actor, including body language, accents, etcetera. Of course I'm a retired veteran LARPer and LARP, at least any one worth playing, is a theatrical endeavor. 

How do we define "literary: some people use it to mean 'like a book', some people use it to mean 'like serious literature'. With the latter definition, I would say no, at least the VAST majority of RPG sessions and campaigns don't achieve (or aspire to) 'literary' status, although I also think a handful do (and I'm positive they're not the ones being streamed, but that's neither here nor there). With the former definition um, well...I think the OP answered their own question. It is different from a book in that it is interactive, which is kind of a duh. Well, I guess Choose Your Own Adventure books would be an exception.

Personally, my goal when I am GMing is to create an interactive but 'CINEMATIC' experience. Actually, what I'm going for is 'seriously good TV quality' but there isn't one word to define that like there is for cinematic. But basically the HBO/AMC pioneered hour-long drama is the 'format' I aim to make interactive. Those shows (Sopranos, Breaking Bad, True Detective, Legion, American Gods et al.) definitely manage to be art as well as entertainment, which is something else I go for in my games. The caveats here would be that I expect most GMs take their campaigns much less seriously, and I am totally fine with that, and also that I haven't been able to actually run a campaign to my own standards in a long, long time (going on two years).


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> Some recent threads have discussed aspects of GM and player narration in RPGing. Which hase prompted me to start this thread.
> 
> My answer to the question in the thread title is a firm _No_.
> 
> 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 - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction. That is, that the situation _engage and motivate_ the players _as players_, not as an audience to a performance. And player narration should, in my view, engage with and build on this fiction in ways that display the player's view of the fiction, perhaps challenge other players (and even the GM), that make the other pariticpants go "I didn't see that coming!"
> 
> This is how I see RPGs, with their emphasis on _participation_ in the creation of a fiction that is structured through _distinct_ player an d GM roles, working. And it's how I see them differening from more directly narrative mediums such as books and films.




Good OP for discussion!

If you broadly distilled TTRPGing down to its absolute minimum constituent parts, I think, as you've said, the answer has to be a firm "no."

However, I think there is going to be some overlap in specific moments of play that may not be possible to divorce entirely from an investment in quality of form.

For instance, a few things come to mind.

1) When I'm deriving a dungeon/adventuring site in Torchbearer, I'm using the content generation methodology expressed in the book.  However, when I'm filling in blanks of theme and sorting out a unique Twists table, I'm referencing (a) PC build components (Beliefs, Nature et al) and (b) prior play resolution.

2) When I'm running a first session of Dungeon World, that Earthdeep Prison Colony that was cleaved in two by the Lightning Borne Cleft one of my players added to the map, and their subsequent ideas of what that may entail is central for setting and situation to come.  It may also hook into the Druid's _Defeat and Unnatural Threat._ 

When a Discern Realities requires a response from me and I ask a question about the familiar NPC chain-gang they encounter crawling from the cleft in the opening scene of play, I discover that the Fighter did hard time here and made enemies everywhere.  I'm using that.

When we review the End of Session questions, resolve Bonds and Alignment and write down our answers about how they know this NPC that is running, the answers to these questions has relevance to future Front (merely because I know what they're interested in or how they see the fiction that just emerged from the last session).

3) I think understanding how pacing and a dramatic arc compels emotion and investment in content (even if you aren't scripting them to railroad a set of players through) are extremely important aspects of both GMing and writing a game (particularly a game like My Life With Master where you're running through a pre-conceived, but not pre-rendered, thematic arc with a diversity of ultimate outcomes).


How do you think the 3 above intersect (or not) with your premise?


----------



## Tonguez

if by literary you mean the creation of a cohesive narrative then yes, absolutely RPGs are a literary endeavour. 

The particular quality and internal cohesiveness of the work might be debated but that doesnt change the fact of its existence as an imagined shared 'text'


----------



## pemerton

ParanoydStyle said:


> As a PC or a DM I can and _*do*_ make up, on the fly, prose of a quality closer to those opening lines you quoted than your later examples, as well as other dialogue and descriptions which sound more like something you'd read in a novel. So yes, I freestyle novel quality prose to my table, which I realize puts me in the minority if not outright marks me as a freak.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> For what it's worth, I also usually make an effort to ensure that my dialogue when portraying a character is delivered as well as it would be by a professional actor, including body language, accents, etcetera. Of course I'm a retired veteran LARPer and LARP, at least any one worth playing, is a theatrical endeavor.



What you describe here is certainly what I have in mind by referring to a "literary endeavour" or a "performance in the artistic sense".

My view - which I think you disagre with?, though you also recognise that most RPGing won't live up to your aesthetic standards - is that this is inessential to RPGing in a way that it is not inessential to writing fiction or performing plays. That the core of RPGing is _the invitation to choose from the perspective of a protagonist_, and that this doesn't depend upon being entertaining and aesthetically pleasing in the way you describe. Those are, in a sense, "extras". (Analogous, in a way that I hope you won't take as derogatory, to the quality of finish of a board game's components.)

(An exception to how I describe RPGing would be classic skilled play dungeon crawling of the sort Gygax describes in his PHB. That's not about the "invitation to choose" I have described, but it's not literary either. It's much close to a wargame in the traditional sense.)


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> Good OP for discussion!
> 
> If you broadly distilled TTRPGing down to its absolute minimum constituent parts, I think, as you've said, the answer has to be a firm "no."
> 
> However, I think there is going to be some overlap in specific moments of play that may not be possible to divorce entirely from an investment in quality of form.
> 
> For instance, a few things come to mind.
> 
> 1) When I'm deriving a dungeon/adventuring site in Torchbearer, I'm using the content generation methodology expressed in the book.  However, when I'm filling in blanks of theme and sorting out a unique Twists table, I'm referencing (a) PC build components (Beliefs, Nature et al) and (b) prior play resolution.
> 
> 2) When I'm running a first session of Dungeon World, that Earthdeep Prison Colony that was cleaved in two by the Lightning Borne Cleft one of my players added to the map, and their subsequent ideas of what that may entail is central for setting and situation to come.  It may also hook into the Druid's _Defeat and Unnatural Threat._
> 
> When a Discern Realities requires a response from me and I ask a question about the familiar NPC chain-gang they encounter crawling from the cleft in the opening scene of play, I discover that the Fighter did hard time here and made enemies everywhere.  I'm using that.
> 
> When we review the End of Session questions, resolve Bonds and Alignment and write down our answers about how they know this NPC that is running, the answers to these questions has relevance to future Front (merely because I know what they're interested in or how they see the fiction that just emerged from the last session).
> 
> 3) I think understanding how pacing and a dramatic arc compels emotion and investment in content (even if you aren't scripting them to railroad a set of players through) are extremely important aspects of both GMing and writing a game (particularly a game like My Life With Master where you're running through a pre-conceived, but not pre-rendered, thematic arc with a diversity of ultimate outcomes).
> 
> How do you think the 3 above intersect (or not) with your premise?



I think (1) and (2) are - at their core - about extrapolating from established to new fiction _by reference to theme/interest_. That fits well with my description, in my post not far upthread of your post, of the GM's narration _inviting the players to engage as a protagonist_. What stirs the player, what rouses emotion, is not the fluency of the GM's narration but the power of that invitation.

I think a GM can do this although s/he has no great skill as a writer (in the sense of writing beautiful prose). My belief here is grounded firmly in my experience!

I think your (3) puts more pressure on my contention - I would describe the source of this being that _it puts pressure on the contrast between form and content_ - this is the contrast that [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has helpfully articulated upthread, and that I also tried to capture (via some examples, and comments around them) in my post not too far upthread from yours.

This is because dramatic pacing (probably) can't be completely divorced from the words - the form - whereby the content is conveyed.

In the context of a RPG, though, where the pacing concerns - at least the sort that you refer to - are more at the "scene" level than the line-by-line level, I think the dependence of pacing on words becomes pretty lose. A GM who can't control his/her words at all is going to have troube wrapping up a scene, or cutting to the next situation, in a smooth way; but I think the threshold of skill to be able to do this falls well short of being able to write an evocative opening or closing line.

I'll finish this post by saying that, in denying that RPGing is a *literary* endeavour I'm not denying that it has an important aesthetic component. But I think that the aesthetic component is much more connected to a sense of motion and drama in human affairs, than to a sense of beauty in composition or performance.


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:
			
		

> When I play a RPG I am not going to experience fear because of the referee's narration. That's a response appropriate to a book or film, perhaps, but not a RPG.




I think your quote bolded by @_*lowkey13*_ is quite interesting. I remember some Dungeon articles back in the day provided advice on various methods for GM narration to inspire gothic horror and a sense of unease in the players for horror-themed campaigns. In that sense, I see the importance of form being on par with the content.

 @_*Lanefan*_ touched on this in his post upthread.
Sometimes DMs impose a distinct tone using sentence structure, music and props to evoke a certain mood. In those instances I would say the GM narration is very much a literary endeavour.


----------



## jasper

Sorry the teacher is not sucking all the fun out the module. Nor do I have a pop quiz on Wednesday about the adventure. And Friday has no schedule test. SO NOT LITERARY. Especially since you ya'hoos can't agree on literary. Literary. Rare litter found in libraries or school grounds.


----------



## Gradine

I'm sure it's been said multiple times by others in this thread, but it really depends on the nature of the campaign, really. There's a wide gulf between beer-and-pretzels-kick-down-the-door-dungeon-crawling and diceless-thespians-it's-_role_-playing-not-_roll_-playing and that's only one of any number of possible spectra that could define a campaign, though it's probably the one most germane to this discussion. Where one campaign might fall on other spectra, such as: Is the campaign serious or silly? Light-hearted or grimdark? Sandbox or railroad? etc... these might have impact on the inherent artistic quality of the endeavor, but aren't, I think, ultimately determinant. Not in the sense of "roll-playing vs role-playing", in any case.

The thing is, this particular forum (and, I would wager, most large general RPG forums) has a significant bias toward Dungeons & Dragons, and particularly old school D&D, which lends itself towards styles and aesthetics of play that naturally lean away from (without entirely precluding) a "literary" (or more accurately an "artistic narrative") spirit. There is little doubt that this question would have a markedly different response in a forum that more heavily biased towards, say, FATE, or PtbA. System of preference has a significant impact on what I would consider to be the potential for artistic narrative expression of a quality that would be considered high enough for the purpose of the OP's question. In all of its iterations D&D and its many clones has always focused more on the "game" and on overcoming challenges; many PbtA systems, meanwhile, have a more deliberate and explicit focus on crafting strong narrative and good storytelling. Neither of these are prevented from being one or other, mind you, but it's often a case of fitting a square peg in a round hole.

From there, the artistic quality depends largely on both the GM and the players. The GM has been the willing and able to place a strong emphasis on storytelling while also adept at incorporating player actions into an ever-evolving narrative, while the players generally have to be both game for the endeavor and strong enough storytellers in their own right to contribute to the fiction. It might even require players making sacrifices, whether that means making "sub-optimal" choices in character building to flesh out the character, or being willing to take actions that might lead to better fiction in spite of or because they make it harder for them to achieve their goals. It's not easy, but it's definitely possible.

And then there are livestreams and podcasts, which (at least when done well) deliberately takes an outside audience into account in its production. For the audience, the experience is literary in the pedantic but not-too pedantic sense where it only refers to written prose, and there are plenty of examples of such events producing emotional responses in their audiences.


----------



## Tony Vargas

pemerton said:


> Some recent threads have discussed aspects of GM and player narration in RPGing. Which hase prompted me to start this thread.
> 
> My answer to the question in the thread title is a firm _No_.



 Sure, it's not anymore literary than cinematic.  There's no pages being turned in.  

But it is a creative endeavor. 

It is to great literature as a spray-painted performance artist is to classical sculpture.  
It's ultimately ephemeral.  It's an experience, not an enduring work, that's being created.  



> This is how I see RPGs, with their emphasis on _participation_ in the creation of a fiction that is structured through _distinct_ player an d GM roles, working. And it's how I see them differening from more directly narrative mediums such as books and films.



 They can go that way, sure.  They can also be very DM-driven, even to the point that the players are almost as much consumers of the fiction as if they were reading a book or watching a movie.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Tony Vargas

lowkey13 said:


> Hey! Good to see you are back ...
> 
> Missed ya.




Aww, thanks for noticing.


----------



## pemerton

Gradine said:


> I'm sure it's been said multiple times by others in this thread, but it really depends on the nature of the campaign, really. There's a wide gulf between beer-and-pretzels-kick-down-the-door-dungeon-crawling and diceless-thespians-it's-_role_-playing-not-_roll_-playing and that's only one of any number of possible spectra that could define a campaign, though it's probably the one most germane to this discussion.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The thing is, this particular forum (and, I would wager, most large general RPG forums) has a significant bias toward Dungeons & Dragons, and particularly old school D&D, which lends itself towards styles and aesthetics of play that naturally lean away from (without entirely precluding) a "literary" (or more accurately an "artistic narrative") spirit.



I'm not sure that the contrast you draw between styles is the one that is germane to my OP - because my OP does not treat _artistic narrative_ as a synonym for _literary_.

My PbtA experience is modest, but my play in that style is extensive. Thespianism isn't part of it.


----------



## Gradine

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure that the contrast you draw between styles is the one that is germane to my OP - because my OP does not treat _artistic narrative_ as a synonym for _literary_.




Then I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're getting at; Hriston's comment about "quality of form", and your response to it, seemed fundamentally clear to me. Perhaps you do not associate "artistic narrative" with "quality of form", but I'm not exactly sure where the dividing line is meant to be there. Perhaps I would be clearer in referring to an "aesthetic artistic quality", which I roughly associate as one in the same? I'd rather not get bogged down in semantics.



> My PbtA experience is modest, but my play in that style is extensive. Thespianism isn't part of it.




I think you might be getting tripped in my mention of thespianism; that point was brought up largely to illustrate a difference in preferred aesthetics of play rather than to be a purely literal idea. Clearly thespianism is a choice, but one that is not necessary for an emphasis on a quality narrative and/or character-expression aesthetic of play. That said, PbtA and its ilk has mechanics and design specifically (and usually explicitly) meant to reinforce those aesthetic qualities; while D&D/OSR and the like have mechanics and design specifically (if not always explicitly) meant to reinforce non-"literary" aesthetics of play such as challenge and discovery. 

Of course, a focus on narrative and expression does not automatically make a game "literary" and a focus challenge and discovery does not automatically preclude it from the category (see also: Dark Souls). But the types of systems and campaigns that are more geared towards so-called "story gamers*" are definitely more likely to include qualities that could be considered of aesthetic artistic merit, while systems and campaigns that are more geared towards so-called "power gamers*" are less likely to.

*Please note that I am in no way intending to diminish or de-legitimize anyone's favorite system(s) or style(s) of play, and I apologize if I have. I am simply trying to answer the OP's question.


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=57112]Gradine[/MENTION], I'm having trouble following you because you seem to be making an assumption about what is informing my OP which does not hold good. If you're not making that assumption, then I'm still confused about what you're saying but am also confused about why I'm confused!

In a post-OP post somewhere upthread I think I mentioned classic dungeoncrawling along the lines of Gygax's PHB (which is what I understand you to mean by OSR-type play). As I said in that post, I don't think that play of that sort is a literary endeavour, because it's not an artistic endeavour at all. In respect of the goals and outlook of play (though not all the methods), it's closer to a wargame.

But that wasn't what I had in mind in my OP. In my OP I'm talking about play that (if one can speak relatively broadly) would be the sort of play involved in a PbtA game. Though, as I've said, my actual PbtA play exerpience is modest, I'm pretty familiar with character-driven, largely "no myth" play based aroudn the core dynamic of _GM frames scene which invites protagnoism from players via their PCs_ and in response _players engage fiction via their PCs_.

It's because  [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] is familiar with this feature of my biography as a RPGer that he posed the questions he did not far upthread. To summarise, Manbearcat asked how the GMing techniques of that sort of play - building on prior fiction;  responding to and building on theme and similar player-flagged points of interest/engagement; managing the pacing issues need to achieve effective transition from scene-to-scene so as to keep the invitations open while allowing the protagonism to play itself out - fit with my contention in the OP.

My response is twofold: (i) extrapolating and building on a fiction within parameters of theme/interest/"meaningfulness" is not about quaity of form, insofar as it can be done even by a GM who is not particularly artistic or skillful in his/her actual narration of situations and consequences (I know this because I've experienced it); (ii) the sorts of pacing issues involved in GMing generally operate at a level (relative to the narrative) whereby managing them is more about _what to say when_ then _how deftly one says it_. A GM can have a sense of when a scene is done, and act on that sense by bringing it to a close and framing a new scene, without being a good writer or even a good storyboarder (a storyborader has to anticipate, but a GM has a lot of real-time cues to act upon).

Does that make my view any clearer?

Also, with respect to the thespian/performance aspect, I think that conversation can be entertaining but (at least for me) the question of whether I enjoy conversing with someone isn't normally increased by the extent to which they approach conversation as a performer/entertainer. To put it another way, salon wit of course has its place but (in my view) isn't of the essence of enjoyable conversation. I see RPGing in the same way - there has to be the back-and-frorth betwen the GM and players, and unlike typical conversation it is structured in certain ways around the shared creation of a fiction. But it's not about _being an entertainer/performer_, although hopefully the participants find it entertaining/enjoyable.


----------



## Salamandyr

The way I do it, it is.


----------



## GrahamWills

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=57112]
> ... I don't think that [OSR] is a literary endeavour, because it's not an artistic endeavour at all.
> ... extrapolating and building on a fiction within parameters of theme/interest/"meaningfulness" is not about quality of form
> ... the sorts of pacing issues ... is more about _what to say when_ then _how deftly one says it_.
> 
> ... [RPGs are] not about _being an entertainer/performer_, although hopefully the participants find it entertaining/enjoyable.




It strongly seems that you are starting from a premise that says RPGs are purely game and have no attributes that might be related to an artistic endeavor. I guess that's a point of view, but you shouldn't be surprised when most people have the experience that:

 * OSR can be as much art as DramaSystem.
 * Bad writing (the form of presentation) limits people's enjoyment.
 * GMs who phrase descriptions well are more fun than ones who simply indicate bare facts.
 * They like playing with people whose characters are performed rather than merely described.

I think you've made your position pretty clear, but honestly, I think you're way out on your own. I don't think anyone I know would be equally happy with a poorly delivered description read from box text as they would be from a well-delivered description with good phrasing, intonation and vocal variation.


----------



## pemerton

GrahamWills said:


> It strongly seems that you are starting from a premise that says RPGs are purely game and have no attributes that might be related to an artistic endeavor.



I'm not saying that. I think my fairly long post not far upthread should make that clear.



GrahamWills said:


> I guess that's a point of view, but you shouldn't be surprised when most people have the experience that:
> 
> * OSR can be as much art as DramaSystem.
> * Bad writing (the form of presentation) limits people's enjoyment.
> * GMs who phrase descriptions well are more fun than ones who simply indicate bare facts.
> * They like playing with people whose characters are performed rather than merely described.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't think anyone I know would be equally happy with a poorly delivered description read from box text as they would be from a well-delivered description with good phrasing, intonation and vocal variation.



I think "equally happy" isn't the right notion here.

Everything else being equal, most people prefer to eat their food of nice rather than chipped crockery, but I think that leaves it an open question whether quality of crockery is inherent to the art of cooking well.

Likewise, a concert is better if the seats are comfortable, but is quality of seating inherent to the art of performing well?

My contention is that emphasising quality of writing and quality of "thespianism", in the context of RPGing, places the emphasis on what is weakest rather than strongest about RPGing as an art form.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Everything else being equal, most people prefer to eat their food of nice rather than chipped crockery, but I think that leaves it an open question whether quality of crockery is inherent to the art of cooking well.
> 
> Likewise, a concert is better if the seats are comfortable, but is quality of seating inherent to the art of performing well?



Both affect the presentation of the end product and thus the consumers' enjoyment of such; and that's what we're talking about here: presentation.

Someone could write the best, most engaging adventure module of all time but a GM who doesn't present it well at the table is still going to butcher it in the players' eyes (a la uncomfortable seats at an excellent concert).  Conversely, a horrible module can be made very engaging by a GM who presents it with some flair and dramatics and humour (a la luxury seats and free wine at an otherwise unremarkable concert).



> My contention is that emphasising quality of writing and quality of "thespianism", in the context of RPGing, places the emphasis on what is weakest rather than strongest about RPGing as an art form.



First off, as I just noted quality of writing and quality of thespianism don't have the same effect at the table: the perceived quality of the writing can be and often is determined by its presentation at the table, and the quality of that presentation is often based on the dramatic flair of the GM.

Post hoc (and this is the literary part) the later perceived memory of the game can be greatly affected by how well or not the game logs are written and recorded, where such is done at all.


----------



## dragoner

The *Literary* aspect of this discussion, appears similar to the concept of "Perceived Quality" we learned in business school:

_Perceived quality can be defined as the customer's opinion about the overall quality or image of the product or service or the brand itself with respect to its purpose of use as against its alternatives. It might not be linked to the actual product but is more skewed towards the brand image, customer experience with the brand and its other products, peer opinions, etc. thus perceived quality differs from objective quality, product-based quality and manufacturing quality.


*Perceived quality is intangible. It cannot be measured on quantitative grounds, preferably because judgements about what is important to the customers varies widely across different personalities, needs and preferences.*_

https://www.mbaskool.com/business-concepts/marketing-and-strategy-terms/13570-perceived-quality.html

The bolded part seems relevant in the each person is looking for something different from the game.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> Both affect the presentation of the end product and thus the consumers' enjoyment of such; and that's what we're talking about here: presentation.
> 
> Someone could write the best, most engaging adventure module of all time but a GM who doesn't present it well at the table is still going to butcher it in the players' eyes



This the very thing that I disagree with. Of course quality of writing and also quality of delivery is crucial to a recitation. But I'm arguing that at the heart of RPGing is an activity which is basically the antithesis of a GM reading the players some pre-written prose.

I'm also arguing that the more one tries and makes the strengths of RPGing the same as the strengths of a recitation, the harder it will be to achieve a satisfying experience. This is because writing good prose, and reading it well, is a very demanding activity; and the writing, at least, is generally a solitary activity which means that this approach to RPGing locates much of the experience not in the play at all, but rather in the preparation.

Conversely, I think most people - especially those who are interested in RPGing - have robust imaginations and a good creative urge. Which means that emphasising the _contrast_ between RPGIng and recitation/thespianism makes it relatively easy to produce good experiences.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> This the very thing that I disagree with. Of course quality of writing and also quality of delivery is crucial to a recitation. But I'm arguing that at the heart of RPGing is an activity which is basically the antithesis of a GM reading the players some pre-written prose.




Is it?  What's antithesis to rpg's with pre-written prose describing a location?  A monster or npc's appearance? How about for relaying information?   



pemerton said:


> I'm also arguing that the more one tries and makes the strengths of RPGing the same as the strengths of a recitation, the harder it will be to achieve a satisfying experience. This is because writing good prose, and reading it well, is a very demanding activity; and the writing, at least, is generally a solitary activity which means that this approach to RPGing locates much of the experience not in the play at all, but rather in the preparation.




Ignoring the fact that writing up things for their game is enjoyable to some/many GM's (and may even be integral to their ability to run), and that for some/many players it can enhance and/or be integral for their enjoyment and participation ...There are also pre-written adventures, campaign settings, etc. that have been used by new and seasoned GM's alike as tools that enhance and enable "the play" as much if not more than they are a solitary endeavor... 



pemerton said:


> Conversely, I think most people - especially those who are interested in RPGing - have robust imaginations and a good creative urge. Which means that emphasising the _contrast_ between RPGIng and recitation/thespianism makes it relatively easy to produce good experiences.




Why can't that robust imagination and creative urge be enhanced by (or conversely enhance) recitation and thespianism?  I've yet to see you state a solid reason as to why these things *must* be at odds??

EDIT: I also don't see why being people with robust imaginations and creative urges puts one at odds with wanting to recite pre-written prose for ones game or act out NPC's and PC's??

EDIT 2: I feel like perhaps you are advocating for a specific style of play which may be antithesis to pre-written prose and thespianism... though I'm hard pressed to think of a style that would be in direct opposition to those two things... if this is the case perhaps you should narrow what your statements are trying to encompass from roleplaying to the particular style you are speaking to...


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## the Jester

Is, or can, a choose your own adventure book be what you consider"literary"? What about classic text adventures?


----------



## pemerton

the Jester said:


> Is, or can, a choose your own adventure book be what you consider"literary"? What about classic text adventures?



I don't know anything about "classic text adventures".

Choose your own adventures aspire to be literary in the sense I've got in mind - they are in effect novels (novel bundles? novel trees?). They don't offer the same sort of situated-in-the-fiction engagment as a RPG, and a fair bit of the reader's time is spent doing just that - reading - and so the quality of the prose is fairlyintegral to the whole enterprise.


----------



## GrahamWills

It seems an odd position to me that, in an endeavor where the main activity is describing things (what your character is doing, what the world is like, what is going on) someone can take the position that the quality of presentation of that description is pretty much irrelevant.

I cannot think of any other communication-based activity where anyone might say such a thing. Not movies, not art, not comics, not children playing on a playground, not business presentations, not writing, not radio, nothing.

It's a reasonable position to say that the content is MORE important than the delivery, sure. But saying that it is unimportant doesn't seem terribly reasonable.


----------



## uzirath

GrahamWills said:


> It seems an odd position to me that, in an endeavor where the main activity is describing things (what your character is doing, what the world is like, what is going on) someone can take the position that the quality of presentation of that description is pretty much irrelevant. . . . It's a reasonable position to say that the content is MORE important than the delivery, sure. But saying that it is unimportant doesn't seem terribly reasonable.




I've been idly following this thread and, although I don't wholly agree with the premise that RPGs are not literary, it doesn't seem to me that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is denying that delivery has an important role to play. He's simply demoting it from first place. Here are a few quotes from posts that I recall:



pemerton said:


> I don't see RPGing as primarily _performance_ (in the artistic sense). Not for the GM - of course a melifluous GM can provide entertainment, but I don't see that as core. And likewise on the player side - thespianism is (in my view) secondary, whereas engaging the fiction from the position/perspective of the character is absolutely central.






pemerton said:


> The player is invited to adopt the perspective of the PC, and from that perspective to _make a choice_. This is a completely different form of engagement. . . . My view is that when we think about things from the point of view of RPGing, this common invitation to engagement is much more important than the issue of which has more literary merit.






pemerton said:


> A GM who can't control his/her words at all is going to have trouble wrapping up a scene, or cutting to the next situation, in a smooth way; but I think the threshold of skill to be able to do this falls well short of being able to write an evocative opening or closing line.
> 
> I'll finish this post by saying that, in denying that RPGing is a *literary* endeavour I'm not denying that it has an important aesthetic component. But I think that the aesthetic component is much more connected to a sense of motion and drama in human affairs, than to a sense of beauty in composition or performance.




None of this suggests that the quality of presentation is "pretty much irrelevant." 

I have continued following this discussion partly because I'm intrigued by the assertion that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] makes about advising people new to RPGs:



pemerton said:


> If a new(-ish) GM asked me what is the one thing to do to make his/her game better, I would recommend working on managing framing and consequences to maintain player engagement, rather than (say) working on the portrayal/characterisation of NPCs.




As someone who spends a fair amount of time teaching people how to play RPGs (adults and K-12 kids), I'm always looking for ways to get to the heart of the art form. Right now, I still can't quite wrap my head around what "working on managing framing and consequences" looks like at a beginner's table.


----------



## pemerton

GrahamWills said:


> It seems an odd position to me that, in an endeavor where the main activity is describing things (what your character is doing, what the world is like, what is going on) someone can take the position that the quality of presentation of that description is pretty much irrelevant.
> 
> I cannot think of any other communication-based activity where anyone might say such a thing. Not movies, not art, not comics, not children playing on a playground, not business presentations, not writing, not radio, nothing.



I've given an example: conversation.

Now there is an approach to "conversation" in which style/literary quality is important: salon-style repartee, at which (say) Oscar Wilde or Dorothy Parker excels. But my personal experience is that most conversation isn't like this.


----------



## pemerton

uzirath said:


> As someone who spends a fair amount of time teaching people how to play RPGs (adults and K-12 kids), I'm always looking for ways to get to the heart of the art form. Right now, I still can't quite wrap my head around what "working on managing framing and consequences" looks like at a beginner's table.



Good question - I am a (tertiary level) teacher, but not of RPGers!

For a lot of people - and here I'm just parroting Robin Laws - I think the sense of story/drama comes from film. A dramatic scene in a film (typically) contains both opening and climax/resolution. Whereas for a GM, there has to be the compelling opening but the resolution has to be open. So how do we think about compelling scenes in this sort of way? I think it's about imagining the opening as invitation, rather than imaginging the resolution. I think thiis is something that can be meaningfully talked about with a new GM.

Just as one example, I'm thinking of the Dungeon World GM-side "move" _reveal an unwelcome truth_: one way to invite the players to engage the situation is to frame a situation that reveals/presents a trajectory towards something the player wishes was otherwise. This, in turn, makes us ask _how can we know what the players/PCs want_, which helps a new GM think about how to engage with the players in PC building.

The above is a bit ramshackle, but I hope gives some hint of what I'm thinking about.


----------



## GrahamWills

uzirath said:


> I've been idly following this thread and, although I don't wholly agree with the premise that RPGs are not literary, it doesn't seem to me that  @_*pemerton*_ is denying that delivery has an important role to play. He's simply demoting it from first place. Here are a few quotes...




Here is the original, framing statement:

*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.*

If we had started with a quote that said "I think the content of an RPG game is less important than the presentation of it" this thread would have lasted a day at most. Everyone agrees, we move on. But that is not the premise; the thread clearly states that the literary quality is *not important*. 

Your collection of quotes is helpful though -- thanks! It does suggest that we have moved the goal posts enough so that we can close in agreement. The OP now believe that is *is important*, just not as important as content. That seems fair enough to me, so I guess we are good!


----------



## darkbard

GrahamWills said:


> Here is the original, framing statement:
> 
> *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.*
> 
> If we had started with a quote that said "I think the content of an RPG game is less important than the presentation of it" this thread would have lasted a day at most. Everyone agrees, we move on. But that is not the premise; the thread clearly states that the literary quality is *not important*.
> 
> Your collection of quotes is helpful though -- thanks! It does suggest that we have moved the goal posts enough so that we can close in agreement. The OP now believe that is *is important*, just not as important as content. That seems fair enough to me, so I guess we are good!




I think you may be mistaking the premise of this thread.  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] began it, I believe, to foster discussion and analysis, not to solve something and provide closure.


----------



## pemerton

Just to follow up on what [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] posted - I've found the discussion around the role of performance in RPGing interesting, as clearly there are different views about that. (Hopefully mine are clear.) But in some ways the most interesting response so far has been [MENTION=8495]uzirath[/MENTION]'s, because of the connection drawn to teaching RPing/GMing.

Part of the motivation for the OP was to respond to a trend in GM advice that I've noticed on-and-off for years (decades), and that seemed to be implicit in one or two recent threads, which emphasises the need for GMs to work on their performance skills. Whereas when I have (recently) been GMed by a new referee, the performances were fine (in the sense that sentences were produced without monotone, words were utterly clearly, etc) but the evident real demand on the GM (which he did a good job of meeting, I felt) was to manage situation and consequence. In fact when it came to consequences, he did a better job (I think) than I have done in GMing Burning Wheel, at least in appreciating the full range of consequences the system permits. I've been GMed by GMs who were better thespians, but who could have learned a thing or two from this guy whose GMed a handful of sessions!


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## uzirath

pemerton said:


> I think it's about imagining the opening as invitation, rather than imagining the resolution. I think this is something that can be meaningfully talked about with a new GM.




Yeah, this is interesting. A remarkable number of new GM's I've worked with are crushed when the climax they had in mind doesn't play out according to their vision. I often describe the goal as creating a situation where lots of different exciting climaxes could occur. 



> One way to invite the players to engage the situation is to frame a situation that reveals/presents a trajectory towards something the player wishes was otherwise. This, in turn, makes us ask _how can we know what the players/PCs want_, which helps a new GM think about how to engage with the players in PC building.




This is solid, too. I always encourage new GMs to keep a "cheat sheet" behind the screen with key stats on the PCs. It makes sense to also include an entry for goals, affiliations, etc. Some of this can be inferred through alignment and ideals/bonds/flaws in D&D, advantage/disadvantage choices in GURPS/DFRPG, and other items on the character sheets of different systems, but it's nice to have a shorthand version for quick reference.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> This the very thing that I disagree with. Of course quality of writing and also quality of delivery is crucial to a recitation. But I'm arguing that at the heart of RPGing is an activity which is basically the antithesis of a GM reading the players some pre-written prose.
> 
> I'm also arguing that the more one tries and makes the strengths of RPGing the same as the strengths of a recitation, the harder it will be to achieve a satisfying experience. This is because writing good prose, and reading it well, is a very demanding activity; and the writing, at least, is generally a solitary activity which means that this approach to RPGing locates much of the experience not in the play at all, but rather in the preparation.
> 
> Conversely, I think most people - especially those who are interested in RPGing - have robust imaginations and a good creative urge. Which means that emphasising the _contrast_ between RPGIng and recitation/thespianism makes it relatively easy to produce good experiences.



My example was of what a good/bad GM could do to a good/bad module but it goes the other way as well: a player could come up with the most entertaining character concept and-or personality ever but it's completely wasted if at the table she just sits there like a block of wood and never speaks in character (or speaks in a flat monotone when she does).  Conversely, a player could take the most boring and-or overdone character concept out there and by her virtuoso in-character roleplay and sheer entertainment value make it the primary reason everyone keeps coming back week after week!


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> I don't know anything about "classic text adventures".



Oh, you poor thing!

Did you never play Advent, or Zork, or any of a host of other text-only computer adventures back in the day?  Puzzle-solving dialled to eleven, most of 'em, and grand fun!


----------



## pemerton

lowkey13 said:


> This is why grand pronouncements, or a unified theory of RPGs, seldom seem effective. What works (and may be true) for Burning Wheel or Prince Valiant may not be as true for Call of Cthulhu or an old-school dungeon crawl, let alone a modded Battle Tech.



When I think of old school D&D, I think of something like ToH or White Plume Mountain - it's about information, puzzles and rolling up new characters. I don't see the performance aspect looming that large myself.

As far as Cthulhu RPGing, I've been GMing some Cthulhu Dark recently and the invitation and response have been more important than the "artistry".

I can't comment on Battle Tech.


----------



## Hussar

Hey. Battletech is great!  Played it last weekend. 

Frankly, I see the “performance “ side of dming as just as important as the “framing” side. One without the other leads to bad games.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Frankly, I see the “performance “ side of dming as just as important as the “framing” side. One without the other leads to bad games.



Careful - there are posters who dissaprove of making aesthetic claims as if they were "unified theories" of RPGing!

(Or maybe they only object to "unified theories" that aren't their's?)


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> Careful - there are posters who dissaprove of making aesthetic claims as if they were "unified theories" of RPGing!
> 
> (Or maybe they only object to "unified theories" that aren't their's?)




Well, again, I think you'd get a lot less push back if you were to take a little less extreme position.  And, heck, I can prove my point that presentation is equally as important as content.  

You and I both agree that the 4e Monster Manual is full of information about the lore of monsters.  We've had that conversation, so, I know you agree with that.  But, there are people who will swear up and down that the 4e Monster Manual contains little to no actual lore about the monsters.  The reason being, the 4e Monster Manual presents its information differently than any previous Monster Manual - mostly through bullet points and contained within the stat block itself.  But, people will, to this day, insist that the 4e Monster Manual is largely bereft of any lore at all.

THAT'S how important presentation is.  You gave examples from REH and E. M. Forster and then claimed that at the table, the two versions you gave, while presenting the same information, would make little difference.  I think you are very wrong here.  The first examples you gave would make for a much better game with greater engagement from the players than the latter examples.  Like I said, how you present information is as important as the information itself.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> You and I both agree that the 4e Monster Manual is full of information about the lore of monsters.  We've had that conversation, so, I know you agree with that.  But, there are people who will swear up and down that the 4e Monster Manual contains little to no actual lore about the monsters.  The reason being, the 4e Monster Manual presents its information differently than any previous Monster Manual - mostly through bullet points and contained within the stat block itself.  But, people will, to this day, insist that the 4e Monster Manual is largely bereft of any lore at all.
> 
> THAT'S how important presentation is.



This is a point about marketing, not a point about RPGing.



Hussar said:


> You gave examples from REH and E. M. Forster and then claimed that at the table, the two versions you gave, while presenting the same information, would make little difference. I think you are very wrong here. The first examples you gave would make for a much better game with greater engagement from the players than the latter examples.



That's not my experience. I've played terrible games under "thespian" GMs, and terrific games under GMs who present their material in the manner of an ordinary person engaged in ordinary conversation.

What makes the difference, in my experience, is what I have called upthread the "invitation" to player response.



Hussar said:


> I think you'd get a lot less push back if you were to take a little less extreme position.



Your position - _I see the “performance “ side of dming as just as important as the “framing” side_ - is just as extreme as mine! It's just different.

There's nothing objectionable about differences of aesthetic opinion. What irritates me a bit recently on some threads is those posters who argue that anyone expressing an opinion different from their's is (improperly) advancing a "unified theory" or "one true way" - whereas obviously their preference is just common sense!

I hope it goes without saying that you're not one of those I have in mind.


----------



## Hussar

Well, I would say that I'm taking a somewhat less extreme position.  To me, the extreme position would be the opposite of yours, where the presentation is the most important thing and content isn't important.

I'm taking the fence sitting middle road here - they're both very important.  How you present material and what you present are both very, very important.  Brushing off my argument about the MM in 4e as simply "marketing" misses the point.  "Marketing" and "presentation" are pretty much the same thing.  You need to convince four or five people sitting around the table to listen to you for several hours while you try to paint a picture about whatever scenario it is that you're trying to sell to the players.

They call it player buy in for a very good reason.  Bare bones, facts only presentations will engender similar responses.  Sure, a game with lots of one or lots of the other will be able to spackle over the missing elements, but, at the end of the day, balance is needed to have a really good game.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Well, I would say that I'm taking a somewhat less extreme position.  To me, the extreme position would be the opposite of yours, where the presentation is the most important thing and content isn't important.
> 
> I'm taking the fence sitting middle road here - they're both very important.



Well, you did assert that they're equally important, and that's what I was responding to.



Hussar said:


> "Marketing" and "presentation" are pretty much the same thing.  You need to convince four or five people sitting around the table to listen to you for several hours while you try to paint a picture about whatever scenario it is that you're trying to sell to the players.



What you describe here doesn't really fit with my own experience of RPGing. If RPGing was primarily about "painting a picture" (upthread, I used the term "recitation" which I think covers much the same conceptual terrain) then you would be correct. But that's what I'm disagreeing with in my OP.


----------



## pemerton

lowkey13 said:


> there are whole genres of TTRPGs (the horror genre) where many people do feel this fear.



I've posted more than once, in reply to you, about some recent play of horror RPGs. You haven't responded.


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> Well, you did assert that they're equally important, and that's what I was responding to.
> 
> What you describe here doesn't really fit with my own experience of RPGing. If RPGing was primarily about "painting a picture" (upthread, I used the term "recitation" which I think covers much the same conceptual terrain) then you would be correct. But that's what I'm disagreeing with in my OP.




Without "painting a picture" as you say, player interest drops and the game dies.  If the DM presents nothing but bare bones facts without any exposition, no oratory, no actual theatricalism (if I could coin a term), then that DM is going to lose his players to other forms of media which ARE far more entertaining.  Like it or not, being entertaining is part and parcel to good DMing and particularly important to good scenario design.  And part of being entertaining is how you present that information.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Without "painting a picture" as you say, player interest drops and the game dies.  If the DM presents nothing but bare bones facts without any exposition, no oratory, no actual theatricalism (if I could coin a term), then that DM is going to lose his players to other forms of media which ARE far more entertaining.  Like it or not, being entertaining is part and parcel to good DMing and particularly important to good scenario design.  And part of being entertaining is how you present that information.



Again, all I can really say is that this is not my experience. My group has been meeting every fortnight or so for 20-odd years. If we were young and free like we once were, it would probably be more often! (As it was back in the 90s.)

I've been the GM for most of that time. I'm not notorious for my modesty, but I've also got a reasonable sense of my limitations. I'm not a great performer. The reason I haven't lost "my" players isn't because they find me entertaining. It's because RPGing offers a different experience from other sorts of entertainment.

This is what I mean when I talk about orienting towrads the strengths of RPGing (ie the collective creativity, and from the player's point of view _being_ the protagonist) rather than the weaknesses (ie that amateur performers/storytellers will compete with professionals).


----------



## Hussar

Why would you be competing with anyone?  So long as the performance is good enough for that group, things are fine.  I suppose if you found a group that didn't bother with any actual oratory, played in complete monotone all the time, never bothered with an adjective or five, or something like that, then, well, fantastic.

But, the flip side is also true.  So long as the content is good enough for that group, everyone is happy.  I'll freely admit that someone like, say, Eric Mona, can write a better adventure than I can.  My ego is not so fragile as to believe otherwise.  Yet, I can write a good enough adventure that folks still come back.

IOW, again, you need both.


----------



## aramis erak

For me...
The presentation of the game needs to be good enough to convey clearly the rules.
The rules need to be good enough that they don't inhibit good story from evolving.
The GM (usually me, in my case) needs to be good enough to know when to use the rules or not; when to pick from yes, no, or roll the dice.

Great GMs make bad systems work by a mix of houserules, careful choices, and compelling situations. 

For me, my success as a GM hinges on giving my players meaningful choices in play, then following through with appropriate reactions to that. 

Aside from initially learning the rules and looking up complex elements when needed, the presentation is mostly immaterial. I make cheat sheets for my own use, extracting  what I think is needed, and often, revising mid-campaign....

But, on the getting me to buy and read in the first place, presentation matters. 
Overdone actually makes me LESS likely to buy. 
Underdone? Doesn't give me confidence in the content... but I'm more likely to look at it than overproduced stuff.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Why would you be competing with anyone?



You said "If the DM presents nothing but bare bones facts without any exposition, no oratory, no actual theatricalism (if I could coin a term), then that DM is going to lose his players to other forms of media which ARE far more entertaining." That seems to rest on a premise, which I think is plausible, that leisure time is finite and hence RPGing has to offer something worthwhile to its participants.

I think that what RPGing offers which is worthwhile is something that is _different_ from what other media offer. _Performance_ isn't a different sort of offering.


----------



## pemerton

lowkey13 said:


> So, yeah. I don't know, man. Seems like your experience and the ones that the reviewers had was different (but again, I don't know since I'm not familiar with that particular game).



I suspect they're reviewing the recent Kickstarted version rather than the 4-page PDF that I downloaded 5 or so years ago.

The stuff that you have quoted reminds me of Kenneth Hite's old book Nightmares of Mine.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> You said "If the DM presents nothing but bare bones facts without any exposition, no oratory, no actual theatricalism (if I could coin a term), then that DM is going to lose his players to other forms of media which ARE far more entertaining." That seems to rest on a premise, which I think is plausible, that leisure time is finite and hence RPGing has to offer something worthwhile to its participants.
> 
> I think that what RPGing offers which is worthwhile is something that is _different_ from what other media offer. _Performance_ isn't a different sort of offering.




Well, I'd say that rather depends on how you define "performance".  Is a live performance the same as a recorded one?  I wouldn't say so.  I'd never sit and do nothing but listen to a single band's music on CD for hours on end.  But, I'd certainly go to a concert by that band and listen for a few hours.  Heck, live music, frequently, isn't even as good as what you get on a CD, but, I'll still go see a live gig over just sitting in a room and listening to the same songs.

And, sure, RPGing does offer something that most other media offer - frustration, arguments, bad feelings... oh, wait... no, that's not it.    Joking aside, RPGing does offer different things - direct participation is obviously one of those things.  Sure.  I agree that it's important.  But, again, that's just one of the things.  I can get just as much direct interaction in a video game as any RPG.  It's presentation that does play a huge role though.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Well, I'd say that rather depends on how you define "performance".  Is a live performance the same as a recorded one?  I wouldn't say so.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> RPGing does offer different things - direct participation is obviously one of those things.  Sure.  I agree that it's important.  But, again, that's just one of the things.  I can get just as much direct interaction in a video game as any RPG.  It's presentation that does play a huge role though.



I've snipped the middle because I think the top and tail are closely connected.

I want to build on the idea of a live performance. I don't know if you play any music yourself - I'm a (very) amateur guitarist, who plays for his own pleasure, sometimes for friends and family, occasionally for students. These are all contexts where _who I am_, who it is who's making the music, matters as much or more than _the quality of the music_. 

This aspect of participation (when I play for my own pleasure) and of human connection in a creative experience (playing for family, friends, students) is very key to what's enjoyable, for me, in making music. I don't have the talent to even think of being a professional performer, but that lack of talent has only a modest bearing on what is valuable and pleausrable both for me and for my audiences.

I see RPGing as having affinities to this. The particiaption, the human connections, the shared pleasure in creation - and the structures (role allocations, mechanics, etc) that help mediate this and give it direction and purpose and yield a particular experience - are fundamental.

I'm very shocked to read that you can get the same experience from a video game. I'm not sure how much you're exaggerating, or how much is related to the fact that you play online rather than face-to-face. But I assume when you play online you have voice (and camera?) and so still get the human connection.


----------



## Hussar

Meh.  Humans are over rated. 

Ok, that was a joke.  But, the thing is, sure, you're playing music for your friends and family.  Great.  But, you still actually perform no?  You try to play the music in such a way that everyone enjoys it.

Look, I'm not saying that content isn't important.  Of course it is.  But, to use your playing guitar example, if content was all that mattered, then, well, you could play without actually hitting a single note on a completely out of tune guitar and people would still like it.  Since that's obviously not true, then presentation does matter.

OTOH, as far as can you get the same experience from a video game?  Perhaps not.  It's pretty darn close though.  Games have progressed to the point where you have very open ended stories, allowing for all sorts of interactions, creating very personal experiences.  

Then again, no, I don't see RPG's as anything remotely like anything other than a (somewhat complicated) game.  That's all they are.  I could have a great time playing Euchre for three hours as well.  And, part of playing an RPG is the performance aspect of it.  Performance is a big part - whether it's the art for my virtual tabletop game, or selecting a decent soundtrack to go with the session, or my own personal performance, it's all important to the experience.


----------



## Lanefan

lowkey13 said:


> One, your individual play experiences with your group of 20+ years does not translate into universal play. This is the usual, "An anecdote is not data." (Technically, an anecdote can be a datum, but you know what I mean). Heck, my play experiences with my old group (aka, grognards) is decidedly different than when I DM to teach kids.
> 
> Second, you usually reference games that are ... well, not universally played or known (often indie games). There is nothing wrong with that, but given your frames of references are usually IIRC Prince Valiant, BiTD, and now Cthulhu Dark ...



In fairness,  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] also sometimes references 4e D&D and - a bit less often - Moldvay Basic D&D; both of which were a fair bit closer to the mainstream in their day.  That said, I'm not sure he runs/ran either system entirely as written (but then, do any of us?) preferring instead to overlay a story-now aesthetic on them.

Also, if memory serves he's more into Burning Wheel than BitD, but I could be wrong on this one.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> if memory serves he's more into Burning Wheel than BitD, but I could be wrong on this one.



Your memory is correct - I've never played BitD. The only PbtA game I've played is a bit (not a lot) of Dungeon World.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> I'm not saying that content isn't important.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't see RPG's as anything remotely like anything other than a (somewhat complicated) game.  That's all they are.  I could have a great time playing Euchre for three hours as well.  And, part of playing an RPG is the performance aspect of it.



I agree that RPGs are games. But it would be a cold day in hell before I'd trade in my RPG time for euchre!

I'm not sure that _content_ quite captures what I'm talking about, although it's clearly in the neighbourhood. It's the participatory creation, which - on the player side - is about _response as protagonist_.



lowkey13 said:


> people use their time sub-optimally all the time.



It would be a sad thing if the best pitch we could make for RPGing is _Would you like to spend your leisure time sub-optimally?_


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Some recent threads have discussed aspects of GM and player narration in RPGing. Which hase prompted me to start this thread.
> 
> My answer to the question in the thread title is a firm _No_.
> 
> 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 - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction. That is, that the situation _engage and motivate_ the players _as players_, not as an audience to a performance. And player narration should, in my view, engage with and build on this fiction in ways that display the player's view of the fiction, perhaps challenge other players (and even the GM), that make the other pariticpants go "I didn't see that coming!"
> 
> This is how I see RPGs, with their emphasis on _participation_ in the creation of a fiction that is structured through _distinct_ player an d GM roles, working. And it's how I see them differening from more directly narrative mediums such as books and films.




I pretty much agree. My feelings on this are whenever I've encountered efforts to make the game more literary, you end up fighting against the nature of the medium. The biggest thing being you really can't control what players do. In a novel the characters are under the control of the writer. It would be more like trying to write a novel in a computer program where the characters have free will and respond to the author's descriptions. But that strikes me as very non-literary and more in the realm of game.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bedrockgames

lowkey13 said:


> The issue of authorial intent with interactive media is hardly new; I remember the issue of authorial intent with hypertext (in the context of philosophy) in 1994 when Mosaic was still a thing.
> 
> Just because it's different, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> *To a certain extent, you have the issue of terms, as well, as in, "What does "literary" mean?" Which is why I keep going back to the reason that this thread was created; specifically, that the OP did not believe that narration or presentation (or "performance") was important (from either the DM or the players), and that emotional states should not, and could not, be generated in RPGs from that, but only through framing and decision-making. Which others disagree with.
> 
> In other words, it's an issue not about "plotting out a campaign," but rather about whether or not we should care about any performative aspects in RPGs, or if they are meaningless- mere ribbons, the same as "acting out" your alien in Cosmic Encounter.




I honestly am not sure what you are saying


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> I honestly am not sure what you are saying




He's clarifying how [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is using "literary" in the context of this thread.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Hussar said:


> Meh.  Humans are over rated.
> 
> Ok, that was a joke.



 Some jokes're funny 'cause they're true...



pemerton said:


> It would be a sad thing if the best pitch we could make for RPGing is _Would you like to spend your leisure time sub-optimally?_



 You would?  Then you might as well go all the way and play a Fighter, while you're at it!


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> I honestly am not sure what you are saying




Just to add to what [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] said, and hopefully clarify the point of this thread.  At least, to the point to which I understand it anyway (which, given previous history, might not be understanding what's going on at all... )

From what I understand, we are positing that there are two main elements of an RPG - what I've termed content and what I've termed performance.

I define content, in the context of this thread, to mean all the stuff that goes into playing an RPG.  Laying out a scenario, building a scene with the players and the DM creating a back and forth conversation which resolves the scenario, rolling dice, that sort of thing.  All the stuff that's, more or less, specifically called out by the rules of whatever RPG you're playing.  IOW, content=stuff that you need to play the game.  You cannot play an RPG without content, well, unless your RPG is akin to Godot:  The Waitening.  

Performance, on the other hand, isn't really defined by the rules of an RPG.  It might be referenced, but, it's generally not actually specifically needed.  An RPG without any performance probably looks a lot like a computer game, IMO.  You lay out the scenario, and then click the buttons in a certain way and resolve the scenario.  The only real difference between tabletop and computer game is complexity - you can obviously do more to resolve a scenario in a tabletop RPG.  However, while performance isn't specifically called out by the rules of an RPG, it is absolutely vital to play.   How you present the scenario will drastically change the nature of that scenario.  Simply dropping bare bones description in a monotone voice with nothing but the most essential of adjectives makes for a really boring game, despite the fact that it has all the content in the world.

Really, I think this is why horror is so difficult to do in a TTRPG.  It's so easy for someone to drop a fart joke in the middle of a scene and turn it into farce.  Something about picking up dice seems to bring out the inner 12 year old in a lot of us.    Which makes the performance aspect more difficult that it might seem. 

I've got a decent example here actually.  I just finished running Dragon Heist for my bunch.  Now, in the final scenario, it's a dungeon crawl.  But, there's no boxed text at all - just point form descriptions of the rooms.  Bare bones stuff.  There's a fresco on the wall, there's carvings of dwarves on the door, that sort of thing.  No actual performance at all.  And the scene totally fell flat.  The players just went through the whole adventure without really giving a damn because, well, whoopee, there's carvings of dwarves.  It wasn't until I started getting a lot more expressive about my description of this lost, dwarven tomb, created by a dwarven empire that had fallen a thousand years before Waterdeep was founded, crumbling walkways, smells, etc that the players actually started getting into the feel of the adventure.

Content is important.  Totally agree.  But, content without performance has no soul.  Has no impact.  Your performance, as a DM, AND as a player (give the DM something to work with here, you lazy assed players), is needed to really bring the game to life.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> He's clarifying how [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is using "literary" in the context of this thread.




I am seriously not following any of this.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> I am seriously not following any of this.




Sorry, but, which part aren't you following?  I thought I was pretty clear in my definitions.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Sorry, but, which part aren't you following?  I thought I was pretty clear in my definitions.




I thought I grasped Permerton's OP and responded accordingly in agreement. But the subsequent replies I responded to I understood 0% of. I  wasn't responding to anything you said though. I haven't even seen your post.


----------



## aramis erak

Hussar said:


> Then again, no, I don't see RPG's as anything remotely like anything other than a (somewhat complicated) game.  That's all they are.  I could have a great time playing Euchre for three hours as well.  And, part of playing an RPG is the performance aspect of it.  Performance is a big part - whether it's the art for my virtual tabletop game, or selecting a decent soundtrack to go with the session, or my own personal performance, it's all important to the experience.



That triggers the following thoughts (I'm not challenging your statement; I'm riffing off of it because it made me think...)

RPGs can be played entirely without the performance aspect, entirely in direct statements in the 3rd person or even  second person ("you see him ..."). 

I've run games for tables that saw the game as a detailed minis wargame... and almost entirely in 3rd person.

For me, the defining part is the intent to form a story by play of the game. I'm almost as happy when it's all 3rd person as when it's all 1st person provided an interesting story results.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## pemerton

lowkey13 said:


> That said, yes, TTRPGs can be played without performance, in the same way that a novel can be written without punctuation, or a dramatic movie can cast only terrible actors. That doesn't mean that a person would reasonably say that punctuation isn't reasonably important to writing, or that acting isn't reasonably important to film.



You seem fairly outraged by my posts in this thread, but I didn't compare anyone's game to movies with terrible actors or unpunctuated writing.

Which appears to be what you're doing here.

What makes a movie with terrible acting suck is that a movie is, to a significant extent, _constituted by its acting_. But what about RPGing demands thespianism?

I'm playing my character. I'm exploring the tower of the mysterious, probably sinister, possibly deceased great master Evard. And in a chamber I find old letters which seem to have been written by my mother as a child, acknolwedging Evard as her father. What do I do?

That situation is intense _because of the pressure it puts on me as my character_. I don't need to enjoy someone else performing the tension (through acting, lighting, staging) - I'm experiencing it! I don't need the GM to persuade me that I should care about this situation - I bring that with me in my conception of, and play of, my character!


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I'm playing my character. I'm exploring the tower of the mysterious, probably sinister, possibly deceased great master Evard. And in a chamber I find old letters which seem to have been written by my mother as a child, acknolwedging Evard as her father. What do I do?
> 
> That situation is intense _because of the pressure it puts on me as my character_. I don't need to enjoy someone else performing the tension (through acting, lighting, staging) - I'm experiencing it! I don't need the GM to persuade me that I should care about this situation - I bring that with me in my conception of, and play of, my character!




Question... Do you agree that for others the delivery of this information would be paramount to the intensity they feel around it or whether they even feel inclined to engage with it?  You're extrapolating what is intrinsic for *YOU* to participate in/enjoy a rpg... but without acting, lighting, staging, description, etc... the game wouldn't even grab the interest others who play... for them this is intrinsic to the expereince of a roleplaying game.  I can honestly say I would have never continued playing rpg's if my first DM had relayed only the absolute minimum of necessary information in a monotone voice with no theatrics.  For me, at least a minimum of that is necessary for a roleplaying game.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> You seem fairly outraged by my posts in this thread, but I didn't compare anyone's game to movies with terrible actors or unpunctuated writing.
> 
> Which appears to be what you're doing here.
> 
> What makes a movie with terrible acting suck is that a movie is, to a significant extent, _constituted by its acting_. But what about RPGing demands thespianism?
> 
> I'm playing my character. I'm exploring the tower of the mysterious, probably sinister, possibly deceased great master Evard. And in a chamber I find old letters which seem to have been written by my mother as a child, acknolwedging Evard as her father. What do I do?
> 
> That situation is intense _because of the pressure it puts on me as my character_. I don't need to enjoy someone else performing the tension (through acting, lighting, staging) - I'm experiencing it! I don't need the GM to persuade me that I should care about this situation - I bring that with me in my conception of, and play of, my character!




And you don't need to act it well to enjoy yourself. I think half the fun of roleplaying comes from speaking in character but I don't think it needs to be done with the charisma of a professional actor. As long as you and the group are feeling it, it is fine. For me the game is all about immersion into a character and I lean toward first person style gaming. Sometimes when people bring too much acting chops to that, it makes it more about them than the character and what is going on (at least for me). I know a few people who can pull that off well, while also helping bring the group together. But I also have met players who just use it to turn the spotlight on them.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> Question... Do you agree that for others the delivery of this information would be paramount to the intensity they feel around it or whether they even feel inclined to engage with it?  You're extrapolating what is intrinsic for *YOU* to participate in/enjoy a rpg... but without acting, lighting, staging, description, etc... the game wouldn't even grab the interest others who play... for them this is intrinsic to the expereince of a roleplaying game.  I can honestly say I would have never continued playing rpg's if my first DM had relayed only the absolute minimum of necessary information in a monotone voice with no theatrics.  For me, at least a minimum of that is necessary for a roleplaying game.




I don't know Pemerton's answer, but mine is it isn't so much the delivery as whether there is enthusiasm behind it. I want the GM and the players to be interested and invested. If some can deliver lines well, that is great. But I don't want to be in a group of improv actors.


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't know Pemerton's answer, but mine is it isn't so much the delivery as whether there is enthusiasm behind it. I want the GM and the players to be interested and invested. If some can deliver lines well, that is great. But I don't want to be in a group of improv actors.




Hmmm... I don't know.  An example of delivery is ...If I'm playing a horror rpg... I want the DM to describe things in a way/voice/manner that either builds dread, suspense, and a sense of uneasiness or at the least doesn't take away from it (which I most definitely feel a monotone, bare bones description or upbeat presentation would do)... Maybe we mean the same thing when you use the word enthusiasm, I'm not sure... but I'm not necessarily speaking to improv acting either... IMO presentation, description & flair (for lack of a better woird) are all things that I find integral to a roleplaying game if I am to participate it.  Now the techniques used to invoke these things can vary by GM as well as how much is there but I'm not going to play in a game that is totally lacking in presentation, description or flair.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> Hmmm... I don't know.  An example of delivery is ...If I'm playing a horror rpg... I want the DM to describe things in a way/voice/manner that either builds dread, suspense, and a sense of uneasiness or at the least doesn't take away from it (which I most definitely feel a monotone, bare bones description or upbeat presentation would do)... Maybe we mean the same thing when you use the word enthusiasm, I'm not sure... but I'm not necessarily speaking to improv acting either... IMO presentation, description & flair (for lack of a better woird) are all things that I find integral to a roleplaying game if I am to participate it.  Now the techniques used to invoke these things can vary by GM as well as how much is there but I'm not going to play in a game that is totally lacking in presentation, description or flair.




With horror, I would honestly prefer GMs lay off the moody and atmospheric narration. I find that stuff actually pulls me out because it is something one does very consciously and isn't natural speaking. I much prefer the GM speak in a natural voice but be engaged and present. With Horror, I think it is more about what is going on, than the GM's delivery (and I spent years believing it was the other way around, but these days, my views on horror in RPGs is very different). If someone can be Vincent Price and do it very well, sure. But 99% of people aren't that talented. There are a handful of GMs I know who I think can go there and keep the group engaged. However, I don't think their horror games are more successful than more dry counterparts. For me the bottom line with horror is: was I afraid?


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> With horror, I would honestly prefer GMs lay off the moody and atmospheric narration. I find that stuff actually pulls me out because it is something one does very consciously and isn't natural speaking. I much prefer the GM speak in a natural voice but be engaged and present. With Horror, I think it is more about what is going on, than the GM's delivery (and I spent years believing it was the other way around, but these days, my views on horror in RPGs is very different). If someone can be Vincent Price and do it very well, sure. But 99% of people aren't that talented. There are a handful of GMs I know who I think can go there and keep the group engaged. However, I don't think their horror games are more successful than more dry counterparts. For me the bottom line with horror is: was I afraid?




I feel like I am talking presentation in general and you are focusing on a specific example in our exchanges... So let me go extreme to try and stress my general point... would you be ok with them doing say a silly voice for a horror game?  Because if you are agreeing presentation doesn't matter or isn't an integral part of roleplaying... well then it shouldn't matter how it's delivered...right?


----------



## Hussar

Totally agree that effort is the key here, rather than degree of professional acting ability.  The simple fact that you are trying is, by and large, more than good enough.  



			
				Permerton said:
			
		

> I'm playing my character. I'm exploring the tower of the mysterious, probably sinister, possibly deceased great master Evard. And in a chamber I find old letters which seem to have been written by my mother as a child, acknolwedging Evard as her father. What do I do?




"mysterious", "sinister", "great master" - these are all important elements of performance, not of content.  None of those elements matter one whit about the letter written by your mother.  Yet, you include all this descriptive language, even in something as bare bones as this scenario.  

It's virtually impossible to avoid the performance aspect of the game.  I'd assume that the DM would describe the tower much beyond simply its dimensions - there'd be descriptions to set mood, tone, and whatnot.  The whole set up of Evard as well already includes mood inducing language.  

While resolving the scenario is important, you don't HAVE a scenario without the performance.  Without the performance, you have, "You are in a tower of wizard named Evard.  You find a letter signed by your mother acknowledging that Evard is your father.  What do you do?"

I'm sure that that would be a LOT less engaging.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> And you don't need to act it well to enjoy yourself. I think half the fun of roleplaying comes from speaking in character but I don't think it needs to be done with the charisma of a professional actor. As long as you and the group are feeling it, it is fine.



I think we are broadly agreed on this.

Perhaps a first!



Bedrockgames said:


> With horror <snippage> I much prefer the GM speak in a natural voice but be engaged and present. With Horror, I think it is more about what is going on, than the GM's delivery



This, too, is very much in the neighbourhood of what I'm saying.


----------



## pemerton

I don't understand where this "monotone" red herring is coming from. 

I have compared RPGing to a certain sort of structured conversation. Maybe I just hang out with unusual people, but I can't think of anyone I know who converses in a monotone. People talk more loudly, and/or more quickly, when they are excited. They snap when they are angry or frustated. In short, they manifest emotions and responses.

But (again, bracketing the salon-type scenario) none of this is _performance_ - it's not artifice, but rather is just what is normal in human communication.

I can draw the contrast in my own experience as a teacher: giving a lecture has a significant element of performance; but supervising a research student does not. The former requires holding the attention of an audience; the latter is a conversation. But this does not mean that supervision meetings are devoid of passion, intensity, sometimes argument or contradiction, hopefully not very much anger.



Hussar said:


> Totally agree that effort is the key here, rather than degree of professional acting ability.  The simple fact that you are trying is, by and large, more than good enough.



That already establishe the contrast with literature! Trying to write well doesn't make writing good, or enjoyable, or readable. You're an English teacher, and so I assume have marked written work, and hence know this truth only too well!



Hussar said:


> "mysterious", "sinister", "great master" - these are all important elements of performance, not of content.  None of those elements matter one whit about the letter written by your mother.  Yet, you include all this descriptive language, even in something as bare bones as this scenario.
> 
> It's virtually impossible to avoid the performance aspect of the game.  I'd assume that the DM would describe the tower much beyond simply its dimensions - there'd be descriptions to set mood, tone, and whatnot.  The whole set up of Evard as well already includes mood inducing language.



I don't think I'm following this. Of course I use certain adjectives to try and convey the situation to readers on ENworld - you weren't there. But those adjectives are my description of something I experienced in play, not my recount of something that someone said during the course of play.

Here is a bit more detail about the game I mentioned:

Thurgon, a knight of the Iron Tower, and Aramina, a sorcerer, are travelling through the borderlands between Ulek and the Pomarj. Thurgon has a Relationship wth Xanthippe his mother, who lives on the family estate of Auxol, and has a Belief "Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more!" Aramina has a Belief "I'm not going to *finish* my career with no spellbooks and an empty purse!", and has a modest rating in Great Masters-wise. Aramina suggests that, if her recollection is right, the tower of the great master Evard is somewhere in the vicinity - mechanically, this triggers a Great Masters-wise test, which is successful.

When the two arrive at the tower, they encounter a demon disguised as Evard. Aramina's attempt to cast a spell fails, and she collapses from the strain. Two of Thurgon's Beliefs are now at stake here - "I am a Knight of the Iron Tower: by devotion and example I will lead the righteous to glorious victory" and "Aramina will need my protection" - and so he battles the demon, and is able to hold his own until the summoning magic expires and the demon departs the mortal world. As a result he earns a new reputation: he is infamous in the halls of Hell as an intransigent demon foe.

During the battle with the demon, it has become clear that the demon was summoned by Evard, and probably killed him; and that the demon is looking for the "Sunstone", an unknown artefact that also (as learned by the characters in prior episodes) seems to have been connected to a schism in the Iron Tower.

After tending to Aramina, Thurgon enters Evard's tower. Looking around, he finds the letters addressed to "Papa", and signed X for Xanthippe. He takes all the letters and burns them. (Aramina has a Belief "If in doubt, burn it!"; Thurgon has an Instinct "When camping, always ensure that the campfire is burning". So burning letters isn't hard.)​
I don't remember much about the tower itself, except that it had a loose stone where Aramina was able to hide documents so the demon wouldn't find them if we fell. The status of Evard as a _great master_ isn't an aspect of performance; it's established through the system of play. The fact that Evard is mysterious is both implicit in the fact that he's a FRPG wizard in a rumoured wilderness tower; and is evident in his abandoned tower and the demon who has replaced him. The fact that evard is sinister is stongly suggested by him being a demon-summoner.

And this is all fundamental to the letters. They reveal something about my mother, and my ancestry, that I wish wasn't the case.

What is driving the game is investment in situation and character, not enjoyment of the referee's performance.


----------



## pemerton

lowkey13 said:


> Your opinions are fine.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> you feel compelled to say that your style of play (or, at least, the style you are currently playing- I have to assume you haven't always had these fully formed and unshakable opinion about what a real TTRPG experience consists of) must be the universal experience.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Again- play like you want! Just don't tell me that the ways in which I, and others, play aren't real RPGs because you're doing something else.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You do understand analogies, right, even if you disagree with them?
> 
> So people can always say that something isn't important because it can be taken away. Which is what the post I was responding to was doing (by essentially arguing it was wargaming). But here, you keep saying that it's different than film, because in film, performance matters. But what does matter for film? It's not acting. You can have documentaries. You can have non-narrative or non-representational film. You can have amazing amateur film with poor acting (the film equivalent of folk art). You can have films that are good precisely because the acting is bad (camp, think of The Room). All sorts of factors.
> 
> Just like you can have unpunctuated writing; I was going to write with "no letter e" but that seemed too obscure (unless you're into French literary movements). But again, e e cummings? _How It Is_? What, is Samuel Beckett not qualified to be a good writer?



I've made no assertion about your experience, or anyone else's but my own.

I've said nothing about whether or not what you are doing is RPGing.

As for your analogies: some unpunctuated writing is interesting avant gardism; most is just bad writing. Mutatis mutandis for film and theatre.

I'm not making a claim about what can be done in avant garde RPGing. I have expressed an opinion about what is core, at the heart of, RPGing as an activity. And have given some reasons for that. Most other artforms/cultural practices are able to tolerate discussions about what is at their core, with disagreements being expressed and debated. I always find it a bit puzzling that even doing this in the case of RPGs is widely seen as so controversial.


----------



## aramis erak

lowkey13 said:


> Well, that brings up two interesting points-
> 
> The first is that, IME, the more people get into a "detailed mini wargame," the more people begin to invest in other performative aspects- such as terrain, customization, painting, etc. Otherwise, they'd just play with chits with names. Which you don't really see.




Actually, you do see it... drop the word "mini" from  your searches and you're likely to find plenty. And not a few RPGers are using cardboard tokens (traditionally called _counters_, but _tokens_, _pogs_, or _chits_ all have been used for them). 

The ADB collection of counter-on-grid wargames
Federation and Empire
Star Fleet Battles
Federation Commander
Star Fleet Marines 

Columbia Games has a mix of wood block on hex grid and wood block on spaces wargames.
Victory, Pacific Victory: block on hexgrid
Hammer of the Scots: Blocks on irregular areas.
Wizard Kings: fantasy version of Victory. 

SJG: 
Melee/Wizard: fantasy combat boardgames, just rereleased. Character scale.
Ogre: counters and chipboard standees on hexgrid.

Multiman still publishes ASL (Advanced Squad Leader) ... and it's their flagship. Ain't making them rich, but it's keeping them in business.

Battletech still has people playing counters on map. Not so many now as 10 years ago... but the system still supports such play.

Ion Age's Firefight is an excellent minis on map character scale wargame.

Space Hulk (which gets a reprint every decade, it seems) is also minis-on-map.

Starfire: counters on hex plus lots and lots of paper 4X game. 

quite a variety of character scale boardgames that use area movement as a tactical element and card random encounters... _Zombies!_ comes immediately to mind. So does _MidEvil_. there's one that's about aliens landing. There are several more. 

I've not a few acquaintances who prefer those to RPGs. 
I used to be a Starfire and SFB player.
Fed Commander is displacing SFB, but still has a growing base.

Gorilla Games' _Battlestations_ is a character and ship scale (simultaneous) wargame that can be used as an RPG. 1E used cardboard. 2E uses minis. Ships are mapped on square-gridded squares.

The fanbases tend to overlap between the RPGs and assorted wargames. Which is part of why WFRP has done as well as it has. And the BI/FFG 40K RPGs.

Hell, I'd like to play an 18xx series game again - but I ain't laying out the cash for one when it won't get 1 player hour per $1 spent within a decade.

With the exception of Space Hulk, all of the games mentioned are still in print.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> I feel like I am talking presentation in general and you are focusing on a specific example in our exchanges... So let me go extreme to try and stress my general point... would you be ok with them doing say a silly voice for a horror game?  Because if you are agreeing presentation doesn't matter or isn't an integral part of roleplaying... well then it shouldn't matter how it's delivered...right?




We have to arrive at an understanding of what you mean by presentation through the specific examples you give. I don't know. Just based on what I see people saying, presentation appears to include things like moody and atmospheric narration, which is a technique I've found doesn't work as well as people think (it is in all kinds of GM advice, and I used to buy into it, but over time, I've come to a different conclusion about it). To answer your question, I don't think objecting to an obviously distracting, annoying or disruptive GM narration style, means that performance is prime. Again, I've said I want the GM engaged, invested and speaking in their natural voice. That isn't performance. That is being your relaxed and honest self. Performance is the opposite of that. I don't need the GM to do voices for example for monsters or characters. I don't need the GM to 'act'. If your definition of performance includes those thing, then I would say we have a disagreement over what is important. But yes, a GM talking in a silly voice when it isn't appropriate is going to be odd. Just like screaming in anger for no good reason is going to be odd. I don't think that is about performance as much as it is about being disruptive.


----------



## Hussar

Note no one is claiming it is more important. Just very important.


----------



## Satyrn

Hussar said:


> Well, I'd say that rather depends on how you define "performance".  Is a live performance the same as a recorded one?  I wouldn't say so.  I'd never sit and do nothing but listen to a single band's music on CD for hours on end.  But, I'd certainly go to a concert by that band and listen for a few hours.  Heck, live music, frequently, isn't even as good as what you get on a CD, but, I'll still go see a live gig over just sitting in a room and listening to the same songs.



Oh man. I've spent a full day listening to Rush on CD. More than once.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Note no one is claiming it is more important. Just very important.




I understand that. But specific things are being advanced as important under the heading of "performance" and a lot of them are things I don't think are particularly important, and in some cases even find misguided as ideals in GMing. It could be there is some speaking past each other here.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> I understand that. But specific things are being advanced as important under the heading of "performance" and a lot of them are things I don't think are particularly important, and in some cases even find misguided as ideals in GMing. It could be there is some speaking past each other here.




Yeah, that typically happens when folks can't agree on working definitions.  

Yup, some of the things that are included in "performance" might not be important at your table.  Cool.  But, that doesn't follow that performance isn's important.  It's not like speaking in the 3rd person suddenly removes the "performance" aspect or speaking in 1st person is necessary for performance.  

Go back a page or so, and I lay out exactly what we're discussing.  Since no one seems to disagree with those definitions, let's use those, please?  

 [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] laid out a bare bones writeup of his session in Evard's tower.  To me, I'd be so checked out of that game that I might as well be asleep.  No exposition, no description?  The tower isn't even important and is completely unremarkable, to the point where Pemerton cannot even remember what it looked like?  No thanks.  To me, that's a terrible game.  I would strongly advise DM's/GM's NOT to do that.  

The situation was interesting, the setup was great.  The execution was a complete snore fest, at least, judging by that writeup.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Yeah, that typically happens when folks can't agree on working definitions.
> 
> Yup, some of the things that are included in "performance" might not be important at your table.  Cool.  But, that doesn't follow that performance isn's important.  It's not like speaking in the 3rd person suddenly removes the "performance" aspect or speaking in 1st person is necessary for performance.
> 
> Go back a page or so, and I lay out exactly what we're discussing.  Since no one seems to disagree with those definitions, let's use those, please?
> 
> [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] laid out a bare bones writeup of his session in Evard's tower.  To me, I'd be so checked out of that game that I might as well be asleep.  No exposition, no description?  The tower isn't even important and is completely unremarkable, to the point where Pemerton cannot even remember what it looked like?  No thanks.  To me, that's a terrible game.  I would strongly advise DM's/GM's NOT to do that.
> 
> The situation was interesting, the setup was great.  The execution was a complete snore fest, at least, judging by that writeup.




One of the reasons why I frequently push back against coining new terms and concepts is because they are often just vessels for playstyle arguments, where people try to advance a position in the hobby as the best approach by controlling the language we use to discuss gaming. You can come up with a new term if you like, but my default position is to push back on new terms unless or until they can be shown to be useful and needed (and gain a certain amount of natural traction). Otherwise it is just more jargon that we don't need. 

Looking at your post, I just don't understand this division of RPGs into content and performance. What I was objection to wasn't categorizations and terms (though I think this divisions seems a bit artbitrary and not particularly useful to anything). What I objected to, and what I think Permerton objected to, was the way this concept of performance is being used to advance an idea of good GMing that includes things like acting and improv. It also just frankly seems like the wrong term. I don't think of what is going on at the table as a performance.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] laid out a bare bones writeup of his session in Evard's tower.  To me, I'd be so checked out of that game that I might as well be asleep.  No exposition, no description?  The tower isn't even important and is completely unremarkable, to the point where Pemerton cannot even remember what it looked like?  No thanks.  To me, that's a terrible game.  I would strongly advise DM's/GM's NOT to do that.
> 
> The situation was interesting, the setup was great.  The execution was a complete snore fest, at least, judging by that writeup.




I would need you to link to Pemerton's write up for me to understand this enough to comment.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> Just based on what I see people saying, presentation appears to include things like moody and atmospheric narration, which is a technique I've found doesn't work as well as people think (it is in all kinds of GM advice, and I used to buy into it, but over time, I've come to a different conclusion about it). To answer your question, I don't think objecting to an obviously distracting, annoying or disruptive GM narration style, means that performance is prime. Again, I've said I want the GM engaged, invested and speaking in their natural voice. That isn't performance. That is being your relaxed and honest self. Performance is the opposite of that. I don't need the GM to do voices for example for monsters or characters. I don't need the GM to 'act'.



This is all consistent with what I was trying to say in the OP.

Further unexpected agreement!


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> pemerton laid out a bare bones writeup of his session in Evard's tower.  To me, I'd be so checked out of that game that I might as well be asleep.  No exposition, no description?  The tower isn't even important and is completely unremarkable, to the point where Pemerton cannot even remember what it looked like?  No thanks.  To me, that's a terrible game.  I would strongly advise DM's/GM's NOT to do that.
> 
> The situation was interesting, the setup was great.  The execution was a complete snore fest, at least, judging by that writeup.



So, tihs is dead on-topic.

And, to me, is strange.

I'll relate it to something you've posted recently in another thread - not as "gotcha", but because I'm trying to work out where you're coming from.

In that other thread, you were discussing approaches to adjudication, and expressed a preference for swift adjudication rather than (what you saw as) a lot of needless narration.

But here, from my point of view you seem to be advocating needless narration. What colour was the box that held the letters in Evard's tower room I don't recall. I suspect it was never established. But why should it be? How is that part of what is exciting about play?

If we had a character with a Belief "I will recreate the cabinet work of the great carpenters of yore", then I'm sure the GM would have approached that matter differently. But we didn't. The GM, correctly in my view, focused on those aspects of the situatiion that mattered. The back-and-forth with the demon (the words as well as the fighting), which tested my character's devotion to the Lord of Battle and to the defence of innocents. The discovery of the letters, which reveaal the unwelcome truth about my ancestry. Why is the tower such a big deal?

I assume you don't describe the hat and cape of every peasant the PCs pass on the road. They're just part of the setting. Likewise Evard's tower.


----------



## Hussar

I don't adventure in every hat and cape in the setting though.  I DO adventure in Evard's Tower.  And if Evard's tower's description is essentially "a tower", then well, why is it even a tower?  Because wizards live in towers?  

Again, maybe this is because I play exclusively online.  The images that I use in my game are rather painstakingly chosen or created.  I could simply use an "O" with a circle around it for an orc, or, I could use a cool image for that orc that shows the players why they shouldn't just ignore said orc.  

That's the basic difference, [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], that I'm talking about between content and performance.  If a black and white line map a la Dyson Logos along with simple black and white letter tokens floats your boat, then, well, go for it. For me, it doesn't.

How you present is just as important as what you present.  Which includes all sorts of things.  It's not about simply redefining elements, it's about actually using definitions that we can agree upon.  If you don't like the definitions we're working from in this thread, either present your own, or don't bother arguing because, we cannot actually discuss anything until we can lay down some basic ground rules.  Apparently Pemerton understands what I'm saying and so does everyone else.  Otherwise, I'd have gotten more push back.  Why participate in a discussion if you aren't even going to bother with the basics?


----------



## Hussar

Ok, let's boil it down even further.

Content is what you do at the table.  What is the situation about?  What needs to be done?

Performance is how you communicate that content to the players.

Is that clear enough?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> I don't adventure in every hat and cape in the setting though.  I DO adventure in Evard's Tower.  And if Evard's tower's description is essentially "a tower", then well, why is it even a tower?  Because wizards live in towers?
> 
> Again, maybe this is because I play exclusively online.  The images that I use in my game are rather painstakingly chosen or created.  I could simply use an "O" with a circle around it for an orc, or, I could use a cool image for that orc that shows the players why they shouldn't just ignore said orc.
> 
> That's the basic difference, [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], that I'm talking about between content and performance.  If a black and white line map a la Dyson Logos along with simple black and white letter tokens floats your boat, then, well, go for it. For me, it doesn't.




I think we play in very different ways for very different reasons. 




> How you present is just as important as what you present.  Which includes all sorts of things.  It's not about simply redefining elements, it's about actually using definitions that we can agree upon.  If you don't like the definitions we're working from in this thread, either present your own, or don't bother arguing because, we cannot actually discuss anything until we can lay down some basic ground rules.  Apparently Pemerton understands what I'm saying and so does everyone else.  Otherwise, I'd have gotten more push back.  Why participate in a discussion if you aren't even going to bother with the basics?




I feel like I am addressing the points you raise Hussar. I don't think participating in the conversation means I have to either accept new terminology or offer new terminology of my own.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Ok, let's boil it down even further.
> 
> Content is what you do at the table.  What is the situation about?  What needs to be done?
> 
> Performance is how you communicate that content to the players.
> 
> Is that clear enough?




I do not see why this distinction is important or useful to make. And I do not see how it ties to Permorton's original claim about the non-literary nature of RPGs. What I do think is the word performance naturally suggests a lot of things you value in a GM that I don't.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> I think we play in very different ways for very different reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like I am addressing the points you raise Hussar. I don't think participating in the conversation means I have to either accept new terminology or offer new terminology of my own.




Without a common framework of language, all we are doing is talking past one another.  I'd hardly call defining content vs performance as "new terminology".  It's using the words pretty much as they come out of the dictionary.




Bedrockgames said:


> I do not see why this distinction is important or useful to make. And I do not see how it ties to Permorton's original claim about the non-literary nature of RPGs. What I do think is the word performance naturally suggests a lot of things you value in a GM that I don't.




A little context.  This thread spawned out of a discussion about boxed text in modules.  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] argues that the boxed text is pointless since all you need is the basic elements of the situation in order to have a good game.  You are getting hung up on the word "literary" and well, we've moved past that since, even in the early parts of this thread, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] agreed that "literary" was the wrong word.

It's not like performance has any positive or negative connotations at all.  It doesn't.  It's pretty much as neutral of a word as content.  

So, can we at least agree that how you present information to your players is as important as what you present to your players?  Or, do you take [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s stance that how you present this information doesn't matter in the slightest.  It's completely unimportant how you present the information, so long as you get the information into the player's hands.

That's the basic elements of this discussion.

What information you impart to your players = content.

How you impart that information to your players = performance.

Is that clear enough?


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Ok, let's boil it down even further.
> 
> Content is what you do at the table.  What is the situation about?  What needs to be done?
> 
> Performance is how you communicate that content to the players.
> 
> Is that clear enough?



Clear enough, but it doesn't capture what I'm talking about, because - for instance - it renders ordinary conversation a species of performance.

That usage is fine enough for a certain sort of cultural studies or communication theory seminar, but doesn't map onto what I'm saying in this thread.



Hussar said:


> I don't adventure in every hat and cape in the setting though.  I DO adventure in Evard's Tower.  And if Evard's tower's description is essentially "a tower", then well, why is it even a tower?  Because wizards live in towers?



Correct. Evard's tower is in the game because there is a character - Aramina - who wants spell books, and specualted that Evard's tower is in the neighbourhood. (At the table, this is player introuced content, confirmed by a successful Great Masters-wise check.)

No one is interested in Evard's tower except as a site to meet Evard and (perhaps) find his magic. The tower, itself, is just a plot device.

When Thurgon and Aramina were in an abandoned chapel of the Iron Tower the architecture got more attention, although even then it wasn't a principal focus of play.  



Hussar said:


> The images that I use in my game are rather painstakingly chosen or created.  I could simply use an "O" with a circle around it for an orc, or, I could use a cool image for that orc that shows the players why they shouldn't just ignore said orc.



When we play 4e, and therefore have to use tokens, I pull out my bags of old plastic coloured children's boardgame counters. _The green ones are orcs_, _the big yellow one is an ogre_, etc. When I needed bigger tokens for T-Rexes, purple worms etc I cut out cardboard of the appropriate size and did my best (= not very good) sketch of a dinosaur, worm, etc. The fanciest token I ever made was copying and reducing a picture of Orcus from the MM to paste onto my 4x4 cardboard counter for Orcus.

The players's sense of why orcs can't just be ignored doesn't derive from the counters, but from their knowledge of the system (fighting orcs can hurt) and of the fiction (the orcs aren't their friends).


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> You are getting hung up on the word "literary" and well, we've moved past that since, even in the early parts of this thread, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] agreed that "literary" was the wrong word.



Small point of order - I didn't.

But as we all know, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet! (Ie, in less literary terms, what matters isn't labels but phenomena.)



Hussar said:


> can we at least agree that how you present information to your players is as important as what you present to your players?  Or, do you take [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s stance that how you present this information doesn't matter in the slightest.  It's completely unimportant how you present the information, so long as you get the information into the player's hands.



Obviously there's a lot of room between _is equally important_ and _doesn't matter at all_. Upthread I said that, everything else being equal, a mellifluous GM is a good thing - though I also agree with [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] that, often, things aren't equal.

A key point that I've relied on, and that you're not expressly engaged with, is that _conversation_ is a medium of communication in which emotion and interest are often established and conveyed, but that doesn't rely on _performance_. If you don't agree with that, then our differences of opinion about RPGing may reflect a deeper difference of opinion about human communication and interaction.

If you do agree on conversation, but nevertheless disagree about RPGing, then I think RPGing is where our key difference lies.


----------



## Hussar

Frankly, playing an RPG isn't a conversation.  I don't pretend to be someone else during a conversation (generally), nor am I trying to convey that new person to everyone else around me during a conversation.

So, yeah, I'd say that's where the greater disconnect lies.  Playing an RPG and particularly role playing during an RPG, while still of course using language, is not a conversation.  A conversation is the back and forth introduction and examination of ideas with the purpose of communicating some sort of information.  

Role playing, otoh, is attempting to portray some sort of character to the people at the table in such a way that the other people can get some sort of mental image of what you are.  There's very little back and forth.  It's primarily a performance.  And that performance is judged by the people at the table.  A player who is nothing but a dice bot with a heart beat is communicating excellently - he's playing the game.  But, he's not someone I want at my table.  

While you CAN convey emotion during a conversation, the point of a conversation is rarely to evoke emotion in the other person.  ((Although, I've certainly had conversations that have evoked quite strong emotions)) In fact, typically, evoking a strong emotion from the other person isn't what you wanted to do, but, because of something someone said, a strong emotion comes out.

OTOH, in a performance, the entire point is to evoke emotions in other people.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> ...
> 
> I don't remember much about the tower itself, except that it had a loose stone where Aramina was able to hide documents so the demon wouldn't find them if we fell. The status of Evard as a _great master_ isn't an aspect of performance; it's established through the system of play. The fact that Evard is mysterious is both implicit in the fact that he's a FRPG wizard in a rumoured wilderness tower; and is evident in his abandoned tower and the demon who has replaced him. The fact that evard is sinister is stongly suggested by him being a demon-summoner.
> 
> And this is all fundamental to the letters. They reveal something about my mother, and my ancestry, that I wish wasn't the case.
> 
> What is driving the game is investment in situation and character, not enjoyment of the referee's performance.



And you're invested in this example because (I think it's Thurgon) is your character, which only makes sense.

But the question is this: during this scene, to the several other players just sitting there watching, how entertaining are you and the GM?  Are you boring them to tears, or keeping them engaged?  I mean, like it or not you're playing to an audience of more than just yourself...so how are they reacting?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Frankly, playing an RPG isn't a conversation.  I don't pretend to be someone else during a conversation (generally), nor am I trying to convey that new person to everyone else around me during a conversation.
> 
> So, yeah, I'd say that's where the greater disconnect lies.  Playing an RPG and particularly role playing during an RPG, while still of course using language, is not a conversation.  A conversation is the back and forth introduction and examination of ideas with the purpose of communicating some sort of information.
> 
> Role playing, otoh, is attempting to portray some sort of character to the people at the table in such a way that the other people can get some sort of mental image of what you are.  There's very little back and forth.  It's primarily a performance.  And that performance is judged by the people at the table.  A player who is nothing but a dice bot with a heart beat is communicating excellently - he's playing the game.  But, he's not someone I want at my table.
> 
> While you CAN convey emotion during a conversation, the point of a conversation is rarely to evoke emotion in the other person.  ((Although, I've certainly had conversations that have evoked quite strong emotions)) In fact, typically, evoking a strong emotion from the other person isn't what you wanted to do, but, because of something someone said, a strong emotion comes out.
> 
> OTOH, in a performance, the entire point is to evoke emotions in other people.




I guess what I am trying to say Hussar is I am not there to watch other people perform, which is why I think saying half of RPGs is constituted by performance feels strange to me. People can perform to play their character, but I don't consider that necessary to my enjoyment of the game. I think it is one way to play, but it can just as often be annoying as it is entertaining.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> A little context.  This thread spawned out of a discussion about boxed text in modules.  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] argues that the boxed text is pointless since all you need is the basic elements of the situation in order to have a good game.  You are getting hung up on the word "literary" and well, we've moved past that since, even in the early parts of this thread, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] agreed that "literary" was the wrong word.




Well, I was responding to the OP and then responding to what other people said. This is a long thread. I am not going to waste time reading every post in a thread. I was just focused on the OP, my post, and peoples' responses to my posts. 

That said, I tend to agree with Pemerton on boxed text. It is fine as an example, but I don't think it is generally necessary. The GM can just draw on the entry description to provide a description that is more fluid and natural to the situation. 



> It's not like performance has any positive or negative connotations at all.  It doesn't.  It's pretty much as neutral of a word as content.




I didn't say it was negative or positive, but it has a connotation of acting. But more importantly its core meaning is the issue. I don't think of roleplaying as a performance. I think about a fourth of players do approach the game that way. Most players I play with are not there to act out as if they are on stage or in an improv group. There is a big difference between that and a more natural style of speaking in character or talking to the group. 




> So, can we at least agree that how you present information to your players is as important as what you present to your players?  Or, do you take [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s stance that how you present this information doesn't matter in the slightest.  It's completely unimportant how you present the information, so long as you get the information into the player's hands.
> 
> That's the basic elements of this discussion.
> 
> What information you impart to your players = content.
> 
> How you impart that information to your players = performance.
> 
> Is that clear enough?




First, if you want to make the argument that presentation matters, well call it presentation, not performance. Second, I don't think dividing the game into content and presentation provides any useful function (I have yet to hear why this is important for us to do). I hate to beat a dead horse, but I don't like the proliferation of jargon these discussions lead to (because it creates barriers to understanding and confusion down the line when four people concoct new terminology in a very specific discussion then try to make use of it in conversations with others later on). 
'
Neither Pemerton or I seem to be saying presentation doesn't matter at all. We are questioning how important it is, but I think more significantly we are taking issue with the specific ways people in this thread think presentation should matter (and ultimately I think that is the much more significant issue at stake because that is what ultimately becomes best practices advice---whereas presentation versus content is more academic).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Lanefan said:


> But the question is this: during this scene, to the several other players just sitting there watching, how entertaining are you and the GM?  Are you boring them to tears, or keeping them engaged?  I mean, like it or not you're playing to an audience of more than just yourself...so how are they reacting?




I think this is where there is a fundamental disagreement. I want the players invested int he situation and in what their characters are doing. I don't want them to be entertained by the performance of the GM and player who happen to be doing something. I don't think that means you can't have atmosphere. Atmosphere can be important. But any time I see a GM try to narrate like they are an author, I start to lose interest. I would take an efficient and dry referree, who knows how to make good judgement calls and can play NPCs consistently, than someone who puts on a performance. And I realize people are trying to load more concepts onto performance than just acting. But the fact is, if acting and literal performance are not important to me, I am not going to accept it as a term (especially when it is being positioned as 50% of play).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Role playing, otoh, is attempting to portray some sort of character to the people at the table in such a way that the other people can get some sort of mental image of what you are.  There's very little back and forth.  It's primarily a performance.  And that performance is judged by the people at the table.  A player who is nothing but a dice bot with a heart beat is communicating excellently - he's playing the game.  But, he's not someone I want at my table.
> .




This is just not something I am particularly hung up on. Some players do this, and do it well, and that is fine. Some people basically just play themselves, and that is fine. And some people are shy and don't talk as much in character, which doesn't bother me if they are contributing in other ways. I guess what bothers me about the position you are taking is it feels like player performances are being rated and judged. It think there is a lot more going on in a group of people playing an RPG than that (and I think what is important socially is much more about other things). Don't get me wrong, I have some players with ace acting skills and they can add a certain amount of sunshine to a game. But those kinds of players can also sometimes hog up the spotlight and take the game in directions that have more to do with their acting than with what is going on in the adventure. I think it is good, but it isn't everything, it isn't the most important thing, and like anything else it can have serious downsides when done too much. This is especially the case for me with GMs. I am less hung up on how the GM is saying things than on what they are saying.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Again, maybe this is because I play exclusively online.  The images that I use in my game are rather painstakingly chosen or created.  I could simply use an "O" with a circle around it for an orc, or, I could use a cool image for that orc that shows the players why they shouldn't just ignore said orc.




I play mainly online as well too. But this is actually one of my pet peeves as a player. Let me imagine the character based on the information you give, don't waste times showing me pictures of what they might look like. I will take how I imagine an NPC any day over stock art from the internet.  



> That's the basic difference, [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], that I'm talking about between content and performance.  If a black and white line map a la Dyson Logos along with simple black and white letter tokens floats your boat, then, well, go for it. For me, it doesn't.




What is wrong with black and white line map art (particularly stuff by Dyson Logos)? 

It is a game of imagination. I don't see why we need more than that to fuel the fun.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Role playing, otoh, is attempting to portray some sort of character to the people at the table in such a way that the other people can get some sort of mental image of what you are.  There's very little back and forth.  It's primarily a performance.  And that performance is judged by the people at the table.  A player who is nothing but a dice bot with a heart beat is communicating excellently - he's playing the game.  But, he's not someone I want at my table.



You seem to be setting up a contrast - _performance intended to creata a mental image of who the PC is_ vs _dice bot with a heart beat_ - that doesn't correspond to my own RPGing experiences.

Central to player-side RPGing is _action declaration_. That's how the player reveals who his/her PC is. Whereas being a _dicebot_ suggests that someone else (perhaps the GM?) is deciding what the actions are.

Maybe you mostly play modules/pre-written adventures, where the action declarations are essentially established in advance by the adventure writer?


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> Performance is how you communicate that content to the players.




I don't agree with this.  Performance can exist within D&D, but not all that is said is performance.  Talking is how you communicate the content to the players.  Performance would be if you add in voices, alter tones to try to convey different feelings, etc.  If you're just reading a text box in a normal voice, even if there is descriptive language, it's not performance.  The DM and players are also performing when they step into character and speak in first person, as opposed to saying that "My character Grok doesn't get it," or "The innkeeper says that he isn't going to explain it again."

Also, playing RPGs CAN be a literary endeavor or at least aspects of it can be.  If the DM preps things in advance, including text boxes and such, that's a literary work.  If the player is writing down things for his PC to say and do or recording what is done during gameplay on paper, that's literary work.  It doesn't have to be a novel to qualify.  Any essay, diary, or other written project.  If the DM is running an improv type game where the DM and players are creating the content as they go, the result wouldn't be a literary work unless someone is recording it on paper.


----------



## Satyrn

Maxperson said:


> I don't agree with this.  Performance can exist within D&D, but not all that is said is performance.  Talking is how you communicate the content to the players.  Performance would be if you add in voices, alter tones to try to convey different feelings, etc.  If you're just reading a text box in a normal voice, even if there is descriptive language, it's not performance.  The DM and players are also performing when they step into character and speak in first person, as opposed to saying that "My character Grok doesn't get it," or "The innkeeper says that he isn't going to explain it again."




Yeah, that's a certain kind of performance, and that seems to be the one that everybody except Hussar is using.

He seems to be talking about performance the way you'd talk about an audio book's narrator or your performance reading a passage in English class. Something that could be better understood as delivery (although your delivery still constitutes a very modest performance).


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> /snip
> What is wrong with black and white line map art (particularly stuff by Dyson Logos)?
> 
> It is a game of imagination. I don't see why we need more than that to fuel the fun.




I loathe the Dyson Logos stuff.  It's boring, dry and looks for too 80's for me.  Give me a full color map a la Cartographer's Guild any day of the week.  I ejected every single map from my Dragon Heist module and replaced them all.  It's to the point where I'm really on the fence about the new Saltmarsh modules simply because of the inclusion of Dyson Logos cartography.

..............

Ok, ok.  I give.  I surrender.  I was using "Performance" to mean delivery and presentation.  Because, well, frankly, what is performance if it's not delivery and presentation?  But, sure.  Pick a bloody term that you like.  We started with "literary", which no one understood what it meant, I proposed Performance, but, apparently, that's not right.  So, fine.  You folks pick a term, give me the definition and we'll discuss that.

Because all this back and forth semantic  is a complete and utter waste of time.  I explained the terms as I understood them.  Can we at least pick words that you folks like and get back to the actual point instead of farting around with this?  

Sheesh.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> I loathe the Dyson Logos stuff.  It's boring, dry and looks for too 80's for me.  Give me a full color map a la Cartographer's Guild any day of the week.  I ejected every single map from my Dragon Heist module and replaced them all.  It's to the point where I'm really on the fence about the new Saltmarsh modules simply because of the inclusion of Dyson Logos cartography.
> 
> ..............
> 
> Ok, ok.  I give.  I surrender.  I was using "Performance" to mean delivery and presentation.  Because, well, frankly, what is performance if it's not delivery and presentation?  But, sure.  Pick a bloody term that you like.  We started with "literary", which no one understood what it meant, I proposed Performance, but, apparently, that's not right.  So, fine.  You folks pick a term, give me the definition and we'll discuss that.
> 
> Because all this back and forth semantic  is a complete and utter waste of time.  I explained the terms as I understood them.  Can we at least pick words that you folks like and get back to the actual point instead of farting around with this?
> 
> Sheesh.




I thought we were talking about presentation...


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> I loathe the Dyson Logos stuff.  It's boring, dry and looks for too 80's for me.  Give me a full color map a la Cartographer's Guild any day of the week.  I ejected every single map from my Dragon Heist module and replaced them all.  It's to the point where I'm really on the fence about the new Saltmarsh modules simply because of the inclusion of Dyson Logos cartography.
> 
> ..............
> 
> Ok, ok.  I give.  I surrender.  I was using "Performance" to mean delivery and presentation.  Because, well, frankly, what is performance if it's not delivery and presentation?  But, sure.  Pick a bloody term that you like.  We started with "literary", which no one understood what it meant, I proposed Performance, but, apparently, that's not right.  So, fine.  You folks pick a term, give me the definition and we'll discuss that.
> 
> Because all this back and forth semantic  is a complete and utter waste of time.  I explained the terms as I understood them.  Can we at least pick words that you folks like and get back to the actual point instead of farting around with this?
> 
> Sheesh.




The issue isn't with the terms.  It's with the application of those terms.  There are portions of the game that are literary, and there are portions of the game that are performance.  People are running afoul of things in trying to apply those terms too broadly.  Performance is a type of delivery and presentation, but not all delivery and presentation is performance.  Literary is written recording, but not all, or even most of an RPG is written.  I don't think there is a term that is going to broadly apply here.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Satyrn

lowkey13 said:


> Just pointing out that if we had been using this definition from the beginning (literary as pertaining to or of the nature of books and writings, especially those classed as literature .... which is kind of tautological, but still), then I don't think there would have been any debate.
> 
> The written portions of RPGs can be literature, and the played portions cannot be, by definition.
> 
> Seems kind of pointless, but you'll have to ask the OP about that.*
> 
> 
> (And yes, the issue would be with the terms used.)




I'm assuming that the OP is using "literary" with its snobbish connotations. You know what I mean. "This thing I like is literary, therefore it is better than that other similar thing that you like, and I can provide reams of literature that purport to back my claim, but really it's all just opinion."


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Satyrn

lowkey13 said:


> Based on my understanding of the history of this thread, and what spawned it, I believe the OP was using "literary" to mean "having a marked style intended to create a particular emotional effect" in order to argue that RPGs do not create "particular emotional effects" through the narration/performance of the DM or players.



That's definitely a more charitable interpretation than mine. Now I feel like I was being mean. 



lowkey13 said:


> But, again, I'm increasingly of the opinion that most of the debates are rather pointless, especially to the extent that they involve arguments over disputed definitions of terms and/or thinly-disguised "my way is better" assertions of playing.




Aye. I kinda wish that I had never discovered this General Tabletop Discussion forum. Because like Robert Plant "I can't quit you,  baby" . . . and unfortunately I can't put it down for a while because I can't get enough satisfaction, I can't get enough RPG action in the D&D forum to hold my attention.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Satyrn

"Ayup," he said, nodding in vigorous agreement.


----------



## Lanefan

Bedrockgames said:


> To answer your question, I don't think objecting to an obviously distracting, annoying or disruptive GM narration style, means that performance is prime. Again, I've said I want the GM engaged, invested and speaking in their natural voice. That isn't performance. That is being your relaxed and honest self. Performance is the opposite of that. I don't need the GM to do voices for example for monsters or characters. I don't need the GM to 'act'.



You might not need it, but some of us do.  Ideally the GM is giving as much portrayal and expression and voice to each of her NPCs as each player is to her character(s); of course some GMs are better at this than others and those that aren't any good at it are better off not trying.  That said, a GM who can't act is in my view starting at a disadvantage over one who can.



> If your definition of performance includes those thing, then I would say we have a disagreement over what is important. But yes, a GM talking in a silly voice when it isn't appropriate is going to be odd. Just like screaming in anger for no good reason is going to be odd. I don't think that is about performance as much as it is about being disruptive.



I'm not talking about "silly voice when it isn't appropriate" and I don't think anyone else is either.  I'm talking about a) voice appropriate to the character whose words are being spoken and to a lesser extent b) voice appropriate to the scene being narrated or described e.g. the horror-scene example noted upthread.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Clear enough, but it doesn't capture what I'm talking about, because - for instance - it renders ordinary conversation a species of performance.



That's because it is, most of the time.

And that's when you're just "being yourself".  When you're trying to play a role (which is the very definition of acting) in a role-playing game then yes, it's all to some extent performance.



			
				Bedrockgames said:
			
		

> And I realize people are trying to load more concepts onto performance than just acting. But the fact is, if acting and literal performance are not important to me, I am not going to accept it as a term (especially when it is being positioned as 50% of play).



Denying the whole concept just because you don't like it seems a bit over-the-top somehow.


----------



## Lanefan

Bedrockgames said:


> I play mainly online as well too. But this is actually one of my pet peeves as a player. Let me imagine the character based on the information you give, don't waste times showing me pictures of what they might look like. I will take how I imagine an NPC any day over stock art from the internet.



Problem with that is, every person at the table is going to end up with a different mental image of what each character looks like.  Better if the player - who in theory has final say on her own character's appearance - comes up with a mental image of that character then either finds something close to that image online or (if talent and skill allow) draws it herself.  Then everyone has a common image to work from when picturing this character in whatever situation it's in at the time.



> What is wrong with black and white line map art (particularly stuff by Dyson Logos)?
> 
> It is a game of imagination. I don't see why we need more than that to fuel the fun.



I agree that sometimes less can be more - give me a simple easy to read map any day over an artistic nightmare such as the maps in many DCCRPG modules, for example.  But, at other times more can be more; and in this category I put character descriptions and-or images.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> You seem to be setting up a contrast - _performance intended to creata a mental image of who the PC is_ vs _dice bot with a heart beat_ - that doesn't correspond to my own RPGing experiences.
> 
> Central to player-side RPGing is _action declaration_. That's how the player reveals who his/her PC is. Whereas being a _dicebot_ suggests that someone else (perhaps the GM?) is deciding what the actions are.



Action declaration is but one avenue of revealing who a PC is, and by no means the primary one.

What mostly reveals who a PC is, at least in terms of how the other PCs perceive her, are the words she says and how she says them when interacting with the other PCs through direct roleplay*.  This is where player performance comes in - a player or GM who puts some expression and-or voice talents into playing her PCs is ironclad guaranteed to give those characters more personality and memorability than a player or GM who roleplays every character the same (i.e. as herself) and relies on game mechanics to provide the differentiation between one and the next.

* - and it's on the GM to allow time at the table for this to happen, and not interrupt it when it does happen by jumping to the next scene or encounter before it has played out.


----------



## Hussar

Well said [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION].

One of my biggest pet peeves is when one player turns to another at the table and says, "What race is your character again?  Were you human or elf?"  Because, to me, that just screams that the performance of that player is so flat and uninteresting that the fact that this character isn't even human isn't readily apparent at the table.  

I'm not talking about someone simply forgetting.  We all do that. I'm talking about the other three or four players at the table having zero idea what species the character is.  

It drives me straight up the wall.  Granted, it's a pet peeve, so, it bothers me more than it probably should, but, it does get to the heart of what we're talking about.  The performance/presentation/whateverdahellyawannacallit is so flat and uninspired that folks at the table have zero idea what you are actually portraying.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Lanefan said:


> Problem with that is, every person at the table is going to end up with a different mental image of what each character looks like.  Better if the player - who in theory has final say on her own character's appearance - comes up with a mental image of that character then either finds something close to that image online or (if talent and skill allow) draws it herself.  Then everyone has a common image to work from when picturing this character in whatever situation it's in at the time.




I couldn't disagree more. We don't all need the same mental image of everything in the game. If it is super important that your character has purple hair, then mention it a lot. But otherwise I vastly prefer a game where there is room for us to be imagining things differently. RPGs are not a visual medium. Showing me pictures of everything, is something I personally find takes away from the the experience.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Lanefan said:


> I agree that sometimes less can be more - give me a simple easy to read map any day over an artistic nightmare such as the maps in many DCCRPG modules, for example.  But, at other times more can be more; and in this category I put character descriptions and-or images.




And this is a fine preference to have. But it is just that: a preference. It isn't an essential aspect of roleplaying.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Lanefan said:


> Denying the whole concept just because you don't like it seems a bit over-the-top somehow.




No one is denying the concept. We are questioning the language being used (because it is advancing an argument about playstyle----and this is very clear in Hussar's posts), and we are saying it isn't half of the RPG experience (which is literally what posters like Hussar are saying). Make no mistake, a GMing and player style is being advocated here and that style is being advanced through the language of this discussion. There is no visible utility in dividing the RPG experience into these two categories other than to suggest performing for the other players at the table is essential to the gaming experience. Very few here would deny the importance of presentation, or of being invested. But a lot of people bristle at the idea of 'performance' because that is a  playstyle issue (not an essential part of play).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Lanefan said:


> You might not need it, but some of us do.  Ideally the GM is giving as much portrayal and expression and voice to each of her NPCs as each player is to her character(s); of course some GMs are better at this than others and those that aren't any good at it are better off not trying.  That said, a GM who can't act is in my view starting at a disadvantage over one who can.
> .




Again, this is just a matter of preference. I am sure this does enhance the experience for you. What you have to understand is for me, and for a lot other people, when the GM starts 'acting' or when the GM insists on doing funny voices and behaving like a voice actor, I dislike it. I much prefer a dry, casual delivery from someone who is good at describing things clearly or selecting the right words to evoke a situation, than someone who thinks they are reading a book on tape. But all we are here is in the realm of preference, not in the realm of the basic things that constitute an RPG

EDIT: Just to clarify this, I do know a handful of GMs who can pull off the voice acting. In those cases, it adds to play and works fine. But the bulk of the time, it detracts from my experience (especially when the point of play becomes watching other people perform----not here to watch your improv acting)


----------



## Bedrockgames

Lanefan said:


> I'm not talking about "silly voice when it isn't appropriate" and I don't think anyone else is either.  I'm talking about a) voice appropriate to the character whose words are being spoken and to a lesser extent b) voice appropriate to the scene being narrated or described e.g. the horror-scene example noted upthread.




Well, the poster I was responding to was talking about a silly voice being used in an inappropriate situation (I wasn't responding to you, I was answering the question directed to me in this post): 



> I feel like I am talking presentation in general and you are focusing on a specific example in our exchanges... So let me go extreme to try and stress my general point... would you be ok with them doing say a silly voice for a horror game?


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> Well, the poster I was responding to was talking about a silly voice being used in an inappropriate situation (I wasn't responding to you, I was answering the question directed to me in this post):




To be fair... I called out that it was an exaggeration to make a point about presentation and it being an integral part of roleplaying IMO.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bedrockgames

lowkey13 said:


> So, again, this isn't about funny voices.
> 
> Look, some people prefer Lovecraft. Some people prefer Hemingway. Both of them have a "style" even if they are quite different.
> 
> Just because you prefer a certain type of delivery, does not mean that there is an absence of delivery, or "presentation"*, in the style your prefer. Whether it's an economy of language, or the pacing, or the phrasing, or the choice of words, this all is a matter of performance presentation.
> 
> Rhetoric is the analysis of argument, knowing that argument is implicit in all forms of communication. Just because you don't see how the interactions of different people within a structured environment (aka, TTRPG) constitutes a form of communication, which involves presentation and the ability of the participants to convey and evoke emotions through performance presentation, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that it all has to be self-generated.
> 
> Nor does it mean that it's all the DM doing funny voices.
> 
> Finally, acknowledging that the participants in a TTRPG communicate with each other and can affect each other does not indicate a playstyle preference, any more than acknowledging that D&D involved dice states that D&D must be a game of optimization.**
> 
> 
> *Since you seem to think that "performance" is a "playstyle" why don't we use that word?
> 
> 
> **Straight into the veins!




i never said presentation wasn’t a part of play. I have taken issue with the specific way the idea of ‘perfirmance’ Is being used to advance a playstyle agenda


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bedrockgames

lowkey13 said:


> um ......
> 
> a playstyle agenda?
> 
> .....
> 
> 
> Today’s comment thread is the product of forum denizens, which is the product of a roleplaying culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called playstyle agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some performance activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to improv comedy.
> 
> Let me be clear that I have nothing against improv comedy troupes, or any other group, promoting their playstyle agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of perfomance and other funny voices and even Wayne Brady change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that _Whose Line Is It Anyway_ is a deserving television comedy.
> 
> That these performance activists have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that throngs of impressionable young minds watch their supposed "comedic stylings" in TTRPGs on such youtube dens of iniquity such as _Critical Role_. But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views of your playstyle agenda upon me is something else.
> 
> -A. Curmudgeon




Dude half this discussion is about playstyle


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Satyrn

lowkey13 said:


> I thought half was about jokes?
> 
> The other half was about beating a horse. Probably, if not definitely, dead.
> 
> We should whack it a few more times- you never know!




I'm too busy chasing that squirrel.

And you might as well leave the horse alone. It's the moose we're after.


----------



## Bedrockgames

lowkey13 said:


> I thought half was about jokes?
> 
> The other half was about beating a horse. Probably, if not definitely, dead.
> 
> We should whack it a few more times- you never know!




You can ridicule my post all you want Lowkey13, but I am just responding to the fact that 'performance' has been attached to clear playstyle preferences in this discussion (and those preferences are being positioned as better or more in keeping with the purpose of an RPG than other preference). If people want a real discussion about gaming terminology and analysis, I think it is difficult to do so when personal preferences and peeves are being put front and center into the language of the debate.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bedrockgames

lowkey13 said:


> And wouldn't that mean that the OP who was arguing that presentation had NO ROLE whatsoever and never could ...was that person just trolling the PERFORMANCE ACTIVISTS with his UPPITY FRAMING HEGEMONY?




Pretty sure the OP clarified that this wasn't his position but I will leave that to him to weigh in.


----------



## Bedrockgames

lowkey13 said:


> Not only can I, I will!
> 
> Of course, it might also be that you are reading things into it that aren't there. Remember how you had NO IDEA what this thread was about, because you didn't read the whole thing?
> 
> And now you are insisting that not only do you know what the thread is about, but, apparently, much to the surprise of the actual people who have been participating in it ... it's all about a mysterious PLAYSTYLE AGENDA that we are ... oh I can't stop myself .... shoving down your throat?
> 
> And wouldn't that mean that the OP who was arguing that presentation had NO ROLE whatsoever and never could ...was that person just trolling the PERFORMANCE ACTIVISTS with his UPPITY FRAMING HEGEMONY?




Not everyone reads every single post in a long thread. I simply don't have the time. But I can respond to an OP and reply to anyone who has responded to me (which is what I was doing). Not sure why that is an issue for you.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bedrockgames

lowkey13 said:


> I guess I'm just not used to people who repeatedly say they don't understand something despite multiple explanations, refuse to educate themselves about the topic because there's a lot of words, and then characterize all the people they disagree with as "playstyle activists."
> 
> Wait- no, that's not quite true. I am very familiar with that whole thing outside of TTRPGs, but really, this is supposed to be fun, not some dour exercise in castigating people you disagree with. I mean, that's so very middle school, and TBH, a big reason a lot of us started playing. You know- play, as in fun, as in not a mirthless slog of argument about "gaming terminology and analysis" with an emphasis on "the language of the debate[.]"
> 
> 
> 
> STRAIGHT INTO THE VEINS! Yep, that really is the stuff.




Not sure what you hope to achieve by insulting me.


----------



## Bedrockgames

lowkey13 said:


> I guess I'm just not used to people who repeatedly say they don't understand something despite multiple explanations, refuse to educate themselves about the topic because there's a lot of words, and then characterize all the people they disagree with as "playstyle activists."




This is not an accurate characterization of my posts.


----------



## Bedrockgames

lowkey13 said:


> refuse to educate themselves about the topic because there's a lot of words.




Equating reading a full thread of posts with educating oneself seems a real reach for me. Not everyone engages discussions on forums by reading every single post (particularly with long ones like this). When people have mentioned other posts they've made, I've read them.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> You can ridicule my post all you want Lowkey13, but I am just responding to the fact that 'performance' has been attached to clear playstyle preferences in this discussion (and those preferences are being positioned as better or more in keeping with the purpose of an RPG than other preference). If people want a real discussion about gaming terminology and analysis, I think it is difficult to do so when personal preferences and peeves are being put front and center into the language of the debate.




Umm nope?

I pretty clearly defined performance as being anything that is not content. Others amended that to be presentation, which, in hindsight is probably a better way of saying things. 
 [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has pretty strongly argued that presentation is not very important and that content is all that really matters. That the scenario regardless of how that scenario is communicated to the players is the most important thing at the table. 

I’d argue that presentation is equally important and you prove my point. A dm who presents information one way would make you enjoy the game less than if he or she presented a different way. Even though they are presenting exactly the same information. 

Seems to me that presentation or performance is extremely important. Equally as important as content since content alone isn’t enough for you to enjoy the game.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> One of my biggest pet peeves is when one player turns to another at the table and says, "What race is your character again?  Were you human or elf?"  Because, to me, that just screams that the performance of that player is so flat and uninteresting that the fact that this character isn't even human isn't readily apparent at the table.



If a character's race or background or motivations or capacities figure so little in the action of play, then to me the problem at that table is not one of an absence of _performance_!

Conversely, if the only way I would know a player was playing a dwarf was because of his/her Scottish accent (or whatever) but it doesn't make any difference to what that character actually does in play, then why do I care whether or not that character is a dwarf?


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> pemerton has pretty strongly argued that presentation is not very important and that content is all that really matters. That the scenario regardless of how that scenario is communicated to the players is the most important thing at the table.



I have used the words "literary" and "performance" in what I hope are reasonably clear senses. Theatre (typically) involves both. Salon repartee with Oscar Wilde or Dorothy Parker involves both. Conversation with friends typically invovles neither.

I've also said - repeatedly, although [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] may not have read those posts - that everything else being equal a mellifluous GM can be a good thing. But obviously much of the time everything is not equal. For example, _pre-scripting_ which is often a precondition of literary quality in word-choice and a precondition for rehearsal of presentation, is at odds with the back-and-forth, the invitation-and-response, that I think is at the heart of RPGing.

To frame _invitation-and-response_ as _scenario_ is harmless enough provided not too much weight is put on the latter. But obviously if, by _scenario_, one is talking about something pre-scripted and rehearsed, then that's not what I'm talking about.

If a scenario doesn't speak to the players and engage their interest, and generate an emotional response in them, then my advice to the GM would always be _work on your stuff_. I would not be suggesting _choose a different soundtrack_.



Hussar said:


> I’d argue that presentation is equally important and you prove my point. A dm who presents information one way would make you enjoy the game less than if he or she presented a different way. Even though they are presenting exactly the same information.
> 
> Seems to me that presentation or performance is extremely important. Equally as important as content since content alone isn’t enough for you to enjoy the game.



This is an obvious non-sequitur. Some people find dealing with stutterers very frustrating. Others don't mind.

Some are more tolerant than others of a variety of approaches to personal comportment. To swearing. Etc.

But none of these (rather banal) facts about who one enjoys, or doesn't enjoy, talking to and spending time with show that RPGing is a _literary_ endeavour. Or that _performance_, in the sense in which theatre and recitation involve performance but conversation typically doesn't, are central to the activity.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Umm nope?
> 
> I pretty clearly defined performance as being anything that is not content. Others amended that to be presentation, which, in hindsight is probably a better way of saying things.
> [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has pretty strongly argued that presentation is not very important and that content is all that really matters. That the scenario regardless of how that scenario is communicated to the players is the most important thing at the table.
> 
> I’d argue that presentation is equally important and you prove my point. A dm who presents information one way would make you enjoy the game less than if he or she presented a different way. Even though they are presenting exactly the same information.
> 
> Seems to me that presentation or performance is extremely important. Equally as important as content since content alone isn’t enough for you to enjoy the game.




Again, I wasn't objecting to presentation mattering. I was objecting to presentation being framed as your preferred playstyle. And I was questioning the importance of dividing gaming into content and presentation. I could not see the utility of this distinction.


----------



## Bedrockgames

lowkey13 said:


> Not only can I, I will!




If you guys wonder why there is only five of you in these conversations, this right here is exhibit A.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Seems to me that presentation or performance is extremely important. Equally as important as content since content alone isn’t enough for you to enjoy the game.




If you are defining presentation as anything that isn't content, well, that is so broad, anything in the category has to be important (but it is also pretty useless to have such a broad category). But honestly I feel like you are paying lip service to this, while using the distinction to advance a clear playstyle argument (and it is pretty obvious Pemerton is picking up on the same thing). Neither of us have particularly objected to presentation as a thing that matters. We've objected to the way you've focused on the performative aspects of it. Underlying this whole discussion is a divide over whether the players and GM are there performing for one another or if they are there interacting and conversing with one another. I do not see the game as a performance. This is the part of what has been said on this thread that I object to. The only other thing I really weighed in on was the OP (where I essentially said I agreed with what Pemerton seemed to be saying).


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> If a character's race or background or motivations or capacities figure so little in the action of play, then to me the problem at that table is not one of an absence of _performance_!
> 
> Conversely, if the only way I would know a player was playing a dwarf was because of his/her Scottish accent (or whatever) but it doesn't make any difference to what that character actually does in play, then why do I care whether or not that character is a dwarf?




Ah. We’re back to performance = funny voices and everything else is apparently content. 

Well if that’s the definition you’re insisting on working from then sure you’re 100% right.


----------



## Hussar

I reject the notion that rpgs are closer to conversations than performances. They just aren’t. The purpose of a conversation is to convey information. The purpose of performance is to elicit emotional response. 

There’s so much more to an rpg than just the transference of information. I would hope that players always have in mind that they are there to help the table have a good time, not just themselves. 

I cannot reconcile the idea that literary or performance are so much less important than the information being conveyed. 

Unless of course you’re under the misconception that performance or literary is so limited in definition.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> Again, I wasn't objecting to presentation mattering. I was objecting to presentation being framed as your preferred playstyle. And I was questioning the importance of dividing gaming into content and presentation. I could not see the utility of this distinction.




See, I think we're talking past each other.  Presentation is simply the manner in which you convey information from the DM to the players (or vice versa).  Presentation can be full on thespianism or bare bones minimalism, but, in any case, it's still presentation.  You and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], for some reason seem to be stuck on this idea that presentation needs to be speaking in funny voices.  It's not.  Presentation is the how, content is the what.

Now, your preferred presentation style and my preferred presentation style might be different, sure, but, we both still HAVE a presentation style.  The notion that you can convey content without any presentation style at all or that how you convey that information doesn't matter is proven false by your own statement that presenting one way will cause you to hate the game while presenting the exact same information another way will cause you to like the game.

So, in the end, the content isn't the only reason you enjoy the game.  The presentation matters just as much.

Which is why we're making the distinction.  The content might be 5 orcs in a 20x20 room that attack on sight.  The presentation of that encounter can vary greatly from bare bones to florid, purple prose, full on thespianism.  How you choose to present that information will be, in part, dictated by your players.  But, make no mistake, you do have to choose.

The players go into a tower and find a letter that claims that one PC might be the illegitimate child of Evard.  Interesting content.  But, presentated without any emotion, any attempt to evoke any sort of feeling or reaction, simply as bare bones description - You find a letter.  It's to your mother.  It says you are Evard's child.  - is going to fall very, very flat in some groups and do well in others, as evidenced in this thread.

Does that explain sufficiently why the distinction is being made?


----------



## pemerton

lowkey13 said:


> Down the street you can hear pemerton scream



You seem to be projecting.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Ah. We’re back to performance = funny voices and everything else is apparently content.
> 
> Well if that’s the definition you’re insisting on working from then sure you’re 100% right.



Well tell me what you mean by _performance_, then.

What do you mean by the _performance_ of a character revealing the character to be (say) a dwarf?




Hussar said:


> I reject the notion that rpgs are closer to conversations than performances. They just aren’t. The purpose of a conversation is to convey information. The purpose of performance is to elicit emotional response.



Who do you have conversations with?

In the conversations I have, only rarely is the purpose to convey information (in the way that eg a newspaper or an encyclopedia does that). Typically the purpose is to generate emotional responses - to affirm friendships, to support someone who's upset, to share in someone else's happiness, etc.

When I ask someone "How're you doing?" or when I say "It's rainy outside, isn't it!" I'm not looking for information.



Hussar said:


> There’s so much more to an rpg than just the transference of information. I would hope that players always have in mind that they are there to help the table have a good time, not just themselves.



Again, this is very strange to me. It seems a completely distorted account of human interaction.

One important reason I converse with people is because it is pleasant. But it's not pleasant because of any _performance_. I generally prefer sincerity to performance in conversation.



Hussar said:


> I cannot reconcile the idea that literary or performance are so much less important than the information being conveyed.





Hussar said:


> See, I think we're talking past each other.  Presentation is simply the manner in which you convey information from the DM to the players (or vice versa).  Presentation can be full on thespianism or bare bones minimalism, but, in any case, it's still presentation.  You and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], for some reason seem to be stuck on this idea that presentation needs to be speaking in funny voices.  It's not.  Presentation is the how, content is the what.



At this point I don't know what you mean by "presentation".

The most concrete examples you've given are of token design and map design - but those are exactly the sorts of things that I am denying are central to RPGing.

In the context of playing a PC, I don't know what you have in mind. I've referred to (what I regard as) the centrality of action declaration, but you've not engaged with that, nor said what you think is involved in presentation here. 



Hussar said:


> Now, your preferred presentation style and my preferred presentation style might be different, sure, but, we both still HAVE a presentation style.  The notion that you can convey content without any presentation style at all or that how you convey that information doesn't matter is proven false by your own statement that presenting one way will cause you to hate the game while presenting the exact same information another way will cause you to like the game.



What you're arguing here is that my claim is self-contradictory. I don't agree.

If you were correct, then _all conversation_ must involve presentation/performance. But self-evidently it doesn't: there's a real difference between conversation as performance or artifice (the salon) and ordinary, sincere conversation.

So, in the end, the content isn't the only reason you enjoy the game.  The presentation matters just as much.



Hussar said:


> The players go into a tower and find a letter that claims that one PC might be the illegitimate child of Evard.  Interesting content.  But, presentated without any emotion, any attempt to evoke any sort of feeling or reaction, simply as bare bones description - You find a letter.  It's to your mother.  It says you are Evard's child.  - is going to fall very, very flat in some groups and do well in others, as evidenced in this thread.



Why should the GM be trying to evoke the player's feeling by virtue of intonation?

If I tell you - the real person - that I've discovered something about your ancestry, you're likely to be excited about it whether or not I have a drum-roll lead-up to my big reveal. It's exciting because _it's something you care about_, not because _it's something in respect of which I'm evoking feelings via my performance_.

If the only reason that RPG players care about a situation is because the GM has "sold" it to them like a film director, then I think that something is going wrong. As I said upthread, I would advise that GM to work on his/her situations, not on his/her soundtrack.



Hussar said:


> Does that explain sufficiently why the distinction is being made?



Well I think I might see a difference, but it may be a different one from what you're seeing.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> See, I think we're talking past each other.  Presentation is simply the manner in which you convey information from the DM to the players (or vice versa).  Presentation can be full on thespianism or bare bones minimalism, but, in any case, it's still presentation.  You and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], for some reason seem to be stuck on this idea that presentation needs to be speaking in funny voices.  It's not.  Presentation is the how, content is the what.
> 
> Now, your preferred presentation style and my preferred presentation style might be different, sure, but, we both still HAVE a presentation style.  The notion that you can convey content without any presentation style at all or that how you convey that information doesn't matter is proven false by your own statement that presenting one way will cause you to hate the game while presenting the exact same information another way will cause you to like the game.
> 
> So, in the end, the content isn't the only reason you enjoy the game.  The presentation matters just as much.
> 
> Which is why we're making the distinction.  The content might be 5 orcs in a 20x20 room that attack on sight.  The presentation of that encounter can vary greatly from bare bones to florid, purple prose, full on thespianism.  How you choose to present that information will be, in part, dictated by your players.  But, make no mistake, you do have to choose.
> 
> The players go into a tower and find a letter that claims that one PC might be the illegitimate child of Evard.  Interesting content.  But, presentated without any emotion, any attempt to evoke any sort of feeling or reaction, simply as bare bones description - You find a letter.  It's to your mother.  It says you are Evard's child.  - is going to fall very, very flat in some groups and do well in others, as evidenced in this thread.
> 
> Does that explain sufficiently why the distinction is being made?




I think there is a much more fundamental divide going on. I am not even sure presentation captures what I think of going on at a game table. i see the GM more as a facilitator and I would tend to agree with Pemerton that the GM is facilitating a conversation. I think the problem I am having with this division of the game into content and presentation (beyond stuff that I don't want to rehash) is that it is still rooted in a 'performative' understanding of presentation. GMing isn't about me having content that I must transmit to the players and then presenting it in a performed manner. It is more like a conversation with lots of sponteneity, reaction, etc. I simply don't think about the GM's 'performance'. So I think the issue here is you are positing a way of dividing the RPG experience into two halves. And you have yet to demonstrate to me why such a division is useful or true. Why would I adopt this model if it isn't useful and doesn't match how I conceive of play at the table?


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Why should the GM be trying to evoke the player's feeling by virtue of intonation?
> 
> If I tell you - the real person - that I've discovered something about your ancestry, you're likely to be excited about it whether or not I have a drum-roll lead-up to my big reveal. It's exciting because _it's something you care about_, not because _it's something in respect of which I'm evoking feelings via my performance_.
> 
> If the only reason that RPG players care about a situation is because the GM has "sold" it to them like a film director, then I think that something is going wrong. As I said upthread, I would advise that GM to work on his/her situations, not on his/her soundtrack.
> 
> Well I think I might see a difference, but it may be a different one from what you're seeing.




This. This is what I was trying to say in my previous post. I'd just add, the GM may well also be invested and excited about the ancestry information as well, and that will come through. But it isn't a performance or even a presentation. It is a sincere and honest human expression in a conversation. There is a difference. Anyone who has been a facilitator or presenter knows that. I think where I am coming from is I don't expect people to lie about their emotional state in a session. If the GM is tired and low energy that day (or if that is their general personality), that is something I expect to see come through in the game session (and I don't expect or want them to crank up a performance for me). I get the feeling that this isn't where you are coming from Hussar. Because in most of your posts, even though you have adjusted the definition of performance and presentation, you keep going back to examples that seem very much about focusing on a performance where people are affecting a style of information presentation. That is fine, but it is just not what I seek in gaming (and I think it is a premise one has to accept if they adopt the language you are advancing in this discussion).

Based on previous discussions I think I'd disagree with Pemerton a lot on the specifics of what it means for the game to be a conversation (and where that goes in terms of how the game is structured and played), but I definitely agree the game is more of a conversation than a presentation. And I think the reason that matters so much to us in this discussion is gaming is very much a social experience. I frankly find the idea that I would be evaluating a performance distasteful in the same way I would find it distasteful to judge my friends or family on their 'performance' in a conversation or on how well they 'present information' to me. It is more about do I like these people, do I like this GM and is the conversation able to produce the right level of emotion and immersion. Basically that is more about how comfortable I am with a group than whether I rate their performances as high. The performance aspect of play is so far down on the list of things I care about.  And I get that you have shifted the definition of performance and adopted presentation as the term. But the more I see the conversion unfold and think about it, the more I see this is still about judging the skillset of a person and judging a performance (presenting information is particular manner is a performance).


----------



## Hussar

There's way too much of a wall of text up there to answer everything, but, I think this gets to the heart of it:



			
				Permerton said:
			
		

> Well tell me what you mean by performance, then.
> 
> What do you mean by the performance of a character revealing the character to be (say) a dwarf?




Well, let's see.  I'd probably talk about growing up underground, reference my appearance by mentioning the beard and spend some time grooming it.  I'd probably reference relations between my people and various other people as being different than everyone else's.  My food choices would be different.  References to my stature might go some ways.  The fact that I don't like boats or horses might be a bit cliche, but, it does get the point across.  Historical facts about my people in comparison to the rest of the party.  Differences in approaches - the fact that I live about twice or three times as long as a human would give me a pretty different perspective on things.  The fact that I see in the dark and have resistance to poisons would likely come up at some point.

And, look at that, not a single Scottish accent.  

If you cannot portray the species of your character without resorting to bad accents, stick to playing humans.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> If you cannot portray the species of your character without resorting to bad accents, stick to playing humans.




Honestly I'd rather have a player at my table who speaks with bad accents, than a player who has this attitude (and I am not particularly fond of accents or funny voices).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Well, let's see.  I'd probably talk about growing up underground, reference my appearance by mentioning the beard and spend some time grooming it.  I'd probably reference relations between my people and various other people as being different than everyone else's.  My food choices would be different.  References to my stature might go some ways.  The fact that I don't like boats or horses might be a bit cliche, but, it does get the point across.  Historical facts about my people in comparison to the rest of the party.  Differences in approaches - the fact that I live about twice or three times as long as a human would give me a pretty different perspective on things.  The fact that I see in the dark and have resistance to poisons would likely come up at some point.




This stuff is all fine if you like it. But these are very much the considerations that someone makes when they are acting. Not everyone is going to play a dwarf this way. I think on the spectrum of performance most people are not as far on the performative end as you, and many people are on the opposite end. I think it is still roleplaying if they are not doing any of this. Even if all they are doing is playing themselves with dwarf stats, that is still roleplaying as far as I am concerned. In fact, I'd argue that sometimes over emphasis on these kinds of considerations takes players more out of the moment and more out of the conversation because they are focused more on how they are presenting the character than on reacting to what is going on naturally.


----------



## Maxperson

lowkey13 said:


> um ......
> 
> a playstyle agenda?




It happens.  For truth!

Just the other day I was jumped in a dark alley by a playstyle and told that if I didn't use its talking points, I would sleep with the dragon turtles.


----------



## Maxperson

Satyrn said:


> I'm too busy chasing that squirrel.
> 
> And you might as well leave the horse alone. It's the moose we're after.




Moose is also after Squirrel, right Natasha'?


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Equating reading a full thread of posts with educating oneself seems a real reach for me. Not everyone engages discussions on forums by reading every single post (particularly with long ones like this). When people have mentioned other posts they've made, I've read them.




Maybe, but those posts with lots of words that you say you don't read are often the ones that best explain the position.  It seems counter productive to complain about not understanding a position, while not reading the posts best able to help you learn what the position is.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> I pretty clearly defined performance as being anything that is not content. Others amended that to be presentation, which, in hindsight is probably a better way of saying things.
> [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has pretty strongly argued that presentation is not very important and that content is all that really matters. That the scenario regardless of how that scenario is communicated to the players is the most important thing at the table.
> 
> I’d argue that presentation is equally important and you prove my point. A dm who presents information one way would make you enjoy the game less than if he or she presented a different way. Even though they are presenting exactly the same information.
> 
> Seems to me that presentation or performance is extremely important. Equally as important as content since content alone isn’t enough for you to enjoy the game.




I agree that one is not really more important than the other.  I've seen a great DM take poor content and make it interesting and fun.  I've also seen a poor DM take fantastic content and ruin it.  However, I've also seen that the good content makes it easier for the typical DM to make the game fun, while bad content will often stymie the typical DM, so content is equally important in my opinion.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Maybe, but those posts with lots of words that you say you don't read are often the ones that best explain the position.  It seems cobunter productive to complain about not understanding a position, while not reading the posts best able to help you learn what the position is.




First, like I said I am just fielding replies to my response to the OP. If people want me to understand their replies they should be able to convey their position clearly in a single post rather than demand I read the entire thread (or sift through a whole thread looking for a gem the6 wrote two days ago).

Second, if you can’t clearly express your idea in a single reply, maybe there is an issue with your style of communication and not with my lack of desire to read a whole thread?

Third, reading a whole thread is time consuming. I am fine getting the gist of a thread or responding to an OP and fielding replies to my response, but I view it as a very serious waste of time to go hunting for posts in a thread or to read one from start to finish. This has nothing to do with my ability to read ‘lots of words’, and everything to do with valuing my time. I am happy to read lots of words. I am not interested in reading lots of words by random posters on the internet.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> It happens.  For truth!
> 
> Just the other day I was jumped in a dark alley by a playstyle and told that if I didn't use its talking points, I would sleep with the dragon turtles.




I didn’t express the concept well, but there is clearly a play style debate under slaying this discussion.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> If you are defining presentation as anything that isn't content, well, that is so broad, anything in the category has to be important (but it is also pretty useless to have such a broad category).




Categories are what they are, broad or not.  Content is very different than presentation, but the only way to get content across to someone else is to present it to them somehow.  That makes it useful to know that presentation is the other category.  If presentation is so broad that you are having difficulty with it when it comes to presenting an idea to us, rather than complain about how broad presentation is, there are these things called sub-categories that you can use to help you out.  Simply identify the type of presentation you are talking about and then continue on.  



> But honestly I feel like you are paying lip service to this, while using the distinction to advance a clear playstyle argument (and it is pretty obvious Pemerton is picking up on the same thing). Neither of us have particularly objected to presentation as a thing that matters. We've objected to the way you've focused on the performative aspects of it. Underlying this whole discussion is a divide over whether the players and GM are there performing for one another or if they are there interacting and conversing with one another. I do not see the game as a performance.




The game isn't performance.  It's also not content, communication, literary or anything else.  It's all of the above, depending on what aspect you are talking about.  Trying to label an RPG as one thing is an exercise in futility, and will result in push-back by people who realize that RPGs are comprised of many different things.  People will also tend to push back hardest about their favorite aspect of the game.  This is not "advancing an agenda."  Rather, it's just human nature.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I didn’t express the concept well, but there is clearly a play style debate under slaying this discussion.




That was just a joke.

What I said in my last post is not, though.  I don't think there is any sort of agenda going on here.  People just disagree with blanket statement X, and when people disagree, they tend to do so from their favorite aspect of the game that disputes the overgeneralized term being used.  That doesn't make it an agenda, though.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> the GM may well also be invested and excited about the ancestry information as well, and that will come through. But it isn't a performance or even a presentation. It is a sincere and honest human expression in a conversation. There is a difference.



I agree with all this.



Hussar said:


> I'd probably talk about growing up underground, reference my appearance by mentioning the beard and spend some time grooming it. I'd probably reference relations between my people and various other people as being different than everyone else's. My food choices would be different. References to my stature might go some ways. The fact that I don't like boats or horses might be a bit cliche, but, it does get the point across. Historical facts about my people in comparison to the rest of the party. Differences in approaches - the fact that I live about twice or three times as long as a human would give me a pretty different perspective on things. The fact that I see in the dark and have resistance to poisons would likely come up at some point.



Darkvision and poison resistance seem like elements in action declaration and action resolution rather than performance/presentation, so I'll put them to one side.

In most FRPGing, grooming one's beard, choosing one's food, not liking boat,s is all just colour. If my familiarity with the underground, or the distinctive histories or politics of my people, actually _matter_ in play then that will come out in action declaration - as it does, for instance, for the dwarf in my 4e game.

Or to take another example: in the most recent RPG session I GMed - a Cthulhu Dark session - one of the PCs had two descriptors: _head butler_, and _proper English gentelman_. We didn't need the player to _present_ or _perform_ these descriptors in order to appreciate them - they were manifest from beginning to end in the play of the character: his concerns and motivations, his actions and responses.

Conversely, if the only way that I can tell your character is a butler is because you make references to the sivlerware that have no bearing on the actual play of the game; or if the only way I can tell you're a dwarf is because of your repeated references to your beard that never actually matters to any actions that your character undertakes; then I wonder what the point of the descriptor is at all. How is it actually informing the role you are playing in the game?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Categories are what they are, broad or not.  Content is very different than presentation, but the only way to get content across to someone else is to present it to them somehow.  That makes it useful to know that presentation is the other category.  If presentation is so broad that you are having difficulty with it when it comes to presenting an idea to us, rather than complain about how broad presentation is, there are these things called sub-categories that you can use to help you out.  Simply identify the type of presentation you are talking about and then continue on.




I am not seeing how this ads value to play. I absolutely do not need to understand this distinction in order to run or play in a game. And I am not sure the distinction is the best way to categorize key elements of the hobby. I mean I could also divide the game into "rolling dice parts" and "not rolling dice parts". If any of the material being filed under 'presentation' comes up or matters during play, it is done intuitively anyways (and I am not sure things being filed under presentation really reflect the nature of what is going on well). And actively thinking about this distinction during play feels like it would just take me out of the moment. Again what you are offering really is a model, and I think it is a flawed, unproven model. All that is being done here is people are asserting the hobby can be broken up into two broad categories and then giving some vague reasons why that is. I find this a very unpersuasive argument for me to adopt the proposed model. Admittedly my bar is pretty high for accepting a model. For me to accept a model as useful, I need to experience its utility in play repeatedly to the extent that it visibly adds to the experience of play. I am doubtful this content/presentation distinction adds anything at all.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> The game isn't performance.  It's also not content, communication, literary or anything else.  It's all of the above, depending on what aspect you are talking about.  Trying to label an RPG as one thing is an exercise in futility, and will result in push-back by people who realize that RPGs are comprised of many different things.  People will also tend to push back hardest about their favorite aspect of the game.  This is not "advancing an agenda."  Rather, it's just human nature.




I am not going to accept it is 'all of the above' simply because you assert that it is. But I do think there are numerous approaches to play and numerous play styles. However I have no interest in getting other people to adopt mine through argumentation. Posters here were doing that and they were drawing on the proposed model in order to advocate for a way of playing the game. I am not saying they are doing it with nefarious intent. But it is definitely something happening in the discussion and that the model is contributing to. But not everyone participating is entering the realm of plakystyle advocacy. I don't think pushing a playstyle is human nature. Also, pushing back against someone who trashes your preferred style is a totally different thing than telling people they should adopt your preferred style (or trying to argue that your preferred style is superior).


----------



## Satyrn

Maxperson said:


> Moose is also after Squirrel, right Natasha'?




No, Max. Moose is a KAOS agent. He's working with Squirrel.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Satyrn said:


> No, Max. Moose is a KAOS agent. He's working with Squirrel to promote a playful agenda.




Every so often I am reminded why I don't post in threads with this circle.


----------



## Satyrn

I shall edit out the direct reference to your earlier comment as an apology, then. I do not want to use my humour as a weapon.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Satyrn said:


> I shall edit out the direct reference to your earlier comment as an apology, then. I do not want to use my humour as a weapon.




Don't edit it. Leave it. I am just pointing out people in these threads are often quite rude. I definitely can post snarky remarks from time to time. But the amount of ridicule lobbed my way in the past three pages is pretty off-putting. If you disagree with me, that is totally fine. We can have disagreements about this stuff. But do you need to mock me like I am some kind of Alex Jones theorists because I think people are pushing for play styles in the thread? And do you need to mock my ability to read because I don't want to spend hours pouring over an entire thread?


----------



## Satyrn

Bedrockgames said:


> Don't edit it. Leave it.



Too late!

I editted it *before* I told you I was going to. I learned from KAOS and SPECTRE what not to do.

This villain is chillin' with winnin'


----------



## uzirath

pemerton said:


> In most FRPGing, grooming one's beard, choosing one's food, not liking boats is all just colour.




I am mostly on board with the argument you've presented in this increasingly labyrinthine thread. But there's something here that feels off to me. When I guide new players, I often encourage them to consider minor elements about their characters that will be fun and memorable at the table. In other words, _colour_ (or _color_, on my side of the pond). These tidbits often generate great interplay between the characters, despite the fact that they may have no impact on the stakes of the story (at first anyway, see below for more on this). "Don't make fun of Grunk's beard!" "Elspeth will eat anything!" Some games have minor mechanics for this sort of thing, like the concept of quirks in GURPS, but I rarely see anybody invoking the mechanics for serious in-game effects. It's all just background colour to breathe life into the fiction.



> Conversely, if the only way that I can tell your character is a butler is because you make references to the silverware that have no bearing on the actual play of the game; or if the only way I can tell you're a dwarf is because of your repeated references to your beard that never actually matters to any actions that your character undertakes; then I wonder what the point of the descriptor is at all. How is it actually informing the role you are playing in the game?




There is a fluidity between how these details may impact the "actual play of the game." Maybe when I create my dwarf, I don't imagine the beard thing will be significant. I haven't written anything about it on my character sheet. But the beard jokes gain traction at the table and I start thinking more about the cultural significance of my beard, describing the intricate braids and beads that represent various elements of my character's background. Eventually, a good GM picks up on this and may develop hooks and connections. Maybe we meet another dwarf whose "beard writing" reveals something about them. Or we end up in a scenario where my beard is threatened (or I need to be in a clean-shaven disguise). I never consciously declared to the GM that these things are central features of my character, but over time these story elements can grow and become more significant. This sort of promotion and demotion of roleplaying elements seems to be a significant component of most games that I've played, regardless of the system.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not seeing how this ads value to play. I absolutely do not need to understand this distinction in order to run or play in a game.




No, but you do need to understand it to have a relevant conversation about the topic on a forum. 



> And actively thinking about this distinction during play feels like it would just take me out of the moment. Again what you are offering really is a model, and I think it is a flawed, unproven model. All that is being done here is people are asserting the hobby can be broken up into two broad categories and then giving some vague reasons why that is. I find this a very unpersuasive argument for me to adopt the proposed model. Admittedly my bar is pretty high for accepting a model. For me to accept a model as useful, I need to experience its utility in play repeatedly to the extent that it visibly adds to the experience of play. I am doubtful this content/presentation distinction adds anything at all.




It isn't about thinking about these things during game play.  It's about understanding the various points of people discussing the topic in this thread.  You're taking something and trying to apply it in a way other than what is intended, and then calling it flawed.  



> I am not going to accept it is 'all of the above' simply because you assert that it is. But I do think there are numerous approaches to play and numerous play styles. However I have no interest in getting other people to adopt mine through argumentation. Posters here were doing that and they were drawing on the proposed model in order to advocate for a way of playing the game. I am not saying they are doing it with nefarious intent. But it is definitely something happening in the discussion and that the model is contributing to. But not everyone participating is entering the realm of plakystyle advocacy. I don't think pushing a playstyle is human nature. Also, pushing back against someone who trashes your preferred style is a totally different thing than telling people they should adopt your preferred style (or trying to argue that your preferred style is superior).




Here are some facts for you.

1. I can perform during an RPG, therefore an RPG is performance.

2. I can narrate during an RPG, therefore an RPG is narration.

3. I can write during an RPG, therefore an RPG is literary.

And so on.

You may not use all of those things all of the time, or even all of those things period.  However, just because YOU don't perform, doesn't mean that performance is not a part of the RPG.  It just means that you don't engage that aspect of it.  The same holds true for the rest.


----------



## Maxperson

Satyrn said:


> No, Max. Moose is a KAOS agent. He's working with Squirrel.




Name is Boris! Max is disguise. It is good disguise, no?


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Don't edit it. Leave it. I am just pointing out people in these threads are often quite rude. I definitely can post snarky remarks from time to time. But the amount of ridicule lobbed my way in the past three pages is pretty off-putting.




The humor is just that, humor.  It's not ridicule lobbed your way or any other way.  Some of it is a bit of ribbing.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> Honestly I'd rather have a player at my table who speaks with bad accents, than a player who has this attitude (and I am not particularly fond of accents or funny voices).




Seriously?  You have no problem with players who play non-humans exactly the same as human characters to the point where no one at the table knows the race of the character?  That it comes as a surprise when it is revealed (you're an elf?  Really?  Since when?)?  Well, takes all kinds I suppose.  To me, it's no different than any other aspect of your character.  A successful portrayal of a character means that everyone at the table has a pretty decent mental image of your character, even if some of the details might be different.



Bedrockgames said:


> This stuff is all fine if you like it. But these are very much the considerations that someone makes when they are acting. Not everyone is going to play a dwarf this way. I think on the spectrum of performance most people are not as far on the performative end as you, and many people are on the opposite end. I think it is still roleplaying if they are not doing any of this. Even if all they are doing is playing themselves with dwarf stats, that is still roleplaying as far as I am concerned. In fact, I'd argue that sometimes over emphasis on these kinds of considerations takes players more out of the moment and more out of the conversation because they are focused more on how they are presenting the character than on reacting to what is going on naturally.




If all you are doing is playing with dwarf stats, isn't that the definition of roll play?  If the only reason that you are playing a dwarf is that Con bonus and darkvision, well, I'd call that pretty poor play.  There's nothing there for anyone else at the table to play off of, there's nothing for the DM to grab hold of, there's just a cypher character that exists as nothing more than a bunch of numbers.  And, yup, I'm going to call that out as pretty poor play. 

Play the character you made.  If I wanted to play nothing but a cloud of numbers, I'll stick to video games.  



Maxperson said:


> I agree that one is not really more important than the other.  I've seen a great DM take poor content and make it interesting and fun.  I've also seen a poor DM take fantastic content and ruin it.  However, I've also seen that the good content makes it easier for the typical DM to make the game fun, while bad content will often stymie the typical DM, so content is equally important in my opinion.




OH, ABSOLUTELY.  100% agree with this.  I in no way am trying to say that performance or presentation or whatever you want to call it is more important.  It isn't.  Content is extremely important.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> First, like I said I am just fielding replies to my response to the OP. If people want me to understand their replies they should be able to convey their position clearly in a single post rather than demand I read the entire thread (or sift through a whole thread looking for a gem the6 wrote two days ago).
> 
> Second, if you can’t clearly express your idea in a single reply, maybe there is an issue with your style of communication and not with my lack of desire to read a whole thread?
> 
> Third, reading a whole thread is time consuming. I am fine getting the gist of a thread or responding to an OP and fielding replies to my response, but I view it as a very serious waste of time to go hunting for posts in a thread or to read one from start to finish. This has nothing to do with my ability to read ‘lots of words’, and everything to do with valuing my time. I am happy to read lots of words. I am not interested in reading lots of words by random posters on the internet.




Good grief [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], how many times do you need it explained?  I KNOW, since you've entered this thread, I've explained the points pretty clearly at least twice.  Now, you might disagree with the points, fair enough, but, complaining that you're not understanding it because no one is taking the time to explain it seems a bit disingenuous.


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> I agree with all this.
> 
> Darkvision and poison resistance seem like elements in action declaration and action resolution rather than performance/presentation, so I'll put them to one side.
> 
> In most FRPGing, grooming one's beard, choosing one's food, not liking boat,s is all just colour. If my familiarity with the underground, or the distinctive histories or politics of my people, actually _matter_ in play then that will come out in action declaration - as it does, for instance, for the dwarf in my 4e game.
> 
> Or to take another example: in the most recent RPG session I GMed - a Cthulhu Dark session - one of the PCs had two descriptors: _head butler_, and _proper English gentelman_. We didn't need the player to _present_ or _perform_ these descriptors in order to appreciate them - they were manifest from beginning to end in the play of the character: his concerns and motivations, his actions and responses.
> 
> Conversely, if the only way that I can tell your character is a butler is because you make references to the sivlerware that have no bearing on the actual play of the game; or if the only way I can tell you're a dwarf is because of your repeated references to your beard that never actually matters to any actions that your character undertakes; then I wonder what the point of the descriptor is at all. How is it actually informing the role you are playing in the game?




Hrm, so, your Butler player never references anything?  Zero description.  We're supposed to guess that he's a butler and proper English Gentleman by the fact that he does what exactly?  The player never attempts to sound like a butler or English for that matter?  Never tries to affect a different diction?  Nothing?  His responses in no way give any clue about what he is?


----------



## Hussar

Put it another way. Two players choose English Gentleman and Butler for their descriptors. According to you folks both characters should be indistinguishable from each other.


----------



## Sadras

Colour is known to influence much in the world, hence its use in advertising, fashion, architecture...etc
To discount or play down the effects of colour in roleplaying seems a little short-sighted and reflects IMO a lack of creativity.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Good grief [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], how many times do you need it explained?  I KNOW, since you've entered this thread, I've explained the points pretty clearly at least twice.  Now, you might disagree with the points, fair enough, but, complaining that you're not understanding it because no one is taking the time to explain it seems a bit disingenuous.




That isn't what I said in my post.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Seriously?  You have no problem with players who play non-humans exactly the same as human characters to the point where no one at the table knows the race of the character?  That it comes as a surprise when it is revealed (you're an elf?  Really?  Since when?)?  Well, takes all kinds I suppose.  To me, it's no different than any other aspect of your character.  A successful portrayal of a character means that everyone at the table has a pretty decent mental image of your character, even if some of the details might be different.




Seriously. It doesn't bother me if I can't tell much about a character just because of a player's performance. What matters to me is if the player is enthusiastic about the game, having fun, and is engaged with the other players. People do those things in all kinds of ways and I am not putting together an improv troupe. Most games we will have 1-2 actor types. And that is great. I don't need the whole group to be like that. And I don't even need all of the group to be like that. Not why I play.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> If all you are doing is playing with dwarf stats, isn't that the definition of roll play?  If the only reason that you are playing a dwarf is that Con bonus and darkvision, well, I'd call that pretty poor play.  There's nothing there for anyone else at the table to play off of, there's nothing for the DM to grab hold of, there's just a cypher character that exists as nothing more than a bunch of numbers.  And, yup, I'm going to call that out as pretty poor play.




First, I don't really care if a player just wants to 'roll play'. I generally like talking in character myself. It isn't everyone's cup of tea. But it isn't 'roll play' because they are PLAYING THEMSELVES with DWARF STATS. That playing yourself bit is pretty important in this case. That is still a very immersive in character experience. It just isn't a performative or acting based approach. But the players is still engaging the game in a way that is done from an in character point of view. The character just happens to have their personality. I am not at the table to say "Wow Derek is crushing playing a dwarf...he is really blowing me away with his acting chops". I want Derek to be enthusiastic and engaged with what is going on in the game. If essentially just playing himself with dwarf stats enables him to do that, that is fine by my opinion. And a ton of players play the game in exactly this way. 

Now you don't have to like this style of play but I don't see anything inherently better about your style of play and I certainly don't regard this as 'poor play'/ 

Again, I think we have a fundamental division of play. I don't like the idea of sitting here judging peoples' performances. I find that extremely off-putting. When I game with people, I see them more as friends. But the approach you are advocating is one where your presence at the table is only valued if you are sufficiently entertaining the other players with your performance. Not what I am there for at all. 

Also I want to point out, you clearly are advocating for playstyle here, which is the point I was trying to make earlier. And I think the fact that people are saying on the one hand, no this isn't about playstyle, then in the next breath advocating for a playstyle, makes it very hard to believe the way these terms of being created are not done in service to a playstyle argument.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Sadras said:


> Colour is known to influence much in the world, hence its use in advertising, fashion, architecture...etc
> To discount or play down the effects of colour in roleplaying seems a little short-sighted and reflects IMO a lack of creativity.




Not saying color can't be important. We are saying it isn't the only thing. And when you emphasize color to the extent that Hussar is, I think it becomes style over substance personally. His demand for full color evocative art, is frankly evidence of that in my opinion (and evidence of a lack of imagination if you want me to be totally honest).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Here are some facts for you.
> 
> 1. I can perform during an RPG, therefore an RPG is performance.
> 
> 2. I can narrate during an RPG, therefore an RPG is narration.
> 
> 3. I can write during an RPG, therefore an RPG is literary.
> 
> .




Just because something can be done a particular way, it doesn't make it that thing itself. And just because writing is involved, that doesn't make it literature.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> Not saying color can't be important. We are saying it isn't the only thing. And when you emphasize color to the extent that Hussar is, I think it becomes style over substance personally. His demand for full color evocative art, is frankly evidence of that in my opinion (and evidence of a lack of imagination if you want me to be totally honest).




Whoa, hang on.  No one is saying color is the only thing.  We are saying that color is just as important as content.  There's a significant difference.

Or, put it another way, content bereft of color is tasteless.


----------



## Sadras

Bedrockgames said:


> Not saying color can't be important. We are saying it isn't the only thing. And when you emphasize color to the extent that Hussar is, I think it becomes style over substance personally. His demand for full color evocative art, is frankly evidence of that in my opinion (and evidence of a lack of imagination if you want me to be totally honest).




Yeah, I didn't quote anyone specifically, because everyone here has written a thesis and I have been MIA for a while so have not been able to follow this thread and others as well as I'd have liked. But yeah, saw some reference to colour and just made the comment in general.


----------



## Hussar

I tend to take a pretty negative view of the player who "just plays himself as a dwarf" (or whatever).  To me, this player is a giant black hole sucking all the life and enjoyment out of the group, contributing next to nothing.  

Now, before anyone jumps up and down, I'm certainly fine with making allowances - a new player for example who just hasn't really gotten into a character.  Fair enough.  Hopefully once that new player sees how much fun the rest of us are having, they'll join in and contribute.

But that player whose presence at the table is so lacking that even basic elements of the character are completely absent?  Yeah, good riddance.  The race thing might be a personal pet peeve of mine, but, by the same token, generally players who cannot be bothered presenting a character's race probably aren't contributing to the game in a host of other ways as well.  

I'm just so sick and tired of passive players who figure that the DM will roll up the plot wagon and spoon feed them content so that they can sit back and consume without ever bothering to contribute anything positive to the game.  IOW, a dice bot with a heart beat reacting without ever actually being proactive.

Sorry, got off on a little rant there.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Hrm, so, your Butler player never references anything?  Zero description.  We're supposed to guess that he's a butler and proper English Gentleman by the fact that he does what exactly?  The player never attempts to sound like a butler or English for that matter?  Never tries to affect a different diction?  Nothing?  His responses in no way give any clue about what he is?



I don't know what you have in mind by _never references anything_.

We're playing a RPG. So there is a lot of talking. Exchanges between participants are the main currency of play. Action declarations are spoken. The player describes what his character is doing. I would hope it's obvious that, in denying that RPGing is a _literary_ endeavour characterised by _performance_, I am not asserting that it doesn't involve talking. This is why I've repeatedly stated that not all talking, and not all communication, is _performance_ or _literary_ in the salient sense.

But no, the player of the butler did not try and affect an English accent. He has a fairly broad Australian accent.

But we could tell he was English - eg he took steps to avoid interaction with or dependence on dubious Contintental types. We could tell he was proper - he called the police on suspected thieves, and tried to uphold the reputation of the master of his house. When he declared his actions and framed the motivations behind them and his intentions for them, this was in terms of ensuring the welfare of his master's house, so he could keep his position.



Hussar said:


> Put it another way. Two players choose English Gentleman and Butler for their descriptors. According to you folks both characters should be indistinguishable from each other.



This is an obvious non-sequitur.

There is more than one way of declaring actions that reveal that a character is a butler, or a knight, or an Englishman, or a dwarf. There is more than one set of motivations and goals available for such characters.

But this has nothing to do with _performance_. You don't need to engage in theatrics of any sort in orderd to reveal your PC's motivations, to reveal his/her goals, to reveal his/her capacities.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> I'm just so sick and tired of passive players who figure that the DM will roll up the plot wagon and spoon feed them content* so that they can sit back and consume without ever bothering to contribute anything positive to the game*.



I have no idea what the bolded bit has to do with the topic of this thread.

What players contribute to the game is protagonism. Which in a RPG primarily takes the form of action declaration (though I think I have a thicker notion of action declaration than some other posters on these boards). Perhaps I've misunderstood something - but I've repeatedly posted about the centrality of action declaration on the players' side of RPGing, and you've said nothing about it. That's giving me the impression that you think it doesn't matter.

And consistently with this, I see your account of the player function - as best I'm making sense of it - as being most appropriate for "plot wagon"/railroad-y games, where the player doesn't have anything to contribute in terms of action declaration (because this is all pre-configured in the GM's pre-established plot) and so what the player contributes instead is characterisation that doesn't actually make a difference to how things unfold in the game.

As I said, perhaps I've misunderstood something.

EDIT:



Hussar said:


> a dice bot with a heart beat reacting without ever actually being proactive



See, I don't see what "proactivity" has to do with "performance". The player of the butler in the game I mentioned was proactive. How does the diction/accent of his play of his character even bear on that?

And as far as "dice bots with heart beats" are concerned, who is deciding what actions they are performing? You call for player proactivity, but I'm not seeing any account of protagonism in what you're describing. I'm seeing players who talk about their dwarves grooming their beards, but that's not protagonism. Where are the players who have their characters striking off to the mountains to recover their lost treasures from dragons? _That's_ how we know a player is playing a dwarf!


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> I tend to take a pretty negative view of the player who "just plays himself as a dwarf" (or whatever).  To me, this player is a giant black hole sucking all the life and enjoyment out of the group, contributing next to nothing.
> 
> Now, before anyone jumps up and down, I'm certainly fine with making allowances - a new player for example who just hasn't really gotten into a character.  Fair enough.  Hopefully once that new player sees how much fun the rest of us are having, they'll join in and contribute.
> 
> But that player whose presence at the table is so lacking that even basic elements of the character are completely absent?  Yeah, good riddance.  The race thing might be a personal pet peeve of mine, but, by the same token, generally players who cannot be bothered presenting a character's race probably aren't contributing to the game in a host of other ways as well.
> 
> I'm just so sick and tired of passive players who figure that the DM will roll up the plot wagon and spoon feed them content so that they can sit back and consume without ever bothering to contribute anything positive to the game.  IOW, a dice bot with a heart beat reacting without ever actually being proactive.
> 
> Sorry, got off on a little rant there.




But this is because you prioritize performance in the sense of theatrics. Plenty of people don't care about that at all, or don't care about to the degree that you do. I will be honest, I don't like playing iw th people who express your preference. I find it just as frustrating and annoying as you find someone who just plays themselves as a dwarf. I've had multiple bad experiences with players who judge the performance of others by a standard that to me, just seems too rooted in improv than gaming. On the other hand, I've had countless hours of fun with players who just play themselves as a dwarf (or elf or halfling). 

But again, I think this lens of performance that is clearly your play priority, is impacting the discussion about categories and terms and this is why Pemerton and I are so reluctant to adopt the division being proposed (it is clearly and visibly an extension of this preference).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Whoa, hang on.  No one is saying color is the only thing.  We are saying that color is just as important as content.  There's a significant difference.
> 
> Or, put it another way, content bereft of color is tasteless.




But your whole notion of what constitutes color, and what constitutes good color, is completely at odds with my notion. That is the crux of the problem here. And again I just don't buy into this Content/Presentation-performance distinction people are making. It hasn't been demonstrated to be a real distinction and it hasn't been shown by anyone to be useful for anything other than this discussion. 

And you are prioritizing color and performance to the extent that it seems to be your primary consideration. 

Also how are color and content not able to be the same thing? Plenty of prepared material contains color. It is one thing to say the game is divided into content and presentation. That is already a muddy distinction. Is boxed text content or color? Is an NPC personality description content or color?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> I'm just so sick and tired of passive players who figure that the DM will roll up the plot wagon and spoon feed them content so that they can sit back and consume without ever bothering to contribute anything positive to the game.  IOW, a dice bot with a heart beat reacting without ever actually being proactive.




Playing yourself has nothing to do with being a dice bot or not being pro-active. I've said repeatedly I want players to be enthusiastic and engaged. That is different from them playing their dwarf with the mindset of an improv actor. They are still talking actions, still able to talk in first person, still doing things that move the campaign forward, etc. You are stuck on this idea that if you are not acting then you are not active. That just isn't true.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Good grief [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], how many times do you need it explained?  I KNOW, since you've entered this thread, I've explained the points pretty clearly at least twice.  Now, you might disagree with the points, fair enough, but, complaining that you're not understanding it because no one is taking the time to explain it seems a bit disingenuous.




I am not the one who keeps bringing this point up. You guys keep raising it. I barely even remember the initial exchange that led to this, nor do I particularly care about. But if people are going to accuse me of not understanding their posts, and then imply it is because I am an idiot who can't read a full thread of posts, I am going to respond. If you find my posts frustrating, then maybe be a tad more polite.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> The humor is just that, humor.  It's not ridicule lobbed your way or any other way.  Some of it is a bit of ribbing.




I come from the land of busting chops. This isn’t busting chops. This is the territory of being insulting. And most people don’t take bring insulted sitting down.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I come from the land of busting chops. This isn’t busting chops. This is the territory of being insulting. And most people don’t take bring insulted sitting down.




Except not.  I know for a fact that all I'm doing is having some fun, and not even all of it has to do with you at all, and what does is just ribbing.  No insults at all.  If you are feeling insulted, then you are seeing insult where there isn't any.  [MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION] is one of the nicest people here, so I'm certain that she is also just having some fun with a bit of ribbing.  [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] I'm not as certain about, but he has a similar humor to mine, so I think he is probably doing the same as [MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION] and I.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Except not.  I know for a fact that all I'm doing is having some fun, and not even all of it has to do with you at all, and what does is just ribbing.  No insults at all.  If you are feeling insulted, then you are seeing insult where there isn't any.  [MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION] is one of the nicest people here, so I'm certain that she is also just having some fun with a bit of ribbing.  [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] I'm not as certain about, but he has a similar humor to mine, so I think he is probably doing the same as [MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION] and I.




I don’t know how you can read lowkeys or the other posters responses and not take it as being insulting. Sorry but none of this is coming across as humor to me.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Except not.  I know for a fact that all I'm doing is having some fun, and not even all of it has to do with you at all, and what does is just ribbing.  No insults at all.  If n[/MENTION] and I.




The posts are not coming across this way at all. But whatever I wasn’t particularly focused on your posts.

Look when people do things like mock a person for not reading a thread using language that belittles their reading comprehension: that is insulting.


----------



## Hussar

Yeah, I'm done here.  Pemerton's off using definitions that are just way out in left field and I honestly have completely lost whatever point he was trying to make.  Every criticism is brushed off as a "non-sequitur" and not even remotely addressed.  [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] cannot even be bothered talking about what the rest of us are talking about. 

I'm rather tired of simply talking past each other.  You folks have fun.


----------



## Bedrockgames

I responded pretty directly to the individual points you were making [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]. Not sure how else you want me to engage the discussion.


----------



## pemerton

uzirath said:


> When I guide new players, I often encourage them to consider minor elements about their characters that will be fun and memorable at the table.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> These tidbits often generate great interplay between the characters, despite the fact that they may have no impact on the stakes of the story (at first anyway, see below for more on this).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> There is a fluidity between how these details may impact the "actual play of the game." Maybe when I create my dwarf, I don't imagine the beard thing will be significant. I haven't written anything about it on my character sheet. But the beard jokes gain traction at the table and I start thinking more about the cultural significance of my beard, describing the intricate braids and beads that represent various elements of my character's background. Eventually, a good GM picks up on this and may develop hooks and connections. Maybe we meet another dwarf whose "beard writing" reveals something about them. Or we end up in a scenario where my beard is threatened (or I need to be in a clean-shaven disguise). I never consciously declared to the GM that these things are central features of my character, but over time these story elements can grow and become more significant. This sort of promotion and demotion of roleplaying elements seems to be a significant component of most games that I've played, regardless of the system.



This is important.

You are right about fluidity: actual play doesn't manifest discrete _types_ or _moments_ of the neat types we use in analysis and criticism.

Some of what I had in mind in my post that you responded to is elaborated in my posts to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] just upthread.

Here's a passage from Christopher Kubasik that also captures what I had in mind:

The tales of a story entertainment are based not on the success of actions, but on the choice of actions; not the manipulation of rules, but the manipulation of narrative tools.

The primary tool is Character. Characters drive the narrative of all stories. However, many people mistake _character_ for _characterization_.

Characterization is the look of a character, the description of his voice, the quirks of habit. Characterization creates the concrete detail of a character through the use of sensory detail and exposition. By “seeing” how a character looks, how he picks up his wine glass, by knowing he has a love of fine tobacco, the character becomes concrete to our imagination, even while remaining nothing more than black ink upon a white page.

But a person thus described is not a character. A character must do.

Character is action. That’s a rule of thumb for plays and movies, and is valid as well for roleplaying games and story entertainments. This means that the best way to reveal your character is not through on an esoteric monologue about pipe and tobacco delivered by your character, but through your character’s actions.

But what actions? Not every action is true to a character; it is not enough to haphazardly do things in the name of action. Instead, actions must grow from the roots of Goals. A characterization imbued with a Goal that leads to action is a character.​
Because of the fluidity that you mention, it may be that _characterisation_ leads to _goals_ and thereby _character_ and protagonism. In this way it ceases to be _mere_ colour.

With respect to _interplay between the characters_, my own view is that the more this is conceived of in the same sort of frame as action declaration - ie something that _matters_ to play and is part of the way the players express their protagonism - the more we tend towards flourishing roleplaying. Consistently (I think) with your fluidity point, the colour becomes a bridge to play and action.

My thinking on this is also influenced by one particualr RPGing experience that I had. There was a lot of interplay between the characters, and among us we built up a strong sense of the gameworld, the stakes of the game, that was somewhat independent of what the GM was doing. At a certain point, the GM - I think in order to try and retake control of the game - moved us all 100 years into the future of the gameworld.

If the character stuff was mere colour then this wouldn't have mattered. But the character stuff wasn't mere colour. It was central to play. The GM's change, which severed the PCs from the gameworld and hence pulled the rug of their relationships out from under them, killed the game. I left it a few weeks after that change, and heard that it broke up completely not much later.

That's an example of the GM not recognising and respecting the protagonistic trajectory of the players' colour.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Yeah, I'm done here.  Pemerton's off using definitions that are just way out in left field and I honestly have completely lost whatever point he was trying to make.



The point is simple: a novel probably won't move you if it's poorly written. A letter from a family member is likely to move you regardless of how it's written.

RPGing is more like the latter than the former. It's about moving people through shared engagement with an imagined situation, not entertaining people by performing for them.


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> But your whole notion of what constitutes color, and what constitutes good color, is completely at odds with my notion. That is the crux of the problem here. And again I just don't buy into this *Content/Presentation-performance distinction* people are making. It hasn't been demonstrated to be a real distinction and it hasn't been shown by anyone to be useful for anything other than this discussion.




You realize this is the OP's original distinction... right?  The OP who you have continually agreed with...right?


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> You realize this is the OP's original distinction... right?  The OP who you have continually agreed with...right?



It's not my distinction, actually. I never used the word _content_. That's  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s word.

Hussar has suggested that I am eschewing description, but here's the OP:



pemerton said:


> 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 - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction. That is, that the situation _engage and motivate_ the players _as players_, not as an audience to a performance.




My point in this thread has been consistent: that what is distinctive about RPGing is that it engages by way of _participation in situation_, not _performance to an audience_.

I don't think it's that hard to understand, whether or not you agree with it.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> The point is simple: a novel probably won't move you if it's poorly written. A letter from a family member is likely to move you regardless of how it's written.
> 
> RPGing is more like the latter than the former. It's about moving people through shared engagement with an imagined situation, not entertaining people by performing for them.





Yeah but I'm also less likely to be able to fully engage with (emotionally, intellectually or however) the content of said letter if the presentation is horrible.  It's the same with rpg's for many people (especially since they would lack the implied emotion connection that a family member would draw on)


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> You realize this is the OP's original distinction... right?  The OP who you have continually agreed with...right?




Look at my response to the op. I agreed that RPGs are not literary. I also agreed with him that you don’t have to be in acting mode to depict a character. At every point I have disagreed with adding a new model or language around this distinction.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> It's not my distinction, actually. I never used the word _content_. That's  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s word.
> 
> Hussar has suggested that I am eschewing description, but here's the OP:
> 
> 
> 
> My point in this thread has been consistent: that what is distinctive about RPGing is that it engages by way of _participation in situation_, not _performance to an audience_.
> 
> I don't think it's that hard to understand, whether or not you agree with it.




Well maybe it wasn't stated clearly enough... either way I disagree... some people are engaged during roleplaying games because of the performances going on plain and simple they are a player type that has been identified in Robin Laws (I believe) player types or are you saying they don't exist?  I also don;t think engagement  through participation in a situation is distinct... choose your own adventure books, boardgames and videogames all do this to varying degrees...


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Yeah but I'm also less likely to be able to fully engage with (emotionally, intellectually or however) the content of said letter if the presentation is horrible.



Really?

That's a surprise to me. When I read a letter from a family member I'm not really worried about the spelling or puncutation, let alone it's literary merit.


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> Look at my response to the op. I agreed that RPGs are not literary. I also agreed with him that you don’t have to be in acting mode to depict a character. At every point I have disagreed with adding a new model or language around this distinction.




No one made the claim that you *had* to be in "acting" mode to depict a character. The objection has been to the OP basically claiming color is not in fact a core (distinct??? this isn't really clear either IMO) component of roleplaying games when for many (but not all) it certainly is.  Some won't engage with your content/situation/whatever if the color in your game sucks.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Really?
> 
> That's a surprise to me. When I read a letter from a family member I'm not really worried about the spelling or puncutation, let alone it's literary merit.




Doesn't that depend on what the letter is about? And if that impedes clarity... how can you not worry about those things?  

And again how does situation in a roleplaying game equate to the emotional bond of a family member??


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Well maybe it wasn't stated clearly enough... either way I disagree... some people are engaged during roleplaying games because of the performances going on plain and simple they are a player type that has been identified in Robin Laws (I believe) player types or are you saying they don't exist?  I also don;t think engagement  through participation in a situation is distinct... choose your own adventure books, boardgames and videogames all do this to varying degrees...



I think that Choose Your Own Adventure books and boardgames are not very satisfactory vehicles for participating in a situation. Their structured natures make them relatively poor vehicles for protagonism.

Video games I can't comment on.

And I'm not denying that there are people who enjoy RPGs because they are entertained by performances or give entertaining performances. I'm denying that this activity is at the heart of RPGing. The OP isn't a piece of sociology; it's a piece of criticism.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I think that Choose Your Own Adventure books and boardgames are not very satisfactory vehicles for participating in a situation. Their structured natures make them relatively poor vehicles for protagonism.




Uhm...ok you can feel that way but it doesn't make it true... unless you are claiming that OD&D, BECMI, AD&D, etc. played in a traditional manner are poor vehicles for protagonism... how can you say the same about games like Gloomhaven, Descent, Massive Darkness, the D&D boardgames (Castle Ravenloft, Wrath of Ashardalon, etc.) and so on?



pemerton said:


> Video games I can't comment on.




Perhaps I'm not understanding how you are using the word protagonism here... could you define it?  I would think videogames (especially open world games) would fit the bill pretty nicely. 




pemerton said:


> And I'm not denying that there are people who enjoy RPGs because they are entertained by performances or give entertaining performances. I'm denying that this activity is at the heart of RPGing. The OP isn't a piece of sociology; it's a piece of criticism.




What does "at the heart of roleplaying" even mean?  for some people they will not play a game without color how is that not "at the heart of roleplaying" for them?  For others they've gotten along just fine using pre-made adventures or running games without scene framing, setting stakes, etc... is your engagement of situation "at the heart of roleplaying" for them?  What if they want to play in a pre-plotted campaign where, since the situations they will face and the way they will engage with them is generally known, color really is the most important thing for them?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bedrockgames

Lowery I understand what Pemerton is saying. Believe me I have every reason I’m the world to want to disagree with him on stuff. We generally do not see eye to eye. But he is making a sensible point and he isn’t saying other people havevyo adopt his approach—he is just asserting how he reacts to things like stakes, GM narration etc. for my part I largely agree with his point about narration. When the GM performs in a flavorful way, doesn’t go as much for me emotionally as what is going on. I would surely quibble over details but I basically agree with him: this isn’t literaryand the GM doing things like speaking as though he is a narrator from a novel takes away from the experience for me. 

You are spending a lot of effort trying to make me look and feel like an idiot. I understand the basic points being made. But a lot of my responses are to specific replies. People are being disingenuous when they say something specific, I react to it, then they tell me it is somehow out of bounds because the thread is about something else. I am just responding to what people say directly to me. And I will note most of my specific questions were ignored.


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> Lowery I understand what Pemerton is saying. Believe me I have every reason I’m the world to want to disagree with him on stuff. We generally do not see eye to eye. But he is making a sensible point and he isn’t saying other people havevyo adopt his approach—he is just asserting how he reacts to things like stakes, GM narration etc. for my part I largely agree with his point about narration. When the GM performs in a flavorful way, doesn’t go as much for me emotionally as what is going on. I would surely quibble over details but I basically agree with him: this isn’t literaryand the GM doing things like speaking as though he is a narrator from a novel takes away from the experience for me.
> 
> You are spending a lot of effort trying to make me look and feel like an idiot. I understand the basic points being made. But a lot of my responses are to specific replies. People are being disingenuous when they say something specific, I react to it, then they tell me it is somehow out of bounds because the thread is about something else. I am just responding to what people say directly to me. And I will note most of my specific questions were ignored.




So he can express his opinion but those expressing the opposite are pushing a playstyle agenda??  Wouldnt that go both ways?


----------



## Satyrn

Bedrockgames said:


> I don’t know how you can read lowkeys or the other posters responses and not take it as being insulting. Sorry but none of this is coming across as humor to me.




Ouch.

This gotta be the meanest thing anyone else ever said to me here.  I mean, not even bothering to call me by name stings but that's not too bad. If you had just said I wasn't funny, that might've been okay. Jokes fall flat, it's what they do ("especially when you tell them!" cry the hecklers).

But to say you can't even see the joke?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> So he can express his opinion but those expressing the opposite are pushing a playstyle agenda??  Wouldnt that go both ways?




It always goes both ways, but only when both sides are pushing a playstyle. I've been in a lot of these threads, and not everyone is always pushing a playstyle. Frequently people are just defending their own against an attack from another poster. There is a difference between pushing a playstyle (which is what Hussar seemed to be doing) and expressing an opinion about what you like. Just go back and look at the entire discussion involving performance and things like how to play dwarven characters. There was push back because he was characterizing other approaches as less creative. 

These threads almost always boil down to some kind of playstyle dispute (specifically discussions involving this group of posters), and the language and models that get put forward almost always seem like a way of making that playstyle prime. And I would argue that is what Hussar was doing with performance. He eventually backed off, but he continued to push for the playstyle in question. That is why I am so resistant to adopting the language and models put forth in these threads (they don't usually seem like an honest attempt at objective analysis of play).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Satyrn said:


> Ouch.
> 
> This gotta be the meanest thing anyone else ever said to me here.  I mean, not even bothering to call me by name stings but that's not too bad. If you had just said I wasn't funny, that might've been okay. Jokes fall flat, it's what they do ("especially when you tell them!" cry the hecklers).
> 
> But to say you can't even see the joke?




I could see you were trying to be funny. But it also felt pretty insulting. I don't think I could be objective enough in this case to comment on the quality of the humor.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> No one made the claim that you *had* to be in "acting" mode to depict a character. The objection has been to the OP basically claiming color is not in fact a core (distinct??? this isn't really clear either IMO) component of roleplaying games when for many (but not all) it certainly is.  Some won't engage with your content/situation/whatever if the color in your game sucks.




Hussar repeatedly advocating treating playing your character the way an actor does. I think the reason pemerton is so reluctant to recognize the shifting terms performance/color/etc as core is because so much playstyle preference has been attached to them in this discussion. If you are going to say something like the GM narrating in an evocative way is a core part of game, then that is positioning anyone who approaches narration more dryly as not playing to the core experience of an RPG. These definitional arguments always center around playstyle. I have seen this on countless forums and it never really helps clarify play or improve things. It just helps push people away from each other and make people feel gross or bad for playing in ways that are not within the defined parameters. 

I think you guys are seeing color through a pretty myopic lens here.


----------



## Satyrn

Maxperson said:


> Except not.  I know for a fact that all I'm doing is having some fun, and not even all of it has to do with you at all, and what does is just ribbing.  No insults at all.  If you are feeling insulted, then you are seeing insult where there isn't any.  [MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION] is one of the nicest people here, so I'm certain that she is also just having some fun with a bit of ribbing.  [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] I'm not as certain about, but he has a similar humor to mine, so I think he is probably doing the same as [MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION] and I.




I had . . .  . . . a cat, a very beautiful cat with flowing white fur and the most gorgeous silver-blue eyes. And though he was a charming buffoon, he carried himself with a natural elegance, like the whole world was his catwalk.

I also had a neighbour . . . insisted on calling him by a flowery name she christened him with and referring to him as her. The cat was so beautiful, my neighbour just could not she him as masculine. This went on for years, I just stopped correcting my neighbour.

Ultimately, it was a compliment to the cat. He really was the prettiest cat in the world.

And so I will take the compliment, and accept that I am the nicest poster on EnWorld.


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> Hussar repeatedly advocating treating playing your character the way an actor does. I think the reason pemerton is so reluctant to recognize the shifting terms performance/color/etc as core is because so much playstyle preference has been attached to them in this discussion. *If you are going to say something like the GM narrating in an evocative way is a core part of game, then that is positioning anyone who approaches narration more dryly as not playing to the core experience of an RPG*. These definitional arguments always center around playstyle. I have seen this on countless forums and it never really helps clarify play or improve things. It just helps push people away from each other and make people feel gross or bad for playing in ways that are not within the defined parameters.
> 
> I think you guys are seeing color through a pretty myopic lens here.




Yep and claiming it's not (which was the point of this thread) insinuates those who play roleplaying games for that experience as their main reaon are "doing it wrong"...


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> Yep and claiming it's not (which was the point of this thread) insinuates those who play roleplaying games for that experience as their main reaon are "doing it wrong"...




I just re-read the OP but I am honestly not getting that. It reads to me as him saying this is what is important to him. But just to be clear, I think there is room for evocative narration, I just don't think it is essential.


----------



## Lanefan

Bedrockgames said:


> Equating reading a full thread of posts with educating oneself seems a real reach for me.



Well, knowing the twists and turns a conversation took to get to where it is can be useful.  If all one reads is the first post and the last few pages it's easy to just end up rehashing topics that have already come and gone within the discussion.



> Not everyone engages discussions on forums by reading every single post (particularly with long ones like this).



Which can, sometimes, lead to misunderstandings and confusion.  No way round it.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Darkvision and poison resistance seem like elements in action declaration and action resolution rather than performance/presentation, so I'll put them to one side.
> 
> In most FRPGing, grooming one's beard, choosing one's food, not liking boat,s is all just colour.



Thing is, what you dismiss as 'colour' is often at the very heart of portraying one's character in terms of how and what it thinks, its opinions on various aspects of life, and visualization.

If I make it clear over time that my Dwarf is fastidious about grooming his beard and his choices of food, it can reasonably be assumed that fastidiousness extends into other aspects of his life - including adventuring - and !bang! part of both his personality and looks falls into place.  This might then play in to how said Dwarf reacts to events in the field - does a foe notice how clean he is and throw mud at him to enrage him, for example.



> If my familiarity with the underground, or the distinctive histories or politics of my people, actually _matter_ in play then that will come out in action declaration - as it does, for instance, for the dwarf in my 4e game.



It might, or might not, depending on whether those things are or become relevant to the actions at hand.  Further complicating things is that some systems mechanize stuff like this (e.g. Knowledge skill) while others do not; but to suggest that something only matters if it's mechanized is way over the top.



> Conversely, if the only way that I can tell your character is a butler is because you make references to the sivlerware that have no bearing on the actual play of the game; or if the only way I can tell you're a dwarf is because of your repeated references to your beard that never actually matters to any actions that your character undertakes; then I wonder what the point of the descriptor is at all. How is it actually informing the role you are playing in the game?



The point of the descriptor is just that: a descriptor that allows you to better visualize (and audialize, if the player is using her own normal voice) the character being played.  It's colour.  And colour is good.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> And I'm not denying that there are people who enjoy RPGs because they are entertained by performances or give entertaining performances. I'm denying that this activity is at the heart of RPGing.



Which is a fundamental difference between us: as far as I'm concerned entertaining others and being entertained in return are the heart and soul of RPGing (including LARP here); and are what make it a different - and more enjoyable - kind of activity from almost any other.


----------



## Lanefan

Quick survey for the regulars here: 

Let's say that for whatever reason you know going in that tonight's session, where you're playing a well-developed character you're familiar with and enjoy playing, is highly likely to consist of nothing but in-character roleplaying and interactions with other PCs (and maybe NPCs) with no story progress likely to be made and maybe little if any reference to the story at all, and little if any chance of combat (unless the PCs decide to throw down vs each other for some reason).  It's not a bookkeeping session, though.  Maybe you've decided to play out in detail some discussions the PCs have while on a long ship voyage.

On a scale of 1 (dread) to 10 (bursting) how enthusiastic would you be when looking forward to the session.

I'd be somewhere between 8 and 10, with the variance dependent on situation.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Lanefan said:


> Quick survey for the regulars here:
> 
> Let's say that for whatever reason you know going in that tonight's session, where you're playing a well-developed character you're familiar with and enjoy playing, is highly likely to consist of nothing but in-character roleplaying and interactions with other PCs (and maybe NPCs) with no story progress likely to be made and maybe little if any reference to the story at all, and little if any chance of combat (unless the PCs decide to throw down vs each other for some reason).  It's not a bookkeeping session, though.  Maybe you've decided to play out in detail some discussions the PCs have while on a long ship voyage.
> 
> On a scale of 1 (dread) to 10 (bursting) how enthusiastic would you be when looking forward to the session.
> 
> I'd be somewhere between 8 and 10, with the variance dependent on situation.




When I was younger, I would be into this. As I got older, I wanted a better mix of role-play, events, challenges and development.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Lanefan said:


> Which is a fundamental difference between us: as far as I'm concerned entertaining others and being entertained in return are the heart and soul of RPGing (including LARP here); and are what make it a different - and more enjoyable - kind of activity from almost any other.




And this is why the discussion isn't really going anywhere, it is about this divide. I certainly don't mind being entertained by others, I just don't see it as why I am there to game. I am there for the immersive experience and for the interaction with my friends. If I viewed it as them being there to entertain me, it just feels strange. Doesn't mean the session isn't lively, people don't talk in character, or that people don't make one another laugh (they frequently do). It just isn't consciously performative.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> The objection has been to the OP basically claiming color is not in fact a core (distinct??? this isn't really clear either IMO) component of roleplaying games



That's actually not what the OP says.

Colour, obviously, is fundamental to heaps of RPGing. (Maybe not some classic dungeoncrawling.) I don't think the word "colour" appears in the OP. The OP does say _RPGing requires narration: GMs describe situations_ - that narration and description will involve colour.

My claim is about the focus of, and foundation of, emotional engagement in RPGing. As the OP says, _What matters to me is that the players feel the significance of the situations the GM describes - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction. That is, that the situation engage and motivate the players as players, not as an audience to a performance._



Imaro said:


> Doesn't that depend on what the letter is about? And if that impedes clarity... how can you not worry about those things?



I don't know where you see _clarity_ coming from in this discussion.

It's helpful if - say - stereo installation instructions are clear, but that doesn't show that writing such instructions is a _literary_ endeavour.

RPGing involves communication. Communication can be facilitated by clarity. (Though it's a threshold issue, not "the more the better", which already shows us the difference from literary quality.) This doesn't show that RPGing is _literary_ or oriented towards _performance_.



lowkey13 said:


> regardless of the way it is framed (which has changed multiple times), he does not believe that emotional engagement can or should be evoked by player or DM narration of any kind



This is obviously false, given the following from the OP:



pemerton said:


> 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 - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction. That is, that the situation _engage and motivate_ the players _as players_, not as an audience to a performance.



There are different ways of evoking emotion by saying things to people. The formal aesthetic qualities of what is said and how it is said (metre and cadence, rhyme, alliteration, precise word choice and word contrast, modulation of tone and volume, etc) is one way. Acting and recitation depend on these devices. When I give a lecture, these are important things.

Another way to evoke emotion by saying things is to _say things that hook onto what the interlocutor cares about_. This typically does not depend upon those formal aesthetic qualities - one can, for instance, pause and reframe; hesitate, inviting some request for direction or clarifiation from the interlocutor; allow volume and tone to _follow_ emotion rather than lead it.

I'm expressing a view about which RPGing is more like.

 [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] and I disagree on many things about RPGing. But having read Bedrockgames's posts to this thread, I think he understands what I am saying and largely agrees. Oddly enough that happens sometimes!

And on that topic:



Bedrockgames said:


> I certainly don't mind being entertained by others, I just don't see it as why I am there to game. I am there for the immersive experience and for the interaction with my friends. If I viewed it as them being there to entertain me, it just feels strange. Doesn't mean the session isn't lively, people don't talk in character, or that people don't make one another laugh (they frequently do). It just isn't consciously performative.



This is true for me also.


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> The point is simple: a novel probably won't move you if it's poorly written. A letter from a family member is likely to move you regardless of how it's written.
> 
> RPGing is more like the latter than the former. It's about moving people through shared engagement with an imagined situation, not entertaining people by performing for them.




Nope.  You are wrong.  It's as simple as that.  The point of a letter is to communicate information.  That it moves you is because it's from a family member, not the fact that it's a letter.  The identical letter, with identical words, written by a complete stranger likely won't engender any emotional response.   Since I don't play with family members, it's very unlikely that my friend will engender an emotional response simply because they are my friend.  The will, however, engender an emotional response through various techniques - ie. how they present.  

And, of course, this ignores the various literary techniques used in an RPG - one doesn't foreshadow in a conversation, for example.  One rarely has enough control over reality to use pathetic fallacies (the weather or the environment matches tone and mood).  And a host of other literary techniques that we use when crafting scenarios in order to convey mood and tension.

So, no.  An RPG is not like writing a letter to a family member, nor is it akin to conversation.  Playing an RPG is far, far closer to an improv performance where the players (including the GM) use various techniques to convey feeling, tone and mood - all those things [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] writes off as non-sequiturs since, apparently, it's only important if it's tied to mechanics.

Now, where [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] is wrong is that he's insisting that I'm saying that there are better and worse ways to present.  That's not true.  Every table will have to make a choice as to how that information is presented.  And, hopefully, the table will come to some sort of consensus on how that information is conveyed.  Granted, I prefer a particular style, but, that doesn't make it better.  But, at some point, that table will have to figure out what presentation style works for that table.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> Quick survey for the regulars here:
> 
> Let's say that for whatever reason you know going in that tonight's session, where you're playing a well-developed character you're familiar with and enjoy playing, is highly likely to consist of nothing but in-character roleplaying and interactions with other PCs (and maybe NPCs) with no story progress likely to be made and maybe little if any reference to the story at all, and little if any chance of combat (unless the PCs decide to throw down vs each other for some reason).  It's not a bookkeeping session, though.  Maybe you've decided to play out in detail some discussions the PCs have while on a long ship voyage.
> 
> On a scale of 1 (dread) to 10 (bursting) how enthusiastic would you be when looking forward to the session.
> 
> I'd be somewhere between 8 and 10, with the variance dependent on situation.




Maybe a 3.

I want there always to be some forward momentum. I don’t mind the occasional dip into in character discussions. In my experience, those usually remain story focused, though. An entire session spent having a conversation that has little to no impact on the game doesn’t really do much for me.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> The point of a letter is to communicate information.  That it moves you is because it's from a family member, not the fact that it's a letter.  The identical letter, with identical words, written by a complete stranger likely won't engender any emotional response.



Yes. This is my point, so I'm not sure why you frame this as disagreeing with me.



Hussar said:


> Since I don't play with family members, it's very unlikely that my friend will engender an emotional response simply because they are my friend.  The will, however, engender an emotional response through various techniques - ie. how they present.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> An RPG is not like writing a letter to a family member, nor is it akin to conversation. Playing an RPG is far, far closer to an improv performance where the players (including the GM) use various techniques to convey feeling, tone and mood



But this _is_ exactly what I'm talking about.

As I posted I think in my last reply to you, I don't understand what role you think action declaration and the distinctive _player_ role in a RPG are doing. As you describe it, it would make no difference if everyone was working through a rough script but improving the details of characterisation.


----------



## Hussar

Pemerton said:
			
		

> It's helpful if - say - stereo installation instructions are clear, but that doesn't show that writing such instructions is a literary endeavour.




Again, considering the immense expenditure companies incur in technical writing, I'm going to say that you are very, very wrong here.  It matters a LOT how instructions are written and, for example Ikea, ease of use is often a strong motivator for sales.

You're claiming that so long as the information is there, how it's presented doesn't matter.  There's a mountain of evidence out there that says you really aren't correct here.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> Let's say that for whatever reason you know going in that tonight's session, where you're playing a well-developed character you're familiar with and enjoy playing, is highly likely to consist of nothing but in-character roleplaying and interactions with other PCs (and maybe NPCs) with no story progress likely to be made and maybe little if any reference to the story at all, and little if any chance of combat (unless the PCs decide to throw down vs each other for some reason).  It's not a bookkeeping session, though.  Maybe you've decided to play out in detail some discussions the PCs have while on a long ship voyage.
> 
> On a scale of 1 (dread) to 10 (bursting) how enthusiastic would you be when looking forward to the session.





hawkeyefan said:


> Maybe a 3.
> 
> I want there always to be some forward momentum. I don’t mind the occasional dip into in character discussions. In my experience, those usually remain story focused, though. An entire session spent having a conversation that has little to no impact on the game doesn’t really do much for me.



A complication for me in responding to Lanefan's question is _what is the story which is not progressing_?


----------



## Hussar

Pemerton said:
			
		

> As I posted I think in my last reply to you, I don't understand what role you think action declaration and the distinctive player role in a RPG are doing. As you describe it, it would make no difference if everyone was working through a rough script but improving the details of characterisation.




What do you think a module is?  If not a rough script?  Since this whole conversation came out of the notion of using boxed text for modules, it does seem rather apropos.  Come right down to it, what do you think happens in most RGP sessions?  Do you really believe that most RPG sessions don't have a rough script, typically written by the GM, although, that can vary with more "pass the story stick" style games?

Unless your DM/GM is really, really good at improvising every single session, every single time, and has zero idea where the campaign is moving towards, you have a rough script.   And, certainly, if you are using a module, or moreso with an Adventure Path, you have a very strong "rough script".

((BTW, I think I did this right, I think you missed a quote tag in your quote of me, so, if I missed something there, my bad))


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Again, considering the immense expenditure companies incur in technical writing, I'm going to say that you are very, very wrong here.  It matters a LOT how instructions are written and, for example Ikea, ease of use is often a strong motivator for sales.



People spend millions of dollars painting buildings, too. That doesn't show that painting buildings is per se an artistic endeavour - maybe it is (if we're painting St Peters), maybe it's not (if we're painting a block of flats to protect the exterior against the weather).

I'm a published author in a natural language based but technical discipline. (Or in fact two such disciplines: law and philosophy.) I deliver lectures and other sorts of public or semi-public addresses as a key part of my job. I know a fair bit about writing and a little bit about spoken presentation.

When I referee an article and send it back for rewriting because it's confused; or when I mark up a student's work and tell her or him how it needs to be restructured to make the argument clear; these are not literary considerations. They have nothing to do with evoking emotion through the use of formal compositional/recitational devices.

I guess someone somewhere once has been moved by the ingenuity of the Ikea instructions - the world is full of all types - but I don't think anyone is expecting the instruction drafter to be nominated for the Nobel prize.


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> A complication for me in responding to Lanefan's question is _what is the story which is not progressing_?




Yeah, that’s something different at every table, I would guess. For me, it’s a pretty broad category and can consist of a variety of things....which is why if it was somehow avoided entirely in a session, I’d probably not be all that interested.

Thinking of my two current campaigns....a D&D 5e game and a Blades in the Dark game, I’d say that each is probably the “story” of the party or crew. My D&D group has a main opponent they are devoted to defeating, and also personal quests for many characters as well. My Blades game (and most Blades games, I expect) is about the criminal enterprise of the crew, and its successes and failures. 

I’m having a hard time conceiving what a session for either game would even look like if it didn’t connect to the group in some way.


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> People spend millions of dollars painting buildings, too. That doesn't show that painting buildings is per se an artistic endeavour - maybe it is (if we're painting St Peters), maybe it's not (if we're painting a block of flats to protect the exterior against the weather).
> 
> I'm a published author in a natural language based but technical discipline. (Or in fact two such disciplines: law and philosophy.) I deliver lectures and other sorts of public or semi-public addresses as a key part of my job. I know a fair bit about writing and a little bit about spoken presentation.
> 
> When I referee an article and send it back for rewriting because it's confused; or when I mark up a student's work and tell her or him how it needs to be restructured to make the argument clear; these are not literary considerations. They have nothing to do with evoking emotion through the use of formal compositional/recitational devices.
> 
> I guess someone somewhere once has been moved by the ingenuity of the Ikea instructions - the world is full of all types - but I don't think anyone is expecting the instruction drafter to be nominated for the Nobel prize.




So, in your mind, an RPG is akin to technical writing?  No emotion whatsoever.  The only emotional connection comes when you put together that shelf, as it were?  

I would imagine, as well, when writing academic papers, that evoking an emotional response would not be the point either.

But, when writing a scenario for an RPG, evoking an emotional response very much IS the point.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> What do you think a module is?  If not a rough script?  Since this whole conversation came out of the notion of using boxed text for modules, it does seem rather apropos.  Come right down to it, what do you think happens in most RGP sessions?  Do you really believe that most RPG sessions don't have a rough script, typically written by the GM, although, that can vary with more "pass the story stick" style games?
> )




Some do have a rough script but many don't.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> I would imagine, as well, when writing academic papers, that evoking an emotional response would not be the point either.
> 
> But, when writing a scenario for an RPG, evoking an emotional response very much IS the point.




I think it is a mix. You definitely want modules* to excite interest in the GM. And there are different ways to do that. But ultimately a module needs to be run smoothly at the table, so I think greater priority is often given to clearly places concise information that the GM can grab hold of in the heat of play. There is also definitely room for evocative stuff, but I think that is best placed in the introduction and in other places that you are not sifting through live in play (or at least keeping the evocative stuff brief so it doesn't make look-up too difficult).

*Trying to respond to your post about modules as well here


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> A complication for me in responding to Lanefan's question is _what is the story which is not progressing_?



For these purposes it doesn't matter.  The session consists of the characters sitting on a ship, or around a campfire or at some other uninterrupted down-ish-time, just carrying on a conversation that's all done via in-character role-play at the table.  This conversation could reference stuff the characters have already done/met in the established fiction (i.e. they're telling war stories from past adventures), or could reference their backgrounds and histories ("so how did you end up here anyway?"), or their outlooks toward things ("if the Duke upped his taxes by half, would you pay them?"  "When you raid a village of Orcs, do you kill the young?") - whatever, as long as they're talking in character.



> When I referee an article and send it back for rewriting because it's confused; or when I mark up a student's work and tell her or him how it needs to be restructured to make the argument clear; these are not literary considerations. They have nothing to do with evoking emotion through the use of formal compositional/recitational devices.



Might not have anything to do with emotion, but clarity is still a significant element of presentation no matter what you're presenting or why.  Thus, editing for grammar and-or clarity is very much a literary consideration.

Going back to the family-letter example - if the handwriting is nearly unreadable (like mine!) the letter is by default going to have less impact than if the handwriting was clear and legible, because the reader will face a greater struggle to comprehend it.  Ditto if the spelling is all over the place, and (to a lesser extent) the grammar.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> Some do have a rough script but many don't.




What module does not have a rough script?  I have several years of Dungeon Magazine as well as a pretty hefty collection of other modules, and, AFAIK, a rough script is exactly what a module is.  Heck, if you make a simple dungeon crawl, all that really is is a flowchart with decision points of a rough script.  

In what way is a module not a rough script?  It tells you what happens where and when.  What more does a script need?


----------



## Henry

“Can be?” Yes, absolutely. See everything from Dragonlance, to Sepulchrave’s Story Hour, here on these very forums. (I would argue Sepluchrave’s “Tales of Wyre” are an even purer form of that, since it arose directly from play.)

“Is, as in always?” Absolutely not. Some games can be basically Doom or Duke Nukem, writ large in a fantasy setting. For every “Tales of Wyre”, there are three tables of players shouting, “STOP TALKING TO MY EXPERIENCE POINTS!!”


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> And this is why the discussion isn't really going anywhere, it is about this divide. I certainly don't mind being entertained by others, I just don't see it as why I am there to game. I am there for the immersive experience and for the interaction with my friends. If I viewed it as them being there to entertain me, it just feels strange. Doesn't mean the session isn't lively, people don't talk in character, or that people don't make one another laugh (they frequently do). It just isn't consciously performative.




If the player is talking in character, it is performative, though.  Stepping into the character first person is you performing what the character is saying.  Talking about what the character says in third person would not be.  Third person is not talking in character.  It's just descriptive.


----------



## Hussar

Maxperson said:


> If the player is talking in character, it is performative, though.  Stepping into the character first person is you performing what the character is saying.  Talking about what the character says in third person would not be.  Third person is not talking in character.  It's just descriptive.




But, even in third person, it can still be performative.  "Grgur walks cautiously down the hallway, looking carefully to see if there is anything out of place" is perfomative - you have desciptors like "cautiously" and "carefully".  Compared to "Grgur strides down the hall."  Both are third person, but, both are using language specifically chosen to evoke a particular scene.  A non-descriptive would simply be, "Grgur moves down the hall".  That's content without performance.

 [MENTION=158]Henry[/MENTION], I SO am stealing that line for my next D&D session.  

A perfect example of a dungeon that is pure content without any literary elements would be the dungeon I attached to this post.  Would anyone say that this is what a module looks like?


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> I think you missed a quote tag in your quote of me, so, if I missed something there, my bad))



Thanks for the heads up - I've deleted the stray material in that post.



Hussar said:


> this whole conversation came out of the notion of using boxed text for modules



As per the OP, it came from multiple recent threads. One was the boxed text thread. Another was the action declaration thread ("DC to know a NPC is telling the truth"). In that second thread, there were some posters who seemed to equate _describing a PC's action as a component of action declaration_ with _a florid or literary account of what the PC is doing_.



Hussar said:


> What do you think a module is?  If not a rough script?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> what do you think happens in most RGP sessions?  Do you really believe that most RPG sessions don't have a rough script, typically written by the GM
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Unless your DM/GM is really, really good at improvising every single session, every single time, and has zero idea where the campaign is moving towards, you have a rough script.   And, certainly, if you are using a module, or moreso with an Adventure Path, you have a very strong "rough script".



I would normally think of a module as a series of situations. Invitations to action declaration.

If there is really a rough script then the outcomes of those action declarations must be known in advance. Which is to say that the action declarations don't really matter to how things unfold. If that is how someone is approaching RPGing, then I can see how my characterisation of it in the OP might have little applicability. And how they might look at _performance_ as central to what is going on.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> What module does not have a rough script?  I have several years of Dungeon Magazine as well as a pretty hefty collection of other modules, and, AFAIK, a rough script is exactly what a module is.  Heck, if you make a simple dungeon crawl, all that really is is a flowchart with decision points of a rough script.
> 
> In what way is a module not a rough script?  It tells you what happens where and when.  What more does a script need?




That isn't a rough script. A rough script would be something like an adventure path where there is a clear sense of direction. There are plenty of modules that are just explorations of regions for example. Isle of Dread, once your there, is pretty open in that respect. Living Adventures, Situational Adventures and Sandboxes, are just a few examples of module structures that avoid rough scripts. These days it is very easy to get modules that completely avoid rough script in favor of more sandbox-like material. Some might have traces of rough script in them here and there (though a lot of times those are just there for training wheels purposes, and intended to be ignored by solid GMs, like Scourge of the Demon Wolf). When I write adventure modules I specifically avoid anything that feels like rough script. I may provide a hook or some kind of starting point for the sake of convenience. But once the module starts it is more about the exploration of locations, the interactions of living NPCs, and the dynamic produced by all that once you drop in PCs. Maybe we just disagree on what a rough script is. But I would definitely not regard these kinds of modules as being that.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> So, in your mind, an RPG is akin to technical writing?  No emotion whatsoever.



Not at all. 

 [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] is the person who introduced _clarity_ as a desideratum. My point was that _clarity_ is not really connected to _literary quality_, and pointed to instructions as an example.

If you agree that instructions don't typically display literary quality, then I think you should agree that - to the extent that clarity matters in RPGing - then that doesn't really bear on the issues raised in the OP.

The comparisons that I have made to the sort of communication that takes place in RPGing are other forms of more-or-less intimate communications where artifice and literary quality are not pre-eminent concerns, such as conversation and letters. These don't evoke emotions _because of their literary qualities_. They invoke emotions _because they pertain to things the interlocutor cares about_. In conversations and letters, the caring is about _actual things that matter to the interlocutor_. In RPGing, the caring is the result of _the player wanting to play his/her PC_ - because that's the point of the game - and _feeling the invitation to do so_ in the situation the GM presents.

 [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] describes this as _immersion_ in the character and situation. I haven't myself used this term, because it brings baggage with it that I don't feel is helpful for my purposes. When I want a phrase to describe what is going on here, I tend to refer to "inhabitation" of the PC. But regardless of the particular terminology used, I hope the general notion is clear enough.

This is why I keep coming back to action declaration and protagonism.



Hussar said:


> When writing a scenario for an RPG, evoking an emotional response very much IS the point.



Who disagrees with that? (Subject to presently irrelevant exceptions - I don't think a dungeon crawl like ToH or even B2 is really supposed to evoke emotions, any more than a typical wargame is - but I don't think either of us has that in mind as the paradigm we're talking about.)

The OP is about _the manner whereby this evoking of emotions occurs_.



Bedrockgames said:


> You definitely want modules* to excite interest in the GM.



What excites me about a module - as a GM - is not the quality of its writing but the power of the situation it presents. Four examples, each a module, or a bit of a module, that has excited my interest enough for me to use it (spoilers, but mostly for very old adventures):

* The Haunted Manse (?), a mini-module in Best of White Dwarf Scenarios vol 2, put together by Albie Fiore using monsters submitted by readers for the Fiend Factory column. I remember nothing about the prose, and the layout is typical of an early-80s magazine. But the idea of a son returned home with 12 dwarven retainers, who is in fact a shapechanged demon with 12 dream demon companions, has always caught my imagination.

* The evil priest in B2. B2 has terrible prose and layout. But the idea of an evil priest - whom I've always treated as part of the cult in the caves - who befriends the PCs and then tries to bring them into evil ways or sacrifice them to evil has always been compelling to me. It emphasises the whole tone of the Keep, that there are borderlands in which chaos can seep into and undermine ordinary civilised life.

* The old man in Death Frost Doom, who can tell the name of a dead person by touching them. I first read this module in its original form (before Zak S prettied it up). The layout is bare bones and the prose is nothing special. But this idea really grabbed me, and a version of this NPC was at the centre of one particular situation in my 4e game.

* Robin Laws Demon of the Red Grove scenario in his HeroWars Narrator's Book. I thought the ideas in this scenario - which begins with an apple grove that is not bearing fruit because it's haunted - were imaginative and engaging. I adapted it to Epic Tier 4e play, setting it in the Feywild.​
It's a scenario's promise for play that excites me as a GM.



Hussar said:


> A perfect example of a dungeon that is pure content without any literary elements would be the dungeon I attached to this post.  Would anyone say that this is what a module looks like?



That's not remotely compelling. It has no situation at all.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> "Grgur walks cautiously down the hallway, looking carefully to see if there is anything out of place" is perfomative - you have desciptors like "cautiously" and "carefully".  Compared to "Grgur strides down the hall."  Both are third person, but, both are using language specifically chosen to evoke a particular scene.  A non-descriptive would simply be, "Grgur moves down the hall".  That's content without performance.



Notice that you've got three different action declarations here. Two of them are contrasting:

* Grgur walks down the hallway, be cautious and looking carefully to see if anything is out of place.

* Grugr strides down the hallway.​
And one is less specific:

* Grugr moves down the hallway.​
I don't know why you think that the extra information in the two contrasting declarations doesn't count as "content" in the way you're using that word - that extra information is all about what Grugr is doing.

And I don't know why you think this shows that RPGing is importantly literary. I don't care how eloquently or poetically the player conveys the manner in which Grugr proceeds down the hall; but knowing what that manner is may (in some systems) be highly relevant to action resolution.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> What excites me about a module - as a GM - is not the quality of its writing but the power of the situation it presents. Four examples, each a module, or a bit of a module, that has excited my interest enough for me to use it (spoilers, but mostly for very old adventures):
> 
> * The Haunted Manse (?), a mini-module in Best of White Dwarf Scenarios vol 2, put together by Albie Fiore using monsters submitted by readers for the Fiend Factory column. I remember nothing about the prose, and the layout is typical of an early-80s magazine. But the idea of a son returned home with 12 dwarven retainers, who is in fact a shapechanged demon with 12 dream demon companions, has always caught my imagination.
> 
> * The evil priest in B2. B2 has terrible prose and layout. But the idea of an evil priest - whom I've always treated as part of the cult in the caves - who befriends the PCs and then tries to bring them into evil ways or sacrifice them to evil has always been compelling to me. It emphasises the whole tone of the Keep, that there are borderlands in which chaos can seep into and undermine ordinary civilised life.
> 
> * The old man in Death Frost Doom, who can tell the name of a dead person by touching them. I first read this module in its original form (before Zak S prettied it up). The layout is bare bones and the prose is nothing special. But this idea really grabbed me, and a version of this NPC was at the centre of one particular situation in my 4e game.
> 
> * Robin Laws Demon of the Red Grove scenario in his HeroWars Narrator's Book. I thought the ideas in this scenario - which begins with an apple grove that is not bearing fruit because it's haunted - were imaginative and engaging. I adapted it to Epic Tier 4e play, setting it in the Feywild.​
> It's a scenario's promise for play that excites me as a GM.
> 
> That's not remotely compelling. It has no situation at all.




And I think that is an example of why it is so hard to say in RPG writing "it must be X". Because what excites each Gm will be very subjective. I share some of this preference you express, and I also share some of what Hussar says. I think ultimately for me, I want a dash of colorful language here or there to catch my eye and inspire, but more importantly I want the moving parts to be things I can imagine using in a wide variety of ways. I don't need good writing for the latter either, and good writing is very, very far down on the list of things I look for in a module. The same way that I never bothered to judge the Risk rules book on writing grounds. That wasn't the point for me. I can admire good writing and some people have a rare talent for blending good design with good writing. But by and large I don't think the quality of the writing reveals much about the quality of the design.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> But, even in third person, it can still be performative.  "Grgur walks cautiously down the hallway, looking carefully to see if there is anything out of place" is perfomative - you have desciptors like "cautiously" and "carefully".  Compared to "Grgur strides down the hall."  Both are third person, but, both are using language specifically chosen to evoke a particular scene.  A non-descriptive would simply be, "Grgur moves down the hall".  That's content without performance.




Description isn't automatically performance.  If you describe something in third person, you aren't performing the act of being cautious or careful, and you aren't performing by stepping into character(first person).

 Look at it like this.  When the director tells the actor playing Hunter Maximus that Hunter is stalking his prey quietly through the jungle, he is not performing anything.  When the actor playing Hunter starts moving quietly through the jungle in front of the camera, stopping occasionally to look for signs of the prey, he is performing.


----------



## uzirath

Lanefan said:


> For these purposes it doesn't matter.  The session consists of the characters sitting on a ship, or around a campfire or at some other uninterrupted down-ish-time, just carrying on a conversation that's all done via in-character role-play at the table.  This conversation could reference stuff the characters have already done/met in the established fiction (i.e. they're telling war stories from past adventures), or could reference their backgrounds and histories ("so how did you end up here anyway?"), or their outlooks toward things ("if the Duke upped his taxes by half, would you pay them?"  "When you raid a village of Orcs, do you kill the young?") - whatever, as long as they're talking in character.




Thanks for this clarification (I had a similar question to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]). I would have been a solid 10 for this in my gaming years in high school, college, and in my twenties. Now, in my forties, time is at more of a premium and gaming is more infrequent, so I do like to see the plot moving. But I'd still likely be at a 7-8. I do love it when role-playing happens during a game for no purpose other than to have a good time exploring our characters. My only hesitation is that I often find that this works best when it arises spontaneously. I'm less interested in the idea of everyone doing their homework and then sharing the cool stories they created than I am in spontaneously generated material in response to unexpected questions and prompts.


----------



## Sadras

uzirath said:


> Thanks for this clarification (I had a similar question to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]). I would have been a solid 10 for this in my gaming years in high school, college, and in my twenties. Now, in my forties, time is at more of a premium and gaming is more infrequent, so I do like to see the plot moving.




Pretty much agree with this. Frequency of play varies from table to table, so Lanefan might be hugely fortunate to be playing every week - so this kind of social exchange is possible to explore during roleplaying, but for someone with less free time (which I have recently experienced), I tend to push towards resolution of story arcs, downtime a few things and just resolve some things offscreen, so to speak, but nothing like the showruiners did on GoT.


----------



## Maxperson

uzirath said:


> Thanks for this clarification (I had a similar question to @_*pemerton*_). I would have been a solid 10 for this in my gaming years in high school, college, and in my twenties. Now, in my forties, time is at more of a premium and gaming is more infrequent, so I do like to see the plot moving. But I'd still likely be at a 7-8. I do love it when role-playing happens during a game for no purpose other than to have a good time exploring our characters. My only hesitation is that I often find that this works best when it arises spontaneously. I'm less interested in the idea of everyone doing their homework and then sharing the cool stories they created than I am in spontaneously generated material in response to unexpected questions and prompts.




I'm in between you and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] I don't mind taking time to discuss old times with other PCs, but I'm also going to want to talk to the captain about what we can expect on the voyage and at the port we are heading to.  Perhaps climb up the crows nest and watch for ships in the distance with the crew member, while talking to him about the captain and other officers, in order to get a better gauge on what kind of people they are.  And so on.  I don't mind the entire session being discussion, but I don't want to spend the entire time just shooting the breeze amongst the other players.


----------



## Satyrn

Lanefan said:


> Quick survey for the regulars here:
> 
> Let's say that for whatever reason you know going in that tonight's session, where you're playing a well-developed character you're familiar with and enjoy playing, is highly likely to consist of nothing but in-character roleplaying and interactions with other PCs (and maybe NPCs) with no story progress likely to be made and maybe little if any reference to the story at all, and little if any chance of combat (unless the PCs decide to throw down vs each other for some reason).  It's not a bookkeeping session, though.  Maybe you've decided to play out in detail some discussions the PCs have while on a long ship voyage.
> 
> On a scale of 1 (dread) to 10 (bursting) how enthusiastic would you be when looking forward to the session.
> 
> I'd be somewhere between 8 and 10, with the variance dependent on situation.




1. That's not why I play D&D. That stuff can be fun, and is fun, but I really don't want a whole session of that. I probably don't want more than 10 minutes of that at a time. 

And I know it's a 1, because I've met a group where they'd be at 10, and I've tried playing with other groups who would be 8+.

All D&D.


----------



## Lanefan

Hussar said:


> A perfect example of a dungeon that is pure content without any literary elements would be the dungeon I attached to this post.  Would anyone say that this is what a module looks like?



Unfortunately, it isn't what a module looks like...but it certainly could be, because really - at the absolute root of it all, what more does a DM need?  (well, perhaps a few things - see below)

It doesn't have its own backstory incuded?  Great!  95+% of the time included backstory in a module is just wasted space for me: I'm going to ignore it and replace it with my own anyway.  Even the one-line "dungeon history" that's given is more than I need.

It doesn't have boxed descriptions?  Fine - though a case could be made to add them for the benefit of those new to DMing.

It doesn't have pre-gen characters?  Again fine, and again a case could be made for adding them in either for one-off play or as NPC ideas for the DM to add to an existing party if so desired.

It doesn't indicate where the wandering monsters come from, or are based?  This is a flaw.

The only other big change I'd make is the room numbering sequence.  Given where the stairs are, explorers are highly likely to enter room 3 before any other room; so for the DM's convenience that should be room 1, then the current sequence 4-5-1-7-6-2 would become 2-7.  In a tiny module like this it doesn't matter much, but in anything with a larger page count any reduction in page-flipping is a plus.

In any case, it then falls squarely on the DM to provide the colour and dungeon dressing and so forth when describing what the PCs see/hear/smell as they venture though this place, using the sparse guidelines in the module as a framework.  (pleasant side effect here is potential reusability - two different DMs might describe this differently enough that the players may not even realize they're replaying the same module until a fair ways in)


----------



## Lanefan

uzirath said:


> Thanks for this clarification (I had a similar question to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]). I would have been a solid 10 for this in my gaming years in high school, college, and in my twenties. Now, in my forties, time is at more of a premium and gaming is more infrequent, so I do like to see the plot moving. But I'd still likely be at a 7-8. I do love it when role-playing happens during a game for no purpose other than to have a good time exploring our characters. My only hesitation is that I often find that this works best when it arises spontaneously. I'm less interested in the idea of everyone doing their homework and then sharing the cool stories they created than I am in spontaneously generated material in response to unexpected questions and prompts.



I agree completely.  Problem is, for purposes of presenting a common-to-all 'survey question' I couldn't think of a way to frame it as a level of anticipation without having it be a bit premeditated.

I could have framed it more like "On 1-10, how would you rate a session you had just played where the whole session was spent on in-character conversation that didn't advance the story but did advance the PCs' chaacterization?", and almost did; but the unavoidable variable there that would prevent clear answers would be "What was the conversation about?".


----------



## Satyrn

Lanefan said:


> I agree completely.  Problem is, for purposes of presenting a common-to-all 'survey question' I couldn't think of a way to frame it as a level of anticipation without having it be a bit premeditated.
> 
> I could have framed it more like "On 1-10, how would you rate a session you had just played where the whole session was spent on in-character conversation that didn't advance the story but did advance the PCs' chaacterization?", and almost did; but the unavoidable variable there that would prevent clear answers would be "What was the conversation about?".




I like the original version better. Because there's no way to know how I'd rate the specific session after the fact. I mean, I've never had a session like that that I'd rate highly, but I fully expect it's possible I could thoroughly enjoy it. Theoretically.

But your original, I can answer well. I would totally dread such a session because the odds are it won't be a session I enjoyed. Or in analogy: Your original was asking me how much I'm looking forward to watching a Thor movie. Totally a 10. Big fan.

This new version is asking me to rate The Dark World.


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> Notice that you've got three different action declarations here. Two of them are contrasting:
> 
> * Grgur walks down the hallway, be cautious and looking carefully to see if anything is out of place.
> 
> * Grugr strides down the hallway.​
> And one is less specific:
> 
> * Grugr moves down the hallway.​
> I don't know why you think that the extra information in the two contrasting declarations doesn't count as "content" in the way you're using that word - that extra information is all about what Grugr is doing.
> 
> And I don't know why you think this shows that RPGing is importantly literary. I don't care how eloquently or poetically the player conveys the manner in which Grugr proceeds down the hall; but knowing what that manner is may (in some systems) be highly relevant to action resolution.




Not really. In all three examples the character simply moves from A to B. Content wise there is virtually no difference. There is no action declaration other than moving.


----------



## Hussar

If the literary is unimportant, then why do DMG’d include dungeon dressing sections, most of which has little to no mechanical impact?


----------



## Hriston

Because _color_ (dungeon dressing) is content that provides atmosphere when imagined by the participants at the table. The quality of form with which it’s expressed isn’t what’s important but rather whether the odors, noises, furnishings, and items found in an area suggest a torture chamber, a harem, or a wizard’s laboratory. In other words, it’s the actual content that matters, not the particular words that are used and the way they are said.


----------



## Riley37

Hussar said:


> Not really. In all three examples the character simply moves from A to B. Content wise there is virtually no difference. There is no action declaration other than moving.




"looking carefully to see if anything is out of place" isn't an action declaration?

In D&D 5E, I'd interpret that as taking the Observe action each six seconds, while moving at base rate. Similar rules apply in Hero System.

If a guard were watching Grugr, then that guard might notice Grugr's caution. If the declaration were "Grugr strides down the hallway, as if Grugr owned the place", that gets a different response - possibly leading to the guard assuming that Grugr is a familiar, regular guest, rather than a cautious intruder.

In real life, there's certainly a difference between how guards respond to the former and to the latter, so I'd want the same difference to apply in the narrative.


----------



## Imaro

Hriston said:


> Because _color_ (dungeon dressing) is content that provides atmosphere when imagined by the participants at the table. The quality of form with which it’s expressed isn’t what’s important but rather whether the odors, noises, furnishings, and items found in an area suggest a torture chamber, a harem, or a wizard’s laboratory. In other words, it’s the actual content that matters, not the particular words that are used and the way they are said.




Disagree... otherwise the most bland & basic description of content would engender the same response as a better embellished and constructed description of the same content... and IME most of the time that just isn't the case.


----------



## Sadras

Evocative words engender creativity.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> Disagree... otherwise the most bland & basic description of content would engender the same response as a better embellished and constructed description of the same content... and IME most of the time that just isn't the case.




Well the words the GM uses can matter for sure, but I just don’t think being evocative or emulating literary narration helps as much as it hurts. And I think ultimately it is the content itself that matters most. Personally I favor much shorter description. The old advice of including all the senses in a description, I think loses peoples’ attention more than I gains. In terms of game products themselves, a bit of flavor in the text is fine. But barebones solid content is much easier to deploy. When the flavor gets into novel writing territory then I think it detracts from the content. Doesn’t mean it can’t be well written though. Essoterrorists is a very well written game book, but Laws takes a minimalist approach to the text and the mechanics which I admire. I think some of the monsters just have two to three sentence descriptions for instance.


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> Well the words the GM uses can matter for sure, but I just don’t think being evocative or emulating literary narration helps as much as it hurts. And I think ultimately it is the content itself that matters most. Personally I favor much shorter description. The old advice of including all the senses in a description, I think loses peoples’ attention more than I gains. In terms of game products themselves, a bit of flavor in the text is fine. But barebones solid content is much easier to deploy. When the flavor gets into novel writing territory then I think it detracts from the content. Doesn’t mean it can’t be well written though. Essoterrorists is a very well written game book, but Laws takes a minimalist approach to the text and the mechanics which I admire. I think some of the monsters just have two to three sentence descriptions for instance.




Ok let me again make a few points...

1. I'm not arguing that being evocative or emulating literary narration * matters most*... Only that it does matter to the game and it is a core part of the game... in whatever level and capacity one chooses to engage with it.

2. You are setting up a weird (I'd say false) dichotomy here that doesn't exist.  There is nothing inherent in minimalist description that is at odds with it being judged as more or less evocative... good or badly written/spoken and so on.  So I'm not sure why you keep making a point of harping on length when that isn't what is being discussed.

3.  For you maybe barebones solid content is easier to deploy but I think well written boxed text with a nice level of description can be easier to deploy for a new GM with new players... or an old GM whose not good at adding details on the fly. Again you seem to be making a point about length so let me try and express this in a different way... would you rather have minimalist drab, poorly written content or minimalist, well written and evocative description? Or are you claiming that neither matters to gameplay... 

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.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> Ok let me again make a few points...
> 
> 1. I'm not arguing that being evocative or emulating literary narration * matters most*... Only that it does matter to the game and it is a core part of the game... in whatever level and capacity one chooses to engage with it.
> 
> 2. You are setting up a weird (I'd say false) dichotomy here that doesn't exist.  There is nothing inherent in minimalist description that is at odds with it being judged as more or less evocative... good or badly written/spoken and so on.  So I'm not sure why you keep making a point of harping on length when that isn't what is being discussed.
> 
> 3.  For you maybe barebones solid content is easier to deploy but I think well written boxed text with a nice level of description can be easier to deploy for a new GM with new players... or an old GM whose not good at adding details on the fly but with players who enjoy evocative description. Again you seem to be making a point about length so let me try and express this in a different way... would you rather have minimalist drab, poorly written content or minimalist, well written and evocative content?




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.


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> 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

Imaro said:


> 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

Imaro said:


> 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

Bedrockgames said:


> 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

Bedrockgames said:


> 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

Imaro said:


> 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

Bedrockgames said:


> 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

Bedrockgames said:


> 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.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> 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...




Fair enough, what I should have said was I think it isn't core because a sizable enough body of the gaming community doesn't engage it. To me it is a non-essential feature of RPGs. RPGs can be totally serviceable with bad writing. You don't need good writing to play them. Generally you need the other core elements of the system (though there are exceptions of course, like with combat if a group simply never has combat encounters). 

I don't think the element of good writing is core in the way combat is though.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> 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.




OKay, that is reasonable. You conceive of the game this way and it is important to you. But there are at least two posters here who don't (and I can think of many other gamers I know who share my views on this). I am not saying you are wrong. All I am trying to assert here is 'neither am I'. I fully understand there are players and GMs like you and Hussar who see and play the game differently than I do. And I consider that just as valid of an appproach. I just don't consider it core, because regarding it as core suggests our approach to play is some how deviating from the core purpose of roleplaying (and for as long as I've been in the hobby 'good writing' has just never been a serious factor for me). In fact a lot of the early gaming material that is foundational doesn't have particularly good writing by the standards Hussar and you are advancing. And not every module utilizes things like boxed text. Boxed text is a tool a designer can use, it isn't essential. A module is still very much a module even if it doesn't have boxed text.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Ilya Bossov said:


> 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.
> .




I don't see how being similar to writing an adventure book makes something literary. Most adventure books I read fall pretty far short of being literature. It is entertaining gaming material. But literature is a much higher bar. There are a few books I'd say strive for or manage to hit the level of being literary. But honestly that is an aim that has nothing to do with how good of a game book it is.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> Can they now declare combat isn't core to D&D... Woah! Hold on their buddy.




We are just talking about games. I am not trying to take anything away from you or be mean to you. I am simply expressing my view on how I see gaming material and how significant I think good writing is to it. We just happen to have a very different philosophy here.


----------



## hawkeyefan

I think “good writing” and “presentation” are getting mixed up here.

For something like a pre-written game module, the quality of the writing may or may not be relevant to the game. For some GMs, that may be the selling point that inspires them to use the material. Certainly, in such a case, the quality of the writing matters. 

However, for other GMs, it’s more a matter of the content within the module. It can be minimalist in how the information is presented....maybe simply a list of bullet points. In many cases, this might be all that’s needed, and the GM in turn can make this information compelling to his or her players. 

Take the dungeon shared by @_*Hussar*_ a few pages ago. On its own, it’s a bare bones approach to an adventure. But I’m sure I could take that map and key and tuen it into something fun at the table. Sure, I’d embellish and add to it during play....mostly based on what my players seem to find interesting.


Ultimately, the quality of the content in a published adventure may or may not matter. It may be the thing that inspires the GM or it may be an obstacle to actually running the game. How that information is then presented to the table is another matter entirely. A GM can take an incredibly well written and evocative bit of writing and pare it down to its basic components and share that with his players. Likewise, a GM can take a list of bullet points and can breathe life into then in how he chooses to share them with the table.

I think these are two separate things, and while both are fundamentally necessary, the importance of each will vary from table to table.


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> Take the dungeon shared by @_*Hussar*_ a few pages ago. On its own, it’s a bare bones approach to an adventure. But I’m sure I could take that map and key and tuen it into something fun at the table. Sure, I’d embellish and add to it during play....mostly based on what my players seem to find interesting.




This is another point I feel is being glossed over... If you are embellishing it yourself, adding description, writing up a description, etc... then it still seems to reason that the presentation and the quality of said presentation is core (and if it's not why bother creating it??).  Otherwise one could just read off the bullet points since they are the most succinct and easiest way to relay the content.  IMO this is like claiming content isn't core because you create your own.  Doesn't matter who creates it for the game, it's a core part of playing the game.

 @_*Bedrockgames*_ I'm curious as to how you play (since I could be assuming that most DM's don't just read off a bullet point) Do you simply read off bullet points or do you embellish and add description?  If you do embellish or add description, even just a small amount... why if it's not core to the game?


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> OKay, that is reasonable. You conceive of the game this way and it is important to you. But there are at least two posters here who don't (and I can think of many other gamers I know who share my views on this). I am not saying you are wrong. All I am trying to assert here is 'neither am I'. I fully understand there are players and GMs like you and Hussar who see and play the game differently than I do. And I consider that just as valid of an appproach. I just don't consider it core, because regarding it as core suggests our approach to play is some how deviating from the core purpose of roleplaying (and for as long as I've been in the hobby 'good writing' has just never been a serious factor for me). In fact a lot of the early gaming material that is foundational doesn't have particularly good writing by the standards Hussar and you are advancing. And not every module utilizes things like boxed text. Boxed text is a tool a designer can use, it isn't essential. A module is still very much a module even if it doesn't have boxed text.




I wonder if the D&D 5e rules and adventures were poorly written, or just skeletal in nature consisting of dry rules and bullet points... would we be seeing the same type of resurgence that we are seeing now.  It may not be core for you but at this point I'm also not too sure that you represent the majority of those in the hobby (which are indisputably D&D players).  I don't think 5e released as a black and white pamphlet with the rules bullet pointed would have made the same splash... I also don't think bare bones modules would have sold in the quantities that 5e is.  In fact I think it would have turned quite a few people off from the hobby before they even gave it a try.

EDIT: Here is perhaps a more succinct way to make my point.  Starting out videogames were all about gameplay and content...  Pong was literally 2 rectangles you could move and a square that bounced... graphics just weren't core to videogames at that point because of technical limitations and because gameplay was key... fast forward to 2019 and graphics are just as core to videogames as gameplay is... Things change especially as a wider user base brings their preferences, desires and own way of using something... same with rpg's.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> @_*Bedrockgames*_ I'm curious as to how you play (since I could be assuming that most DM's don't just read off a bullet point) Do you simply read off bullet points or do you embellish and add description?  If you do embellish or add description, even just a small amount... why if it's not core to the game?




I think we are confusing things because we are talking about abstract general concepts and using them as proxies to fight over specifics. What I am pushing back against is the idea put out there that GMs should engage in a style of narration that is flavorful and literary in nature. I much prefer a more conversational style that isn't consciously performative. That doesn't mean I list off bullet points. It means I am fairly concise, not particularly emotive like an actor would be, and that I am talking to my players like I talk to my friends. I see it much more as a conversation like Permerton does. The impression I am getting from posters like Hussar is they value things like the GM speaking in voices, using evocative words to paint a picture and atmosphere, etc. I am not into that as a player or as a GM. I will give a brief description of what is there, then say "What do you want to do". If an NPC is talking, I speak as the character. But I am not shifting voices or performing. 

I would say my style is laid back and it isn't too concerned about peoples' performances. My main interest is whether I am having fun and people are engaged with what is going on in the game. I am what I call a 'roll off the couch and play GM'. I don't look at each session as a big production. It is just a game session and I keep my expectations as both a player and a GM fairly realistic and appropriate to that. One of my pet peeves as a player is other players who are overly critical or have super high expectations of play. I just don't like this idea of judging other peoples performance at the table like that. I am not there to be awed by your dwarven accent. 

I have podcast recordings of my sessions. I would be happy to share them with you or with Pemerton by PM. But I would honestly rather not post them here given the level of heat that has arisen in this discussion.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> I wonder if the D&D 5e rules and adventures were poorly written, or just skeletal in nature consisting of dry rules and bullet points... would we be seeing the same type of resurgence that we are seeing now.  It may not be core for you but at this point I'm also not too sure that you represent the majority of those in the hobby (which are indisputably D&D players).  I don't think 5e released as a black and white pamphlet with the rules bullet pointed would have made the same splash... I also don't think bare bones modules would have sold in the quantities that 5e is.  In fact I think it would have turned quite a few people off from the hobby before they even gave it a try.




I don't play 5E, and the reason why is I am put off by the production values and the density of flavor content. I get that it appeals to a lot of people. That stuff is important in terms of reaching an audience and marketing. But it isn't essential to being an RPG. 5E than isn't more of an RPG than say a black and white retroclone because it has full color art, glossy pages, excellent layout and well written text. I do think 5E has succeeded for a number of reasons. Part of it is they took the design very seriously and didn't take customers for granted. It felt like they listened to everyone and tried to make a product that could appeal to the broadest possible audience. And the art, the writing, the gloss, etc all help. No doubt. I am not trying to take anything away from 5E, but hopefully you can understand not everyone is into that kind of production. And some of us find the flavor a bit much and a bit heavy in places. I honestly couldn't even read the new Ravenloft adventure (because it was too heavy on flavor, text and I found the art distracting from those things). But  a lot of people I know who played through it like it, and I know a couple of GMs who really liked reading it in prep for it. So I get I am just one opinion in the mix.  

When I came into the hobby much of the art work was black and white, and probably by todays standards not very good (I would say it was good but just not photo-realistic which has become the dominant aesthetic). Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate a well made book. I loved the Ravenloft line back when they were using the Fabian artwork (though that was black and white and not photo-realistic). But if we are talking about core features, I don't think slick production is a core or essential feature of an RPG.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> @_*Bedrockgames*_ I'm curious as to how you play (since I could be assuming that most DM's don't just read off a bullet point) Do you simply read off bullet points or do you embellish and add description?  If you do embellish or add description, even just a small amount... why if it's not core to the game?




Just to answer this again with more specifics on description. I tend to have a 'get out of the way' approach. Which is I don't want the players focused on my descriptions as much as what they are doing, what the NPCs are doing and what is going on. So I will generally be a bit brief in my descriptions. Once in a while I try to throw in a dash of color but I always aim to keep it to a single word or image in my head. And generally those dashes of color are for intense moments like martial arts combat. But I don't have the concern many here have expressed about making sure all the players are imagining the same thing or that they are imagining what I am imagining. I realized a long time ago, people often bring much more to the table on their own in that respect and that retaining the ability for individuals to imagine the scene differently is a key element of immersion.


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> I think we are confusing things because we are talking about abstract general concepts and using them as proxies to fight over specifics. What I am pushing back against is the idea put out there that GMs should engage in a style of narration that is flavorful and literary in nature. I much prefer a more conversational style that isn't consciously performative. That doesn't mean I list off bullet points. It means I am fairly concise, not particularly emotive like an actor would be, and that I am talking to my players like I talk to my friends. I see it much more as a conversation like Permerton does. The impression I am getting from posters like Hussar is they value things like the GM speaking in voices, using evocative words to paint a picture and atmosphere, etc. I am not into that as a player or as a GM. I will give a brief description of what is there, then say "What do you want to do". If an NPC is talking, I speak as the character. But I am not shifting voices or performing.




But this is arguing over degrees... the point is it's still there even in your gameplay example above when you speak as the NPC... you're literally just saying you only want X amount while [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] wants Y amount which is fine, but it's still there in both games which is why I feel it is core.  Unless you can totally excise something out without loosing quality in your gameplay... I feel it is core.



Bedrockgames said:


> I would say my style is laid back and it isn't too concerned about peoples' performances. My main interest is whether I am having fun and people are engaged with what is going on in the game. I am what I call a 'roll off the couch and play GM'. I don't look at each session as a big production. It is just a game session and I keep my expectations as both a player and a GM fairly realistic and appropriate to that. One of my pet peeves as a player is other players who are overly critical or have super high expectations of play. I just don't like this idea of judging other peoples performance at the table like that. I am not there to be awed by your dwarven accent.




We aren't talking about judging anything... performance & presentation in and of itself is subjective.  My only point is that it is core to the game, even if only done minimally it is still done by the majority if not all groups.



Bedrockgames said:


> I have podcast recordings of my sessions. I would be happy to share them with you or with Pemerton by PM. But I would honestly rather not post them here given the level of heat that has arisen in this discussion.




That's cool if you feel like sharing I'd be interested in listening to them but I feel like I couldn't really discuss them here so there may not be a point at least as far as this thread is concerned.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> We aren't talking about judging anything... performance & presentation in and of itself is subjective.  My only point is that it is core to the game, even if only done minimally it is still done by the majority if not all groups.
> 
> .




Hussar most definitely was talking about judging performances and that is largely where my disagreement centered. Again, I get what you saying here, but I don't see how something that can be so minimal would be regarded as core or essential. Particularly with performance. I think that word in particular is very counter to how I see running and playing. Like we said before in this discussion there is a big difference between performing your character and naturally playing your character. In terms of presentation. Well technically I could argue presentation is present in everything. That doesn't make it a core feature of everything. Especially since neither presentation nor performance are things that set RPGs apart from other things.


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> Hussar most definitely was talking about judging performances and that is largely where my disagreement centered. Again, I get what you saying here, but I don't see how something that can be so minimal would be regarded as core or essential. Particularly with performance. I think that word in particular is very counter to how I see running and playing. Like we said before in this discussion there is a big difference between performing your character and naturally playing your character. In terms of presentation. Well technically I could argue presentation is present in everything. That doesn't make it a core feature of everything. *Especially since neither presentation nor performance are things that set RPGs apart from other things.*




Yes but then neither is interacting with a situation...or content for that matter.

EDIT: Actually  the GM (a single player) performing as different characters within the context of playing a game is kind of unique to D&D... though admittedly I could be mistaken if you have any examples outside roleplaying games I'd be happy to hear them.


----------



## Hriston

Imaro said:


> Disagree... otherwise the most bland & basic description of content would engender the same response as a better embellished and constructed description of the same content... and IME most of the time that just isn't the case.




All things being equal, there’s nothing wrong with well crafted narration. That’s not the point. The point is rpg groups don’t get together to listen to flowery descriptions of the contents of rooms. That’s what poetry recitals are for. They get together to engage, as their characters, with the situations presented in the game. Any literary quality possessed by that presentation is in service and subordinate to those situations.


----------



## Imaro

Hriston said:


> All things being equal, there’s nothing wrong with well crafted narration. That’s not the point. The point is rpg groups don’t get together to listen to flowery descriptions of the contents of rooms. That’s what poetry recitals are for. They get together to engage, as their characters, with the situations presented in the game. Any literary quality possessed by that presentation is in service and subordinate to those situations.




This doesn't speak to whether it is a core aspect of the game or not. If the group isn't interested in engaging with the situations presented because your presentation/performance doesn't make it interesting to them... well there's no game. It's an ingredient of the whole just like everything else. Are eggs or milk not a core ingredient for a cake because you aren't eating the cake to experience drinking milk or eating an egg?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> This is another point I feel is being glossed over... If you are embellishing it yourself, adding description, writing up a description, etc... then it still seems to reason that the presentation and the quality of said presentation is core (and if it's not why bother creating it??).  Otherwise one could just read off the bullet points since they are the most succinct and easiest way to relay the content.  IMO this is like claiming content isn't core because you create your own.  Doesn't matter who creates it for the game, it's a core part of playing the game.




The presentation is important, of course. Can’t have a game without it. The literary quality of that presentation is another matter. It’ll matter quite a bit to some, and only a little to others.

Personally, I can see both sides of the discussion. I can understand someone wanting clear and concise description only from the GM so that they as a player can decide what they want their character to do.

On the other hand, I can understand a GM who wants to infuse some mood into the scene, and I can understand players who prefer such narration in order to help them feel in character.

I don’t see it as any different from liking the writing style of someone like Patrick Rothfuss versus that of someone like Richard Stark (aka Donald Westlake). One is descriptive and poetic, almost lyrical at times. The other is like a punch to the gut.

There’s a place for both in most games, probably, but each group will have their preference. For me, I think it’s best to vary it up depending on the specific scene and what you hope to get out of it. 

I don’t agree that RPGs cannot have a literary approach, but nor do I agree that anyone who’s not totally focused on performance is simply “roll-playing”.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't play 5E, and the reason why is I am put off by the production values and the density of flavor content. I get that it appeals to a lot of people. That stuff is important in terms of reaching an audience and marketing. /snip




Considering that 5e now dominates the market, online play at least shows almost 70% of all RPG sessions are 5e, and 5e is selling in droves, would you care to restate your point that "lots of people" think like me that you've made a few times in the last few pages?

Brushing it off as "marketing" seems a bit self serving no?  You don't care for it, so, it's just marketing, and not core to an RPG.  OTOH, I'd argue that the, by far and away, most popular RPG's EVER have deeply relied on presentation - all the way from Dragonlance and the unbelievable production values of the time, to modern AP's like Pathfinder and 5e - have all had presentation as a core value of the game.  Never minding a fair library of DM/GM advice over the years that does focus fairly strongly on presentation, or, as we're using it in this thread, the literary.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Considering that 5e now dominates the market, online play at least shows almost 70% of all RPG sessions are 5e, and 5e is selling in droves, would you care to restate your point that "lots of people" think like me that you've made a few times in the last few pages?
> 
> Brushing it off as "marketing" seems a bit self serving no?  You don't care for it, so, it's just marketing, and not core to an RPG.  OTOH, I'd argue that the, by far and away, most popular RPG's EVER have deeply relied on presentation - all the way from Dragonlance and the unbelievable production values of the time, to modern AP's like Pathfinder and 5e - have all had presentation as a core value of the game.  Never minding a fair library of DM/GM advice over the years that does focus fairly strongly on presentation, or, as we're using it in this thread, the literary.




No. I never said a majority of gamers think like me. But just because something is popular or fashionable, doesn’t make it core or essential to the medium. And we don’t know how much that accounts for it’s success. There are lots of other things people like about 5e


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Brushing it off as "marketing" seems a bit self serving no?  You don't care for it, so, it's just marketing, and not core to an RPG.  OTOH, I'd argue that the, by far and away, most popular RPG's EVER have deeply relied on presentation - all the way from Dragonlance and the unbelievable production values of the time, to modern AP's like Pathfinder and 5e - have all had presentation as a core value of the game.  Never minding a fair library of DM/GM advice over the years that does focus fairly strongly on presentation, or, as we're using it in this thread, the literary.




D&D’s popularity didn’t begin with Dragonlance. Sure adventure paths are popular. But that doesn’t make them essential features or core parts of the RPG experience. Adventure paths are not required in the least


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> D&D’s popularity didn’t begin with Dragonlance. Sure adventure paths are popular. But that doesn’t make them essential features or core parts of the RPG experience. Adventure paths are not required in the least




Okay question... what is IYO..."required" for the rpg experience? I'd also be curious to hear (because its come up a few times before and has been tied to core experience) what do you believe is unique to the rpg experience?


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> D&D’s popularity didn’t begin with Dragonlance. Sure adventure paths are popular. But that doesn’t make them essential features or core parts of the RPG experience. Adventure paths are not required in the least




Sorry. I didn’t realize I had to give more evidence. 1e modules almost all had boxed text.  Tomb of Horrors, one of the earliest modules has a picture gallery to show players. Until recently, setting guides were very, very popular books with hardcore fans who are dedicated to the canon of the setting. 

On and on. Hundreds of pages in Dragon dedicated to the performance end of running a game. Endless player handouts and other goodies to use at the table. Entire libraries of gaming music. 

For something that’s not essential, it sure has gotten a ton of attention over the years.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Sorry. I didn’t realize I had to give more evidence. 1e modules almost all had boxed text.  Tomb of Horrors, one of the earliest modules has a picture gallery to show players. Until recently, setting guides were very, very popular books with hardcore fans who are dedicated to the canon of the setting.
> 
> On and on. Hundreds of pages in Dragon dedicated to the performance end of running a game. Endless player handouts and other goodies to use at the table. Entire libraries of gaming music.
> 
> For something that’s not essential, it sure has gotten a ton of attention over the years.




Again is a module without boxed text still a module? If yes then Boxed text isn’t essential. And I never said setting books were not good or important. I love setting books. Where you and I disagree would be on his they should be written, what kind of art they ought to have, etc.


----------



## Hriston

Imaro said:


> This doesn't speak to whether it is a core aspect of the game or not. If the group isn't interested in engaging with the situations presented because your presentation/performance doesn't make it interesting to them... well there's no game.




If the problem is that the situations aren’t interesting, then I think the solution is to use more interesting situations, not more flowery descriptions of uninteresting situations!



Imari said:


> It's an ingredient of the whole just like everything else. Are eggs or milk not a core ingredient for a cake because you aren't eating the cake to experience drinking milk or eating an egg?




You need eggs and milk to make cake batter. You don’t need flowery language to play an rpg.


----------



## Imaro

Hriston said:


> If the problem is that the situations aren’t interesting, then I think the solution is to use more interesting situations, not more flowery descriptions of uninteresting situations!




Orrrr...  maybe present them better. I never made the assertion that the situation wasn't interesting... 





Hriston said:


> You need eggs and milk to make cake batter. You don’t need flowery language to play an rpg.




Good thing no ones arguing for "flowery" language as core then.


----------



## Hriston

Imaro said:


> Orrrr...  maybe present them better. I never made the assertion that the situation wasn't interesting...




You said the group wasn’t interested in engaging with the situations. That sounds to me like the group thinks your situations are uninteresting. 



Imaro said:


> Good thing no ones arguing for "flowery" language as core then.




Just replace “flowery language “ with “quality of form”. Isn’t that what you’re arguing for?


----------



## Imaro

Hriston said:


> You said the group wasn’t interested in engaging with the situations. That sounds to me like the group thinks your situations are uninteresting.




ORRR... your presentation of them wasn't done well enough to hook the players... or are you claiming that's not a possibility? 




Hriston said:


> Just replace “flowery language “ with “quality of form”. Isn’t that what you’re arguing for?




Well which one are you arguing against because they aren't the same thing...


----------



## Hussar

Honestly, I think two things are very true in this thread.

1.  People have equated literary and performance with "flowery language".  That is not what's meant and has never been meant.  Literary or performance simply means HOW the material is presented in the game, either in written form or in oral during a session.  Literary carries additional connotations of utilizing various literary devices.  Did you use pathetic fallacy during the session?  Did you use foreshadowing?  Did you engage various tropes of the genre?  Then you are using literary devices.  

2.  Essentially this argument is as old as gaming.  Which is more important, fluff or crunch?  Some folks think that crunch (@Pemerton refers to task resolution) as all important and fluff (or flavor, or performance, or whatever you want to call it), while perhaps interesting, is largely unimportant.  Others, like myself and I believe [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], think that flavor and crunch are both equally important and equally needed in an RPG.  That an RPG without flavor is, well, pretty much that randomly generated adventure dungeon I posted a couple of pages ago.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Honestly, I think two things are very true in this thread.
> 
> 1.  People have equated literary and performance with "flowery language".  That is not what's meant and has never been meant.  Literary or performance simply means HOW the material is presented in the game, either in written form or in oral during a session.  Literary carries additional connotations of utilizing various literary devices.  Did you use pathetic fallacy during the session?  Did you use foreshadowing?  Did you engage various tropes of the genre?  Then you are using literary devices.




Again, literary has a lot more connotation than that. But I don't use literary devices when I run games. Lots of people do not use them. Especially something like foreshadowing because I try not to plan future events. But what you say here just isn't true in the thread, and it is an example of why I am so wary anytime people propose new language like this (especially when they do so taking existing terms with loaded meaning). You keep saying this is just about presentation but then keep slipping into arguments over how that stuff should be presented (and the terms you have been opting to use, seem to favor how you think it should be presented). 



> 2.  Essentially this argument is as old as gaming.  Which is more important, fluff or crunch?  Some folks think that crunch (@Pemerton refers to task resolution) as all important and fluff (or flavor, or performance, or whatever you want to call it), while perhaps interesting, is largely unimportant.  Others, like myself and I believe [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], think that flavor and crunch are both equally important and equally needed in an RPG.  That an RPG without flavor is, well, pretty much that randomly generated adventure dungeon I posted a couple of pages ago.




No one really objects to talking about fluff and crunch (though I think the hard division between those things can lead to bad products---a lot of stuff that came out during the d20 boom bothered me for that reason). If we frame things as flavor and crunch, I don' think there is as much disagreement. The disagreement all centers on how things out to be played out and written/designed.


----------



## Riley37

Hussar said:


> Did you engage various tropes of the genre?  Then you are using literary devices.






Bedrockgames said:


> I don't use literary devices when I run games. Lots of people do not use them.




BRG, you don't use any genre tropes when you run games?

Who are these "lots of people" who run TRPGs without using genre tropes? Could you name, say, five of them?

I've done a lot of TRPG that's squarely within the stock genres, such as Western, superhero, swords & sorcery, science fiction, horror; and a bit outside those genres, such as a Fiasco game set in the newsroom of a TV news team. But even that Fiasco game involved tropes: the idealistic journalist who wants to bring The Truth to The People, the ruthless career climber, the secret extra-legal government program, Who's Got The Tape (as if no one would make backup copies), the villain digging himself into tragic ruin, and so forth.


----------



## Riley37

Hussar said:


> Honestly, I think two things are very true in this thread.
> 
> 1.  People have equated literary and performance with "flowery language".  That is not what's meant and has never been meant.  Literary or performance simply means HOW the material is presented in the game, either in written form or in oral during a session.




Or in non-verbal, non-linguistic forms. You mentioned the Tomb of Horrors picture gallery. Any map which is more illustrated than the "no-frills" minimal map. If I draw a picture of my PC, that's also presentation of material. Use of figurines; if a figurine is more expressive than a chess piece, then that figurine is part of presentation, because it influences the mind's eye. Mercer uses a lot of voice sound effects; those are not words, and they are part of his attempt to give players a shared understanding of what's happening in the story.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Riley37 said:


> BRG, you don't use any genre tropes when you run games?
> 
> Who are these "lots of people" who run TRPGs without using genre tropes? Could you name, say, five of them?
> 
> I've done a lot of TRPG that's squarely within the stock genres, such as Western, superhero, swords & sorcery, science fiction, horror; and a bit outside those genres, such as a Fiasco game set in the newsroom of a TV news team. But even that Fiasco game involved tropes: the idealistic journalist who wants to bring The Truth to The People, the ruthless career climber, the secret extra-legal government program, Who's Got The Tape (as if no one would make backup copies), the villain digging himself into tragic ruin, and so forth.




I definitely use genre tropes. Tropes are not literary techniques like foreshadowing, which is what I had in mind. But again just because something in literature is used, that doesn’t make RPGs literary endeavors. There is a lot more to literature than tropes. And literature isn’t the only thing that has tropes.

also just to make a more general point. RPGs by their nature tend to employ a lot of things from other mediums. But that doesn’t make those mediums core features of the game. The core feature might be its heavy borrowing. But I just don’t see my campaigns, my books, my adventures or my sessions as literary. Literature imo is a high bar and not one I am shooting for in play. Again I think if you examine the discussion you will see much of this is really about what RPGs books should contain, how sessions should be run, and how RPGs should be written (because posters keep coming back to that despite saying otherwise—-and their opinions are stark and favored by a model that embraces the terms being used). My experience with definitional based arguments, jargon based arguments and model based ones online is they are usually more a reflection of the posters gaming preferences than an objective assessment of what is going on at the table.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Riley37 said:


> I've done a lot of TRPG that's squarely within the stock genres, such as Western, superhero, swords & sorcery, science fiction, horror; and a bit outside those genres, such as a Fiasco game set in the newsroom of a TV news team. But even that Fiasco game involved tropes: the idealistic journalist who wants to bring The Truth to The People, the ruthless career climber, the secret extra-legal government program, Who's Got The Tape (as if no one would make backup copies), the villain digging himself into tragic ruin, and so forth.




Not what I am arguing


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> I definitely use genre tropes. Tropes are not literary techniques like foreshadowing, which is what I had in mind. But again just because something in literature is used, that doesn’t make RPGs literary endeavors. There is a lot more to literature than tropes. And literature isn’t the only thing that has tropes.
> 
> also just to make a more general point. RPGs by their nature tend to employ a lot of things from other mediums. But that doesn’t make those mediums core features of the game. The core feature might be its heavy borrowing. But I just don’t see my campaigns, my books, my adventures or my sessions as literary. Literature imo is a high bar and not one I am shooting for in play. Again I think if you examine the discussion you will see much of this is really about what RPGs books should contain, how sessions should be run, and how RPGs should be written (because posters keep coming back to that despite saying otherwise—-and their opinions are stark and favored by a model that embraces the terms being used). My experience with definitional based arguments, jargon based arguments and model based ones online is they are usually more a reflection of the posters gaming preferences than an objective assessment of what is going on at the table.




You've yet to state what you think is core and unique about rpg's... yet continually dismiss what you dont like as not core. Can you state what you think is core and unique about rpg's?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> You've yet to state what you think is core and unique about rpg's... yet continually dismiss what you dont like as not core. Can you state what you think is core and unique about rpg's?




Didn’t realize I had to do so. I am not the one presenting a core idea of RPGs. My approach to that would be reluctant. I think it is too easy to define away approaches and play styles I don’t engage in. I would prefer a broad approach based on common use age of what it means to play an RPG, rather than an essential or core approach.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> In all three examples the character simply moves from A to B. Content wise there is virtually no difference. There is no action declaration other than moving.



This is highly contingent on (i) system and (ii) ingame situation. To give one example, based on Burning Wheel: _I stride down the hall_ sounds like a Conspicuous test, while _I move cautiously down the hall looking carefully for anything out of place_ looks like a Perception check, perhaps also Stealth and/or Inconspicuous.

In Prince Valiant the first might be a check on Presence, the second on Brawn.

The consequences for failure on either check is also likely to be quite different. It's certainly not a given that _all that matters is that the PC moves from A to B_. And if that's _all_ that is at stake, ie if nothing turns on the description of how the character moves, if it's mere colour, then maybe we're getting a bit of establishment of character. That can be done whether the character is said to stride down the hall, walk purposefully down it, or walk down it at a steady pace with an imposing look.



Imaro said:


> 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.



Whereas what I see as central to RPGing is the capacity of the referee to respond to the players, and frame situations in response, that engage with a focus, specificity and degree of particularity that non-human interactions can't deliver.



Imaro said:


> If the group isn't interested in engaging with the situations presented because your presentation/performance doesn't make it interesting to them... well there's no game.



My take on this is the same as  [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s - it sounds to me like the situation is not interesting enough! As I've already posted in this thread, my advice to that GM would be to work on situation, not to work on voice modulation.



Hussar said:


> People have equated literary and performance with "flowery language".  That is not what's meant and has never been meant.



I'm probably qualified to say what _I_ meant by _literary_ in the OP:



pemerton said:


> 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.



_Literary quality_ of the narration means - as  [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] posted at post 19 - _quality of form_:



Hriston said:


> There seems to be a fair bit of wrangling going on in this thread over the definition of the word _literary_. I think it's pretty clear, however, from the context of the OP, that what is meant accords well with the standard definition found in Google dictionary, for example, "concerning the writing, study, or content of literature, especially of the kind valued for quality of form." I think the OP intends to put some emphasis on the "quality of form" part of this sort of formulation of what makes something a literary endeavor.





Hussar said:


> Literary or performance simply means HOW the material is presented in the game, either in written form or in oral during a session.  Literary carries additional connotations of utilizing various literary devices.  Did you use pathetic fallacy during the session?  Did you use foreshadowing?  Did you engage various tropes of the genre?  Then you are using literary devices.



The notion of _how_ is too expansive. Speaking with sufficient volume to be heard, sufficient crispness of enunciation to be understood - these all go to _how_, but don't show that we're engaged in a literary endeavour.

I made some comments on literary devices in post 40, replying to  [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] :



pemerton said:


> dramatic pacing (probably) can't be completely divorced from the words - the form - whereby the content is conveyed.
> 
> In the context of a RPG, though, where the pacing concerns - at least the sort that you refer to - are more at the "scene" level than the line-by-line level, I think the dependence of pacing on words becomes pretty lose. A GM who can't control his/her words at all is going to have troube wrapping up a scene, or cutting to the next situation, in a smooth way; but I think the threshold of skill to be able to do this falls well short of being able to write an evocative opening or closing line.
> 
> I'll finish this post by saying that, in denying that RPGing is a *literary* endeavour I'm not denying that it has an important aesthetic component. But I think that the aesthetic component is much more connected to a sense of motion and drama in human affairs, than to a sense of beauty in composition or performance.



As far as the use of tropes is concerned - that's typically not about quality of form or beauty in composition at all. 



Hussar said:


> Essentially this argument is as old as gaming.  Which is more important, fluff or crunch?  Some folks think that crunch (@Pemerton refers to task resolution) as all important and fluff (or flavor, or performance, or whatever you want to call it), while perhaps interesting, is largely unimportant.  Others, like myself and I believe [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], think that flavor and crunch are both equally important and equally needed in an RPG.



This has absolutely zero to do with what I'm talking about. For instance, you seem to be the only poster in this thread who has said anything to imply that _action resolution_ = "crunch", because you seem to think that additional fictional context in action declaration - such as striding vs walking cautiously - makes no difference to resolution.

The role of the fiction in framing, declaration and resolution is one of the fundamental differences between RPGing and boardgaming and much wargamin. The distinctive first-person protagonist role of most of the participants is the other. And obviously the OP in this thread takes these features of RPGing for granted, as not even needing to be stated.

It's precisely because of these features of RPGing that it is possible for it to be an activity which (to quote again from the OP) is based on _the players feeling the significance of the situations the GM describes - feeling the pull to action, and the threats of inaction_. That has nothing to do with "fluff vs crunch".

That Evard is a demon-summoner; that he might be my grandfather; that my family's claim to honour might rest on such poor foundations; that my fidelity to the Lord of Battle might be so fundamentally compromised: how would anyone think that those things are about "crunch"?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Riley37 said:


> Or in non-verbal, non-linguistic forms. You mentioned the Tomb of Horrors picture gallery. Any map which is more illustrated than the "no-frills" minimal map. If I draw a picture of my PC, that's also presentation of material. Use of figurines; if a figurine is more expressive than a chess piece, then that figurine is part of presentation, because it influences the mind's eye. Mercer uses a lot of voice sound effects; those are not words, and they are part of his attempt to give players a shared understanding of what's happening in the story.




Isn’t it more a case of the quality of the gallery art or map or pawn or GM voice? All the things you’ve described, you’ve made a distinction between the base requirement for such a thing to be part of the game, and then an improved version designed to enhance the experience.

A bare bones map is certainly sufficient, no? Especially since it may only be the GM who actually sees it. A basic pawn is sufficient to play on a grid if that’s the kind of game you are playing. The GM being able to speak or otherwise communicate to the players is fundamental. 

It seems to me that you are saying that going further than the basic is what’s required? The map must have evocative images, the mini must be from Hero Forge, the GM should be a professional voice actor.

To me, none of those things are required. None of them are bad, not by any means. But they’re well beyond what’s “core” to the RPG experience. 

A RPG is a conversation between the participants in which they create a shared fiction. What’s core is communication, some kind of rules system, some shared set of assumptions on genre and story....things like that. These are the fundamental requirements.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Whereas what I see as central to RPGing is the capacity of the referee to respond to the players, and frame situations in response, that engage with a focus, specificity and degree of particularity that non-human interactions can't deliver.




I know we disagree on the particular way this is utilized, but definitely agree with this point. When I talk about feeling strongly in character, like I am there and fully immersed, it is because I have the ability to say to the GM "I want to try to do X" (and that could be virtually anything) and the GM responds and reacts. What words the GM uses to respond is not as important as the fact that he or she can, and what that response is. I am not there to listen to a novel recitation. I am there to be my character and feel like I am present in the world or situation we are exploring. I don't need pretty words for that. I need a human mind that can adjudicate the situation in a way that feels believable and engaging.


----------



## Maxperson

Hriston said:


> All things being equal, there’s nothing wrong with well crafted narration. That’s not the point. The point is rpg groups don’t get together to listen to flowery descriptions of the contents of rooms. That’s what poetry recitals are for. *They get together to engage, as their characters, with the situations presented in the game. Any literary quality possessed by that presentation is in service and subordinate to those situations.*




Now we're back to both being equal.  The bolded above is true.  However...

If the descriptions are non-existent or dull, the players are going to cease getting together as their characters to engage with situations presented in the game, making those situations subordinate to the good descriptions.

Both are necessary to engage the players and keep them coming back.


----------



## Maxperson

Hriston said:


> If the problem is that the situations aren’t interesting, then I think the solution is to use more interesting situations, not more flowery descriptions of uninteresting situations!




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. 



> You don’t need flowery language to play an rpg.




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


----------



## Hriston

Imaro said:


> ORRR... your presentation of them wasn't done well enough to hook the players... or are you claiming that's not a possibility?




I’m not sure what you mean by “well enough”. I’m claiming that as long as the situation is clearly understood by the players, which is an issue with communication, not with quality of form/literary merit, and it fails to interest them nevertheless, that focusing on the artistry of its presentation is unlikely to generate the desired interest in the situation and is more likely to resemble some other form of entertainment that relies on such artistry, like a novel or a movie.



Imaro said:


> Well which one are you arguing against because they aren't the same thing...




My bad. I was using “flowery language” as a euphemism for formal quality in narration, which I thought was fairly obvious. Sorry if that has caused any confusion in the discussion.


----------



## Henry

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=158]Henry[/MENTION], I SO am stealing that line for my next D&D session.




I can’t take credit for it, sadly — Stu Venable from Happy Jack’s RPG Podcast is friggin’ hilarious.


----------



## Imaro

Hriston said:


> I’m not sure what you mean by “well enough”. I’m claiming that as long as the situation is clearly understood by the players, which is an issue with communication, not with quality of form/literary merit, and it fails to interest them nevertheless, that focusing on the artistry of its presentation is unlikely to generate the desired interest in the situation and is more likely to resemble some other form of entertainment that relies on such artistry, like a novel or a movie.




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

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?




Hriston said:


> My bad. I was using “flowery language” as a euphemism for formal quality in narration, which I thought was fairly obvious. Sorry if that has caused any confusion in the discussion.




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".


----------



## Hussar

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] - perhaps I missed it, but, the point I brought up about using literary techniques, IMO, does speak strongly to the notion that we do need "literary qualities" in an RPG.  Without trope, theme, character, and the like, an RPG is simply a really complex board game.  All of these aspects, all of these literary techniques, be it clarity of explanation, foreshadowing (which, [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], I accept that you do not use, but are present in MANY modules), pathetic fallacies, language to evoke tone and mood, the use of in medias res techniques.  Flashbacks.  Since we're going to start quoting from esoteric RPG's that virtually no one plays, I've played 3:16 Carnage Beyond the Stars which uses flashback as a major element of the game.  Never minding games like Amber Diceless and the like which force the players to use language to define in game events.

Heck, even the notion of Aspects as a driving feature of play (from FATE, or the like) is drawn straight from literary techniques and improv techniques as well.

 [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] brushes this off by saying that RPG's borrow from the literary.  I'm not sure why that suddenly matters.  It comes from literary sources, and , it influences how RPG's work, thus RPGing becomes something of a literary endevour.  Oh, and, let's not forget things like LARP or the like, which is even more heavily dependent upon the literary and theatrical.  Or, perhaps those aren't really RPG's?  

I'm frankly baffled how anyone could come to the conclusion that the literary isn't required in an RPG.  Or, to put it another way, without referring to a single element from literature writing or creation, like genre, mood or tone, explain why I can't play a Jedi in your D&D game.  Or a Star Fleet officer.  In the game with the English Butler, why can't I be a viking or a catgirl or an animated teapot?


----------



## Hussar

I just realized that there is a very simple test we can perform to prove my point.

Can I play a character in your game that is 100% outside of genre?  So, an elven wizard in a Call of Cthulu game or a Battlemech Pilot in your D&D game, or whatever.  Can I sit down at your table with a character that is completely wrong for the genre of your game and play that character?

If you just said no, then literary is core to your game.  Because the only justification, really, is that such a character is breaking genre.  If the literary was of so little importance that it doesn't even rate at your table, then you should have not so much as a quibble when I show up to your Pendragon game with a Deadpool knockoff.

Sure, you can argue about power problems, but, I can always come up with genre breaking examples where the power levels wouldn't be an issue (a jedi in a D&D game for example) but, there is zero chance that a DM would let me play it.

Thus, Rpging is a literary endevour.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> I just realized that there is a very simple test we can perform to prove my point.
> 
> Can I play a character in your game that is 100% outside of genre?  So, an elven wizard in a Call of Cthulu game or a Battlemech Pilot in your D&D game, or whatever.  Can I sit down at your table with a character that is completely wrong for the genre of your game and play that character?
> 
> If you just said no, then literary is core to your game.  Because the only justification, really, is that such a character is breaking genre.  If the literary was of so little importance that it doesn't even rate at your table, then you should have not so much as a quibble when I show up to your Pendragon game with a Deadpool knockoff.
> 
> Sure, you can argue about power problems, but, I can always come up with genre breaking examples where the power levels wouldn't be an issue (a jedi in a D&D game for example) but, there is zero chance that a DM would let me play it.
> 
> Thus, Rpging is a literary endevour.



This is fine if, by _literary endeavour_, you means _an activity that deploys and/or relies upon some devices used in literary composition_. But that's not what the OP meant, and I think it is fairly clear what the OP _did_ mean: _quality of composition_, with particular reference to the narration and descriptions used by the GM.

Using genre tropes and policing genre boundaries doesn't really bear upon this.



Hussar said:


> [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] - perhaps I missed it, but, the point I brought up about using literary techniques, IMO, does speak strongly to the notion that we do need "literary qualities" in an RPG.  Without trope, theme, character, and the like, an RPG is simply a really complex board game.  All of these aspects, all of these literary techniques, be it clarity of explanation, foreshadowing (which, [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], I accept that you do not use, but are present in MANY modules), pathetic fallacies, language to evoke tone and mood, the use of in medias res techniques.  Flashbacks.  Since we're going to start quoting from esoteric RPG's that virtually no one plays, I've played 3:16 Carnage Beyond the Stars which uses flashback as a major element of the game.  Never minding games like Amber Diceless and the like which force the players to use language to define in game events.
> 
> Heck, even the notion of Aspects as a driving feature of play (from FATE, or the like) is drawn straight from literary techniques and improv techniques as well.
> 
> [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] brushes this off by saying that RPG's borrow from the literary.  I'm not sure why that suddenly matters.  It comes from literary sources, and , it influences how RPG's work, thus RPGing becomes something of a literary endevour.  Oh, and, let's not forget things like LARP or the like, which is even more heavily dependent upon the literary and theatrical.  Or, perhaps those aren't really RPG's?
> 
> I'm frankly baffled how anyone could come to the conclusion that the literary isn't required in an RPG.  Or, to put it another way, without referring to a single element from literature writing or creation, like genre, mood or tone, explain why I can't play a Jedi in your D&D game.  Or a Star Fleet officer.  In the game with the English Butler, why can't I be a viking or a catgirl or an animated teapot?



Again, most of this is rebutting a claim that was not made.

Children use genre conceits, and sometimes even flashbacks, in playing make believe and telling stories with their Lego constructs. But those aren't _literary endeavours_ in the sense the OP has in mind: the quality of the narration/description isn't relevant to those activities.

How can you think that referring to Amber diceless, in which player use language to define events, possibly rebuts a claim that _begins with the premise_ that RPGing involves narration and description?



Imaro said:


> 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?



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_.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> I just realized that there is a very simple test we can perform to prove my point.
> 
> Can I play a character in your game that is 100% outside of genre?  So, an elven wizard in a Call of Cthulu game or a Battlemech Pilot in your D&D game, or whatever.  Can I sit down at your table with a character that is completely wrong for the genre of your game and play that character?
> 
> If you just said no, then literary is core to your game.  Because the only justification, really, is that such a character is breaking genre.  If the literary was of so little importance that it doesn't even rate at your table, then you should have not so much as a quibble when I show up to your Pendragon game with a Deadpool knockoff.
> 
> Sure, you can argue about power problems, but, I can always come up with genre breaking examples where the power levels wouldn't be an issue (a jedi in a D&D game for example) but, there is zero chance that a DM would let me play it.
> 
> Thus, Rpging is a literary endevour.




I consider genre fiction and literature two very different things. And once again, even if I didn't make that distinction. The fact that other mediums are present doesn't make RPG those things. RPGs borrow from movies all the time too. That doesn't make RPGs a cinematic endeavor. Now if you want your RPGs to be cinematic, great! Go for it. But don't tell other people their RPGs have to be literary or cinematic just because you like like it (by the way, I am a fan of games with a cinematic bent). Don't you see how this is ultimately just a playstyle argument as you are presenting it?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Can I play a character in your game that is 100% outside of genre?  So, an elven wizard in a Call of Cthulu game or a Battlemech Pilot in your D&D game, or whatever.  Can I sit down at your table with a character that is completely wrong for the genre of your game and play that character?




Not all people care about genre. I care about genre. So I would consider genre when such a character was present. But I know plenty of GMs who don't and the thing they would consider, rather than genre, is the setting and whether your character makes sense. Genre emulation is great. Not everyone is into it.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> All of these aspects, all of these literary techniques, be it clarity of explanation, foreshadowing (which, @_*Bedrockgames*_, I accept that you do not use, but are present in MANY modules), pathetic fallacies, language to evoke tone and mood, the use of in medias res techniques.  Flashbacks.  Since we're going to start quoting from esoteric RPG's that virtually no one plays, I've played 3:16 Carnage Beyond the Stars which uses flashback as a major element of the game.  Never minding games like Amber Diceless and the like which force the players to use language to define in game events.




Being present in many modules doesn't make something core or essential. Also, the techniques you are discussing are techniques a lot of GMs don't use. I'd say there is a pretty big stylistic divide around many of those. Not saying they are bad, or not fun. Just things like flashbacks are definitely not for everyone. Starting in medias res, is not for everyone. I come from a much more traditional approach than many of the posters in this thread, and am simply not the kind of GM to use those techniques. 



> Heck, even the notion of Aspects as a driving feature of play (from FATE, or the like) is drawn straight from literary techniques and improv techniques as well.




And that is fine, but that is also why I don't play fate. Look, I am not against borrowing from other mediums. I wrote a 500 page game book that models the wuxia genre. However I would hardly call the game literary. It is a genre game. But when I set about modeling the genre elements I took pains to avoid doing things that put the literary elements front and center over the world and immersion. I drew a line, and baked genre into the cosmology, into the physics of the world, but tried to keep it from being things like meta-resources. Again, not saying this is the best or only approach (many games succeed well doing things like Fate). I am just trying to point out some of us are very cautious about employing techniques from other mediums. 



> @_*Bedrockgames*_ brushes this off by saying that RPG's borrow from the literary.  I'm not sure why that suddenly matters.  It comes from literary sources, and , it influences how RPG's work, thus RPGing becomes something of a literary endevour.  Oh, and, let's not forget things like LARP or the like, which is even more heavily dependent upon the literary and theatrical.  Or, perhaps those aren't really RPG's?




I was pointing out that RPGS borrow from other mediums all the time. But this is often just a veneer. As someone much smarter than me keeps telling me, there is a different between borrowing veneer and using the structure of a thing. When you sit down to play a game modeled on a particular movie genre, you are not sitting down to watch a movie (you are still sitting down to play a game). But I've stated repeatedly I don't consider genre stuff to be literary anyways. I think literary is a very, very high bar. And Pemerton just clarified what he meant by literary in his OP. You are attacking arguments that we are not making, or not examining the full breath of our arguments. 



> I'm frankly baffled how anyone could come to the conclusion that the literary isn't required in an RPG.  Or, to put it another way, without referring to a single element from literature writing or creation, like genre, mood or tone, explain why I can't play a Jedi in your D&D game.  Or a Star Fleet officer.  In the game with the English Butler, why can't I be a viking or a catgirl or an animated teapot?




You are arguing against a point people are not trying to make.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> This is fine if, by _literary endeavour_, you means _an activity that deploys and/or relies upon some devices used in literary composition_. But that's not what the OP meant, and I think it is fairly clear what the OP _did_ mean: _quality of composition_, with particular reference to the narration and descriptions used by the GM.




Another thread that has fallen victim to the PRP(Pemerton Redefinition Program).  When you try to redefine something in order to fit your narrow usage, you naturally and correctly get a lot of push back by people who understand the actual definition.  What you have done is the following.

Pemerton: Does D&D have money?  I'm going to define money as pieces of paper with no inherent value, but that society ascribes value to and uses for currency.  I'm going to say no.

Others: Um, D&D uses pieces of gold, silver, electrum, copper and platinum as currency, so it does have money.

Pemerton: This is fine if, by money, you mean something you use as currency.  But that's not what the OP meant, and I think it's fairly clear what the OP did mean...

You are basically derailing your threads right from the OP when you do this.  People are not going to let you get away with these outrageous redefinitions.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I consider genre fiction and literature two very different things. And once again, even if I didn't make that distinction. The fact that other mediums are present doesn't make RPG those things. RPGs borrow from movies all the time too. That doesn't make RPGs a cinematic endeavor. Now if you want your RPGs to be cinematic, great! Go for it. But don't tell other people their RPGs have to be literary or cinematic just because you like like it (by the way, I am a fan of games with a cinematic bent). Don't you see how this is ultimately just a playstyle argument as you are presenting it?




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.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> 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

Maxperson said:


> 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:



			
				me said:
			
		

> 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.



Maxperson said:


> 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

pemerton said:


> 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

Maxperson said:


> 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

Maxperson said:


> 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

hawkeyefan said:


> 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

Imaro said:


> 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

hawkeyefan said:


> 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.



hawkeyefan said:


> 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

Imaro said:


> 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:



Maxperson said:


> 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.



Imaro said:


> 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?



Imaro said:


> 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.


----------



## Imaro

Hriston said:


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




Nope that's also a possibility... you're the one who immediately and only blamed it on lack of clarity.




Hriston said:


> 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.




Ok maybe you don't get that flowery language is not the only way (and sometimes not at all a way) to impart literary quality.


----------



## Hriston

Imaro said:


> Nope that's also a possibility... you're the one who immediately and only blamed it on lack of clarity.




No, I didn't. I said that provided sufficient clarity in its presentation, a situation would be found interesting or not based on its own merits. That puts the blame for lack of interest squarely on the situation, not the presentation.



Imaro said:


> Ok maybe you don't get that flowery language is not the only way (and sometimes not at all a way) to impart literary quality.




No, it's more that when faced with an uninteresting situation, I doubt that any amount of *showmanship* is going to trick the players into thinking the situation is interesting. If the situation *is* interesting, then I'm not sure what the presentational artistry is meant to do.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Hriston

Maxperson said:


> Now we're back to both being equal.  The bolded above is true.  However...
> 
> If the descriptions are non-existent or dull, the players are going to cease getting together as their characters to engage with situations presented in the game, making those situations subordinate to the good descriptions.
> 
> Both are necessary to engage the players and keep them coming back.




No one is arguing for dull descriptions. The fact that situations must be described has also been noted in the OP and elsewhere. None of this suggests to me, however, that descriptions of content in an RPG must be of a literary quality for the players to be interested in the game's premise and situations, which is, I think, a common goal of RPG play. 



Maxperson said:


> 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.




How does describing an uninteresting situation differently, without changing any of the actual content, suddenly make it interesting?



Maxperson said:


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




And here you're suggesting that RPGs that lack "flowery language" are dull and resemble board games. I'm sure you can see this is just a statement of your preference.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> 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.




See Hussar's post about a detailed map versus a basic "no frills" map, or a detailed miniature rather than a board game pawn, and so on. See Maxperson's posts about how unless something is described well, players will lost interest. 

These examples make a correlation between "more" and "better". 



Imaro said:


> 2. This is a false dichotomy since nothing about literary quality necessitates lack of clarity.
> 
> Why, inherently,  would you have to sacrifice one to get the other(s)?




It's not a false dichotomy. I'm not saying it must happen, simply that it may. Ideally, it wouldn't. But it certainly does at times. 

I know from experience, and I am guessing that most of us have similar examples, where I've read some boxed text aloud to my players, and they don't grasp all the details, and then they begin to declare actions that may not actually make sense. So the GM has to clarify things for them....maybe give the specific room dimensions or the number of doors, or the contents of the room and how they may impede movement and so on. 

Has something like this really never happened to you in a game? In such cases, perhaps clear and concise language would be preferable to evocative language?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hriston said:


> How does describing an uninteresting situation differently, without changing any of the actual content, suddenly make it interesting?
> 
> .




This is a very important point. The description isn't what makes a situation in an RPG interesting: the situation is what makes interesting because it is interacting and part of a back and forth conversation. I honestly don't care if the GM is stumbling over words, uses the same adjective twice in a row for no reason, uses a ten dollar word that somewhat misses the mark, when a more precise 1 dollar word would do....those are all things I care about when I am reading quality books. When I am playing a game I am engaged with another human being and through them, a situation as my character. If anything, words that are too literary will often tend to pull me out of that. Which isn't to say it can' the useful to throw in a colorful flourish now and again, or to hone your narration skills. It is just that the performance of narration in a literary style....it isn't why I am there. It isn't why a lot of people are there.


----------



## Imaro

Hriston said:


> No, it's more that when faced with an uninteresting situation, I doubt that any amount of *showmanship* is going to trick the players into thinking the situation is interesting. If the situation *is* interesting, then I'm not sure what the presentational artistry is meant to do.




Again you are assuming the situation itself is uninteresting.  Which is too say an interesting situation can be made to seem uninteresting, when presented badly.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> Has something like this really never happened to you in a game? In such cases, perhaps clear and concise language would be preferable to evocative language?




More than that, I think the questioning the GM about details like that is part of the game. This is why having a human mind there is superior to a video game. Asking questions is part of getting the GM to hammer down the details. Those kinds of details are often not thought of in advance. I try to think of everything I can about places and characters before hand. But if the setting is to feel like a real place, nothing you put on a page is going to be able to capture the endless possibliities of a real place. So you need that questioning and back and forth to help the GM breath life into it. And that isn't about the words the GM uses. It is about the questions the players ask, the content the GM provides, etc. Words can be important, but in this case they are also very superficial. What the GM intends is much more important than how the GM says it. Obviously a GM who can't express their intentions clearly is going to have some issues (though that is honestly what the questioning and answering part of an RPG helps smooth over). But you don't need literary level description to convey your intent with game content.


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> This is a very important point. The description isn't what makes a situation in an RPG interesting...



Maybe, maybe not... but it certainly can be the deciding factor on whether the players choose to interact with said situation... and thus whether said content ever gets to be a part of the game.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> More than that, I think the questioning the GM about details like that is part of the game. This is why having a human mind there is superior to a video game. Asking questions is part of getting the GM to hammer down the details. Those kinds of details are often not thought of in advance. I try to think of everything I can about places and characters before hand. But if the setting is to feel like a real place, nothing you put on a page is going to be able to capture the endless possibliities of a real place. So you need that questioning and back and forth to help the GM breath life into it. And that isn't about the words the GM uses. It is about the questions the players ask, the content the GM provides, etc. Words can be important, but in this case they are also very superficial. What the GM intends is much more important than how the GM says it. Obviously a GM who can't express their intentions clearly is going to have some issues (though that is honestly what the questioning and answering part of an RPG helps smooth over). But you don't need literary level description to convey your intent with game content.




Yes, exactly. This goes back to the fact that a RPG is a conversation. It's a conversation because there's back and forth, there's an exchange of information and ideas that goes both ways. 

Generally speaking, we don't hold folks to literary standards when speaking to each other in that capacity. 

I don't think that's the same as saying presentation can't matter, but I don't think it's what is most important.


----------



## Bedrockgames

lowkey13 said:


> (You understand that some of us don't appreciate comments like, oh, that "genre" stuff isn't literary, or that there is some "hack" quality to it- I thought this was ended no later than the 1950s, man, at least with Cahiers Du Cinema (Hitchcock?) and our ability to understand that literary quality isn't confined to high art, and that today's low art is tomorrow's high art. I mean- that's they type of comment used to keep the preferences of nerds like us in the shadows for so long. It's terrible that we see it parroted here.




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.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> Maybe, maybe not... but it certainly can be the deciding factor on whether the players choose to interact with said situation... and thus whether said content ever gets to be a part of the game.




Of course, but I don't think the literary quality matters as much as the GM fairly trying to communicate with the players and the players making a solid effort to engage with the GM. I really think, if you observe how most groups interact, you hear a conversation.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> I don't think that's the same as saying presentation can't matter, but I don't think it's what is most important.




All most/all of us on the other side are saying is that it matters... Just because something is a core aspect of something doesn't mean it's the most important aspect of something.  Headlights in modern times are a core component of a car... I wouldn't say they are the most important though.


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> Of course, but I don't think the literary quality matters as much as the GM fairly trying to communicate with the players and the players making a solid effort to engage with the GM. I really think, if you observe how most groups interact, you hear a conversation.




But no one is arguing how much it does or doesn't matter... only that it does matter.  That it is a core component of playing an rpg... not THE core component of playing.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> Generally speaking, we don't hold folks to literary standards when speaking to each other in that capacity.
> 
> I don't think that's the same as saying presentation can't matter, but I don't think it's what is most important.




And again this is key. The reason books as a medium have a higher standard than talking face to face, or at least one important reason, is the writer only has one shot to convey what he or she means, because a novel is a one-way form of communication (you can't ask the author for clarification while you are reading unless you have them there). Roleplaying games are a totally different medium, based on people interacting and conversing. You don't need strong literary style descriptions (or descriptions that adhere to good writing style advice) because it is so easy to ask the GM 'when you say big; how big exactly is it?. Half the fun is asking questions like that (for me at least). Sure the GM may just say 'there are 13 kobolds on the hill'. And that might not impress someone like Hussar. For me, that is really all I need to start asking relevant questions to help me build both a fleshed out sense of the world and to know what kinds of meaningful choices and options might be present for me. I really don't care if the GM describes a kobold in vidid detail or mentions a lingering odor that is particularly evacuate. In all honesty those are not the things that will pull me into the setting as much as the interaction between what the GM establishes and the conversation for clarity that follows.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> But no one is arguing how much it does or doesn't matter... only that it does matter.  That it is a core component of playing an rpg... not THE core component of playing.




I don't think the literary quality matters all that much at all. Certainly not enough for me to lose sleep over if someone thinks my descriptions, my writing, or my speaking style isn't sufficiently literary. And certainly not enough for me to label a core feature of play. As a player I am not looking for literary stylings either. It can be a part of play. Doesn't have to be. 

I think the conversation has largely played out. You think it is important. I think it isn't. We both have our reasons. We've both stated them again and again. I don't think we are going to persuade one another. It is just an honest disagreement over what gaming is about.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> All most/all of us on the other side are saying is that it matters... Just because something is a core aspect of something doesn't mean it's the most important aspect of something.  Headlights in modern times are a core component of a car... I wouldn't say they are the most important though.




You can't safely drive without headlights at night. They are essential to driving if you want to drive safely. I can easily run a campaign without using literary level descriptions of things and instead just having a basic conversation with my players.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bedrockgames

lowkey13 said:


> .... and .... what if you are playing a game other than D&D?
> 
> What if you are playing, say, Call of Cthulhu (Horror)?
> 
> What if you are playing Paranoia (Humor)?
> 
> What if you are playing Amber?
> 
> Why do you think that the quality of your narration, and the improv qualities your questioning has, aren't an issue of presentation? Do you believe that interactive media can't be art? Do you think that it is impossible for a videogame to be literary?
> 
> For that matter, why do you think it is appropriate to remove conversations or interaction from the realm of the evocative and literary?
> 
> 
> ...Finally, why do you think that your style (we will call it Hemmingway-esque) is both devoid of presentation, and also the default standard that other people play to in other RPGs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT- In case you aren't picking up on it, I do disagree with you. But, for the sake of argument, a person could say that, for example, "literary" isn't a core component of books .... because no one is forcing a book to be "quality."
> 
> That's just not an argument I would want to make. You can make any argument by defining things, but in the end, many of us enjoy quality- and if your quality in your conversation, more power to you.




There are way too many questions to answer here. I will try to give a general response instead. With games like Cthulu, or say Ravenloft (which I just ran more often so am more familiar with), I think stuff like narrating evocatively, adhering to good rules of writing while talking, etc are not that important. I used to feel that way. I followed that horror gaming advice to the letter. But I realized the things that really matter are more specific to how conversations and human interaction operate, rather than how literature does. You can occasionally draw on things that work in literature that also happen to work in games. That is fine. But using literature as your model...I think that leads to problems. And I think the atmosphere of a horror game has much more to do with what is going on than with how you present it (again though, I can do really over the top things to undermine it, but I just don't think doing things like talking in a whisper or getting all vincent price helps as much as it hurts). I just see it more as facilitating a discussion and in recent years I have been a lot less precious in my approach to play as a GM. 

I will try to address some of the other questions in a separate post


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> All most/all of us on the other side are saying is that it matters... Just because something is a core aspect of something doesn't mean it's the most important aspect of something.  Headlights in modern times are a core component of a car... I wouldn't say they are the most important though.




Sure. I don't think the OP or most following posts are saying that the presentation doesn't matter at all, just that it's secondary to the actual content. 

I don't see presentation as being wholly absent, though. I absolutely use presentation to evoke mood and so on. Others likely use more, and some other folks likely less, but I do use it. 

I'd agree with your recent post that an interesting scenario can be rendered uninteresting due to poor presentation. But I don't think that an uninteresting scenario can be made to be interesting due to presentation. So for me, what's most important is the content.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure. I don't think the OP or most following posts are saying that the presentation doesn't matter at all, just that it's secondary to the actual content.
> 
> I don't see presentation as being wholly absent, though. I absolutely use presentation to evoke mood and so on. Others likely use more, and some other folks likely less, but I do use it.
> 
> I'd agree with your recent post that an interesting scenario can be rendered uninteresting due to poor presentation. But I don't think that an uninteresting scenario can be made to be interesting due to presentation. So for me, what's most important is the content.




I think if you say something isn't core you are saying it can be removed and is not necessary for play.  

EDIT: Which is to say if the original discussion had been framed around what was more/most important as opposed to what is core there would have probably been less push back.


----------



## Hriston

Imaro said:


> Again you are assuming the situation itself is uninteresting.  Which is too say an interesting situation can be made to seem uninteresting, when presented badly.




I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, but bad presentation doesn't necessarily follow from not prioritizing quality of form in presentation.


----------



## Bedrockgames

lowkey13 said:


> Very briefly-
> 
> You understand that evoking emotion will have some similar, and some different, aspects depending on the medium, correct?
> 
> So, for example, a horror book, a horror movie, and a horror story told around the campfire will have some techniques that are similar, and some that are different.
> 
> But no one would (should?) say that a horror movie doesn't use presentation, just because it's different.
> 
> Or that a horror story told around the campfire doesn't use presentation, just because there is call and response.




Presentation isn't a word people objected to, and no one has said presentation isn't used or present. People have disagreed over how important performance and literary techniques are. Yes, a roleplaying game can use some of the techniques you find in a horror novel, but it doesn't mean those techniques translate as well or as commonly into an RPG. Something that is required to make a horror novel work, is a tool I can easily ignore in an RPG. 

This is getting a pretty fundamental divide. Do you see the GM as a narrator and storyteller or do you see the GM as a facilitator or adjudicator? I think those of us who see the GM as the latter, tend not to care as much about the details of the narration because we see those details as largely less important than content or mechanics. We are more focused on the stuff created from the conversation between the GM and players because to us, that is where true player freedom to explore arises (even though people like me and Pemerton strongly, strongly disagree on how that freedom ought to play out in terms of mechanics and procedure). Unless what the GM is saying has an actual impact on mechanics or content, it is kind of not real to me. If it is purely coloring, and not something that is meaningful in the setting, then it is just pretty words the GM is using to wrap a bow around the scenario. 

Again, I am not trying to attack your preferences here. I am just explaining my preferences, my approach because I want you to understand why you are meeting so much resistance to these ideas (rather than be baffled by my resistance or concluding it is coming from a desire to be combative). I am just sensing very fundamental differences of preference underlying so much of what is going on. And a lot of it seems to be preferences that people assume are ubiquitous (when they are not).


----------



## Hriston

lowkey13 said:


> One more time-
> 
> Hemingway has one style.
> 
> Nabokov has a different style.
> 
> One is sparse and clean. One isn't.
> 
> Both are (for lack of a better phrase) "literary."




I'd say they both fit the usage of _literary_ used in the OP because the work of both authors is literature "of the kind valued for quality of form", which is a standard definition of the word. Now, I think it's debatable whether playing an RPG is participating in literature (I'd say it probably is, but it would depend on your definition of _literature_ and is beyond the scope of this thread), but I don't think *quality of form* is a focal point for the majority of instances of play. I think the main thrust of the activity has more to do with imagining and engaging with the content, which isn't dependent on formal quality.



lowkey13 said:


> (You understand that some of us don't appreciate comments like, oh, that "genre" stuff isn't literary, or that there is some "hack" quality to it- I thought this was ended no later than the 1950s, man, at least with Cahiers Du Cinema (Hitchcock?) and our ability to understand that literary quality isn't confined to high art, and that today's low art is tomorrow's high art. I mean- that's they type of comment used to keep the preferences of nerds like us in the shadows for so long. It's terrible that we see it parroted here.
> 
> 
> Also? Showmanship? C'mon. Why not just say flowery language? "Hey guys, you know what sucks? I really hate those acting types." Of course, none of this would have been an issue if a thread hadn't been created to expressly denigrate presentation. I swear, it's like someone created a thread saying, "Optimizers are the worst ever," and then getting all offended when people saying, "How dare all these people come here and defend optimization? Why are they attacking roleplaying?")




I don't think the OP intended to express elitism with regard to what constitutes a literary endeavor. I certainly didn't mean to suggest any connotation of "high" or "low" in my posts. When I've used terms like _showmanship_ or _flowery language_ (_purple_ is another word that I was tempted to use), it was to illustrate a contrast between the informal, colloquial character of RPG gaming in the spoken vernacular, with a more contrived approach that could be said to be literary in the sense that the OP used the word.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bedrockgames

lowkey13 said:


> One last time-




You might not be intending it, but can you please stop with the condescension? I am not trying to be difficult but it is difficult to communicate with you calmly when your posts begin or end with these kinds of sentiments. 






> That's the OP. This isn't about the DM regaling a captive playerbase with funny voices.
> 
> This is about devaluing the efforts of players and DMs, whether it's in creating terrain, making illustrations of their characters, or engaging each other in a creative enterprise with quality.
> 
> That you don't see it that way, well, whatever. But let me make this 100% clear, again (and @_*Hriston*_ as well)-
> 
> This isn't about some type of "Y'all have to play like Critical Role" agenda. No, this is about a very specific claim, being advanced in the OP, stating that his style of play is what matters in RPGs, and that what the rest of us do doesn't matter.
> 
> That's not cool. Now, carry on- but more than enough words have been spent explaining this, and, TBH, I am a little tired of this thread and this debate, which is simply solved by stating, "Hey, play like you want. Just stop peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining."
> 
> Or, more simply- the things I enjoy are core to my RPG experience. Good?
> 
> 
> Good.




We have been over this before. I sincerely have a different reading of what you OP is saying than you. Especially in light of the OP's later clarifications (where he tried to make more clear to me where he and I agree or disagree from one another). All he is saying here is the thing that matters to him isn't the GM's narration. He isn't saying emotion is absent from the table. He is saying doesn't feel afraid simply because the GM narrates in the style of lovecraft, barker or king. And he isn't saying this is how the game has to operate for you. He is giving his personal take on it. For him, the quality of the narration isn't that important. I find exactly the same thing. I don't even really want the GM to narrate to be honest. At least I don't want the feeling of being by a campfire listen to someone narrate if that makes sense. I want information and details as the conversation unfolds. But I don't want each scene, event, situation, etc to feel like it opens with the equivalent of boxed text from the GM. 

And frankly I feel exactly the same way about it in that respect. I think the game more as a conversation just fits better with how I see play. Now we are talking about something very subjective. I don't expect you to see play the same way I do. But I don't think I should have to adopt a model of play I don't grok or that doesn't connect to how I see things.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bedrockgames

lowkey13 said:


> Some of us may have a slightly different opinion of what the OP is saying, and the different explanations that are provided; but we believe that _our style of play is being denigrated, and that his style of play is presented as an almost more enlightened approach_.
> 
> 
> That you happen to agree with him, in the instant case, does not change the .... presentation.




I think of all people on this thread, I have the most reason to be wary of Pemerton's posts (if you think that thread was bad, read the racist colonialist orcs thread). When I saw the OP I initially read it in a negative light. But I made a point of re-reading to see if I was reading my own feelings into it. I reached the conclusions this was very different from our previous discussion. Also, in that thread, I was guilty of plenty of emotional and angry posts myself. Just because I was ticked off at Pemerton in that thread (and I think with some fair amount of good reason), doesn't mean I need to always be negatively disposed towards him. As I took pains to say in that thread, I do admire Pemerton's intelligence and I do admire his ability to make a good argument. I would be foolish not to consider his posts fairly because when he does make a good point, it is often insightful. 

I don't see him denigrating a style in this case. In fact in this argument, I think it is the other side that is largely doing the denigrating. Just because I disagreed with him before or thought he was being a bit rude about something before, doesn't mean he is always wrong or that I, and others, are never also being rude. I would encourage you to read some of the posts by yourself and by others on your side of this debate again and then look at our responses to them. There have been moments where I've responded more emotionally than I would have liked, but on the whole I feel I have been reacting fairly calmly given the tone of some of the posts directed at me. 

Also, please don't go mining my prior posts to post a gotcha of me in this thread. I understand why you are doing it, but in my view, that doesn't show a lot of good faith. If I have to defend not only my posts on this thread, but posts I've made in previous threads, that isn't exactly a friendly discussion and starts to feel more like an inquisition.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Hussar

On the 13 kobolds on a hill. 

Ok. It’s conversation. Player asks, “What do they look like?”  Fairly reasonable question. Particularly if you trade kobolds for something new that the player has never seen before. 

Now describe your 13 kobolds without being literary. Do you really just say three foot tall dog men?  Oh wait, wrong edition. Three foot tall lizard dudes armed with spears?  That’s clear but hardly what I’d call good dming. 

Better yet. You see a Vengaurak on the hill. What do you do?


----------



## dostami

Ralif Redhammer said:


> Going with one of the OED's definitions of literary:
> 
> "Concerned with depicting or representing a story or other literary work; that refers or relates to a text; that creates a complex or finely crafted narrative like that of a work of literature."
> 
> Gaming can be literary, based on that particular definition. We draw influences from a variety of sources, after all. Two of the published AD&D modules are inspired by the works of Lewis Carroll. Many years ago, I ran a campaign that was pretty much Hamlet. Not in quality, mind you, I'd never go that far. But the plot was directly taken from Hamlet, albeit with an evil wizard and whatnot.
> 
> And we can absolutely have a "finely crafted narrative" in gaming. The difference is that that narrative creates itself collaboratively, as we play, rather than being written out.



I absolutely agree with this! As a writer and a long time game master or Dungeon Master as it was once called, I can tell you it makes all difference in the world in the gamer's experience and causes them to remember the game more so. My team of players have been with me for over thirty years and that is because when I create a game and add those finer details that make them want to play more. Games without good story are not for me. Its all about the story.


----------



## Bedrockgames

lowkey13 said:


> I didn't have to mine your posts, man. I have a memory- it's not like it's hard to remember the last time this happened (thread was pulled out, etc.).
> 
> It's unfortunate that you don't see the irony in your post, perhaps next time it will be your ox (again).
> 
> Anyway, I am done. Please do not respond again.




I feel I should respond to defend myself. I can understand you think I am wrong about Pemerton in this instance. It is possible I am. What bothers me is questioning my sincerity: assuming I felt one way because he disagreed with me, then another when we were in agreement. What also bothers me is the level of hostility I am getting hit dimply thinking he is making a sensible point.

EDIT: also I wasn’t happy with my own behavior in the thread in question.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> On the 13 kobolds on a hill.
> 
> Ok. It’s conversation. Player asks, “What do they look like?”  Fairly reasonable question. Particularly if you trade kobolds for something new that the player has never seen before.
> 
> Now describe your 13 kobolds without being literary. Do you really just say three foot tall dog men?  Oh wait, wrong edition. Three foot tall lizard dudes armed with spears?  That’s clear but hardly what I’d call good dming.
> 
> Better yet. You see a Vengaurak on the hill. What do you do?




Again you want more literary description than I do. Or st least more description in the style of a novel. Three foot dog men is fine by me provided there isn’t any pertinent and significant content being left out. Describing the drip of saliva or the aroma of their soiled clothes, doesn’t really add a whole lot for me unless it is relevant or part of the questions and answers. This is my issue: you assume your standard of good GMing is the the standard. It is a lot more complex and nuanced than that.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Also to those getting angry, please consider that at the very worst you are getting angry because people are asserting descriptions are not all that important to them in an RPG. Even if they are wrong, just being stubborn and closed minded, this is a fairly narrow slice of life to get heated over. Even within gaming it is a fairly specific thing to get emotional about.


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> Also to those getting angry, please consider that at the very worst you are getting angry because people are asserting descriptions are not all that important to them in an RPG. Even if they are wrong, just being stubborn and closed minded, this is a fairly narrow slice of life to get heated over. Even within gaming it is a fairly specific thing to get emotional about.




I think you're reading or projecting too much into these replies.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> I think you're reading or projecting too much into these replies.




I would suggest reading through those replies again


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> No, that isn’t literary. Hack novels use descriptions. Doesn’t make them literary novels.




Yes it does.  You can in fact have poor literature. 

[quote 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.[/quote]

This is wrong.  All it takes to be literary is to have something written.

lit·er·ar·y
/ˈlidəˌrerē/
adjective
adjective: literary
1.
*concerning the writing, study, or content of literature*, especially of the kind valued for quality of form.

lit·er·a·ture
/ˈlidərəCHər,ˈlidərəˌCHo͝or/
noun
*written works*, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit.

What you guys seem to be missing is the word "especially."  While artistic and merit are prized, they are not required for something to be literature or literary.  A grocery list is written work for God's sake.  Unless you are running your games with nobody writing anything down, you are using literature and your game has literary aspects.  



> 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 OP engages in the opposite tactic.  He re-defines or attempts to eliminate certain definitions in order to advance his playstyle or put down a playstyle he dislikes.  He gets lots of push back over it.



> 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.




I have't seen the last part of that here.  I've yet to see someone try to push the One True Way over RPGs containing literary portions.



> You can’t say RPGs are literary because words are involved therefore they should have the hallmarks of good literature.




This is a Strawman.  Nobody is claiming literature has to be good, other than people on your side anyway.  RPGs are literary because they contain written works.  RPGs are literary, because most, if not all people who run them try to make descriptions more interesting than, "In the room are 2 orcs," which is an attempt at higher quality literature.


----------



## Maxperson

Hriston said:


> From this, it seems that what you and @_*Maxperson*_ 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.




Quality of the descriptions doesn't have to be THE focus.  There probably isn't even a single focus of the game.  However, I have yet to play with someone who gives bare bones descriptions such as, "In the room are 2 orcs."  They generally add at least a little bit to the descriptions to make them more interesting, and that is the DM attempting to add quality to the narration.



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




Not at all, but this isn't about playstyles, regardless of how much you and @_*Bedrockgames*_ want to make it about playstyle.


----------



## Maxperson

Hriston said:


> No one is arguing for dull descriptions. The fact that situations must be described has also been noted in the OP and elsewhere. None of this suggests to me, however, that descriptions of content in an RPG must be of a literary quality for the players to be interested in the game's premise and situations, which is, I think, a common goal of RPG play.




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.



> How does describing an uninteresting situation differently, without changing any of the actual content, suddenly make it interesting?




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.



> And here you're suggesting that RPGs that lack "flowery language" are dull and resemble board games. I'm sure you can see this is just a statement of your preference.




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


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> This is a very important point. The description isn't what makes a situation in an RPG interesting: the situation is what makes interesting because it is interacting and part of a back and forth conversation.




It's not this either.

What makes a situation interesting is a combination of the situation, and how it's described.  A bad description can take a situation that should be interesting and make it dull.  A great description can do the opposite.  Most descriptions are somewhere in-between bad and great, but still accent the situation making it more or less interesting.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Bedrockgames said:


> I think of all people on this thread, I have the most reason to be wary of Pemerton's posts (if you think that thread was bad, read the racist colonialist orcs thread). When I saw the OP I initially read it in a negative light. But I made a point of re-reading to see if I was reading my own feelings into it. I reached the conclusions this was very different from our previous discussion. Also, in that thread, I was guilty of plenty of emotional and angry posts myself. Just because I was ticked off at Pemerton in that thread (and I think with some fair amount of good reason), doesn't mean I need to always be negatively disposed towards him. As I took pains to say in that thread, I do admire Pemerton's intelligence and I do admire his ability to make a good argument. I would be foolish not to consider his posts fairly because when he does make a good point, it is often insightful.
> 
> I don't see him denigrating a style in this case. In fact in this argument, I think it is the other side that is largely doing the denigrating. Just because I disagreed with him before or thought he was being a bit rude about something before, doesn't mean he is always wrong or that I, and others, are never also being rude. I would encourage you to read some of the posts by yourself and by others on your side of this debate again and then look at our responses to them. There have been moments where I've responded more emotionally than I would have liked, but on the whole I feel I have been reacting fairly calmly given the tone of some of the posts directed at me.
> 
> Also, please don't go mining my prior posts to post a gotcha of me in this thread. I understand why you are doing it, but in my view, that doesn't show a lot of good faith. If I have to defend not only my posts on this thread, but posts I've made in previous threads, that isn't exactly a friendly discussion and starts to feel more like an inquisition.






Maxperson said:


> It's not this either.
> 
> What makes a situation interesting is a combination of the situation, and how it's described.  A bad description can take a situation that should be interesting and make it dull.  A great description can do the opposite.  Most descriptions are somewhere in-between bad and great, but still accent the situation making it more or less interesting.




I don’t know that this is as true for me as it is for you. Like I said, people are assuming what they find interesting or engaging is the same for them as other people. I don’t find GM narration or description especially interesting. I am saying it never matters to me. Just it isn’t where I find my excitement or interest. I see the GM much more as an adjudicator than As a master narrator or storyteller.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I don’t know that this is as true for me as it is for you. Like I said, people are assuming what they find interesting or engaging is the same for them as other people. I don’t find GM narration or description especially interesting. I am saying it never matters to me. Just it isn’t where I find my excitement or interest. I see the GM much more as an adjudicator than As a master narrator or storyteller.




This is fine and I can completely believe that.  It doesn't have to be as true for you as it is for me.  I've seen some of the examples that you say you are happy with.  There is at least some small measure of it that is true for you, and that is qualitative literary content.  That's all we are really getting at.  The literary quality is present to some degree in pretty much every game.  That doesn't mean you are playing our playstyle or we yours, or that we are trying to advance an agenda.  We are just saying that literary quality is part of RPGs, even if you don't value it highly.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> This is wrong.  All it takes to be literary is to have something written.
> 
> lit·er·ar·y
> /ˈlidəˌrerē/
> adjective
> adjective: literary
> 1.
> *concerning the writing, study, or content of literature*, especially of the kind valued for quality of form.
> 
> lit·er·a·ture
> /ˈlidərəCHər,ˈlidərəˌCHo͝or/
> noun
> *written works*, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit.
> 
> What you guys seem to be missing is the word "especially."  While artistic and merit are prized, they are not required for something to be literature or literary.  A grocery list is written work for God's sake.  Unless you are running your games with nobody writing anything down, you are using literature and your game has literary aspects.
> 
> 
> 
> The OP engages in the opposite tactic.  He re-defines or attempts to eliminate certain definitions in order to advance his playstyle or put down a playstyle he dislikes.  He gets lots of push back over it.
> 
> 
> 
> I have't seen the last part of that here.  I've yet to see someone try to push the One True Way over RPGs containing literary portions.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a Strawman.  Nobody is claiming literature has to be good, other than people on your side anyway.  RPGs are literary because they contain written works.  RPGs are literary, because most, if not all people who run them try to make descriptions more interesting than, "In the room are 2 orcs," which is an attempt at higher quality literature.




Except exceptionally is super important here because it is the pivot point where equivocation occurs. You even do it yourself in the same paragraph (where you first deny the second half of the definition before embracing it when it comes to GM descriptions being attempts at higher quality literature. And this is the key aspect turning off posters like myself to your argument. If you want me to accept that words are involved in RPGs, well of course they are. Words being involved doesn’t mean RPGs are aboutbor must involve attaining greater literary heights with your GM description. Once you state something like that I can tell you 100% truthfully we value different things in that respect.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Bedrockgames said:


> I think of all people on this thread, I have the most reason to be wary of Pemerton's posts (if you think that thread was bad, read the racist colonialist orcs thread). When I saw the OP I initially read it in a negative light. But I made a point of re-reading to see if I was reading my own feelings into it. I reached the conclusions this was very different from our previous discussion. Also, in that thread, I was guilty of plenty of emotional and angry posts myself. Just because I was ticked off at Pemerton in that thread (and I think with some fair amount of good reason), doesn't mean I need to always be negatively disposed towards him. As I took pains to say in that thread, I do admire Pemerton's intelligence and I do admire his ability to make a good argument. I would be foolish not to consider his posts fairly because when he does make a good point, it is often insightful.
> 
> I don't see him denigrating a style in this case. In fact in this argument, I think it is the other side that is largely doing the denigrating. Just because I disagreed with him before or thought he was being a bit rude about something before, doesn't mean he is always wrong or that I, and others, are never also being rude. I would encourage you to read some of the posts by yourself and by others on your side of this debate again and then look at our responses to them. There have been moments where I've responded more emotionally than I would have liked, but on the whole I feel I have been reacting fairly calmly given the tone of some of the posts directed at me.
> 
> Also, please don't go mining my prior posts to post a gotcha of me in this thread. I understand why you are doing it, but in my view, that doesn't show a lot of good faith. If I have to defend not only my posts on this thread, but posts I've made in previous threads, that isn't exactly a friendly discussion and starts to feel more like an inquisition.






Maxperson said:


> This is fine and I can completely believe that.  It doesn't have to be as true for you as it is for me.  I've seen some of the examples that you say you are happy with.  There is at least some small measure of it that is true for you, and that is qualitative literary content.  That's all we are really getting at.  The literary quality is present to some degree in pretty much every game.  That doesn't mean you are playing our playstyle or we yours, or that we are trying to advance an agenda.  We are just saying that literary quality is part of RPGs, even if you don't value it highly.




Sorry but I am not convinced. Just because I am talking well with my players, that doesn’t mean I am engaged in a literary activity or that the concern is providing literary quality description. I am talking, not writing. It is a different medium.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Except exceptionally is super important here because it is the pivot point where equivocation occurs. You even do it yourself in the same paragraph (where you first deny the second half of the definition before embracing it when it comes to GM descriptions being attempts at higher quality literature. And this is the key aspect turning off posters like myself to your argument. If you want me to accept that words are involved in RPGs, well of course they are.




They are an attempt at higher quality than 0.  I wasn't saying that they achieve high quality, or that it fails to be literary if they do fail to achieve high quality.  



> Words being involved doesn’t mean RPGs are aboutbor must involve attaining greater literary heights with your GM description. Once you state something like that I can tell you 100% truthfully we value different things in that respect.




This is another Strawman, but not one which I think you made intentionally.  I think you really don't understand our side of the argument.  Nobody over here is saying that "RPGs are about or must involve attaining greater literary heights."  First off, RPGs aren't "about" anything.  Or more accurately, they are about a great many things.  Secondly, we've never said that DM descriptions must involve attaining greater literary heights.  We have said that 1. Those descriptions are literary, and that is factually true.  Even for something as simple as, "The kobolds are three foot dog men."  2. RPGs contain qualitative literary description.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> 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?





Imaro said:


> this most definitely was not what the main disagreement has been about



It is very close to it. The notion of _the craft of the narration_ is as good as any other way of putting it.

For my part, the limitaion in what hawkeyefan says is the emphasis on _clearly_ conveying the situation. I think this is important, but not sufficient. As per the OP,

What matters to me is that the players _feel the significance_ of the situations the GM describes - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction.​
This requires not only _conveying a situation_, but _conveying a situation that will draw in the players_. In this thread I've also referred to that as the _invitation to respond_.



Imaro said:


> This is a false dichotomy since nothing about literary quality necessitates lack of clarity.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Why, inherently, would you have to sacrifice one to get the other(s)?



Upthread, I already posted why _crafted narration_ and _conveying a situation that draws in the players_ might come into conflict. The first benefits from preparation (and the resulting opportunity to test, edit, etc). Whereas the second - like conversation, which has been my reiterated comparitor - benefits from spontaneous engagement within the back-and-forth at the table.

EDIT:


Bedrockgames said:


> The description isn't what makes a situation in an RPG interesting: the situation is what makes interesting because it is interacting and part of a back and forth conversation. I honestly don't care if the GM is stumbling over words, uses the same adjective twice in a row for no reason, uses a ten dollar word that somewhat misses the mark, when a more precise 1 dollar word would do....those are all things I care about when I am reading quality books. When I am playing a game I am engaged with another human being and through them, a situation as my character.



This is as good an account of the OP claim as any other.

 [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] - you may disagree that what Bedrockgames describes here, and what I describe in the OP, is a good account of RPGing. That's fine and (it goes without saying) your prerogative.

But I don't see why the discussion about this raises any issues about _the meaning of words_. I don't see how it helps the discussio by trying to argue that I, or Bedrockgames, _is engaged in self-contradiction_.

Instead: tell us about how you see RPGs working. For instance, _what do you see as the role of situation in RPGing_. Why do you think the _narratie crat_ with which a situation is presented is so important?


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> The reason books as a medium have a higher standard than talking face to face, or at least one important reason, is the writer only has one shot to convey what he or she means, because a novel is a one-way form of communication



I think there is another reason that books impose demands that are different from RPGing.

The goal of a book (typically) is to evoke some sort of response in the reader _in virtue of having read the book_. This depends heavily on the craft of the narration, on its _literary quality_ in the way the OP uses that phrase.

Whereas the goal of a GM's narrration - I assert in the OP and reiterate here - is to _invite the players to makes choices, as protagonists, in response to the situation presented_. This is a different aesthetic goal, and therefore imposes different demands on the narrator. The crafting of the narration becomes less important. Being able to appreciate the "pulse"/dynamic of the back-and-forth at the table becomes more important.



Bedrockgames said:


> This is getting a pretty fundamental divide. Do you see the GM as a narrator and storyteller or do you see the GM as a facilitator or adjudicator?



This would certainly be one way of explaining a difference of view about the centrality (or not) of _literary quality_ to RPG narration.



Bedrockgames said:


> He isn't saying emotion is absent from the table.



Far from it! Emotion is (in my view) central to (non-classic-dungeoncrawling) RPGing.

The OP is talking about the way that emotion is brought about.


----------



## uzirath

pemerton said:


> Upthread, I already posted why _crafted narration_ and _conveying a situation that draws in the players_ might come into conflict. The first benefits from preparation (and the resulting opportunity to test, edit, etc). Whereas the second - like conversation, which has been my reiterated comparitor - benefits from spontaneous engagement within the back-and-forth at the table.




I'm intrigued by this conflict and how you think it should best be resolved. I am largely sold on the idea that crafting meaningful situations that draw the players in is more central to the activity of RPGs than working on descriptive language and whatnot. With that said, however, fantastic descriptions and unique details are often the things that I, as a player, latch onto and remember. Somewhere upthread people were talking about kobolds on a hill. For me, it would be helpful to hear about their drool or bloodshot eyes. Such descriptions would seed my imagination, immersing me more deeply in the fiction. To the extent that it requires preparation to have such details at hand, then I would think some such prep work is worthwhile and beneficial (whether it is "literary" or not).


----------



## Bedrockgames

uzirath said:


> For me, it would be helpful to hear about their drool or bloodshot eyes. Such descriptions would seed my imagination, immersing me more deeply in the fiction. To the extent that it requires preparation to have such details at hand, then I would think some such prep work is worthwhile and beneficial (whether it is "literary" or not).




To me that is just coloring unless the bloodshot ideas lead somewhere else. When think of a situation like that as a GM my fist thought isn't about description: it is about background (why are the kobolds on the hill? What did they just do? Where are they going? etc). Any details I provide, it is more about those kinds of things than caring about whether I describe them in a sufficiently literary style. So I probably wouldn't mention the eyes. I may mention one is holding a wooden basket filled with books and there is a bloody robe near the fire (if they had just murdered a local official and stolen his belongings for example). But the form of the description isn't that important to me.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> They are an attempt at higher quality than 0.  I wasn't saying that they achieve high quality, or that it fails to be literary if they do fail to achieve high quality.




But no more than my natural talking style in everyday speech. I keep my games very conversational. I am not interested in stylizing my narration or consciously narrating a scene. I just converse with the players and don't think much about the words I use. 




> This is another Strawman, but not one which I think you made intentionally.  I think you really don't understand our side of the argument.  Nobody over here is saying that "RPGs are about or must involve attaining greater literary heights."  First off, RPGs aren't "about" anything.  Or more accurately, they are about a great many things.  Secondly, we've never said that DM descriptions must involve attaining greater literary heights.  We have said that 1. Those descriptions are literary, and that is factually true.  Even for something as simple as, "The kobolds are three foot dog men."  2. RPGs contain qualitative literary description.




People keep saying this, then they also keep saying how important quality in the description is. And what is the purpose of identifying the narrative aspect of RPGs as literary if not to make a further point about how you ought to narrate. It seems any time the question of an ought is raised by your side in this discussion, I am in strong disagreement. And the ought very much appears to stem from the notion that RPGs are a literary endeavor (or involve literary elements). Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think this is a straw man. If I hadn't spent half the thread arguing with people that descriptions don't have to be high quality to be good in an RPG, then I might see your point. But since people leaning on literary also seem to be advocating for emulating literary measures of quality....what should I think here?


----------



## pemerton

uzirath said:


> I'm intrigued by this conflict and how you think it should best be resolved. I am largely sold on the idea that crafting meaningful situations that draw the players in is more central to the activity of RPGs than working on descriptive language and whatnot. With that said, however, fantastic descriptions and unique details are often the things that I, as a player, latch onto and remember. Somewhere upthread people were talking about kobolds on a hill. For me, it would be helpful to hear about *their drool or bloodshot eyes*. Such descriptions would seed my imagination, immersing me more deeply in the fiction. To the extent that it requires preparation to have such details at hand, then I would think some such prep work is worthwhile and beneficial (whether it is "literary" or not).



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. (Similar to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s reference, I think upthread, to players making d*ck jokes.)

This is a risk that arises in the spontaneous back-and-forth of RPGing that doesn't come up the same way in a book. A reader might snigger at some line or phrase in a work, but there's at least a tenable sense of "work" in which that response leaves the work itself unchanged. Whereas when we think of the RPG experience as yielding a "work", the player response can't be excluded in the same way.

So to begin an answer to your question - and it's not more than a beginning - while prep can of course be helpful (for everything from thinking up situations, to thinking up choice phrases, to drawing some maps or pictures that might be useful for communicative or - in some RPGs - resolution purposes), I think the nature of RPGing will always tend to bring the dynamics of the here-and-now to the fore.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Instead: tell us about how you see RPGs working. For instance, _what do you see as the role of situation in RPGing_. Why do you think the _narratie crat_ with which a situation is presented is so important?




What is it that you think we've been doing this whole time?  It's not engaging in playstyle wars or pushing a playstyle agenda.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> But no more than my natural talking style in everyday speech. I keep my games very conversational. I am not interested in stylizing my narration or consciously narrating a scene. I just converse with the players and don't think much about the words I use.




That's fine.  It doesn't require you to think about how and what you narrate.  Even if you are not conscious of it, it's still there.  Let's go back to 13 kobolds on a hill.  That's the situation.  Adding a description, even in normal language enhances the quality of the situation.  Telling the players that there are 13 three foot dog men up on the hill is better than the above.  It gets better still if you say something like, "You see 13 three foot dog men up on the hill dancing around a stump."  With just that little bit of description, you have now taken a boring situation, 13 kobolds on a hill, and turned it into an interesting one.  Are they engaged in a ritual?  Dancing?  Having fun in the moonlight?  Casting a magic spell?  Something else?  Investigation by the players will determine that.  You don't need to think about things like, "Green ichor drips down their faces." or "You see bits of the kobold's last meal stuck in his teeth." to be literary or to have a description that enhances the situation.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tell us about how you see RPGs working. For instance, what do you see as the role of situation in RPGing. Why do you think the narratie crat with which a situation is presented is so important?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it that you think we've been doing this whole time?  It's not engaging in playstyle wars or pushing a playstyle agenda.
Click to expand...


To elaborate on my question, then: upthread [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] seemed to assert, or at least very strongly imply, that _whether or not a situation is interesting_ is a player-independent state of affairs. Do you agree?

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. Do you agree?

Upthread [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has complained about players who just want the GM to "roll up the plot wagon". What do you think the players have a duty to bring to the table? For instance, do you think the players have a _duty_ to be enthusiastic about the situation the GM presents?

Not at all far upthread [MENTION=6831843]Be[/MENTION]drockgame posited a contrast between _GM as storyteller/entertainer_ and _GM as facilitator/adjudicator_. Do you think this is a useful contrast? If so, which side of it do you favour? If not, why not?

Upthread - both a long way upthread, and in my past few posts - I've made some comments about what I see as possible tensions between _a GM issuing an invitation to respond via narration_ and _a GM aiming at literary quality in his/her narration_. Do you agree that those tensions obtain? If so, what do you do about it? If no, why not?

These are some of the matters, most of them raised in this thread, that I think might be more interesting to discuss than the meaning of the word "literary".


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> To elaborate on my question, then: upthread @_*Imaro*_ seemed to assert, or at least very strongly imply, that _whether or not a situation is interesting_ is a player-independent state of affairs. Do you agree?




Just to be clear...I never asserted or implied this.  It can be but like most things there's no absolute, 100% all the time answer.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Bedrockgames said:


> I think of all people on this thread, I have the most reason to be wary of Pemerton's posts (if you think that thread was bad, read the racist colonialist orcs thread). When I saw the OP I initially read it in a negative light. But I made a point of re-reading to see if I was reading my own feelings into it. I reached the conclusions this was very different from our previous discussion. Also, in that thread, I was guilty of plenty of emotional and angry posts myself. Just because I was ticked off at Pemerton in that thread (and I think with some fair amount of good reason), doesn't mean I need to always be negatively disposed towards him. As I took pains to say in that thread, I do admire Pemerton's intelligence and I do admire his ability to make a good argument. I would be foolish not to consider his posts fairly because when he does make a good point, it is often insightful.
> 
> I don't see him denigrating a style in this case. In fact in this argument, I think it is the other side that is largely doing the denigrating. Just because I disagreed with him before or thought he was being a bit rude about something before, doesn't mean he is always wrong or that I, and others, are never also being rude. I would encourage you to read some of the posts by yourself and by others on your side of this debate again and then look at our responses to them. There have been moments where I've responded more emotionally than I would have liked, but on the whole I feel I have been reacting fairly calmly given the tone of some of the posts directed at me.
> 
> Also, please don't go mining my prior posts to post a gotcha of me in this thread. I understand why you are doing it, but in my view, that doesn't show a lot of good faith. If I have to defend not only my posts on this thread, but posts I've made in previous threads, that isn't exactly a friendly discussion and starts to feel more like an inquisition.






Maxperson said:


> That's fine.  It doesn't require you to think about how and what you narrate.  Even if you are not conscious of it, it's still there.  Let's go back to 13 kobolds on a hill.  That's the situation.  Adding a description, even in normal language enhances the quality of the situation.  Telling the players that there are 13 three foot dog men up on the hill is better than the above.  It gets better still if you say something like, "You see 13 three foot dog men up on the hill dancing around a stump."  With just that little bit of description, you have now taken a boring situation, 13 kobolds on a hill, and turned it into an interesting one.  Are they engaged in a ritual?  Dancing?  Having fun in the moonlight?  Casting a magic spell?  Something else?  Investigation by the players will determine that.  You don't need to think about things like, "Green ichor drips down their faces." or "You see bits of the kobold's last meal stuck in his teeth." to be literary or to have a description that enhances the situation.




That they are dancing is more about content than description. The thing that makes the scene more interesting is that the kobolds are dancing for some reason, not how the GM describes the dance


----------



## Bedrockgames

Also not sure why my posts keep including that quote


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> upthread [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] seemed to assert, or at least very strongly imply, that _whether or not a situation is interesting_ is a player-independent state of affairs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear...I never asserted or implied this.  It can be but like most things there's no absolute, 100% all the time answer.
Click to expand...


OK. In that case I think it's fairly clear why two GMs might present the same situation with the same degree of clarity and at one table get buy-in while at the other table it falls flat.

Or in other words, the answer to the question you posed here seems fairly straightforward:



Imaro said:


> 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?



Those players who don't find it interesting are probably the ones for whom it is not interesting.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> OK. In that case I think it's fairly clear why two GMs might present the same situation with the same degree of clarity and at one table get buy-in while at the other table it falls flat.
> 
> Or in other words, the answer to the question you posed here seems fairly straightforward:
> 
> Those players who don't find it interesting are probably the ones for whom it is not interesting.




Or, which was my point, there are numerous reasons (including how it was presented) why it could happen outside of lack of clarity...

EDIT: It's not interesting because I don't find it interesting doesn't really speak to *why* one doesn't find it interesting.


----------



## Hussar

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?


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> That they are dancing is more about content than description. The thing that makes the scene more interesting is that the kobolds are dancing for some reason, not how the GM describes the dance




It's not, or at least it's not entirely content.  Dancing is a description of what the kobolds are doing up on the hill.  Dancing is also content.  This brings me back(again) to the point I made pages ago.  Both qualitative description AND content are both necessary to make an interesting scene.  One without the other is going to be dull.  



> Also not sure why my posts keep including that quote




I think it has something to do with multiquoting.  [MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION] was driving [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] crazy with it in a thread recently.  Maybe one of them could help you figure out how to stop quoting it.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> To elaborate on my question, then: upthread [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] seemed to assert, or at least very strongly imply, that _whether or not a situation is interesting_ is a player-independent state of affairs. Do you agree?




I don't agree with that, no.  However, I've seen how quality presentation can turn something uninteresting into something interesting.  I like rocks, minerals and gemstones.  My wife couldn't care less, except for when they are in jewelry.  Once, though, we were at a museum where someone was doing a presentation on minerals.  He was really great with his presentation and actually hooked my wife into paying attention and showing interest.  At least until it was done and we moved on to something else.



> 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. Do you agree?




I think that the players should be kept in mind.  The DM should not necessarily be tailoring the scenario to the player/PC, but depending on the situation in game, it can be appropriate to do so.  I also think that the scene, while still keeping the players/PCs in mind, should not have to be engaged.  If the players decide not to bit the hook and want to do something else, they should absolutely be able to.  If they have a goal in mind that prompts the creation of a scenario, that scenario should absolutely have regard to the players/PCs.  They're the ones that are initiating things, so by default it will concern them.



> Upthread [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has complained about players who just want the GM to "roll up the plot wagon". What do you think the players have a duty to bring to the table? For instance, do you think the players have a _duty_ to be enthusiastic about the situation the GM presents?




I run a sandbox type game.  A sandbox requires proactive players.  Reactive players just sit in a sandbox like lumps.  In a sandbox game, the players have a duty to bring ideas and goals for their PCs to the table in order to drive the game forward.



> Not at all far upthread [MENTION=6831843]Be[/MENTION]drockgame posited a contrast between _GM as storyteller/entertainer_ and _GM as facilitator/adjudicator_. Do you think this is a useful contrast? If so, which side of it do you favour? If not, why not?




I don't find it terribly useful, no.  The DM is all of those things to varying degrees, depending on the DM and style of game.



> These are some of the matters, most of them raised in this thread, that I think might be more interesting to discuss than the meaning of the word "literary".




Maybe they are more interesting, and maybe they aren't.  It really depends on who is interested in what.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> 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?




Kill it and take its loot.


----------



## Zardnaar

Maxperson said:


> It's not, or at least it's not entirely content.  Dancing is a description of what the kobolds are doing up on the hill.  Dancing is also content.  This brings me back(again) to the point I made pages ago.  Both qualitative description AND content are both necessary to make an interesting scene.  One without the other is going to be dull.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it has something to do with multiquoting.  [MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION] was driving [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] crazy with it in a thread recently.  Maybe one of them could help you figure out how to stop quoting it.




I couldn't fix it. It stopped after an update I think it's a board technical glitch.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> It's not interesting because I don't find it interesting doesn't really speak to *why* one doesn't find it interesting.



Well, I did put it the other way round: the players don't _find it interesting_ because, for them, _it is not interesting_/

Eg maybe the situation is something about kobolds on a hill, and the players (in general; today; because of the PCs they're playing; some combination of factors; etc) simply aren't engaged by that sort of situation.



Hussar said:


> 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 don't know what a Vengaurak is. I know, therefore, that the stock play is to Magic Missile it. (Or am I confusing gazebos for darknesses?)

But more seriously, as well as not knowing what a Vangaurak is I also don't know what game I'm playing, what character I'm playing, and what makes this Vengaurak on this hill relevant to anything.


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> Well, I did put it the other way round: the players don't _find it interesting_ because, for them, _it is not interesting_/
> 
> Eg maybe the situation is something about kobolds on a hill, and the players (in general; today; because of the PCs they're playing; some combination of factors; etc) simply aren't engaged by that sort of situation.
> 
> I don't know what a Vengaurak is. I know, therefore, that the stock play is to Magic Missile it. (Or am I confusing gazebos for darknesses?)
> 
> But more seriously, as well as not knowing what a Vangaurak is I also don't know what game I'm playing, what character I'm playing, and what makes this Vengaurak on this hill relevant to anything.




But, that's entirely the point.

We talk about the kobolds on the hill and we don't need a whole lot more than that, because, well, frankly, we're all experienced gamers and we know what a kobold is.  At some point in our gaming history, _someone _ has described a kobold to us.  Probably several someones over the years.  So, now, we can basically take it as read that we know what a kobold is and what we should do if we see them.

But, a Vengaurak?  Well,  you don't know what that is.  So, someone needs to explain to you what it looks like and what it wants.  Now, here's two descriptions:

1.  You know that cockroach monster at the end of Men in Black?  That's more or less what you see.

2.  Born of the blood of the glutton Titan Gaurak, "this hideous horse sized creature appears to be a twisted hybrid of beetle, mantis and maggot.  It stinks of carrion and blood"

Now, the second description is a direct quote from the Creature Collection Revised for Scarred Lands.  Which do you think would be more effective and needed at the table?  Which do you think would be more likely to draw some sort of visceral reaction from the players?  Which do think is the better description?  After all, both get the description of the creature across pretty accurately.

Note, for reference, here's a Vengaurak:


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> 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?




You describe it. I don't think anyone is saying you don't describe things or that you can't describe things better or worse. We are just saying we not striving for a description that meets literary standards of excellence, nor are we trying to sound like we are the author of a novel. We are also not too hung up on the descriptive aspect. I will attempt a description. If the players don't get it, they can press for more specific details. The conversational aspect of the description is the key thing that makes it so different from a book. It is also why I don't use boxed text when I run modules. Basically we are saying we are not trying to heighten the mood or atmosphere through our descriptions in he way that a novel writer does. It isn't the focus, it isn't something we consciously work toward. Like i said before, I keep it very conversational.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> It's not, or at least it's not entirely content.  Dancing is a description of what the kobolds are doing up on the hill.  Dancing is also content.  This brings me back(again) to the point I made pages ago.  Both qualitative description AND content are both necessary to make an interesting scene.  One without the other is going to be dull.




I would argue that dancing is what they are doing. It primarily comes from my sense of what the kobolds are all about, what they are doing, what they are like as characters....and I would file that under content. Saying they are dancing is the most barebones and efficient way for me to convey that. Am I describing what they are doing? Yes. But what they are doing wasn't arrived at by description. And I don't think my description (how it was delivered and crafted) was particularly important to any level of interest the dancing generates---as much as the fact that they are dancing. I am not saying we don't need to describe things. But I do think the qualitative aspect is very important. Again, it is a conversation. I really don't worry about that part of it. I am certainly not treating it like its literature.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> I run a sandbox type game.  A sandbox requires proactive players.  Reactive players just sit in a sandbox like lumps.  In a sandbox game, the players have a duty to bring ideas and goals for their PCs to the table in order to drive the game forward.




I run sandboxes as well. My approach is I want players to be both active and reactive. But I generally agree. 



> I don't find it terribly useful, no.  The DM is all of those things to varying degrees, depending on the DM and style of game.




And I don't expect you to share my view on this. If you think the GM should be a mix of storyteller and adjudicator, that is totally fine. I just hope you can understand, I genuinely do not see myself as a storyteller. We all had very different paths to where we are. One thing that really frustrated me during the height of d20 (and I had been playing RPGs for a long time leading up to that and seen the industry go through several fads and fashions) was the fact that the GM was expected to run the game in a way that, to me, felt very plot driven, and very much built around a pre-planned series of encounters. I found that terribly frustrating because as a GM, I thought I might as well just give my players the notes. I wasn't a referee, I was just telling them the story I wanted to tell. So I went into he woods and spent a lot of time figuring out what I wanted playing older modules, obscure newer ones and rebelling agains a lot of the standard GM advice of that period. One thing I knew I didnt enjoy was being a storyteller. I abostluely hated the idea of it. It just wasn't for me. Whether it was storyteller as me crafting a story, or even as me narrating the details in a flavorful way. I wanted to adjudicate and run a game. I wanted my GM style to be conversational, natural and as far from artifice as possible. That doesn't mean I am an unskilled communicator. In fact, I think I am very good at communication. But I see GMing as being more in the realm of a social activity, where I am speaking with my players, not where I am narrative things that they have no control over or are not interacting with. I am trying to encourage interaction when I convey details about the world. Not caught up in my delivery at all. I don't expect you or hussar to share my view. I really don't understand why you want me to adopt your language and viewpoint. I can tell you, I wouldn't find it all helpful to how I run games.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> 2.  Born of the blood of the glutton Titan Gaurak, "this hideous horse sized creature appears to be a twisted hybrid of beetle, mantis and maggot.  It stinks of carrion and blood"
> 
> Now, the second description is a direct quote from the Creature Collection Revised for Scarred Lands.  Which do you think would be more effective and needed at the table?  Which do you think would be more likely to draw some sort of visceral reaction from the players?  Which do think is the better description?  After all, both get the description of the creature across pretty accurately.
> 
> Note, for reference, here's a Vengaurak:




Um.  Can I change my answer?  Nice Vengaurak.  Niiiiiiice Vengaurak.  Here's some more loot for you.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> But, that's entirely the point.
> 
> We talk about the kobolds on the hill and we don't need a whole lot more than that, because, well, frankly, we're all experienced gamers and we know what a kobold is.  At some point in our gaming history, _someone _ has described a kobold to us.  Probably several someones over the years.  So, now, we can basically take it as read that we know what a kobold is and what we should do if we see them.
> 
> But, a Vengaurak?  Well,  you don't know what that is.  So, someone needs to explain to you what it looks like and what it wants.  Now, here's two descriptions:
> 
> 1.  You know that cockroach monster at the end of Men in Black?  That's more or less what you see.
> 
> 2.  Born of the blood of the glutton Titan Gaurak, "this hideous horse sized creature appears to be a twisted hybrid of beetle, mantis and maggot.  It stinks of carrion and blood"
> 
> Now, the second description is a direct quote from the Creature Collection Revised for Scarred Lands.  Which do you think would be more effective and needed at the table?  Which do you think would be more likely to draw some sort of visceral reaction from the players?  Which do think is the better description?  After all, both get the description of the creature across pretty accurately.
> 
> Note, for reference, here's a Vengaurak:




Honestly, I think the description that compares to a creature they already have an image of in their head works better so I would go with option 1. Option one is definitely less literary, it generally would be less effective in a book. But in a conversation at the table it can provide a clearer image. You don’t need the words to look good on a page when you are talking to players. Honestly this is one of the major problems with GM advice: advice is text based, and it is easy to write an example that looks amazing on paper. How often have any of you seen a great play example write up but struggled to get a game to feel like the write-up? I know I struggled to get my ravenloft games to sound like the example write ups (which relied heavily on quality description). These are two different mediums. I think understand that has been crucial to my enjoyment of play

also I am not terribly worried about the players picturing the monster ‘correctly’. It is a game if imagination. People can imagine these things differently and ask for specific points of clarification where it matters


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> Honestly, I think the description that compares to a creature they already have an image of in their head works better so I would go with option 1. Option one is definitely less literary, it generally would be less effective in a book. But in a conversation at the table it can provide a *clearer image*. You don’t need the words to look good on a page when you are talking to players. Honestly this is one of the major problems with GM advice: advice is text based, and it is easy to write an example that looks amazing on paper. How often have any of you seen a great play example write up but struggled to get a game to feel like the write-up? I know I struggled to get my ravenloft games to sound like the example write ups (which relied heavily on quality description). These are two different mediums. I think understand that has been crucial to my enjoyment of play
> 
> also *I am not terribly worried about the players picturing the monster ‘correctly’* . It is a game if imagination. People can imagine these things differently and ask for specific points of clarification where it matters




Emphasis mine... I am confused by this answer.  You choose option one because it provides a commonly known and more clear image but then go on to state that you aren't concerned with correctly depicting the monster and that you have no problem with the players imagining the same thing differently in your game... Which one in actual play do you subscribe to?

EDIT: I also note you said you have struggled with write-ups in games like Ravenloft, could your aversion to this style be centered around it being a weakness in your skill set?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Bedrockgames said:


> I think of all people on this thread, I have the most reason to be wary of Pemerton's posts (if you think that thread was bad, read the racist colonialist orcs thread). When I saw the OP I initially read it in a negative light. But I made a point of re-reading to see if I was reading my own feelings into it. I reached the conclusions this was very different from our previous discussion. Also, in that thread, I was guilty of plenty of emotional and angry posts myself. Just because I was ticked off at Pemerton in that thread (and I think with some fair amount of good reason), doesn't mean I need to always be negatively disposed towards him. As I took pains to say in that thread, I do admire Pemerton's intelligence and I do admire his ability to make a good argument. I would be foolish not to consider his posts fairly because when he does make a good point, it is often insightful.
> 
> I don't see him denigrating a style in this case. In fact in this argument, I think it is the other side that is largely doing the denigrating. Just because I disagreed with him before or thought he was being a bit rude about something before, doesn't mean he is always wrong or that I, and others, are never also being rude. I would encourage you to read some of the posts by yourself and by others on your side of this debate again and then look at our responses to them. There have been moments where I've responded more emotionally than I would have liked, but on the whole I feel I have been reacting fairly calmly given the tone of some of the posts directed at me.
> 
> Also, please don't go mining my prior posts to post a gotcha of me in this thread. I understand why you are doing it, but in my view, that doesn't show a lot of good faith. If I have to defend not only my posts on this thread, but posts I've made in previous threads, that isn't exactly a friendly discussion and starts to feel more like an inquisition.






Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine... I am confused by this answer.  You choose option one because it provides a commonly known and more clear image but then go on to state that you aren't concerned with correctly depicting the monster and that you have no problem with the players imagining the same thing differently in your game... Which one in actual play do you subscribe to?




My point with option one is it just an easier way to convey details by drawing on movie references than by providing a literary style description. Generally when it comes to monster descriptions, I am fine hashing out the details. I don’t want a full paragraph of description like option 2. I am also not terribly worried about whether the players are imagining the illustration in the book. Still if I can give them a clear sense of what I mean by comparing to a movie character, place or creature, I am happy to do that. So I may say the inn keeper is giving off a Steve Buscemi vibe. That could mean lots of things. I don’t particularly care how the players interpret it as long as it helps give them a clear mental image. And I don’t need more physical description than that (not going to get into his clothing, hair, mannerisms. Etc)


----------



## Bedrockgames

Bedrockgames said:


> I think of all people on this thread, I have the most reason to be wary of Pemerton's posts (if you think that thread was bad, read the racist colonialist orcs thread). When I saw the OP I initially read it in a negative light. But I made a point of re-reading to see if I was reading my own feelings into it. I reached the conclusions this was very different from our previous discussion. Also, in that thread, I was guilty of plenty of emotional and angry posts myself. Just because I was ticked off at Pemerton in that thread (and I think with some fair amount of good reason), doesn't mean I need to always be negatively disposed towards him. As I took pains to say in that thread, I do admire Pemerton's intelligence and I do admire his ability to make a good argument. I would be foolish not to consider his posts fairly because when he does make a good point, it is often insightful.
> 
> I don't see him denigrating a style in this case. In fact in this argument, I think it is the other side that is largely doing the denigrating. Just because I disagreed with him before or thought he was being a bit rude about something before, doesn't mean he is always wrong or that I, and others, are never also being rude. I would encourage you to read some of the posts by yourself and by others on your side of this debate again and then look at our responses to them. There have been moments where I've responded more emotionally than I would have liked, but on the whole I feel I have been reacting fairly calmly given the tone of some of the posts directed at me.
> 
> Also, please don't go mining my prior posts to post a gotcha of me in this thread. I understand why you are doing it, but in my view, that doesn't show a lot of good faith. If I have to defend not only my posts on this thread, but posts I've made in previous threads, that isn't exactly a friendly discussion and starts to feel more like an inquisition.






Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine... I am confused by this answer.  You choose option one because it provides a commonly known and more clear image but then go on to state that you aren't concerned with correctly depicting the monster and that you have no problem with the players imagining the same thing differently in your game... Which one in actual play do you subscribe to?
> 
> EDIT: I also note you said you have struggled with write-ups in games like Ravenloft, could your aversion to this style be centered around it being a weakness in your skill set?




No it is not centered around a weakness because I became quite good at providing those kinds of descriptions. I just realized a lot of players are not as into that stuff. And there are medium issues that make the examples somewhat unrealistic. Most players are less impressed by your ability to talk like HP Lovecraft than they are with your ability to communicate conversationally as a GM (at least in my experience). The more I moved away from the more artificial Ravenloft approach and moved towRd a conversational natural style, the more my games (especially horror) improved. Maybe that is just my personality. If ravenloft stuff works for you, go for it. But understand it doesn’t suit everyone (and that isn’t about weakness as much as it is about personal preference). I am not particularly concerned with claiming to be some great GM. I would say I am average to decent. It is a game at the end of the day. I am there to enjoy myself


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I don’t want a full paragraph of description like option 2.




It was two short sentences.  A paragraph is at least 5 sentences.  The description you went with, #1, is also two short sentences and contains 3 fewer words.  That's it.  3 more words is apparently a "full paragraph" and too much of a description.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> But, that's entirely the point.
> 
> We talk about the kobolds on the hill and we don't need a whole lot more than that, because, well, frankly, we're all experienced gamers and we know what a kobold is.  At some point in our gaming history, _someone _ has described a kobold to us.  Probably several someones over the years.  So, now, we can basically take it as read that we know what a kobold is and what we should do if we see them.
> 
> But, a Vengaurak?  Well,  you don't know what that is.  So, someone needs to explain to you what it looks like and what it wants.  Now, here's two descriptions:
> 
> 1.  You know that cockroach monster at the end of Men in Black?  That's more or less what you see.
> 
> 2.  Born of the blood of the glutton Titan Gaurak, "this hideous horse sized creature appears to be a twisted hybrid of beetle, mantis and maggot.  It stinks of carrion and blood"
> 
> Now, the second description is a direct quote from the Creature Collection Revised for Scarred Lands.  Which do you think would be more effective and needed at the table?  Which do you think would be more likely to draw some sort of visceral reaction from the players?  Which do think is the better description?  After all, both get the description of the creature across pretty accurately.
> 
> Note, for reference, here's a Vengaurak:




I and my players would definitely prefer 2 it's succinct enough that it isn't going to drag but conveys enough info to evoke an accurate enough mental image and conveys a sense that this creature has a wrongness about it and is dangerous.

EDIT: It also illustrates that long prose or excessive word count is not necessary for quality.


----------



## Imaro

Maxperson said:


> It was two short sentences.  A paragraph is at least 5 sentences.  The description you went with, #1, is also two short sentences and contains 3 fewer words.  That's it.  3 more words is apparently a "full paragraph" and too much of a description.




Lol... I noticed this as well.


----------



## Maxperson

Imaro said:


> Lol... I noticed this as well.




My players and I obviously from my side in this thread, prefer option 2.   However, none of us are against me adding in, "Remember the bug monster from the end of Men in Black?  It kinda looks like that." if they are having some obvious difficulties picturing the creature from the description.  I rarely have to go to something extra like that, though.


----------



## Bedrockgames

You do not need five sentences for a paragraph


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> A paragraph is at least 5 sentences.



Huh? Says who?

Here are the first three paragraphs of REH's The Scarelt Citadel (which was the first story I Googled, knowing that REH doesn't write in too long-winded a fashion):

The roar of battle had died away; the shout of victory mingled with the cries of the dying. Like gay-hued leaves after an autumn storm, the fallen littered the plain; the sinking sun shimmered on burnished helmets, gilt-worked mail, silver breastplates, broken swords and the heavy regal folds of silken standards, overthrown in pools of curdling crimson. In silent heaps lay war- horses and their steel-clad riders, flowing manes and blowing plumes stained alike in the red tide. About them and among them, like the drift of a storm, were strewn slashed and trampled bodies in steel caps and leather jerkins – archers and pikemen.

The oliphants sounded a fanfare of triumph all over the plain, and the hoofs of the victors crunched in the breasts of the vanquished as all the straggling, shining lines converged inward like the spokes of a glittering wheel, to the spot where the last survivor still waged unequal strife.

That day Conan, king of Aquilonia, had seen the pick of his chivalry cut to pieces, smashed and hammered to bits, and swept into eternity. With five thousand knights he had crossed the south-eastern border of Aquilonia and ridden into the grassy meadowlands of Ophir, to find his former ally, King Amalrus of Ophir, drawn up against him with the hosts of Strabonus, king of Koth. Too late he had seen the trap. All that a man might do he had done with his five thousand cavalrymen against the thirty thousand knights, archers and spearmen of the conspirators.​
The first is four sentences; the second is one; the third is four. The OED defines _paragraph_ as "A distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering." That doesn't seem to me to be a very contentious definition.

I have no idea where your "five sentence" doctrine comes from, but it's not one that professional writers adhere to.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> You do not need five sentences for a paragraph



It's pretty tangential to the thread topic, but there is something strange about being schooled on the meaning and connotations of "literary" by someone who asserts such bizarre stuff about the process and structure of wrting.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Huh? Says who?
> 
> Here are the first three paragraphs of REH's The Scarelt Citadel (which was the first story I Googled, knowing that REH doesn't write in too long-winded a fashion):
> The roar of battle had died away; the shout of victory mingled with the cries of the dying. Like gay-hued leaves after an autumn storm, the fallen littered the plain; the sinking sun shimmered on burnished helmets, gilt-worked mail, silver breastplates, broken swords and the heavy regal folds of silken standards, overthrown in pools of curdling crimson. In silent heaps lay war- horses and their steel-clad riders, flowing manes and blowing plumes stained alike in the red tide. About them and among them, like the drift of a storm, were strewn slashed and trampled bodies in steel caps and leather jerkins – archers and pikemen.
> 
> The oliphants sounded a fanfare of triumph all over the plain, and the hoofs of the victors crunched in the breasts of the vanquished as all the straggling, shining lines converged inward like the spokes of a glittering wheel, to the spot where the last survivor still waged unequal strife.
> 
> That day Conan, king of Aquilonia, had seen the pick of his chivalry cut to pieces, smashed and hammered to bits, and swept into eternity. With five thousand knights he had crossed the south-eastern border of Aquilonia and ridden into the grassy meadowlands of Ophir, to find his former ally, King Amalrus of Ophir, drawn up against him with the hosts of Strabonus, king of Koth. Too late he had seen the trap. All that a man might do he had done with his five thousand cavalrymen against the thirty thousand knights, archers and spearmen of the conspirators.​
> The first is four sentences; the second is one; the third is four. The OED defines _paragraph_ as "A distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering." That doesn't seem to me to be a very contentious definition.
> 
> I have no idea where your "five sentence" doctrine comes from, but it's not one that professional writers adhere to.




They could be one very long sentence waaaaaay back in the day.  Modern paragraph structure is typically 3-8, with 5 being average.  Regardless, 3 extra words is not very credible as the breaking point for description length.


----------



## Satyrn

Maxperson said:


> It was two short sentences.  A paragraph is at least 5 sentences.




Eh? 

I've read a literary work - a modern masterpiece of a novel from a widely acclaimed literary master - where a set of paragraphs were each about one-third of a single sentence.

On top of that, your definition would mean that Agatha Christie had never published a single paragraph in her entire literary career . . . but then that's par for the thread. Pretty much everybody here is equating "literary" with definitions that would place this literary great below many other, lesser writers.

But then I like Agatha Christie, so of course my definition of literary is going to be broad enough to include her - and narrow enough to put her near the top.


----------



## Satyrn

Maxperson said:


> They could be one very long sentence waaaaaay back in the day.  Modern paragraph structure is 3-8, with 5 being average.




3-8 still puts Christie's lifetime paragraph count around 0.

And that 3-paragraph-long sentence I mentioned comes from Salman Rushdie, a still-living writer. I don't think that fits with your idea of waaaaay back in the day.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> They could be one very long sentence waaaaaay back in the day.  Modern paragraph structure is typically 3-8, with 5 being average..




This simply isn't true. Paragraphs don't have to be 3-8 sentences.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Regardless, 3 extra words is not very credible as the breaking point for description length.




Regardless of word count, one of those entries (number 2) reads much more like a prose paragraph to me), and the first is essentially just saying it is like the creature from men in black. In the second, listening to every word is important. In the first, there is one thing you need to know.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> This simply isn't true. Paragraphs don't have to be 3-8 sentences.




Do you not understand the word "typically?"


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Huh? Says who?
> .




Edit: Ooops, wrong post quote


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Do you not understand the word "typically?"




I have never attempted to quantify and average paragraphs. It is possible you are correct. I don't know what the current typical number of sentences are in a paragraph. That doesn't make example 2 not a paragraph. Because paragraphs don't have to have the typical number of sentences to still be paragraphs. And your assertion was a paragraph is 5 sentences long (then 3-8 sentences). In your example you have two sentences that have lots of key details. One of those sentences is fairly robust with plenty of commas. To me there are enough ideas present for that to be a paragraph. And a fairly involved one if we are talking about communicating at the gaming table. I was asked which paragraph I would chose. I chose number 1. For some reason, that answer isn't being treated as valid.


----------



## Imaro

Maxperson said:


> My players and I obviously from my side in this thread, prefer option 2.   However, none of us are against me adding in, "Remember the bug monster from the end of Men in Black?  It kinda looks like that." if they are having some obvious difficulties picturing the creature from the description.  I rarely have to go to something extra like that, though.




Yeah I try to avoid specific examples like this, unless absolutely necessary, because sometimes they can set expectations in players that it is like the creature in ways it may not be... even if the GM only says it looks like the creature.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Regardless, 3 extra words is not very credible as the breaking point for description length.




Just to be clear here, I wasn't establishing a numeric breaking point. I was going by the overall impression of the two examples. The first one essentially just says one thing. The second says many things the reader/listener must piece together. The first one isn't particularly like a novel description, the second one is. I prefer the first. Of course, how I describe something will always be dependent on the situation. But my manner of speaking when running a game is a lot more like option 1 than 2.


----------



## Satyrn

Maxperson said:


> It was two short sentences.  A paragraph is at least 5 sentences.  The description you went with, #1, is also two short sentences and contains 3 fewer words.  That's it.  3 more words is apparently a "full paragraph" and too much of a description.




Oh yeah. I should add that, despite completely disagreeing with you about what a paragraph is our isn't, you're right that the actual content ain't a lot of description. And on top of that, It's still more decscription than some of great novelists ever employ.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> Every English teacher I ever had.



Then, without being too mean about it, you had crappy English teachers.

I'm a published author (of non-fiction). A big part of my job is teaching students (UG and PG) how to write. My partner is a published author (non-fiction, some poetry) and a high school English teacher. Most of her job is teaching students how to write.

This thread is the first I've heard of this five-paragraph doctrine. Do American English teachers get paid by the full stop for their marking?


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Huh? Says who?
> 
> Here are the first three paragraphs of REH's The Scarelt Citadel (which was the first story I Googled, knowing that REH doesn't write in too long-winded a fashion):
> 
> The roar of battle had died away; the shout of victory mingled with the cries of the dying. Like gay-hued leaves after an autumn storm, the fallen littered the plain; the sinking sun shimmered on burnished helmets, gilt-worked mail, silver breastplates, broken swords and the heavy regal folds of silken standards, overthrown in pools of curdling crimson. In silent heaps lay war- horses and their steel-clad riders, flowing manes and blowing plumes stained alike in the red tide. About them and among them, like the drift of a storm, were strewn slashed and trampled bodies in steel caps and leather jerkins – archers and pikemen.
> 
> The oliphants sounded a fanfare of triumph all over the plain, and the hoofs of the victors crunched in the breasts of the vanquished as all the straggling, shining lines converged inward like the spokes of a glittering wheel, to the spot where the last survivor still waged unequal strife.
> 
> That day Conan, king of Aquilonia, had seen the pick of his chivalry cut to pieces, smashed and hammered to bits, and swept into eternity. With five thousand knights he had crossed the south-eastern border of Aquilonia and ridden into the grassy meadowlands of Ophir, to find his former ally, King Amalrus of Ophir, drawn up against him with the hosts of Strabonus, king of Koth. Too late he had seen the trap. All that a man might do he had done with his five thousand cavalrymen against the thirty thousand knights, archers and spearmen of the conspirators.​
> The first is four sentences; the second is one; the third is four. The OED defines _paragraph_ as "A distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering." That doesn't seem to me to be a very contentious definition.
> 
> I have no idea where your "five sentence" doctrine comes from, but it's not one that professional writers adhere to.




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. I don't consider that conversation particularly literary, even if it necessitates a bit of description (and even if I ham up some description because are having humorous back and forth). But that isn't me showing off my literary chops or borrowing literary elements.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> Then, without being too mean about it, you had crappy English teachers.
> 
> I'm a published author (of non-fiction). A big part of my job is teaching students (UG and PG) how to write. My partner is a published author (non-fiction, some poetry) and a high school English teacher. Most of her job is teaching students how to write.
> 
> This thread is the first I've heard of this five-paragraph doctrine. Do American English teachers get paid by the full stop for their marking?




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.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> But, a Vengaurak?  Well,  you don't know what that is.  So, someone needs to explain to you what it looks like and what it wants.  Now, here's two descriptions:
> 
> 1.  You know that cockroach monster at the end of Men in Black?  That's more or less what you see.
> 
> 2.  Born of the blood of the glutton Titan Gaurak, "this hideous horse sized creature appears to be a twisted hybrid of beetle, mantis and maggot.  It stinks of carrion and blood"
> 
> Now, the second description is a direct quote from the Creature Collection Revised for Scarred Lands.  Which do you think would be more effective and needed at the table?  Which do you think would be more likely to draw some sort of visceral reaction from the players?



I know these questions are intended as rhetorical, but if I treat them as literal then the answer is _I don't know_.

The game seems to be 3e D&D (Scarred Lands), but who are the PCs? Who are the players? Do they have any reason to give a toss about the glutton Titan Gaurak?


----------



## Ralif Redhammer

Nice! The only same player I've had for about that long is my twin brother, because we're stuck with each other.



dostami said:


> My team of players have been with me for over thirty years and that is because when I create a game and add those finer details that make them want to play more.


----------



## uzirath

pemerton said:


> 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:



lowkey13 said:


> 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

Bedrockgames said:


> 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

Bedrockgames said:


> 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

Bedrockgames said:


> 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

Bedrockgames said:


> 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

pemerton said:


> 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

pemerton said:


> 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

Hussar said:


> 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

Maxperson said:


> 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.



Maxperson said:


> 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.



Maxperson said:


> 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.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Lanefan said:


> 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.




But words on paper is kind of meaningless in terms of this discusdiin. My issue is words on paper is being used in order to get toward much bigger statements about how RPGs should be like literature. If the argument was just RPGs should have words on paper, I wouldn’t be disagreeing so much


----------



## Hriston

Maxperson said:


> Quality of the descriptions doesn't have to be THE focus.  There probably isn't even a single focus of the game.  However, I have yet to play with someone who gives bare bones descriptions such as, "In the room are 2 orcs."  They generally add at least a little bit to the descriptions to make them more interesting, and that is the DM attempting to add quality to the narration.




I don't think adding a small number of words to "In the room are 2 orcs" necessarily makes describing a situation in an RPG a literary endeavor in the way that was intended by the OP.



Maxperson said:


> Not at all, but this isn't about playstyles, regardless of how much you and @_*Bedrockgames*_ want to make it about playstyle.




I don't think whether a player is interested in a particular situation is necessarily a matter of playstyle.


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> I know these questions are intended as rhetorical, but if I treat them as literal then the answer is _I don't know_.
> 
> The game seems to be 3e D&D (Scarred Lands), but who are the PCs? Who are the players? Do they have any reason to give a toss about the glutton Titan Gaurak?




So what?

You’re telling me that both answers would equally evoke a response?  That neither one would make the slightest difference in tone or anything at the table?

You must have the most time deaf players in the world.


----------



## Hussar

Hriston said:


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




Hang on. I got taken to task by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] not too long ago for including all these things on conveying dwarfiness at the table and got told it wasn’t content. It was in fact pointless color that adds nothing to the game. 

So which is it?


----------



## Hussar

Hriston said:


> I don't think adding a small number of words to "In the room are 2 orcs" necessarily makes describing a situation in an RPG a literary endeavor in the way that was intended by the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think whether a player is interested in a particular situation is necessarily a matter of playstyle.




But, apparently it does because at least [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] insists that the words that are added matter a LOT. To the point of not liking a game that adds the wrong words - as the Vengaurak example shows. So obviously word choice is extremely important.


----------



## uzirath

Lanefan said:


> 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.




I completely sympathize with this position when it comes to resisting snooty academics* who might only grudgingly accept _Lord of the Rings_ (for example) as _real_ literature, but the fact is that the word "literature" has been used in a restrictive sense for at least as long as it has been used to mean anything printed. Ye olde OED lists "written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit" before it lists "printed matter of any kind." It includes quoted examples of people using the word in its more restrictive sense, and even of people complaining about how some other people are using it too broadly. (From the _Daily News_ in 1895: "In canvassing, in posters, and in the distribution of what, by a profane perversion of language, is called ‘literature’.") So I don't think anybody on these boards is doing any redefining.

Besides, the OP did a good job of defining the premise. Although the signal-to-noise ratio in the discussion ain't great, I have been intrigued enough by that premise to stick around, panning for rare shiny bits.

* Note that I am not accusing anyone here of doing that!


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Just to be clear here, I wasn't establishing a numeric breaking point. I was going by the overall impression of the two examples. The first one essentially just says one thing. The second says many things the reader/listener must piece together. The first one isn't particularly like a novel description, the second one is. I prefer the first. Of course, how I describe something will always be dependent on the situation. But my manner of speaking when running a game is a lot more like option 1 than 2.




You do realize that option 1 prevents the players from having information that they should be aware of, right?  The creature reeks of blood and carrion, which PCs would instantly know and should therefore be described to the players BEFORE the players start inquiring further about the creature in question.


----------



## Maxperson

Hriston said:


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




Literary quality is anything from, "I wouldn't wipe my rear with it." to Shakespeare.



> 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.




It is absolutely description.  I am describing to the players what the kobolds(not orcs) are doing.  That it is also content is irrelevant.  It's still description.


----------



## Maxperson

Hriston said:


> I don't think adding a small number of words to "In the room are 2 orcs" necessarily makes describing a situation in an RPG a literary endeavor in the way that was intended by the OP.




It adds to the quality of the narrative, so it applies.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> You do realize that option 1 prevents the players from having information that they should be aware of, right?  The creature reeks of blood and carrion, which PCs would instantly know and should therefore be described to the players BEFORE the players start inquiring further about the creature in question.




So you left out something you considered vital in option 1. If it is duper important I would mention it. But I would probably mention something like that before the players see it


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> You do realize that option 1 prevents the players from having information that they should be aware of, right?  The creature reeks of blood and carrion, which PCs would instantly know and should therefore be described to the players BEFORE the players start inquiring further about the creature in question.




You are more concerned with the timing than I am. I am fine with a game where the players ask ‘does it have s discernible odor’ and the GM then mentioning the blood and carrion.


----------



## Maxperson

uzirath said:


> Ye olde OED lists "written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit"




Almost.  It also qualifies that as "especially" valued for superior or lasting artistic merit.  That word "especially" allows for crappy literature as a part of the first definition.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> You are more concerned with the timing than I am. I am fine with a game where the players ask ‘does it have s discernible odor’ and the GM then mentioning the blood and carrion.




Do you make them ask if the dungeon has walls, too?  Obvious is obvious.  They shouldn't have to waste time asking about whether there is dirt on the ground.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Do you make them ask if the dungeon has walls, too?  Obvious is obvious.  They shouldn't have to waste time asking about whether there is dirt on the ground.




Of course not. Look we have different approaches to play. No need to get snarky about it. I don’t particilsrky care if I nail the description first time out because I view it as a conversation. And I like the back and forth where players ask questions. Not your cup of tea. That is fine.


----------



## uzirath

Maxperson said:


> Almost.  It also qualifies that as "especially" valued for superior or lasting artistic merit.  That word "especially" allows for crappy literature as a part of the first definition.




I looked up "literature" specifically, rather than "literary." (This was in response to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s statement: "If it's words on paper, it's literature.") Even for "literary," though, the "esp." qualifier suggests that the term is commonly used in a more selective fashion. It can certainly be used more broadly and often is (as is the word "literature"). My only point is that it's hardly new or unusual for speakers to limit it to mean written works "of the kind valued for quality of form."


----------



## Hussar

perhaps a better question might be, "_Should _an RPG attempt to being a literary endevour".  To which, I would answer a resounding yes.  That I will try and fail doesn't bother me too much.  But that we shouldn't try at all?  That's just sad.

And, since we're not limited to D&D here, what about games like The Dying Earth where being "literary" is part and parcel to play.  Not only is it expected, it's rewarded by the mechanics.  Or LARPing, unless we're insisting that LARP'er's aren't "true" gamers.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> perhaps a better question might be, "_Should _an RPG attempt to being a literary endevour".  To which, I would answer a resounding yes.  That I will try and fail doesn't bother me too much.  But that we shouldn't try at all?  That's just sad.
> 
> .




It is about what people want from play though. You want a more literary experience...that is fine. I simply don't want that. I don't find enjoyment in that kind of play.


----------



## Bedrockgames

uzirath said:


> I looked up "literature" specifically, rather than "literary." (This was in response to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s statement: "If it's words on paper, it's literature.") Even for "literary," though, the "esp." qualifier suggests that the term is commonly used in a more selective fashion. It can certainly be used more broadly and often is (as is the word "literature"). My only point is that it's hardly new or unusual for speakers to limit it to mean written works "of the kind valued for quality of form."




And this is why the equivocation point I made is so important. It carries both meaning, but particularly means the more selective application. However, arguments are being made that rely on both meanings. And the broader meaning is the one first used to get literary in the door, then when it is convenient to what people want from play, the part of the definition about quality is used. It is a flawed argument for that reason. You are asked to accept that RPGs are literary and therefore should emulate literature, because RPGs use words on paper (or involve tropes from literature, or some similarly broad statement). But then moments later the quality issue is also invoked and we are told RPGs should also make use of strong literary devices, have high quality descriptions, etc. This is equivocation and it is one of the reasons definitional arguments can be such a problem when playstyle and approaches to play are being debated.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Almost.  It also qualifies that as "especially" valued for superior or lasting artistic merit.  That word "especially" allows for crappy literature as a part of the first definition.




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.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> But, apparently it does because at least [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] insists that the words that are added matter a LOT. To the point of not liking a game that adds the wrong words - as the Vengaurak example shows. So obviously word choice is extremely important.




That is a complete misreading of what I said.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Lanefan said:


> 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

Bedrockgames said:


> 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

Bedrockgames said:


> 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

pemerton said:


> 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

pemerton said:


> 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

Bedrockgames said:


> 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

Bedrockgames said:


> 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

Hussar 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?




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

Maxperson said:


> 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

Bedrockgames said:


> 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?


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> 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.




"A dialogue is a *literary technique* in which writers employ *two or more characters to be engaged in conversation with one another.* In literature, it is a conversational passage, *or a spoken *or written exchange of conversation in a group, or between two persons directed towards a particular subject."

What you do is literary, too.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> 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.




Then your definition story is so broad it is as useless and as subject to equivocation as the definition of literary we have been using in this thread. If story always happens no matter what, then I guess you got me. But we all know perfectly well that there is more to stories than descriptions and using language. And we know that around the bend from that assertion are more assertions about how RPGs should be like stories (and those assertions are going to equivocate on other parts of the definition of story). 

Look, I have seen why the GM as storyteller just doesn't work for me in play. When I used to concieve of it as such, the games were less fun for me and my players. When I abandoned that model, my games vastly improved. Now, that doesn't mean it has to be the case for you. Maybe it works for you. That is great. I have no problem with that. I am not telling you how to run, play or think of games. But do you understand that is what you are doing to me? You are demanding I see RPGs in the same way as you. Even though I've been exactly where you are and it wasn't for me.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> "A dialogue is a *literary technique* in which writers employ *two or more characters to be engaged in conversation with one another.* In literature, it is a conversational passage, *or a spoken *or written exchange of conversation in a group, or between two persons directed towards a particular subject."
> 
> What you do is literary, too.




This is a really bizarre argument. I am not a character in a book. I honestly don't know how to respond to this post. Are you really serious?


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> 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.




This is the description 2: "this hideous horse sized creature appears to be a twisted hybrid of beetle, mantis and maggot. It stinks of carrion and blood."  Were you and I having a conversation and I was going to describe that things to you, that's how I would do it.  Nothing there is anything other than conversational.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> 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?




I prefer first person actually. I have no problem with GMs who speak in first person as NPCs (though I don't think it is a requirement of play because I know lots of people who don't like to speak in first person in games and get by just fine). In terms of voices, I tend to find them off putting unless the GM in question has enough charm and charisma to pull them off (not acting chops, but just charm and charisma). My friend Rob is particularly good at this for example and I enjoy his game a lot. But I am fine with any delivery that suits the personality of the GM in question. If I have a GM friend who is naturally very reserved and dry, I don't expect their NPCs to be different than them in voice and tone. Like I said much earlier in this thread: I am not there to judge peoples' performances. I don't see it as the GM needing to do all these things to impress me. I just want the GM to run the game in a way that feels natural. I find heavy use of narrative descriptions, don't feel very natural to me, can often get very dull and just are not what I am looking for.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> This is a really bizarre argument. I am not a character in a book. I honestly don't know how to respond to this post. Are you really serious?




A dialogue is a dialogue is a dialogue.  A dialogue does not have to be written or even fictional, so you have them whenever you speak to someone else.  It's a literary technique.  So yes, I am serious. This attempt of yours to try and limit a dialogue to a character in a book seems disingenuous to me.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> This is the description 2: "this hideous horse sized creature appears to be a twisted hybrid of beetle, mantis and maggot. It stinks of carrion and blood."  Were you and I having a conversation and I was going to describe that things to you, that's how I would do it.  Nothing there is anything other than conversational.




I don't find that description very conversational at all. I don't have a single friend who talks that way. I do have plenty of friends who say things like "Have you seen X movie? It is a bit like the creature in the final scene".


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> A dialogue is a dialogue is a dialogue.  A dialogue does not have to be written or even fictional, so you have them whenever you speak to someone else.  It's a literary technique.  So yes, I am serious. This attempt of yours to try and limit a dialogue to a character in a book seems disingenuous to me.




Go back and re-read the definition of dialogue yourself posted. That definition doesn't extend to the real world. It is about content generated by an author. I don't want to be harsh, but this is a really bad argument you are making right now.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> 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.




Those are important distinctions and in this conversation, distinction A is being used to persuade us that RPGS are literary, however distinction B is being brought in once we accept that to make an argument for what RPGs and GMs should do. That is the definition of equivocation. Equivocation relies on words carrying multiple meanings and having those kinds of distinctions.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Go back and re-read the definition of dialogue yourself posted. That definition doesn't extend to the real world. It is about content generated by an author. I don't want to be harsh, but this is a really bad argument you are making right now.




I didn't post a definition of dialogue.  I posted something that said dialogue was a literary technique.  Here's the definition.  As you can see, you engage in dialogue whenever you are in conversation.

dialogue noun
di·​a·​logue | \ ˈdī-ə-ˌlȯg  , -ˌläg\
variants: or less commonly dialog
Definition of dialogue (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : a written composition in which two or more characters are represented as conversing

2a : a conversation between two or more persons
b : an exchange of ideas and opinions
c : a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution

3 : the conversational element of literary or dramatic composition

4 : a musical composition for two or more parts suggestive of a conversation

dialogue verb
dialogued; dialoguing
Definition of dialogue (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb

: to express in dialogue

: to take part in a dialogue


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> I prefer first person actually. I have no problem with GMs who speak in first person as NPCs (though I don't think it is a requirement of play because I know lots of people who don't like to speak in first person in games and get by just fine). In terms of voices, I tend to find them off putting unless the GM in question has enough charm and charisma to pull them off (not acting chops, but just charm and charisma). My friend Rob is particularly good at this for example and I enjoy his game a lot. But I am fine with any delivery that suits the personality of the GM in question. If I have a GM friend who is naturally very reserved and dry, I don't expect their NPCs to be different than them in voice and tone. Like I said much earlier in this thread: I am not there to judge peoples' performances. I don't see it as the GM needing to do all these things to impress me. I just want the GM to run the game in a way that feels natural. I find heavy use of narrative descriptions, don't feel very natural to me, can often get very dull and just are not what I am looking for.




I find that interesting since I would say speaking in character is performance/presentation vs. having a natural conversation... wouldn't you?  Or do you see it differently?

Also wanted to address the it's not core statements you keep making... perhaps the individual specific examples being presented aren't core... but the fact that at least one is used in most people's game seems to me to lean towards performance/presentation in some way or another being core to most if not all games...


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> I didn't post a definition of dialogue.  I posted something that said dialogue was a literary technique.  Here's the definition.  As you can see, you engage in dialogue whenever you are in conversation.
> 
> dialogue noun
> di·​a·​logue | \ ˈdī-ə-ˌlȯg  , -ˌläg\
> variants: or less commonly dialog
> Definition of dialogue (Entry 1 of 2)
> 1 : a written composition in which two or more characters are represented as conversing
> 
> 2a : a conversation between two or more persons
> b : an exchange of ideas and opinions
> c : a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution
> 
> 3 : the conversational element of literary or dramatic composition
> 
> 4 : a musical composition for two or more parts suggestive of a conversation
> 
> dialogue verb
> dialogued; dialoguing
> Definition of dialogue (Entry 2 of 2)
> transitive verb
> 
> : to express in dialogue
> 
> : to take part in a dialogue




But now you are equivocating again. Definition 1 is literary. Definition 2 is not literary. There is nothing literary about two people having a conversation in real life. There is something literary about me writing a scene where two characters talk. If you really want to press this point we can continue going back and forth, and eventually I may slip and you may find some kind of rhetorical victory, but I assure you that your premise is wrong. This is one of the strangest arguments I've ever encountered.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Those are important distinctions and in this conversation, distinction A is being used to persuade us that RPGS are literary, however distinction B is being brought in once we accept that to make an argument for what RPGs and GMs should do. That is the definition of equivocation. Equivocation relies on words carrying multiple meanings and having those kinds of distinctions.




Um.  Nobody has been arguing about what RPGs and DMs should do.  That's your deflection, not anything we're doing.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> I find that interesting since I would say speaking in character is performance/presentation vs. having a natural conversation... wouldn't you?  Or do you see it differently?




Both me and Pemerton have addressed this point. I think we made the point somewhat differently but essentially described it more as inhabiting the character than as performing. There can be performative aspects to it, but I don't worry so much about them. This is particularly the case on the player end. As far as I am concerned what matters is the first person, not that the player portray a character. They could be playing themselves in the first person and I would be fine with it. Obviously the GM has to run multiple characters who exist in the world, so they need to account for things like personality and knowledge the character has. But I don't expect a performance in the sense of using voices, gestures, etc. 



> Also wanted to address the it's not core statements you keep making... perhaps the individual specific examples being presented aren't core... but the fact that at least one is used in most people's game seems to me to lean towards performance/presentation in some way or another being core to most if not all games...




Again, I think so much of this thread is really about playstyle. And you see that when we talk about playstyel differences. I think talking about the specific example is much more productive than the general rules and general terms (because the terms are quite broad, and obviously there are places where I may agree performance could matter). It is just the way things like performance, presentations, etc have been used are done so to paint a picture of RPGs that doesn't match how Pemerton or I see the game. When we talk about specifics, it becomes easy to hash over those differences. When we talk in generalities, it becomes more like maneuvering a chess piece in the conversation to force people to accept specifics before they arise. I am really not trying to be difficult here. But I've just been in enough of these kinds of discussions to get that. And I think it is important to push people to talk about what they are really talking about. And what we are really talking about isn't categorization or modeling of the RPG experience, we are talking about how we want the game to be run and how we want games to be made (and you see that because it repeatedly comes up and people repeatedly argue over it).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Um.  Nobody has been arguing about what RPGs and DMs should do.  That's your deflection, not anything we're doing.




Um, yes they have. Repeatedly. I believe you have as well. Read the thread. People do keep making claims about how games ought to be designed and packaged, and how GMs should engage their players. You can deny it but I keep getting into arguments with people who thing the game should be run differently than I think it should be.

Here is just one example taken from the last page of the thread pretty much randomly: 



> perhaps a better question might be, "_Should an RPG attempt to being a literary endevour". To which, I would answer a resounding yes. That I will try and fail doesn't bother me too much. But that we shouldn't try at all? That's just sad._


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> But now you are equivocating again. Definition 1 is literary. Definition 2 is not literary. There is nothing literary about two people having a conversation in real life. There is something literary about me writing a scene where two characters talk. If you really want to press this point we can continue going back and forth, and eventually I may slip and you may find some kind of rhetorical victory, but I assure you that your premise is wrong. This is one of the strangest arguments I've ever encountered.




Literature does not have to be written.  It is also oral.

https://virtualspeech.com/blog/literary-techniques-for-a-speech

https://www.britannica.com/art/literature

"But already it is necessary to qualify these statements. To use the word writing when describing literature is itself misleading, for one may speak of *“oral literature”* or “the literature of preliterate peoples.” The art of literature is not reducible to the words on the page; they are there solely because of the craft of writing. As an art, literature might be described as the organization of words to give pleasure. Yet through words literature elevates and transforms experience beyond “mere” pleasure. Literature also functions more broadly in society as a means of both criticizing and affirming cultural values."


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Here is just one example taken from the last page of the thread pretty much randomly:




RPGs ARE a literary endeavor.  Period.  They are both written(literature) and spoken(literary).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> RPGs ARE a literary endeavor.  Period.  They are both written(literature) and spoken(literary).




Asserting that doesn't make it so. And saying they are literary because they have words and people speak words when they play them, isn't a good reason to ask people to accept other elements of literature (that have nothing to do with those facts) as part of RPGs.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Literature does not have to be written.  It is also oral.
> 
> https://virtualspeech.com/blog/literary-techniques-for-a-speech
> 
> https://www.britannica.com/art/literature
> 
> "But already it is necessary to qualify these statements. To use the word writing when describing literature is itself misleading, for one may speak of *“oral literature”* or “the literature of preliterate peoples.” The art of literature is not reducible to the words on the page; they are there solely because of the craft of writing. As an art, literature might be described as the organization of words to give pleasure. Yet through words literature elevates and transforms experience beyond “mere” pleasure. Literature also functions more broadly in society as a means of both criticizing and affirming cultural values."




Did you read the last paragraph of that?

Edit: Also, this doesn't respond to the point I made in post at all. This is just another argument on top of your previous one. If you want me to continue engaging a silly discussion about how everything under the sun is literary, including conversations in grocery stores, than you should respond to the actual points I made in my post.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Asserting that doesn't make it so.




True.  Facts make it so.  I'm just asserting the facts.



> And saying they are literary because they have words and people speak words when they play them, isn't a good reason to ask people to accept other elements of literature (that have nothing to do with those facts) as part of RPGs.




Okay.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> True.  Facts make it so.  I'm just asserting the facts.
> 
> .




No you are just making an assertion. Look, you are essentially saying everything is literary (when I take all your posts together). That is an absurdly broad useage, especially in a thread like this where what an RPG is being established to say how RPGs should be written and run. Again see my posts about equivocation.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> No you are just making an assertion. Look, you are essentially saying everything is literary (when I take all your posts together). That is an absurdly broad useage, especially in a thread like this where what an RPG is being established to say how RPGs should be written and run. Again see my posts about equivocation.




Everything using words IS literary.  You can then go into subcategories of literature to get more refined meaning and usage.  It's disingenuous of you to keep deflecting the way you do, though.  "It's overly broad!"  "Your arguments are silly!"  Altering what we say.  Ignoring definitions.  And more.  You've been one major deflection since you got into this discussion.

Go ahead and think that your conversations aren't literary.  Go ahead and think that conversational example 2 is somehow not conversational, but example 1 is.  Go ahead and think you don't eat, breathe or sleep.  It makes no matter to me what you believe.

Have a great day!


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Everything using words IS literary.  You can then go into subcategories of literature to get more refined meaning and usage.  It's disingenuous of you to keep deflecting the way you do, though.  "It's overly broad!"  "Your arguments are silly!"  Altering what we say.  Ignoring definitions.  And more.  You've been one major deflection since you got into this discussion.
> 
> Go ahead and think that your conversations aren't literary.  Go ahead and think that conversational example 2 is somehow not conversational, but example 1 is.  Go ahead and think you don't eat, breathe or sleep.  It makes no matter to me what you believe.
> 
> Have a great day!




Max I am sorry but this argument makes very little sense and has no real utility except to aid equivocation. And this goes beyond gaming: I just can’t buy a definition of literary that is anything involving written or spoken words. and I am assume gestured communication is also literary? When someone gives you the middle finger is that too a form of literature? It just stretches the term so that is covers everything in communication which makes it meaningless.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Ignoring definitions.  And more.  You've been one major deflection since you got into this discussion.
> 
> )




No, I am not ignoring definitions: you are. You are cherry picking parts of definitions to suit your argument, ignoring key points of definitions like ‘especially’ then making those key points relevant when it suits you. I am looking at the full definition, abiding by key nuances within definitions honestly and trying to make good faith arguments. This is why I keep mentioning equivocation. Please look it up because so much of this discussion suffers from it.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Go ahead and think that your conversations aren't literary.  Go ahead and think that conversational example 2 is somehow not conversational, but example 1 is.  Go ahead and think you don't eat, breathe or sleep.  It makes no matter to me what you believe.




A conversation can be literary: if it is a discussion about literature or if it is crafted by an author. A discussion on the street isn't literature. It just isn't. And I don't think anyone on this thread, if they are honest with themselves with really believe that. 

As to 1 & 2, that is definitely a subjective judgement call. I personally find 2 to be much less conversational than 1, and I imagine the majority of people, if polled them randomly on the street, would say the same. The language is looser and more casual, it makes ready use of a pop reference that is very out of genre and setting, and it encourages a response that is part of the conversation (it is asking the players if they get the reference). The second one comes across as a description that is trying to evoke a mood and atmosphere. And the language resembles the kind of language you might find in a book when a monster is described. I don't know how else I can break this down for you, but I do believe my case is pretty strong. Again it is subjective, so another person could see those examples and reach a different conclusions. But do you not honestly see where I am coming from?


----------



## Hriston

Hussar said:


> Hang on. I got taken to task by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] not too long ago for including all these things on conveying dwarfiness at the table and got told it wasn’t content. It was in fact pointless color that adds nothing to the game.
> 
> So which is it?




I actually addressed this in my response to your post about dungeon dressing. You may have missed it since I didn't quote you, so I'll quote it here in full: 







Hriston said:


> Because _color_ (dungeon dressing) is content that provides atmosphere when imagined by the participants at the table. The quality of form with which it’s expressed isn’t what’s important but rather whether the odors, noises, furnishings, and items found in an area suggest a torture chamber, a harem, or a wizard’s laboratory. In other words, it’s the actual content that matters, not the particular words that are used and the way they are said.




I had actually wanted to respond to your post about what you mean by _performance_ because, to me, it doesn't really talk about what I would call performance at all. I didn't respond at the time because I thought it might be a digression, but I think now that it may be helpful to make this clarification, so I'm going to quote it here to make it clear what I'm responding to: 







Hussar said:


> Well, let's see.  I'd probably talk about growing up underground, reference my appearance by mentioning the beard and spend some time grooming it.  I'd probably reference relations between my people and various other people as being different than everyone else's.  My food choices would be different.  References to my stature might go some ways.  The fact that I don't like boats or horses might be a bit cliche, but, it does get the point across.  Historical facts about my people in comparison to the rest of the party.  Differences in approaches - the fact that I live about twice or three times as long as a human would give me a pretty different perspective on things.  The fact that I see in the dark and have resistance to poisons would likely come up at some point.
> 
> And, look at that, not a single Scottish accent.
> 
> If you cannot portray the species of your character without resorting to bad accents, stick to playing humans.




Almost everything you mention here is content that you're introducing as a player. Details about the character's upbringing, appearance, culture, personal preferences, and racial features are part and parcel of the character. References to dwarven history inform the setting. This is all part of the content that the players imagine while playing the game. The only things you reference here that I would call _performative_ is (perhaps) pantomiming the grooming of your beard at the table, and speaking in an accent, which you say you don't do.


----------



## Hriston

Hussar said:


> But, apparently it does because at least [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] insists that the words that are added matter a LOT. To the point of not liking a game that adds the wrong words - as the Vengaurak example shows. So obviously word choice is extremely important.




You can add all kinds of words to your description of a situation without any regard for its literary quality as a piece of narration.


----------



## Imaro

Hriston said:


> You can add all kinds of words to your description of a situation without any regard for its literary quality as a piece of narration.




Who does this??


----------



## Hriston

Maxperson said:


> Literary quality is anything from, "I wouldn't wipe my rear with it." to Shakespeare.




Material of low literary quality is clearly not what the OP is talking about when asking whether RPGing is a literary endeavor.



Maxperson said:


> It is absolutely description.  I am describing to the players what the kobolds(not orcs) are doing.  That it is also content is irrelevant.  It's still description.




This isn't in dispute. My contention is that the act of describing content is not a literary endeavor in the sense used by the OP. For it to be a literary endeavor in that sense would require that the _quality of form_, i.e. word choice, phrase and sentence structure, use of meter, rhyme, and repetition, and other formal properties that set the language used apart from normal everyday language, is a major focus of the activity.


----------



## Hriston

Imaro said:


> Who does this??




I do it all the time in normal conversation. If I'm describing something, I use my ordinary speech patterns and vocabulary to elaborate until I feel I've arrived at an adequate description. I try not to overthink how I'm using the language. Are you always aware of the formal quality of your everyday speech?


----------



## Imaro

Hriston said:


> I do it all the time in normal conversation. If I'm describing something, I use my ordinary speech patterns and vocabulary to elaborate until I feel I've arrived at an adequate description. I try not to overthink how I'm using the language. Are you always aware of the formal quality of your everyday speech?




To a certain extent I would say yes.  I certainly don't add all kinds of words to my description of a situation without any regard for its formal quality, especially when speaking to colleagues at work, explaining something to others and so on.  Very rarely am I wholly unaware of the formal quality of my everyday speech as I know many people are apt to judge you by it.


----------



## Hriston

Maxperson said:


> It adds to the quality of the narrative, so it applies.




But does any incremental improvement in the quality of the narrative whatsoever qualify the game as a literary endeavor? I don't think so. I think that for such improvements to qualify, they have to be made with the purpose of enhancing the formal, literary qualities of the descriptions and narrations in which they appear. There are many other reasons to make improvements to the narrative other than to make it more literary. Maybe it just makes for a better story if you talk about some detail or other.


----------



## Imaro

Hriston said:


> But does any incremental improvement in the quality of the narrative whatsoever qualify the game as a literary endeavor? I don't think so. I think that for such improvements to qualify, they have to be made with the purpose of enhancing the formal, literary qualities of the descriptions and narrations in which they appear. There are many other reasons to make improvements to the narrative other than to make it more literary. Maybe it just makes for a better story if you talk about some detail or other.




This makes no sense.  I would think improvement of the narrative, generation of content and nearly everything else we've discussed is ultimately done first and foremost for the purpose of running the game.  I mean I'm not creating content for the purpose of just having good content, I'm generating it to better my game.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> Who does this??




Plenty of people. I can add words to a description because I want to convey more information, knowing I am detracting from the literary quality of it. I do that all the time. Even when I am not GMing but writing an RPG. My concern is never the literary quality, I am much more interested in conveying the information I want and the style of gaming I want.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> To a certain extent I would say yes.  I certainly don't add all kinds of words to my description of a situation without any regard for its formal quality, especially when speaking to colleagues at work, explaining something to others and so on.  Very rarely am I wholly unaware of the formal quality of my everyday speech as I know many people are apt to judge you by it.




If that is how you talk, that is how you talk. But this is not how many people engage the world. I don't particularly worry about this. At the end of the day, if I am not good enough for people, I am not good enough for them. I don't need to do a dance or perform to bridge a gap. 

This actually makes me a little mad to read. Why would you judge someone just by the way they speak? That is usually more about a person's background than anything else.


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> If that is how you talk, that is how you talk. But this is not how many people engage the world. I don't particularly worry about this. At the end of the day, if I am not good enough for people, I am not good enough for them. I don't need to do a dance or perform to bridge a gap.
> 
> This actually makes me a little mad to read. Why would you judge someone just by the way they speak? That is usually more about a person's background than anything else.




People are judged on numerous things... why would how they speak be an exception?  Do you really think how you converse isn't judged by people?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> People are judged on numerous things... why would how they speak be an exception?  Do you really think how you converse isn't judged by people?




I do think people often judge by how we converse...but I don't think it is a good way to judge a person. So often how we talk is a product of class and other things beyond people's control. We often attribute things to styles of speaking (like intellect for example) that really are more about how people you grew up with spoke. And just on a moral level, that isn't how I want to judge people. I feel like when we talk about judging people over how they speak what we are looking for is if they grew up with money and had a thorough education. When it comes to GMs and players, I don't particularly care how people speak. I am more interest in what is behind the speech.


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> I do think people often judge by how we converse...but I don't think it is a good way to judge a person. So often how we talk is a product of class and other things beyond people's control. We often attribute things to styles of speaking (like intellect for example) that really are more about how people you grew up with spoke. And just on a moral level, that isn't how I want to judge people. I feel like when we talk about judging people over how they speak what we are looking for is if they grew up with money and had a thorough education. When it comes to GMs and players, I don't particularly care how people speak. I am more interest in what is behind the speech.




Well all I can say is being aware of the fact that, irregardless of right or wrong, people are judged by how they speak and also being a black man who works in corporate America... I have to continuously be conscious of how I converse with others for the majority of my day on a regular basis... I can't afford to not care, different experiences and all that I guess.  Note I agree with your sentiment, I just don't think it's many people's reality.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> Well all I can say is being aware of the fact that, irregardless of right or wrong, people are judged by how they speak and also being a black man who works in corporate America... I have to continuously be conscious of how I converse with others for the majority of my day on a regular basis... I can't afford to not care, different experiences and all that I guess.  Note I agree with your sentiment, I just don't think it's many people's reality.




I am not saying it isn't the case. I am just saying, I don't want to contribute to it being the case.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> Both me and Pemerton have addressed this point. I think we made the point somewhat differently but essentially described it more as inhabiting the character than as performing. There can be performative aspects to it, but I don't worry so much about them. This is particularly the case on the player end. As far as I am concerned what matters is the first person, not that the player portray a character. They could be playing themselves in the first person and I would be fine with it. Obviously the GM has to run multiple characters who exist in the world, so they need to account for things like personality and knowledge the character has. But I don't expect a performance in the sense of using voices, gestures, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I think so much of this thread is really about playstyle. And you see that when we talk about playstyel differences. I think talking about the specific example is much more productive than the general rules and general terms (because the terms are quite broad, and obviously there are places where I may agree performance could matter). It is just the way things like performance, presentations, etc have been used are done so to paint a picture of RPGs that doesn't match how Pemerton or I see the game. When we talk about specifics, it becomes easy to hash over those differences. When we talk in generalities, it becomes more like maneuvering a chess piece in the conversation to force people to accept specifics before they arise. I am really not trying to be difficult here. But I've just been in enough of these kinds of discussions to get that. And I think it is important to push people to talk about what they are really talking about. And what we are really talking about isn't categorization or modeling of the RPG experience, we are talking about how we want the game to be run and how we want games to be made (and you see that because it repeatedly comes up and people repeatedly argue over it).




Now, think about this 1st person argument for a second.  You will, presumably, choose to speak in a certain way and use certain words in an attempt to "portray a character", right?  You wouldn't proclaim, in character, in a fantasy game, "Hey, that looks like the critter at the end of Men in Black!"  That would be considered out of character, no?

So, as soon as you add in that criteria - what I say should be in keeping with the character that I'm playing - you have left the realm of conversation and gone into the literary.  You would never think, "Hrm, given what I think about me, I think I should say X and not Y" in a conversation.  You aren't trying to portray yourself.  

Thus, play always is a literary endeavor.  You are using literary criteria to judge and control what you say during the game and people's enjoyment of the game will be affected by that judgement.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Now, think about this 1st person argument for a second.  You will, presumably, choose to speak in a certain way and use certain words in an attempt to "portray a character", right?  You wouldn't proclaim, in character, in a fantasy game, "Hey, that looks like the critter at the end of Men in Black!"  That would be considered out of character, no?
> 
> So, as soon as you add in that criteria - what I say should be in keeping with the character that I'm playing - you have left the realm of conversation and gone into the literary.  You would never think, "Hrm, given what I think about me, I think I should say X and not Y" in a conversation.  You aren't trying to portray yourself.
> 
> Thus, play always is a literary endeavor.  You are using literary criteria to judge and control what you say during the game and people's enjoyment of the game will be affected by that judgement.




You make a very strong argument for something, but not for games being literary. Just because there is this concept in gaming of playing a character in a setting, where your character doesn't know thing you know, that doesn't make it a literary endeavor. Maybe an acting endeavor, but even then I don't think so because you can still just be playing yourself, you can be playing with the character without acting, or even in third person. So even if I accepted the implication of your post (that players and GMS always must speak in first person), I don't have to accept your conclusion that it is literary. But what is more, plenty of people don't engage RPGs in the first person. And further, lots of people allow for all kinds of anachronisms in play and dialogue. You might not like it, but I've definitely been in groups where characters did things like reference modern movies even though we were in a fantasy setting. 

Also your post does just reinforce the main point I made there which is this thread is about playstyle more than anything else.


----------



## Hriston

Imaro said:


> To a certain extent I would say yes.  I certainly don't add all kinds of words to my description of a situation without any regard for its formal quality, especially when speaking to colleagues at work, explaining something to others and so on.  Very rarely am I wholly unaware of the formal quality of my everyday speech as I know many people are apt to judge you by it.




A work environment might be more or less formal, but that doesn’t make being at work a literary endeavor. Likewise, an awareness of how best to effectively communicate when speaking with others can be useful, but it doesn’t make conversation a literary endeavor. Personally, such a controlled approach to communication doesn’t really work for me because I’m naturally careful in choosing what I say and need to make a real effort to be spontaneous. Maybe this accounts for some of the differences in the way we see literary as opposed to normal speech.


----------



## Maxperson

Hriston said:


> Material of low literary quality is clearly not what the OP is talking about when asking whether RPGing is a literary endeavor.




He brought up narrative quality.  Low quality is quality.  It applies to his argument.



> This isn't in dispute. My contention is that the act of describing content is not a literary endeavor in the sense used by the OP. For it to be a literary endeavor in that sense would require that the _quality of form_, i.e. word choice, phrase and sentence structure, use of meter, rhyme, and repetition, and other formal properties that set the language used apart from normal everyday language, is a major focus of the activity.




As I pointed out above, conversational dialogue is a literary technique, so you don't need the above requirements.  Further, from personal experience, I have spoken on behalf of NPCs and came up with some really crappy dialogue on the spot.  That would be low literary quality dialogue.  Other times I've come up with responses that were so awesome I got "oohs" from the players.  That would be higher literary quality dialogue.  What I never did was sit and come up with what words would sound better.  I'm not focused on what sort of dialogue to engage in.  It's just conversational dialogue.


----------



## Hriston

Imaro said:


> This makes no sense.  I would think improvement of the narrative, generation of content and nearly everything else we've discussed is ultimately done first and foremost for the purpose of running the game.  I mean I'm not creating content for the purpose of just having good content, I'm generating it to better my game.




That’s because imagining, exploring, and engaging with good content is what’s at the heart of RPGing. The literary quality with which that content is described runs orthogonally to that.


----------



## Hriston

Maxperson said:


> He brought up narrative quality.  Low quality is quality.  It applies to his argument.




The OP stated the opinion that the literary quality of narration is unimportant, so, sure, it doesn’t matter whether the literary quality is low or high. Unimportant is unimportant. What I’m not following is that you seemed to have been making the argument up thread that someone who thinks the literary quality of narration is unimportant is somehow asking for dull narration. You also seem to be making the argument that someone could think the literary quality of narration is important and want that narration to have low literary quality. That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. 



Maxperson said:


> As I pointed out above, conversational dialogue is a literary technique, so you don't need the above requirements.  Further, from personal experience, I have spoken on behalf of NPCs and came up with some really crappy dialogue on the spot.  That would be low literary quality dialogue.  Other times I've come up with responses that were so awesome I got "oohs" from the players.  That would be higher literary quality dialogue.  What I never did was sit and come up with what words would sound better.  I'm not focused on what sort of dialogue to engage in.  It's just conversational dialogue.




To me, this sounds like you don’t think the literary quality of your dialogue is very important.


----------



## uzirath

Hussar said:


> So, as soon as you add in that criteria - what I say should be in keeping with the character that I'm playing - you have left the realm of conversation and gone into the literary.




This sounds more _theatrical_ than _literary_ to me. It may be worth considering how role-playing can be used outside of gaming. At school, for example, we (the teachers) use role-playing activities with students to help build empathy. I don't think of this as a literary endeavor. It's about considering the perspective of another person and how they might feel about a given situation. As modern, literate people, of course, we write down our lesson plans and communicate via email and whatnot, but the role-playing activities themselves are not primarily about invoking the techniques of literature. They are activities about imagination and perspective, about paying attention to other people, about considering how a different context might change the way you behave. Many literary techniques, of course, exist to achieve similar goals (immersion in a fiction, identification with characters, etc.) but those goals can exist outside of the literary realm. 

Ultimately, though, this is all rather pedantic. The interesting element of this thread, to me, is the notion that helping new GMs craft compelling _situations_ may be more important than helping them craft evocative descriptions or memorable NPCs. I'm not as hung up on figuring out exactly how important, or the rankings of importance, or what's core and what's not. (That, as evidenced by the back-and-forth in this thread, requires far more patience than I have.) Personally, I like evocative descriptions, whether or not they're "core" and whether or not they are "literary" by various definitions. I'm better at helping someone come up with better adjectives or more interesting costumes or neat NPC quirks than I am at helping them with the fundamentals of designing great situations to engage their players. I feel like I approach the idea when I talk to young GMs about the importance of keeping the game fun for everyone. I always focus on that as job #1 for the GM. But I don't know that I provide much specific advice on how to actually do that beyond the basics (spread the spotlight around, keep things moving, give hints when things stall, don't get too hung up on the rules, don't get too hung up on your vision of how the game ought to go, avoid TPK, etc.).

I assume most of us agree that creating compelling situations for the players is somewhat important, regardless of where this importance ranks in relation to other aspects of the game. If we accept that, then I wonder what the top tips are to help people accomplish that?


----------



## Imaro

Hriston said:


> That’s because imagining, exploring, and engaging with good content is what’s at the heart of RPGing. The literary quality with which that content is described runs orthogonally to that.




For you...maybe, I've yet to be convinced, but for some/many/most the other things you mention aren't attainable or fun without a certain quality to the literary aspects and descriptions, the presentation and performance...


----------



## Hussar

uzirath said:


> This sounds more _theatrical_ than _literary_ to me. It may be worth considering how role-playing can be used outside of gaming. At school, for example, we (the teachers) use role-playing activities with students to help build empathy. I don't think of this as a literary endeavor. It's about considering the perspective of another person and how they might feel about a given situation. As modern, literate people, of course, we write down our lesson plans and communicate via email and whatnot, but the role-playing activities themselves are not primarily about invoking the techniques of literature. They are activities about imagination and perspective, about paying attention to other people, about considering how a different context might change the way you behave. Many literary techniques, of course, exist to achieve similar goals (immersion in a fiction, identification with characters, etc.) but those goals can exist outside of the literary realm.
> 
> Ultimately, though, this is all rather pedantic. The interesting element of this thread, to me, is the notion that helping new GMs craft compelling _situations_ may be more important than helping them craft evocative descriptions or memorable NPCs. I'm not as hung up on figuring out exactly how important, or the rankings of importance, or what's core and what's not. (That, as evidenced by the back-and-forth in this thread, requires far more patience than I have.) Personally, I like evocative descriptions, whether or not they're "core" and whether or not they are "literary" by various definitions. I'm better at helping someone come up with better adjectives or more interesting costumes or neat NPC quirks than I am at helping them with the fundamentals of designing great situations to engage their players. I feel like I approach the idea when I talk to young GMs about the importance of keeping the game fun for everyone. I always focus on that as job #1 for the GM. But I don't know that I provide much specific advice on how to actually do that beyond the basics (spread the spotlight around, keep things moving, give hints when things stall, don't get too hung up on the rules, don't get too hung up on your vision of how the game ought to go, avoid TPK, etc.).
> 
> I assume most of us agree that creating compelling situations for the players is somewhat important, regardless of where this importance ranks in relation to other aspects of the game. If we accept that, then I wonder what the top tips are to help people accomplish that?




No one is disagreeing with this.  Not a single person.  What's being disagreed with is the notion that content is _*all *_that matters.  That regardless of the language used to present that situation or content, it will be interesting to the players solely on its own merits as content.

To me, this is flatly false.  You can have the most fascinating situation ever written, but, if it's presented poorly, without any literary technique whatsoever, it will fall flat every single time because, at it's heart, yes, RPGing is a literary endevour.  You, as a GM, need to be aware of literary techniques and how to apply them or you will simply never reach your intended audience.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> You make a very strong argument for something, but not for games being literary. Just because there is this concept in gaming of playing a character in a setting, where your character doesn't know thing you know, that doesn't make it a literary endeavor. Maybe an acting endeavor, but even then I don't think so because you can still just be playing yourself, you can be playing with the character without acting, or even in third person. So even if I accepted the implication of your post (that players and GMS always must speak in first person), I don't have to accept your conclusion that it is literary. But what is more, plenty of people don't engage RPGs in the first person. And further, lots of people allow for all kinds of anachronisms in play and dialogue. You might not like it, but I've definitely been in groups where characters did things like reference modern movies even though we were in a fantasy setting.
> 
> Also your post does just reinforce the main point I made there which is this thread is about playstyle more than anything else.




Wow.  That's what you got from what I wrote?

Where did I even remotely suggest that 1st person or 3rd person is preferable?  Heck, I mostly play in 3rd person personally, so, I really have no idea where you are getting this.  

Are you seriously saying that "Hey that looks like the critter from Men in Black" is an in character speech?  That your NPC's would "get" the joke and react to it as a joke rather than as the complete gibberish it is from their point of view?  

Ok.  Now, since you keep insisting on "lots of people" to support your argument, would you argue that completely anachronistic comments being taken as in character role play is commonly accepted?  That your DM/GM, upon hearing you state something 100% outside of genre and the game, would automatically assume that you made these comments in character?

You have a really weird table if so.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> 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).



There's an approach to cultural studies and the study of communication which make the point that _all_ communication involves word choice, choice of tone, etc, and hence that - when considered through that lens - there is no distinctive contrast between (say) EM Forster's novels and the instructions you give your kid when sending him/her to the shops.

That may be true as far as it goes, but it _is_ sophistry - and a sort of equivocation of the sort you've pointed to upthread - to infer from (1) the fact that all communication is shaped by expectations and choices around tone, register, etc to (2) all communication is _literary_ in the sense of _governed by concerns about, and expected to live up to, certain standards of formal quality/excellence of wordcraft_.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know these questions are intended as rhetorical, but if I treat them as literal then the answer is I don't know.
> 
> The game seems to be 3e D&D (Scarred Lands), but who are the PCs? Who are the players? Do they have any reason to give a toss about the glutton Titan Gaurak?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> You’re telling me that both answers would equally evoke a response?  That neither one would make the slightest difference in tone or anything at the table?
> 
> You must have the most time deaf players in the world.
Click to expand...


Time deaf, space deaf, maybe just deaf deaf . . .

Anyway, here are the two options again:



Hussar said:


> 1.  You know that cockroach monster at the end of Men in Black?  That's more or less what you see.
> 
> 2.  Born of the blood of the glutton Titan Gaurak, "this hideous horse sized creature appears to be a twisted hybrid of beetle, mantis and maggot.  It stinks of carrion and blood"



My players aren't too tone deaf. They can tell that the second description paints more of a "word picture" than the first. But is RPGing about enjoying word pictures? On the player side, I think it's about _doing_ - about playing your PC as protagonist in the imagined situation. Which description will establish a situation that the players' are moved to engage? Until I know who the players are, who their PCs are, why they would care about the glutton Titan, etc, how can I know?

If the idea on the GM side is to present a disgusting creature whom the PCs will be raring to fight, and we've all just come from a viewing of Men in Black, then maybe number 1 is the way to go!



Hussar said:


> as soon as you add in that criteria - what I say should be in keeping with the character that I'm playing - you have left the realm of conversation and gone into the literary.



But not into the realm of _trying to craft a beautiful work_. Children can express concerns about keeping in character when they play make believe together, but that doesn't make their play of make believe into a literary endeavour in the salient sense.



Hussar said:


> since we're not limited to D&D here, what about games like The Dying Earth where being "literary" is part and parcel to play.  Not only is it expected, it's rewarded by the mechanics.  Or LARPing, unless we're insisting that LARP'er's aren't "true" gamers.



Well as it happens we played a session of The Dying Earth a couple of months ago. Emulating Vance's dialogue, including in such a way as to make the other participants burst into laughter, isn't what I was thinking of when I posted the OP.

I'll come back to this below, but at this point will report that we had some funny dialogue and some laughter-inducing taglines, but I don't think what we produced would count as quality literature, and nor were we aiming for that.



Hriston said:


> That’s because imagining, exploring, and engaging with good content is what’s at the heart of RPGing. The literary quality with which that content is described runs orthogonally to that.



To me this is at the heart of the discussion in this thread.

Contra [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s claim upthread, it's nothing about "fluff" vs "crunch". Rather, its _RPGing as performance/entertainment_ as opposed to _RPGing as shared inhabitation of the imagined world_. Hussar is right, I think, to point to The Dying Earth RPG as a game which plays with this contrast, but from my own play experience I am still comfortable in saying that, for us, it was inhabitation of the Vancian world which drove our play - and the taglines and dialogue were part of that. Part of what I have in mind in saying this is that what made the taglines funny (when they were) wasn't the deftness of delivery or timing in the theatrical sense, but the way it reinforced the contrivance and absurdity that is at the heart of the in-fiction situation.



Hussar said:


> perhaps a better question might be, "_Should _an RPG attempt to being a literary endevour".  To which, I would answer a resounding yes.  That I will try and fail doesn't bother me too much.  But that we shouldn't try at all?  That's just sad.



To me this seems to be the crunch point. And I don't think it's sad at all.

I've got nothing against literary endeavours. But why would RPGing be the place for that? As opposed to, say, writing and perhaps reciting literature? (And to relate this again to The Dying Earth RPG: I don't think our Dying Earth session is best analysed as an attempt to create Vancian fanfic. Whereas to my mind this is what you are saying we should have been aiming at.)

RPGing (once again bracketing a certain sort of classic dungeon crawlilng) is about a particular approach to shared fiction creation: one participant (broadly) in control of setting and situation, one or more others (broady) inhabiting protagonists within that setting and situation. What makes it go is when the setting/situation _draw in_ those would-be protagonists. It's about imagination and the resulting "inhabitation" of the fiction.


----------



## Hussar

OTOH, it is not sophistry or equivocation to point out that in role play we distinguish between in character and out of character speech.  Something you would never do in a conversation.  You would, however, make that distinction in a literary sense - narrator and narrative.  The constant switching between first and third person is also something you typically don't do in a conversation about yourself.  

Well, not often anyway.  

I'm just not seeing the parallel between conversation and what we do when we play an RPG.  Other than turn taking and back and forth, it generally isn't a conversation.  It's too artificial.  Playing in first person, you are choosing language, not based on what you, the player would say, but, what you the player think that your character would say which is far closer to an author writing dialogue than someone talking to a friend.

As I said earlier, the distinction between IC and OOC speech makes playing an RPG very different than conversation.  Sure, at some points, you'll be having a conversation with your GM and the other players, but, generally speaking, that's usually OOC.  When it comes to IC speech and actions, there is always the filter of the character that will alter what is said and done by the player.  A filter that isn't present in a conversation.

Never minding players who take actions that are deliberately self destructive in order to make the game more interesting.  Or, really, these actions don't even need to be self destructive.  If the player is doing or saying X, because the player thinks that X will result in a more interesting situation, then it's no longer simply conversation - it's authorship.  There are many games out there that deliberately reward a player for choosing the less optimal option but more interesting.


----------



## Hussar

Pemerton said:
			
		

> What makes it go is when the setting/situation draw in those would-be protagonists. It's about imagination and the resulting "inhabitation" of the fiction.




Huh.

How, exactly, do you inhabit the fiction in a conversation?

Look, if you're simply asking if RPGing is about creating the next great novel, then, sure, no, it's not.  No one is going to mistake an RPG session for high art.  If that's the bar you're setting, then, fair enough, this conversation should have ended long ago, because, well, frankly, no one would argue that the goal of play in an RPG is to create timeless art to be enjoyed by millions and discussed by various critics for centuries to come.

If that's your bar for "literary" then, ok, I totally agree that RPGIng is not a literary endeavor.

OTOH, if we're setting the bar a lot lower, say at the level of popular culture art and fanfic, then, well, the rules change.  RPGing borrows far more from art and theater than it does from conversation.  The ability of the players to use language to create mood, tone, and interest is just as important as whatever imaginary situation you want to posit.  

I guess it all depends on where you feel like finally planting the goal posts.


----------



## pemerton

uzirath said:


> The interesting element of this thread, to me, is the notion that helping new GMs craft compelling _situations_ may be more important than helping them craft evocative descriptions or memorable NPCs.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I like evocative descriptions, whether or not they're "core" and whether or not they are "literary" by various definitions. I'm better at helping someone come up with better adjectives or more interesting costumes or neat NPC quirks than I am at helping them with the fundamentals of designing great situations to engage their players. I feel like I approach the idea when I talk to young GMs about the importance of keeping the game fun for everyone. I always focus on that as job #1 for the GM. But I don't know that I provide much specific advice on how to actually do that beyond the basics (spread the spotlight around, keep things moving, give hints when things stall, don't get too hung up on the rules, don't get too hung up on your vision of how the game ought to go, avoid TPK, etc.).
> 
> I assume most of us agree that creating compelling situations for the players is somewhat important, regardless of where this importance ranks in relation to other aspects of the game. If we accept that, then I wonder what the top tips are to help people accomplish that?



Good post. And for what it's worth, I would say that 90% of my efforts as a GM over the past 30 years has been focused on this issue, of coming up with compelling situations. (Although only for about half that time have I had a vocabulary for describing what it is I've been trying to do.)

The RPG product that had the biggest initial impact on me, in this respect, was the mid-80s Oriental Adventure supplement. I don't know if I could have explained it at the time, but in retrospect I think I can identify what it was about OA that was significant:

(a) Characters are located within a motivational context - families, martial arts mentors, temples, and the like. (Classic AD&D could in principle have this - clerics' temples, MUs' masters - but the default presentation deliberately eschews making these connections a significant element of play. They're _mere _backstory.)

(b) Characters' choices have non-instrumental stakes, by way of the honour rules as well as the possible impact they might have on those families etc.

(c) Characters have themes that are established via trope and genre resonance, and that players can easily buy into when they build and play those PCs (eg martial arts masters, noble samurai, wily ronin etc).

(d) Monsters have a significance and orientation within the fiction (spirits, celestial bureaucracy, etc) which is connected - however tangentially, and perhaps aided by having watched an episode or two of Monkey as a kid - to those themes, motivations and stakes. So when the PCs encounter a creature there is already some sort of "pull" to response which goes beyond just _shall we kill it to earn some XPs and recover its loot_?​
My overall take-away would be: strong situations _engage the players_ by _engaging their PCs_, and this is about the way the situation speaks to PC concerns/motivations/themes. Preferably in ways that are more _intrinsic_ to the character than simply _Welll, we are lawful good so I guess we should do the fetch quest for the villagers_.

For a long time I primarily GMed and played Rolemaster, and one notable feature of RM is its intricate character build rules. These are one important device that players use to express goals and theme in that system, and as a RM GM I paid close attention to PC builds (including things like changes of direction in build with levelling) in thinking up situations. Some of this is about testing skills - if a player builds a PC with stealth and disguise and impersonation skills, than good situations will be ones that invite infiltration, cunning, the use of multiple personas in elaborate ploys, etc. But some of it is also about engaging implicit theme/motivation - if a player builds a PC with social skills, knowledge skills etc because that PC is an up-and-coming lawyer and public official in his/her city, then good situations will speak to that image and conception of the character. The player may only rarely actually test his/her PC's lawyering skill, but that skill sitting on the PC sheet nevertheless tells us this really important thing about this character, and _that really important thing_ can be a key focus of play (can the character schmooze the right people, maintain his/her social station, achieve his/her goals without having to betray loyalties, etc).

Systems/rulebooks that have shaped my thinking and my techniques over the past decade-and-a-half, whether or not I've actually played them, have tended to be ones that actually address this whole issue - of how to build PCs that have these inherent "hooks", of how to frame scenes that will engage with them - directly. Luke Crane's Burning Wheel, Robins Laws' HeroWars/Quest, various Vincent Baker games, Nicotine Girls, and Maelstrom Storytelling are probably the main ones. Some of these systems use formal devices to establish PC themes/motivations/concerns (eg Beliefs in BW) and then give the GM formal instructions to engage with those (so in BW the GM is expressly directed to frame scenes that challenge Beliefs, and if players try to dance around the challenge then the GM just "says 'yes'" until the challenge is confronted, at which point the dice have to be rolled). But I've done a lot of GMing of systems that don't use such formal devices (the aforementioned RM, 4e D&D, and more recently Prince Valiant and Classic Traveller all being examples).

That's a perhaps over-long way of saying that _my_ top tip would be (i) work with the players to help them make "laden" PCs, and then (ii) latch onto the hooks those PCs are laden with. And conversely, I think the easiest way to get crappy situation is to come up with it independently of the PCs, and to have the whole thing be driven by _We have to do the fetch quest because that's what the GM is serving up_.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Are you seriously saying that "Hey that looks like the critter from Men in Black" is an in character speech?  That your NPC's would "get" the joke and react to it as a joke rather than as the complete gibberish it is from their point of view?
> .




I am saying this can happen in games. People do this. I am not saying everyone does it. just there isn't some requirement in a roleplaying game that people not break the fourth wall. I've been in games where anachronistic jokes were told in character, where players switched between in character and out of character talk. It happens, yet the game continues on. 

However my bigger point was just because you are playing a character in an RPG, that doesn't automatically make it literary. You didn't bridge those two points in any meaningful way


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> There's an approach to cultural studies and the study of communication which make the point that _all_ communication involves word choice, choice of tone, etc, and hence that - when considered through that lens - there is no distinctive contrast between (say) EM Forster's novels and the instructions you give your kid when sending him/her to the shops.
> .




It may not surprise you to learn I got into a lot of debates with the professors when I had to take courses in these departments in college. I enjoyed these courses but found lots of points like this where I disagreed.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> OTOH, it is not sophistry or equivocation to point out that in role play we distinguish between in character and out of character speech.  Something you would never do in a conversation.  You would, however, make that distinction in a literary sense - narrator and narrative.  The constant switching between first and third person is also something you typically don't do in a conversation about yourself.
> 
> Well, not often anyway.
> 
> I'm just not seeing the parallel between conversation and what we do when we play an RPG.  Other than turn taking and back and forth, it generally isn't a conversation.  It's too artificial.  Playing in first person, you are choosing language, not based on what you, the player would say, but, what you the player think that your character would say which is far closer to an author writing dialogue than someone talking to a friend.



I think, here, that you are pointing out that RPGing involves authorship. That's undoubtedly true.

But _authorship_ doesn't take us to _literary endeavour_ in the sense intended in the OP, ie quality of wordcraft. Authorship is needed to bring fictions into being (for whatever sense of "being" is apposite for fictions). But bringing fictions into being doesn't depend upon literary quality.

When I make the comparison to _conversation_, I'm pointing not just to the back-and-forth but to _spontaneity_, _responsiveness_ and not just any sort of responsiveness but a type of _mutuality/reciprocity_ in responsiveness, and the free flow of emotion. In RPGing this activity is oriented - within the structures established by the game system, of which (for mainstream RPGs) the GM/player allocation of functions is probably the most fundamental - towards collectively authoring _and inhabiting_ a fiction.



Hussar said:


> How, exactly, do you inhabit the fiction in a conversation?



The way children do when the play make believe or with their dolls/figurines/Lego.

You imagine it, imaginatively project yourself into it, generate emotions in yourself that are not triggered by the real world but by the imagined circumstances.

Whether that's a worthwhile thing to do is of course up for grabs!, but that's what I play RPGs for.



Hussar said:


> RPGing borrows far more from art and theater than it does from conversation.  The ability of the players to use language to create mood, tone, and interest is just as important as whatever imaginary situation you want to posit.



As I said, I think this is the fundamental point of disagreement. This isn't how I see RPGing.

The interest results from the emotional power of the imagined circumstance: _I'm dangling by my fingernails over an abyss!_ _My ATV is about to be blown up by the orbital bombardment unless I can find some sort of cover in the rocks!_ _It turns out my brother probably wasn't the nice guy I thought he was - which means that in trying to redeem him I've just wasted half my life!_ _Darth Vader is my father!_

As I read your posts, you see the power of these situations as coming from their portrayal. To me that seems like an "external" source of power. I see their power as arising _internally_, because the player is imaginatively projecting him-/herself into the situation as protagonist. I'm largely indifferent to first person vs third person narration at the table, but I think a type of first-person orientation is pretty fundamental to RPGing. _My character is me!_ If the player is just an external observer, I think that generating that motivation to act becomes much harder.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> OTOH, if we're setting the bar a lot lower, say at the level of popular culture art and fanfic, then, well, the rules change.  RPGing borrows far more from art and theater than it does from conversation.  The ability of the players to use language to create mood, tone, and interest is just as important as whatever imaginary situation you want to posit.
> 
> I guess it all depends on where you feel like finally planting the goal posts.




This is probably a separate discussion, but I would argue these are still very different mediums and that is really important to keep in mind. RPGs do borrow heavily from many entertainments mediums (not just written ones, but also movies, music and theater). I think it can be misleading to see that connection and then try to adopt the structures of those mediums. This is how many people become insistent on things like railroads or having the GM tell the players a story. True some people like that, but lots of us felt that didn't fit the strengths of the medium in practice. I think where these kinds of discussions become an issue isn't seeing the connections, it is when people equivocate to create general rules about what RPGs should be like for everything (especially around matters of playstyle taste)---i.e. RPGs are like stories, therefore RPGs should play out like good stories; RPGs are like history, therefore RPGs should play out like history, RPGs are like real life, therefore they should play out like real life......these are all fundamentally playstyle statements that usually find some point of comparison between the two things and then argue for bigger structural emulation that is good for all.


----------



## Maxperson

Hriston said:


> The OP stated the opinion that the literary quality of narration is unimportant, so, sure, it doesn’t matter whether the literary quality is low or high. Unimportant is unimportant. What I’m not following is that you seemed to have been making the argument up thread that someone who thinks the literary quality of narration is unimportant is somehow asking for dull narration. You also seem to be making the argument that someone could think the literary quality of narration is important and want that narration to have low literary quality. That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
> 
> To me, this sounds like you don’t think the literary quality of your dialogue is very important.




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.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> You, as a GM, need to be aware of literary techniques and how to apply them or you will simply never reach your intended audience.




I don't agree with that.  When I put my mind to it, I can write very well.  Not because I have learned all of the rules and how to apply them, but because I love to read and I just know what looks and feels right.  There are directors that way as well.  Some directors learn all the tricks of the trade before making movies.  Others don't have that learning, but have an instinctive feel for what looks good.  DMing is the same way.  Some DMs may need to read and learn the rules and tricks to running a good game.  Others will just know how to do it without the formal learning.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> (2) all communication is _literary_ in the sense of _governed by concerns about, and expected to live up to, certain standards of formal quality/excellence of wordcraft_.




Literary doesn't require those standards of excellence.  Any old piece of junk sentence is also literary.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> OTOH, it is not sophistry or equivocation to point out that in role play we distinguish between in character and out of character speech.  Something you would never do in a conversation.  You would, however, make that distinction in a literary sense - narrator and narrative.  The constant switching between first and third person is also something you typically don't do in a conversation about yourself.
> 
> Well, not often anyway.




I don't know man.  Maxperson does some weird things.


----------



## Bedrockgames

> You, as a GM, need to be aware of literary techniques and how to apply them or you will simply never reach your intended audience.






Maxperson said:


> I don't agree with that.  When I put my mind to it, I can write very well.  Not because I have learned all of the rules and how to apply them, but because I love to read and I just know what looks and feels right.  There are directors that way as well.  Some directors learn all the tricks of the trade before making movies.  Others don't have that learning, but have an instinctive feel for what looks good.  DMing is the same way.  Some DMs may need to read and learn the rules and tricks to running a good game.  Others will just know how to do it without the formal learning.






> Literary doesn't require those standards of excellence. Any old piece of junk sentence is also literary.




But can you see how the equivocation matters now. You might have a very broad all encompassing view of literary, but this is an instance where, after that broad view is used to establish that RPGs are a literary Endeavor, Hussar advocates utliizing literary techniques as a GM (techniques that arguably fall into the camp Pemerton and I am emphasizing----the 'especially' part of the literary definition). 

Also, does it really disrupt play if a GM is not talking like lines from a novel? I personally have always found it much more jarring when GMs shift into 'narration mode' than when they just keep talking in their natural style without worrying about sounding as if they are narrating a book.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> I'm just not seeing the parallel between conversation and what we do when we play an RPG.  Other than turn taking and back and forth, it generally isn't a conversation.  It's too artificial.  Playing in first person, you are choosing language, not based on what you, the player would say, but, what you the player think that your character would say which is far closer to an author writing dialogue than someone talking to a friend.




This is not universal though. If you spend any time in OSR discussions, the idea of players who just play themselves comes up a lot, and many people are generally fine with it. The only line of disruption here would be something that breaks immersion. But talking as yourself is something some people are fine with. You can do that and still be playing a roleplaying game. Personally I do like a line between character knowledge and player knowledge. But we just had a whole thread where half the posters here were arguing for allowing players to use their real world knowledge of things like the monster manual for example.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> But can you see how the equivocation matters now. You might have a very broad all encompassing view of literary, but this is an instance where, after that broad view is used to establish that RPGs are a literary Endeavor, Hussar advocates utliizing literary techniques as a GM (techniques that arguably fall into the camp Pemerton and I am emphasizing----the 'especially' part of the literary definition).




It's not equivocation as I am not attempting to conceal the truth or avoid committing.  Before a discussion can move on, people have to understand what is being discussed.  Misuse of the term "literary" is an issue.  Once that is settled, and yes the term is broad, then you can move on to what subsets of literary you like and dislike, the "especially" part being one of them, and the conversational dialogue you like being another.



> Also, does it really disrupt play if a GM is not talking like lines from a novel? I personally have always found it much more jarring when GMs shift into 'narration mode' than when they just keep talking in their natural style without worrying about sounding as if they are narrating a book.




Not necessarily disruptive, no.  However, if the DM is just being incredibly bland and saying, "There are 3 orcs on a hill" and "You see a room," it is disruptive to me.  I cannot enjoy a game like that.  What is also disruptive to me, is if a player has his PC turn to mine and say, "Hey, this reminds of a scene out of Aliens.  I saw that on T.V. the other night."  If that happened to me in a regular game I play in, I wouldn't come back.  If it happened during a one shot at a game convention, I'd get up right then and walk out.


----------



## Bedrockgames

pemerton said:


> The interest results from the emotional power of the imagined circumstance: _I'm dangling by my fingernails over an abyss!_ _My ATV is about to be blown up by the orbital bombardment unless I can find some sort of cover in the rocks!_ _It turns out my brother probably wasn't the nice guy I thought he was - which means that in trying to redeem him I've just wasted half my life!_ _Darth Vader is my father!_
> 
> As I read your posts, you see the power of these situations as coming from their portrayal. To me that seems like an "external" source of power. I see their power as arising _internally_, because the player is imaginatively projecting him-/herself into the situation as protagonist. I'm largely indifferent to first person vs third person narration at the table, but I think a type of first-person orientation is pretty fundamental to RPGing. _My character is me!_ If the player is just an external observer, I think that generating that motivation to act becomes much harder.




This is a central point for me. I don't really need the GM to do much to get me to imagine things. In fact, I get very quickly frustrated and bored with description. I think some of this may actually be a communication social style issue rather than just purely playstyle. There is an idea in sales that people can be divided into Drivers, Amiables, Expressives and Analyticals. You sculpt your sales pitch based on personality. An expressive and certain kinds of amiables would probably respond well to more descriptive sales pitches. Drivers would not. Drivers want you to get to the point. Analyticals want information. So they would want informative description. There is more to it than that. But I am basically a driver, with some amount of analytical when I've taken the tests they have for these things. My point I am trying to explain, that I think some people are having a hard time understanding, is not everyone processes information the same way, not everyone communicates in the same manner. And when it comes to GM descriptions our personalities and how we think shape how we respond to things. I have a very negative response to prose-like descriptions. And part of the reason is it annoys me and interrupts the flow. I am not a jerk about it. I don't berate a GM who does long descriptions. I just know I would rather we move things a long. I don't need your 3-5 sentence description to picture a tower.


----------



## Hussar

Permerton said:
			
		

> But authorship doesn't take us to literary endeavour in the sense intended in the OP, ie quality of wordcraft.




Ahh, ok, so, we're at the "literary=Shakespeare" end of the spectrum.  Ok, fair enoguh.  As I said, I agree with you, if that's the definition of literary you want to work with.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Ahh, ok, so, we're at the "literary=Shakespeare" end of the spectrum.  Ok, fair enoguh.  As I said, I agree with you, if that's the definition of literary you want to work with.



For what it's worth, my sense is that you don't agree!

I think you've appreciated that, in the OP, I said that RPGing requires narration and description. And as I've read your posts, I think you are saying that that narration/description should aim, or be conditioned with an eye towards, formal quality.

Even if I've misunderstood you in that respect, I think there are people in the RPG sphere who do take that view.

Or in other words, I think there's a real discussion here as opposed to debating about where to draw the line on what counts as well-written work.

And speaking of pointless debates . . .



Maxperson said:


> Literary doesn't require those standards of excellence.  Any old piece of junk sentence is also literary.



Maxperson, here is the OED definition of "literary":

1.Concerning the writing, study, or content of literature, especially of the kind valued for quality of form.

2. (of language) associated with literary works or other formal writing; having a marked style intended to create a particular emotional effect.​
Here are some of the examples of usage given for definition 1:

‘I do not object to this accolade on the grounds that Edinburgh has little literary tradition.’

‘There is an acknowledged double standard in how we view a prolific genre writer and a fruitful literary author.’

‘The novel also proves that literary fiction doesn't have to be elegiac in tone to be successful.’​
I only quote these to make the point - obvious I think to everyone in this thread except apparently you - that there is a usage of _literary_ in which not all communicative acts, not all uses of words, constitute literary works. That is the usage that occurs in the OP of this thread, which asserts that the narration and description in an RPG performs its function largely independently of its literary quality.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> Not necessarily disruptive, no.  However, if the DM is just being incredibly bland and saying, "There are 3 orcs on a hill" and "You see a room," it is disruptive to me.  I cannot enjoy a game like that.




So you consider everything written or spoken to be literature, but here you indicate concern about the quality of the description given by the GM. 

Would you consider this a question of literary quality? 

If so, do you assume that if major focus is not given to this element, then the game will be bland and unenjoyable? Does literary quality have to be the primary focus in order for a game to be playable to you?

If it is, would you then assume that the content of your game would by default be bland and banal since it is not the primary focus? 

You seem to imply that only that which is the primary focus of the game will be of worthwhile quality. Is that truly your contention?

Or would you agree that something that may not be the primary focus in a game may actually still be of acceptable quality? 

So in your game, with the literary quality of description and narration being of primary importance, I assume the content isn’t dull, is it?


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> This is probably a separate discussion, but I would argue these are still very different mediums and that is really important to keep in mind. RPGs do borrow heavily from many entertainments mediums (not just written ones, but also movies, music and theater). I think it can be misleading to see that connection and then try to adopt the structures of those mediums. This is how many people become insistent on things like railroads or having the GM tell the players a story. True some people like that, but lots of us felt that didn't fit the strengths of the medium in practice. I think where these kinds of discussions become an issue isn't seeing the connections, it is when people equivocate to create general rules about what RPGs should be like for everything (especially around matters of playstyle taste)---i.e. RPGs are like stories, therefore RPGs should play out like good stories; RPGs are like history, therefore RPGs should play out like history, RPGs are like real life, therefore they should play out like real life......these are all fundamentally playstyle statements that usually find some point of comparison between the two things and then argue for bigger structural emulation that is good for all.




These comparisons also gave rise to things like aspects in FATE, Rising Drama difficulty in Heroquest, mechanics such as insight in D&D or fate points in SotDL which are devices/mechanics for simulating the cadence or flow of these other media in rpg's.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> These comparisons also gave rise to things like aspects in FATE, Rising Drama difficulty in Heroquest, mechanics such as insight in D&D or fate points in SotDL which are devices/mechanics for simulating the cadence or flow of these other media in rpg's.




Of course, and depending on what you think RPGs should be like, you are going to either like those things or not like them. But the point is: not every RPG needs to emulate those things. Additional point: things like fate didn’t just rip structures and replicate them. They had to find a way to fit them to RPGs. We tried ripping the structures of stories directly in the 90s. And that led to a lot of problems for people (and ultimately led to things like Fate to get around some of those problems). It is an issue of acknowledging this is a different medium and that people come to this medium for different reasons. Not all of us want literary prose in our games.


----------



## uzirath

pemerton said:


> That's a perhaps over-long way of saying that _my_ top tip would be (i) work with the players to help them make "laden" PCs, and then (ii) latch onto the hooks those PCs are laden with. And conversely, I think the easiest way to get crappy situation is to come up with it independently of the PCs, and to have the whole thing be driven by _We have to do the fetch quest because that's what the GM is serving up_.




This is helpful. As I looked over your specifics from other games systems, I see that my approach is actually quite similar, though I hadn't distilled it down to its essence. The main system I've GMed for the past 20 years has been GURPS, which provides tons of story hooks on the character sheet. I usually focus on disadvantages and quirks, but skills and advantages come into play too. As a player, I love it when a GM picks up on a relatively minor skill and gives it center stage; I invest points in those skills because I hope they'll be relevant someday. 

My first time GMing GURPS, back in the early '90s, I didn't have a good sense of this and wrote an adventure that had nothing to do with the specific PCs. The PCs were wonderfully rich, but I think the players were all so drunk on the flexibility of the chargen process that nobody considered why the characters might want to be together and why they might go on adventures. (I didn't have any session zero conversations back then.) The first few sessions were painful, to say the least, and I was personally mortified since I considered myself to be a veteran to TRPGs and I couldn't figure out why everything was going so horribly wrong. 

Thinking back, I can see how that experience fits, to some degree, with the premise of this thread. At the time, my approach to "fix" things was to work harder on the adventure: better monsters, better NPCs, more backstory, richer cultural elements, snazzy handouts, deep research into the literary foundations of the campaign (the _Arabian Nights_), etc. I poured my heart and soul into it. All this work wasn't entirely wasted, but it didn't get to the root of the problem. I finally had a big OOC conversation with the full group. I found out what the players were excited about and what they found dull. I found out where there were disconnects between what a player wanted and what their character sheet said. We revised characters together (even retired and replaced a few), adjusted backstories, and made sure there were some ties between characters. For my part, I tied the story directly to them and made sure that every session would have direct hooks to one or more PCs. At that point, all the prep work began to pay off and it grew into an immensely satisfying 10+ year campaign.


----------



## Aldarc

Hussar said:


> To me, this is flatly false.  You can have the most fascinating situation ever written, but, if it's presented poorly, without any literary technique whatsoever, it will fall flat every single time because, at it's heart, yes, RPGing is a literary endevour.  You, as a GM, need to be aware of literary techniques and how to apply them or you will simply never reach your intended audience.



I think that a GM should probably be aware of storytelling techniques to inform and improve their games, but not necessarily literary ones. Literature is one form of storytelling. But GMing could also take cues from cinematic techniques. (Which doesn't make RPGs "film".) Plus, one could be aware of historiography and "Gesichte" to inform your stories, but that does not make RPGs history. Furthermore, I should also think that a GM should be aware of interpersonal issues, but that does not make RPGs psychological therapy.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> I think that a GM should probably be aware of storytelling techniques to inform and improve their games, but not necessarily literary ones. Literature is one form of storytelling. But GMing could also take cues from cinematic techniques. (Which doesn't make RPGs "film".) Plus, one could be aware of historiography and "Gesichte" to inform your stories, but that does not make RPGs history. Furthermore, I should also think that a GM should be aware of interpersonal issues, but that does not make RPGs psychological therapy.




Do you think using at least some of these techniques is core to running a game?


----------



## Hriston

Imaro said:


> For you...maybe, I've yet to be convinced, but for some/many/most the other things you mention aren't attainable or fun without a certain quality to the literary aspects and descriptions, the presentation and performance...




Well, different people have different personal concerns and interests whereby they derive their desire to play an RPG. I think concern with the literary quality of narration falls into that category.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> Do you think using at least some of these techniques is core to running a game?



The question seems beside the point of whether we should equate these things.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> The question seems beside the point of whether we should equate these things.




Uhm...ok.


----------



## Hussar

Nope [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. I 100% agree with you. 

Any earlier disagreement was because of the misleading and vagueness of the OP. If you had simply said, Is RPGing high art?” This thread would be three posts long.

Instead you used a bunch of word salad verbiage that obfuscated your point and then couldn’t be bothered to clarify your point when it was obvious that most here didn’t get what you were saying. 

What an utterly pointless thread and a total waste of time. No wonder it’s so frustrating.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> Nope  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. I 100% agree with you.
> 
> Any earlier disagreement was because of the misleading and vagueness of the OP. If you had simply said, Is RPGing high art?” This thread would be three posts long.
> 
> Instead you used a bunch of word salad verbiage that obfuscated your point and then couldn’t be bothered to clarify your point when it was obvious that most here didn’t get what you were saying.
> 
> What an utterly pointless thread and a total waste of time. No wonder it’s so frustrating.




Although I wasn’t entirely sure about the point made in the OP, here’s [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]’s follow up post on page 2, which to me, made his point very clear.



pemerton said:


> [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] - I'm glad at least one poster found my OP clear enough!
> 
> To elaborate - and I see what I'm saying in this post as consistent with the OP, and hopefully you will also - I don't see RPGing as primarily _performance_ (in the artistic sense). Not for the GM - of course a melifluous GM can provide entertainment, but I don't see that as core. And likewise on the player side - thespianism is (in my view) secondary, whereas engaging the fiction from the position/perspective of the character is absolutely central.
> 
> And here's one way I would make this more concrete in terms of advice: if a new(-ish) GM asked me what is the one thing to do to make his/her game better, I would recommend working on managing framing and consequences to maintain player engagement, rather than (say) working on the portrayal/characterisation of NPCs.




I think this post makes it pretty clear. I know that the choice of the word “core” threw some people off, but the actual point is clear.


----------



## Hussar

hawkeyefan said:


> Although I wasn’t entirely sure about the point made in the OP, here’s [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]’s follow up post on page 2, which to me, made his point very clear.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this post makes it pretty clear. I know that the choice of the word “core” threw some people off, but the actual point is clear.




Considering we're 50ish pages down this rabbit hole and you have multiple posters obviously not understanding the point, including myself, I'd argue that it wasn't quite as clear as maybe you think.  

As I said, if the OP had simply stated, "Is RPGing high art", then this thread would be 2 posts long.  As it is, it was a total waste of time and energy because everyone kept flailing around trying to figure out just what the hell the OP actually meant.  

Which, if we're going to apply this to gaming advice, could be stated as thus:  "Just because you understand your own words doesn't mean that you are actually communicating what you think you are communicating.  Listen to the responses you are getting and if they are not matching what you think they should be, then RESTATE YOUR PREMISE IN SUCH A WAY AS TO BE CLEAR."  

Or, in other words, keep it simple, direct and apply your internal editor to cut away the cruft words like "melifluous" and whatnot and actually make your frigging point.


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> @_*Hriston*_ - I'm glad at least one poster found my OP clear enough!
> 
> To elaborate - and I see what I'm saying in this post as consistent with the OP, and hopefully you will also - I don't see RPGing as primarily _performance_ (in the artistic sense). Not for the GM - of course a melifluous GM can provide entertainment, but I don't see that as core. And likewise on the player side - thespianism is (in my view) secondary, whereas engaging the fiction from the position/perspective of the character is absolutely central.
> 
> And here's one way I would make this more concrete in terms of advice: if a new(-ish) GM asked me what is the one thing to do to make his/her game better, I would recommend working on managing framing and consequences to maintain player engagement, rather than (say) working on the portrayal/characterisation of NPCs.






Hussar said:


> Considering we're 50ish pages down this rabbit hole and you have multiple posters obviously not understanding the point, including myself, I'd argue that it wasn't quite as clear as maybe you think.
> 
> As I said, if the OP had simply stated, "Is RPGing high art", then this thread would be 2 posts long.  As it is, it was a total waste of time and energy because everyone kept flailing around trying to figure out just what the hell the OP actually meant.
> 
> Which, if we're going to apply this to gaming advice, could be stated as thus:  "Just because you understand your own words doesn't mean that you are actually communicating what you think you are communicating.  Listen to the responses you are getting and if they are not matching what you think they should be, then RESTATE YOUR PREMISE IN SUCH A WAY AS TO BE CLEAR."
> 
> Or, in other words, keep it simple, direct and apply your internal editor to cut away the cruft words like "melifluous" and whatnot and actually make your frigging point.




Looking at his post that I quoted above now, would you say it’s unclear? 

Like I said, I wasn’t entirely on board after the OP either. But when he clarified, I took notice and adjusted my responses accordingly. 

I think that his point has been clearly stated and restated at different points throughout the thread, but a lot of posters (not excluding myself, either) got more hung up on the definition of “literary” and “core” than on speaking about the actual point. Which is fine, right? It’s the internet and we’re all taking part because we want to discuss this hobby we enjoy, and every discussion spawns tangents and so on. 

But we all participate by choice.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Nope [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. I 100% agree with you.
> 
> Any earlier disagreement was because of the misleading and vagueness of the OP. If you had simply said, Is RPGing high art?” This thread would be three posts long.



That's not what the OP is about. REH isn't high art either, but clearly Tower of the Elephant and The Scarlet Citadel are literary endeavours.

Read the recent posts from @hakweyefan or [MENTION=8495]uzirath[/MENTION]. Those engage with the theme of the thread.

Here a quote from you from a way upthread:



Hussar said:


> Frankly, I see the “performance “ side of dming as just as important as the “framing” side. One without the other leads to bad games.



Assuming that you haven't changed your mind, then this is something that we disagree about. And it's something that, in the OP, I am denying.


----------



## Hussar

Nope. Still agreeing [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. You made your point. RPGing isn’t high art. Well done you.


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> That's not what the OP is about. REH isn't high art either, but clearly Tower of the Elephant and The Scarlet Citadel are literary endeavours.
> 
> Read the recent posts from @hakweyefan or  [MENTION=8495]uzirath[/MENTION]. Those engage with the theme of the thread.
> 
> Here a quote from you from a way upthread:
> 
> Assuming that you haven't changed your mind, then this is something that we disagree about. And it's something that, in the OP, I am denying.




ROTFLMAO.

Oh, goodie, we're right back to swirling around the rabbit hole of what does "literary" mean.  Yay.  See, folks, this is why this thread is 50 pages long, and you can talk about [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] being clear with what he meant all you like, but, this is about as clear as mud.

REH is "literary"?  Seriously?  A minor genre author who wasn't good enough to actually publish a novel and is virtually unheard of outside of genre circles is "literary"?  CONAN qualifies as literature?  

So, until you actually define what you mean by literary, there's no point in this discussion.  [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] or [MENTION=8495]uzirath[/MENTION] only "engage with the theme of the thread" because they apparently agree with you.  Granted, I have no idea what they are agreeing to, since apparently, literary encompasses everything from Dickens or Melville to pulp fiction writers, so, umm... yeah?  

I'll stick to the one definition that [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] seems to be consistently using - literary=high art stuff like Shakespeare or whatnot.  Which, fair enough, if that's our definition, certainly RPGing is not a literary endeavour.  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], when you can actually clearly write what you are on about in an unambiguous way that uses clear English, I'll engage with you.  Until then, it's goalposts on rollerskates and I've got far too little patience to bother anymore.


----------



## hawkeyefan

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] I don’t necessarily agree with pemerton. I simply understand what he is saying.

I think RPGs can contain literary quality. They can important and meaningful...although it’s usually only so for a handful of people.

But that’s not really the point. 

Let’s say a new GM came to you for advice, and said “gimme the ONE THING that I need to know about GMing a game” what would you offer? 

Always narrate with a mind toward evocative language?

Always try to put the players’ characters into interesting situations where meaningful decisions are needed? 

Always have pizza? 

What would you tell this new GM?


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I only quote these to make the point - obvious I think to everyone in this thread except apparently you - that there is a usage of _literary_ in which not all communicative acts, not all uses of words, constitute literary works. That is the usage that occurs in the OP of this thread, which asserts that the narration and description in an RPG performs its function largely independently of its literary quality.




Not according to the definition you just quoted.  It says, "Concerning the writing, study, or content of literature, especially of the kind valued for quality of form."   That definition makes ALL literature the set of what is literary.  What it does do, is create a subset of literature that is more highly valued, but does not exclude any literature.  The OED definition of literature is, "Written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit."  So again, all written works, from my wife's grocery list to Shakespeare, are literature, and all literature is literary.  You can be among those who prefer the higher quality literature, but there isn't a usage of definition #1 which excludes the grocery list.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> So you consider everything written or spoken to be literature, but here you indicate concern about the quality of the description given by the GM.




Concern in that I assume the DM doesn't want to give boring descriptions and drive away his players.  I don't actually sit and think about using this word over that one, but neither do I say, "You see a room." and leave it at that.  



> If so, do you assume that if major focus is not given to this element, then the game will be bland and unenjoyable? Does literary quality have to be the primary focus in order for a game to be playable to you?




I've already answered that.  It's not a major focus, but it can't be non-existent, either.  Giving better descriptions than, "You see a room." is the standard of game play.  At least in every RPG I've ever played in.  Not everyone was equal in their ability to describe things, but they all made the attempt to at least tell the players what the PCs are looking at.



> If it is, would you then assume that the content of your game would by default be bland and banal since it is not the primary focus?




No, because it's not a dichotomy.  It's not a matter of boring or primary focus.



> You seem to imply that only that which is the primary focus of the game will be of worthwhile quality. Is that truly your contention?




I haven't implied that.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> The question seems beside the point of whether we should equate these things.




You didn't answer his question.


----------



## pemerton

A literary endeavour is one which aims at having the virtues of literature. An artistic endeavour is one which aims at having the virtues of art. An intellectual endeavour is one which aims to contribute to knowledge. Etc. One can interrogate each of these in more detail, obviously, but the basic notion is pretty clear.

REH in writing the Conan stories is engaged in a literary endeavour. He's trying to produce good writing.

Is that what RPGing is concerned with? My claim is _no_. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s is - as best I can tell - _yes_, that part of what makes for success in RPGing is good wordcraft and deft performance. That's what we're disagreeing about. Not about whether REH succeeded in creating literature by some standard whereby Shakespeare is clearly in and (say) The Hardy Boys are clearly out.

Some posters point to desiderata like _the GM has to be clear_. Sure - so do instruction manuals. But clearly those are not literary endeavours - they don't aspire to have the qualities of literature, that's not the aspect of human creative affairs that they belong to.

Some point to desiderata like _the GM has to evoke emotion_. Sure - but so does conversation. And conversation doesn't aim at creating literary works. Or in other words, there are other pathways from _communication_ to _emotion_ than literary skill.

Some point to inherent features like _it involves authorship of a shared fiction_. Sure - but so do children's playground games. And those clearly aren't literary endeavours.

Here's a parallel discussion, imagined as taking place a century or so ago: _is painting, as an art form, fundamentally representational?_ As I understand it, Schopenhauer 's answer was "yes". He thought that _music_ was the only non-representational art form. On the other hand, many proponents of 20th century avant garde art presumably will argue that the answer is "no", and that painting can be non-representational.

It would be mostly orthogonal to that particular discussion to debate whether or not a 5 year old's stick figure sketch counts as art. That's not where the real action is.

So likewise in this thread. Debating what the boundaries of literature are, and whether the boxed text in X2 or the monster descriptions in the 5e Monster Manual count as literature, is fun enough but doesn't really get to the point.

Whereas discussing whether the functions of a GM include _putting on an entertaining performance_ is dead on topic. Likewise discussing whether the players' emotional engagement is better thought of as _a response to an appealing presentation_ - ie externally generated - or as _a result of imagination, projection and "self-deception"_ - ie internally generated.

I appreciate that different posters answer these questions differently. That's the point of having a thread about it! The fact that some of us disagree doesn't necessarily mean that there's confusion or abuse of language. It's OK to have different opinions about what's at the heart of an aesthetically-oriented activity.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> You didn't answer his question.



Yes, because the question was beside the point.


----------



## Hussar

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. Nice tautological definitions there. Until such time as you’d care to plant the goal posts, this discussion regardless of how much blather you want to add, is pointless. 

———
 [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] - I would tell such a new DM that there is no single most important thing but rather dming, like any creative exercise is a combination of multiple factors that need to be addressed.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. Nice tautological definitions there. Until such time as you’d care to plant the goal posts, this discussion regardless of how much blather you want to add, is pointless.



Well not for me. Just to point to two things that have come out of it: I've learned that your conception of what makes for good RPGing is quite different from mine. And I've discovered a surprising point of overlap between me and [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION].

Given what you prefer, I can see why you want well-written boxed text in modules.


----------



## Hussar

hawkeyefan said:


> [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] I don’t necessarily agree with pemerton. I simply understand what he is saying.
> 
> I think RPGs can contain literary quality. They can important and meaningful...although it’s usually only so for a handful of people.
> 
> But that’s not really the point.
> 
> Let’s say a new GM came to you for advice, and said “gimme the ONE THING that I need to know about GMing a game” what would you offer?
> 
> Always narrate with a mind toward evocative language?
> 
> Always try to put the players’ characters into interesting situations where meaningful decisions are needed?
> 
> Always have pizza?
> 
> What would you tell this new GM?




Just to continue on my last post. 

An interesting situation delivered poorly will result in a bad game as the session stumbles along at a glacial pace because the GM fails to communicate the situation to the players. 

OTOH a poorly thought out situation where the players have no stake in the outcome probably won’t be saved by good presentation. 

So at the end of the day, you are asking for a simplification to a complex act that cannot be reduced down to a single point.


----------



## pemerton

I've been reading Vincent Baker's Apocalypse World rulebook over the past week or so, and noticed this. I didn't have it in mind when I started this thread, and as far as I remember I hadn't yet read it when I started this thread. But I've owned Apocalypse World for a while now and have skimmed the rulebook in the past, so maybe I have seen this and it was lurking somewhere in the back of my mind.

Anyway, from p 11 of the AW book under the heading "The Conversation":

You probably know this already: roleplaying is a conversation. You and the other players go back and forth, talking about these fictional characters in their fictional circumstances doing whatever it is that they do. Like any conversation, you
take turns, but it’s not like _taking turns_, right? Sometimes you talk over each other, interrupt, build on each others’ ideas, monopolize. All fine.

All these rules do is mediate the conversation. They kick in when someone says some particular things, and they impose constraints on what everyone should say after. Makes sense, right?​
To me, that seems a pretty good description of what RPGing is. It's communicative. It's imaginative. It's mediated by a rules structure. But it's not about _producing nice performances_ or _saying things well_. This is one reason why people who are terrible writers and pretty mediocre speakers (and I've gamed with such people) can be great roleplayers.

And between writing this post and getting a chance to actually post it, I noticed this further bit a few pages later. On pp 16-17, Baker answers the question "Why to play":

One: Because the characters are ****ing hot.

Two: Because hot as they are, the characters are best and hottest when you put them together. Lovers, rivals, friends, enemies, blood and sex . . .

Three: Because the characters are together against a horrific world. . . . Do
they have it in them? What are they going to have to do to hold it together? . . .

Four: Because they’re together, sure, but they’re desperate and they’re under a lot of pressure. . . . Who do you trust, and who should you trust, and what if you get it wrong?

Five: Because there’s something really wrong with the world, and I don’t know what it is. The world wasn’t always like this, blasted and brutal. . . . Who ****ed the world up, and how? Is there a way back? A way forward? If anybody’s going to ever find out, it’s you and your characters.

That’s why.​
I think it's not mere coincidence that all those reasons go to _protagonisim_ and _situation_, and none of them speaks to the aesthetic qualities of the conversation as such. There's no suggestion that one reason to play is because your friends will entertain you with the quality of their performances.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> An interesting situation delivered poorly will result in a bad game as the session stumbles along at a glacial pace because the GM fails to communicate the situation to the players.
> .




I think this is the part a lot of us disagree with. Obviously at a certain point, it may start to impact play for us. But the whole point of emphasizing conversational GMing is that it is a bit expected players may want or need to ask for clarifications. We are fine with the 'flow' being disrupted because it is a back and forth conversation to help establish things. From my viewpoint, how the GM delivers information is much less important than what that information is. And the issue you raise here isn't really about quality, it doesn't matter in this moment if the GM describes it evocatively. Your point is really more about clarity (does the GM describe it clearly). That can definitely matter, but it isn't going to make the session bad in my view as long as I can gain clarity by asking questions.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Yes, because the question was beside the point.




You don't know what his point was.  You shouldn't assume things.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> You don't know what his point was.  You shouldn't assume things.



His question was beside _the point that I was making/discussing_. Answering either 'yes' or 'no' to that question was irrelevant to that point.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> Concern in that I assume the DM doesn't want to give boring descriptions and drive away his players.  I don't actually sit and think about using this word over that one, but neither do I say, "You see a room." and leave it at that.




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? 



Maxperson said:


> I've already answered that.  It's not a major focus, but it can't be non-existent, either.  Giving better descriptions than, "You see a room." is the standard of game play.  At least in every RPG I've ever played in.  Not everyone was equal in their ability to describe things, but they all made the attempt to at least tell the players what the PCs are looking at.




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? 




Maxperson said:


> No, because it's not a dichotomy.  It's not a matter of boring or primary focus.




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. 

It would be equally unfair of me to assume that your opinion that narration is of utmost importance means that your content is boring and drab. I could reply to you with "Use all the evocative language you want, but it's still just two orcs sitting at a table in front of a door....wow, exciting." 

If you actually believe that it's not a dichotomy, then stop insisting that the quality of narration will be boring if not the primary focus. 



Maxperson said:


> I haven't implied that.




It certainly seems that way.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> Just to continue on my last post.
> 
> An interesting situation delivered poorly will result in a bad game as the session stumbles along at a glacial pace because the GM fails to communicate the situation to the players.
> 
> OTOH a poorly thought out situation where the players have no stake in the outcome probably won’t be saved by good presentation.
> 
> So at the end of the day, you are asking for a simplification to a complex act that cannot be reduced down to a single point.




"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.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> Yes, because the question was beside the point.




No the question was pretty much on track for the thread but I respect your desire not to answer it.


----------



## Sadras

Some would say the last game of thrones season was not a literary endeavour.


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> 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?




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?


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> "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.




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.


----------



## Hriston

Maxperson said:


> 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.




RPGing being a literary endeavor would suggest that the literary quality of the narration is an important part of the activity. Wouldn't it?


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> Do you think using at least some of these techniques* is core to running a game?





Imaro said:


> No the question was pretty much on track for the thread but I respect your desire not to answer it.



Okay. This was not a strand of discussion that I was engaging with my post but I will answer your question with earnest. 

* Here I take "some of these techniques" to refer to some of the things that I had listed: literary storytelling, cinematic storytelling, history, psychological therapy, etc. 

I'm not sure if using some of these techniques are core to running a game. When I look at early D&D, for example, these things do not really seem all that prevalent at all. The dungeon crawl is often regarded as the quintessential TTRPG experience (at least per its most popular system: i.e., D&D), but that mode has minimal integration of these techniques (apart from the historical veneer of Euro-medieval aesthetics). It's more of a puzzle game than narrative storytelling. And this is something even that the OSR movement has lifted up and run with as a lauded feature of "old school" TTRPGs. It's part of the talking OSR points about "challenging the player and not the character." It's behind the repeated mantra of D&D being about "killing monsters and looting their stuff." This is not to say that you can't use some of these techniques in your game or can't have them inform your storytelling or play preferences; however, I don't necessarily think that these are inherently core to running a TTRPG game.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> 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 [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] 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. 



Imaro said:


> 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.




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?


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> 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?




None of that is required for the content to be literary.  Conversational dialogue(simply being a conversation) is a literary technique.  What he does is literary, as is what I do, and what you do, and what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] does, and...



> 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.




I agree. The scale is from a grocery list to Shakespeare.  It's all literary is my point.



> 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.




LOL  No.  I'm saying it's all literary.  They're saying it's not literary unless it's an attempt to be Shakespeare or similar quality.


----------



## Maxperson

Hriston said:


> RPGing being a literary endeavor would suggest that the literary quality of the narration is an important part of the activity. Wouldn't it?




Insofar as the activity couldn't happen without it, being literary is a very important part of the activity.  It doesn't require a conscious attempt on the part of the DM or players for it to be that way.


----------



## Maxperson

Imaro said:


> 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?




Where it crosses from normal literary description/presentation/performance into the high quality literary versions [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is talking about will vary from person to person.  This whole debate could have been avoided if he had just described it as high quality literary, rather than just literary.  Had he specified the subset, rather than the entire set, I would have agreed with him that no, the game doesn't attempt to be the quality of Shakespeare.


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> *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?




Emphasis mine... a few points...

1. You can't state that it's a thing everyone defines for themselves and then turn around and define it.  That's one of the issues with this thread everyone has their own definition but then the OP is trying to use that preference to define what is core to roleplaying instead of just stating what we prefer.

2.  Situation in turn is just as broad.  Does it also encompass relationships?  Setting?  Environment?  Description? Exploration?  IMO the definition of "situation", at least how I've seen it used here is just as broad and ill-defined if not more than the definition some are using for literary.  I think clarity around both is needed if a real discussion to take place. At least so we are all talking about the same thing.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> None of that is required for the content to be literary.  Conversational dialogue(simply being a conversation) is a literary technique.  What he does is literary, as is what I do, and what you do, and what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] does, and...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. The scale is from a grocery list to Shakespeare.  It's all literary is my point.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL  No.  I'm saying it's all literary.  They're saying it's not literary unless it's an attempt to be Shakespeare or similar quality.




No, I don’t think that’s what’s being said. What’s being said is that the concern over the quality of the narration....the attempt to bring the narration as close to the Shakespeare end of the scale as possible...isn’t as important as creating engaging scenarios for the PCs to interact with.

Would you agree with that? Would you say that presentation is more important than content? Do you want to have an actual discussion or simply keep going on and on with an endlessly broad definition of the word literary that renders the discussion meaningless?

You cut out each question I asked in my last post. I’d genuinely appreciate you addressing the questions. I feel like we could perhaps move forward if you did so.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine... a few points...
> 
> 1. You can't state that it's a thing everyone defines for themselves and then turn around and define it.  That's one of the issues with this thread everyone has their own definition but then the OP is trying to use that preference to define what is core to roleplaying instead of just stating what we prefer.
> 
> 2.  Situation in turn is just as broad.  Does it also encompass relationships?  Setting?  Environment?  Description? Exploration?  IMO the definition of "situation", at least how I've seen it used here is just as broad and ill-defined if not more than the definition some are using for literary.  I think clarity around both is needed if a real discussion to take place. At least so we are all talking about the same thing.




1. Yes, I can. You can proceed with the expectation that any such definitions I put forth would be my own. In this case, it also happens to be that of the OP. The question is how important the literary quality is. We can proceed with Max’s definition that seems to encompass the entirety of human communication....that’s fine. With that definition in mind, how important is the quality of the literary elements employed by the GM?

2. I thought situation or content had been used all along, but I’ll provide an example. A player has made a PC. One of his stated goals is to find the man who killed his brother. All he knows is that the man has one eye, and wears an eyepatch.

So, the GM sets a scene and includes a man in an eyepatch. Do you think that the mere presence of a one eyed man would be enough to engage the player? Or do you think that the one eyed man must be described in great detail in order to evoke a response from the player?

Yes, I know these need not be mutually exclusive things, but which do you think is more vital to the shared fiction of the game?


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> No, I don’t think that’s what’s being said. What’s being said is that the concern over the quality of the narration....the attempt to bring the narration as close to the Shakespeare end of the scale as possible...isn’t as important as creating engaging scenarios for the PCs to interact with.




I have yet to meet a DM who wasn't concerned with the quality of the narration.  Every last DM I've played with or DMd for has wanted their descriptions to not suck.  That's concern for the quality.



> Would you say that presentation is more important than content?




I've already said multiple times that one is not more important than the other.  They are interdependent.  Good presentation with crappy content isn't generally going to go well, though it can.  Good content with crappy presentation isn't generally going to go well, though it can.



> You cut out each question I asked in my last post. I’d genuinely appreciate you addressing the questions. I feel like we could perhaps move forward if you did so.




I cut out one question about scale which was answered in the response to the post.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> With that definition in mind, how important is the quality of the literary elements employed by the GM?




I depends on the group I suppose.  



> 2. I thought situation or content had been used all along, but I’ll provide an example. A player has made a PC. One of his stated goals is to find the man who killed his brother. All he knows is that the man has one eye, and wears an eyepatch.
> 
> So, the GM sets a scene and includes a man in an eyepatch. Do you think that the mere presence of a one eyed man would be enough to engage the player? Or do you think that the one eyed man must be described in great detail in order to evoke a response from the player?




"There's a man in the room" is enough to evoke a player response.  Including the eyepatch as part of the presentation is even better.  A more detailed description of the things about him that are immediately obvious would be better still.



> Yes, I know these need not be mutually exclusive things, but which do you think is more vital to the shared fiction of the game?




Presentation and content are roughly equal.


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> /snip for brevity
> 
> I think it's not mere coincidence that all those reasons go to _protagonisim_ and _situation_, and none of them speaks to the aesthetic qualities of the conversation as such. There's no suggestion that one reason to play is because your friends will entertain you with the quality of their performances.




Ok, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], we're back to literary=high art.  So, yup, I agree with you.


----------



## Hussar

hawkeyefan said:


> /snip
> 
> Yes, I know these need not be mutually exclusive things, but which do you think is more vital to the shared fiction of the game?




I would have thought by now that the answer to that has been made pretty clear.

They are BOTH important.  Sometimes one might be more important than the other, but, at the end of the day, one without the other leads to crap games.  A DM who only presents in simple sentences, never uses a compound sentence, never uses a simile or metaphor, never uses any literary technique whatsoever in his or her game would be boring as heck.  You can't avoid using literary techniques when gaming.  It's virtually impossible.  

Or, put it another way, there's a reason The Forest Oracle is seen as the worst module ever.

 [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is attempting this reductionist argument that one thing and one thing only matters to running a good game.  I reject such notions.  Running a game, just like anything else, is complicated and requires many factors.

It's no different than asking, "What one thing makes a good baseball player".  What is the most important thing about being a baseball player?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> I would have thought by now that the answer to that has been made pretty clear.
> 
> They are BOTH important.  Sometimes one might be more important than the other, but, at the end of the day, one without the other leads to crap games.  A DM who only presents in simple sentences, never uses a compound sentence, never uses a simile or metaphor, never uses any literary technique whatsoever in his or her game would be boring as heck.  You can't avoid using literary techniques when gaming.  It's virtually impossible.
> 
> Or, put it another way, there's a reason The Forest Oracle is seen as the worst module ever.
> 
> [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is attempting this reductionist argument that one thing and one thing only matters to running a good game.  I reject such notions.  Running a game, just like anything else, is complicated and requires many factors.
> 
> It's no different than asking, "What one thing makes a good baseball player".  What is the most important thing about being a baseball player?




Yes exactly. People have asked exactly that and then have had conversations about commitment versus raw talent, or offensive capability versus fielding, and so on. What you don’t tend to see is people getting hung up on what the definition of “important” is, or dodging the question by saying “all factors are important”.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> I have yet to meet a DM who wasn't concerned with the quality of the narration.  Every last DM I've played with or DMd for has wanted their descriptions to not suck.  That's concern for the quality.




I’d like to introduce you to a guy that goes by [MENTION=6831843]Be[/MENTION]drokegames!

More seriously, this is where you are creating the false dichotomy. No one is saying that description and embellishment have no place, just that they find another element of GMing more central to satisfying gaming.




Maxperson said:


> I've already said multiple times that one is not more important than the other.  They are interdependent.  Good presentation with crappy content isn't generally going to go well, though it can.  Good content with crappy presentation isn't generally going to go well, though it can.




Which would you say would be more likely to succeed? If you were a player in a game, and it was going to wind up being lacking in one area or the other, what would you prefer? Evocative presentation of dull material, or dull presentation of interesting material? 



Maxperson said:


> I cut out one question about scale which was answered in the response to the post.




So you agree it’s a scale?


----------



## Hriston

Maxperson said:


> Insofar as the activity couldn't happen without it, being literary is a very important part of the activity.  It doesn't require a conscious attempt on the part of the DM or players for it to be that way.




I can’t be sure, but you seem to be using _being literary_ to mean something like _using language_. Even if I accept that usage, however, I still can’t make out how it’s important that the GM and players use language if they aren’t required to make a conscious effort to do so.


----------



## Hussar

hawkeyefan said:


> Yes exactly. People have asked exactly that and then have had conversations about commitment versus raw talent, or offensive capability versus fielding, and so on. What you don’t tend to see is people getting hung up on what the definition of “important” is, or dodging the question by saying “all factors are important”.




Really?  So, you think there is a correct answer to what makes a good baseball player?  An answer that everyone will agree with?  Seriously?  You honestly think the answer isn't "all of the above"?

Or, better yet, what makes a good movie?  or a good book?  Or a good pretty much anything.  

Very, very few things can be reduced down to a single element that you should focus on to the exclusion of everything else.

It's a reductionist argument that of course leads absolutely nowhere unless you start from an extreme position.  Such as Literary=High Art.  Well, I'd say that virtually everyone in this thread agrees that RPGing is not high art and no one really needs to aspire to that to run a game.  Fair enough, we're all in the same boat.

Well duh.  It's a pretty obvious statement.

What's happened though is that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has repeatedly shifted the goalposts, refused to actually define what is meant by the question and then ducked and dodged any counter points while trying to champion a reductionist vision of gaming that excludes vast swaths - LARPing, more story oriented gaming, etc - of the hobby.  

It's no different than the folks that insist that Edition X isn't really a Role Playing Game.  It's self serving twaddle and borderline trolling.  And, frankly, I'm being to suspect that it was done with a complete disregard to good faith.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> Yes exactly. People have asked exactly that and then have had conversations about commitment versus raw talent, or offensive capability versus fielding, and so on. What you don’t tend to see is people getting hung up on what the definition of “important” is, or dodging the question *by saying “all factors are important”.*




So it's not a dodge, and I have seen exactly that.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> I’d like to introduce you to a guy that goes by @_*Be*_drokegames!




LOL  He has said he doesn't want dull descriptions, so he also cares about the narrative literary quality.  It's just not the most important thing for him, or even very high up on the list it seems.



> More seriously, this is where you are creating the false dichotomy. No one is saying that description and embellishment have no place, just that they find another element of GMing more central to satisfying gaming.




It's not a dichotomy of any sort, false or otherwise.  Narrative literary quality is a part of description.  I've never said it was one or the other, and suggesting that I have is just plain incorrect.



> Which would you say would be more likely to succeed? If you were a player in a game, and it was going to wind up being lacking in one area or the other, what would you prefer? Evocative presentation of dull material, or dull presentation of interesting material?




As I said before, more than once, they are roughly equal.  There's no way for me to answer that.  I suppose if I had to give an answer under some scenario where it came up, I'd just flip a coin.



> So you agree it’s a scale?




For at least the 10th time, yes.  The scale of literary goes from a grocery list on up to Shakespeare.


----------



## Maxperson

Hriston said:


> I can’t be sure, but you seem to be using _being literary_ to mean something like _using language_.




What is literary is immensely broad.  That's why it's broken up into so many sub-categories. 



> Even if I accept that usage, however, I still can’t make out how it’s important that the GM and players use language if they aren’t required to make a conscious effort to do so.




It takes me virtually no effort to describe an orc.  It would take me a lot of effort to embellish the description with a lot of adjectives and details for an individual orc.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> I depends on the group I suppose.
> 
> "There's a man in the room" is enough to evoke a player response.  Including the eyepatch as part of the presentation is even better.  A more detailed description of the things about him that are immediately obvious would be better still.
> 
> Presentation and content are roughly equal.




Okay....let’s continue with our one eyed brother killer example. The player made a character whose goal is to find his brother’s killer, the one eyed man.

GM 1 gives that player this bit of narration:
“The Great Northern road has been little more than a muddy trail for the past two days. The rain’s been incessant, varying only between total downpour and deluge. Finally, as night begins to take hold, you see firelight in the distance. You head towards it and are relieved to find it’s an inn and tavern. There’s a sign swinging wildly above the door, it reads ‘The Whispering Eye Inn’. 

“You make your way inside. A small bell rings when you open the door. The small common room is packed with travelers seeking shelter. They look up at you with uninterested expressions, before turning back to their drinks. You remove your sodden cloaks, hanging them on a row of pegs along the wall beside the door. Immediately, the warmth from the large fireplace across the room hits you. You’d nearly forgotten what warmth was. 

“The tables are all full, so you make your way to the only available seats, a pair of stools by the bar. As you cross the room, a redheaded serving girl emerges from the kitchen with a tray full of bowls, and a delicious smell wafts your way. From behind the bar, a bald man of middling years and a red beard smiles at you and gestures toward the stools. ‘Come in and warm yourselves, friends. What you smelled is my old marm’s beef and apple stew. I’ll have Tansy fetch you each a bowl. It’ll warm your bones.’ He looks at each of you, his eyes taking note of your gear, but he does not react in any way. He nods as you sit and then asks ‘Wine or ale, friends?’ 

“Soon enough you’ve a drink in hand and a bowl of stew before you, and you think your clothes may actually be less wet than they were. The bell rings, and heads turn to see who’s entering. The tall man removes his wide brimmed hat, revealing long dark hair. He shakes the rain from his hat with a look of contempt. He then eyes the wall pegs reluctantly before finally hanging his hat and cloak on one of the hooks. He moves with an economy of motion that you recognize as that of a fighting man, and indeed, a finely crafted sword hangs at his hip. One hand comes to rest on the pommel as his gaze sweeps across the room. Again, his lip curls dismissively. Wiping rain from his face, he makes his way into the room. You feel like perhaps you know this man, but you can’t say why.“


Now, GM 2 gives that player this bit of narration:
“You’re all seated at the bar of the Whispering Eye Tavern. It’s raining heavily outside. The common room is a bit crowded with folks taking shelter from the rain. The front door swings open, and in walks a man. He’s wearing an eyepatch.”


Which of these do you think will engage the player more?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> Really?  So, you think there is a correct answer to what makes a good baseball player?  An answer that everyone will agree with?  Seriously?  You honestly think the answer isn't "all of the above"?
> 
> Or, better yet, what makes a good movie?  or a good book?  Or a good pretty much anything.




I think there are many answers to those questions, yeah. I don’t know if they’re “correct” because it’s all a matter of opinion. And no, I don’t expect people to agree, but I’d like to hear their opinions. 

The answer “all of the above” may be true. But it’s boring. Pick something and discuss.


----------



## Hriston

Maxperson said:


> What is literary is immensely broad.  That's why it's broken up into so many sub-categories.
> 
> 
> 
> It takes me virtually no effort to describe an orc.  It would take me a lot of effort to embellish the description with a lot of adjectives and details for an individual orc.




If we define _describing things_ as a literary endeavor, then yes, RPGing is a literary endeavor because, as it says in the OP, it requires describing things. What I don’t get about what you said in your last post to which I responded is how you describe an orc without being conscious that you’re describing an orc.


----------



## pemerton

Aldarc said:


> I'm not sure if using some of these techniques are core to running a game. When I look at early D&D, for example, these things do not really seem all that prevalent at all. The dungeon crawl is often regarded as the quintessential TTRPG experience (at least per its most popular system: i.e., D&D), but that mode has minimal integration of these techniques (apart from the historical veneer of Euro-medieval aesthetics). It's more of a puzzle game than narrative storytelling. And this is something even that the OSR movement has lifted up and run with as a lauded feature of "old school" TTRPGs. It's part of the talking OSR points about "challenging the player and not the character." It's behind the repeated mantra of D&D being about "killing monsters and looting their stuff." This is not to say that you can't use some of these techniques in your game or can't have them inform your storytelling or play preferences; however, I don't necessarily think that these are inherently core to running a TTRPG game.



At the risk of further controversy, I'll take up where you left off.

One central feature of the D&D-as-wargame experience is that the player plays _a single figure_. This obviously creates some sort of invitation to performance ("playing out my guy"), protagonism etc. I wasn't playing in the mid-70s, but between reading around a bit and looking at some of the products that get published in the late 70s (eg RQ, C&S, Traveller) it's clear that some sort of move towards character and "story" was happening in some parts of the hobby.

Dragonlance seems as good a thing as any to point to for the mainstreaming of this idea, and I think by the time AD&D 2nd ed is published in the late 80s, followed by the White Wolf break-out, the connection between RPGing and character/story has become a pretty solid one.

The question of how to make RPGing work as "story" turned out to be a hard one to answer. I think that the idea of literary performance - the GM narrating his/her heart out, the players doing their best to perform their characters - is one (broadly described) path that's been taken up. A focus on situation and protagonism is a different path, and the one that I am putting forward in this thread.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> that excludes vast swaths - LARPing, more story oriented gaming, etc - of the hobby



I've got no idea where this comes from. As far as I know I'm the only Prince Valiant player who posts on these boards; am the only Cthulhu Dark player who posts on these boards; have played more Burning Wheel than most posters on these boards; am one of the relatively few posters whose primary point of reference for RPGing is not some version of D&D.



Hussar said:


> I'm not "excluding" story-oriented gaming. I'm analysing it, and contrasting it with pseudo-"story" RPGing of the sort advocated by (say) the 2nd ed AD&D books.
> 
> It's no different than the folks that insist that Edition X isn't really a Role Playing Game.  It's self serving twaddle and borderline trolling.  And, frankly, I'm being to suspect that it was done with a complete disregard to good faith.



I don't think anyone could say that I don't make my views and preferences clear.

Do you have this sort of view about criticism in general, or is it only RPGs that you think ought not to be discussed in such terms?



Hussar said:


> [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is attempting this reductionist argument that one thing and one thing only matters to running a good game.  I reject such notions.  Running a game, just like anything else, is complicated and requires many factors.



I like this better - straightfoward disagreement!

All I would add is that one person's "reduction" is another's "clearing away the cruft"!


----------



## Hussar

I guess, at the end of the day, I'm just not seeing the division.  If the DM and players are narrating their hearts out/doing their best to perform their characters, then protagonism is going to happen automatically.  You can't perform your character without becoming the protagonist.  It's just not possible.  Conversely, you can't protagonize (to again, badly abuse the English language) your character without performing your character.  

Protagonism without performance is what we do in board games, not RPG's.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> LOL  He has said he doesn't want dull descriptions, so he also cares about the narrative literary quality.  It's just not the most important thing for him, or even very high up on the list it seems.
> .




narrative literary quality does not equal not dull. In fact, something having too much literary quality, in my experience, can add to its dullness. Either way, you are attributing positions to me I haven't taken, because you can't conceive of someone running a game differently than you do. It is about the level of narration. I am not interested in presenting to players as though all my lines are boxed text or lofty examples of play. I speak very casually. And I don't see myself as a narrator or author. I see myself as a facilitator. Doesn't mean I don't describe things. But based on what you and Hussar have offered as examples of what you find compelling....that just isn't how I communicate with my players.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> It's no different than the folks that insist that Edition X isn't really a Role Playing Game.  It's self serving twaddle and borderline trolling.  And, frankly, I'm being to suspect that it was done with a complete disregard to good faith.




Except this seems  a lot closer to your position to me. Because you are the ones saying GMs must or should be striving for high literary quality description (or at least descriptions of a certain quality), and others here are telling you this isn't how we role play. But you keep insisting it is a necessary part of role-playing. So it is the same kind of argument you see people make about edition X not being a roleplaying game.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> Okay....let’s continue with our one eyed brother killer example. The player made a character whose goal is to find his brother’s killer, the one eyed man.
> 
> GM 1 gives that player this bit of narration:
> “The Great Northern road has been little more than a muddy trail for the past two days. The rain’s been incessant, varying only between total downpour and deluge. Finally, as night begins to take hold, you see firelight in the distance. You head towards it and are relieved to find it’s an inn and tavern. There’s a sign swinging wildly above the door, it reads ‘The Whispering Eye Inn’.
> 
> “You make your way inside. A small bell rings when you open the door. The small common room is packed with travelers seeking shelter. They look up at you with uninterested expressions, before turning back to their drinks. You remove your sodden cloaks, hanging them on a row of pegs along the wall beside the door. Immediately, the warmth from the large fireplace across the room hits you. You’d nearly forgotten what warmth was.
> 
> “The tables are all full, so you make your way to the only available seats, a pair of stools by the bar. As you cross the room, a redheaded serving girl emerges from the kitchen with a tray full of bowls, and a delicious smell wafts your way. From behind the bar, a bald man of middling years and a red beard smiles at you and gestures toward the stools. ‘Come in and warm yourselves, friends. What you smelled is my old marm’s beef and apple stew. I’ll have Tansy fetch you each a bowl. It’ll warm your bones.’ He looks at each of you, his eyes taking note of your gear, but he does not react in any way. He nods as you sit and then asks ‘Wine or ale, friends?’
> 
> “Soon enough you’ve a drink in hand and a bowl of stew before you, and you think your clothes may actually be less wet than they were. The bell rings, and heads turn to see who’s entering. The tall man removes his wide brimmed hat, revealing long dark hair. He shakes the rain from his hat with a look of contempt. He then eyes the wall pegs reluctantly before finally hanging his hat and cloak on one of the hooks. He moves with an economy of motion that you recognize as that of a fighting man, and indeed, a finely crafted sword hangs at his hip. One hand comes to rest on the pommel as his gaze sweeps across the room. Again, his lip curls dismissively. Wiping rain from his face, he makes his way into the room. You feel like perhaps you know this man, but you can’t say why.“
> 
> 
> Now, GM 2 gives that player this bit of narration:
> “You’re all seated at the bar of the Whispering Eye Tavern. It’s raining heavily outside. The common room is a bit crowded with folks taking shelter from the rain. The front door swings open, and in walks a man. He’s wearing an eyepatch.”
> 
> 
> Which of these do you think will engage the player more?




Number 2.  Not because of language difference, but because of the size of number 1.  I encountered this in some old modules in 1e and 2e.  The text blocks were so long that the players lost track of what had been said halfway through the reading.


----------



## Maxperson

Hriston said:


> If we define _describing things_ as a literary endeavor, then yes, RPGing is a literary endeavor because, as it says in the OP, it requires describing things. What I don’t get about what you said in your last post to which I responded is how you describe an orc without being conscious that you’re describing an orc.




I can describe an orc in my sleep.  However, if I want to come up with creative descriptions, I would have to stop and carefully choose my words.  That's the difference.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> narrative literary quality does not equal not dull. In fact, something having too much literary quality, in my experience, can add to its dullness. Either way, you are attributing positions to me I haven't taken, because you can't conceive of someone running a game differently than you do.




You just repeated what I just said.  I didn't attribute to you a position you didn't take.



> It is about the level of narration.




Right.  Just like I said. You care about the literary quality insofar as you don't want dull literary descriptions.  That doesn't mean you are trying for Shakespeare.  You care, but you don't care for too much of it.  Just like I said.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> You just repeated what I just said.  I didn't attribute to you a position you didn't take.
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Just like I said. You care about the literary quality insofar as you don't want dull literary descriptions.  That doesn't mean you are trying for Shakespeare.  You care, but you don't care for too much of it.  Just like I said.




No I didn’t agree with what you said. I stated that having  literal quality does not mean it isn’t dull. Something can be terrible from a literary standard, but engaging and exciting. Something can be of high literary quality and be extremely dull. However my interest is the complication exchange not the quality of the description itself. Literary quality isn’t something I think if when GMing


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> No I didn’t agree with what you said. I stated that having  literal quality does not mean it isn’t dull.




I never said it did.



> Something can be terrible from a literary standard, but engaging and exciting. Something can be of high literary quality and be extremely dull. However my interest is the complication exchange not the quality of the description itself. Literary quality isn’t something I think if when GMing




This is a true dichotomy.  Either you don't care about the narrative literary quality, in which case you are okay with dull descriptions, or you do care about it.  And you don't have to be thinking about literary quality to care about it.  It only requires that you want descriptions that are not dull.

Are you okay with all of your descriptions being dull?


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> I guess, at the end of the day, I'm just not seeing the division.  If the DM and players are narrating their hearts out/doing their best to perform their characters, then protagonism is going to happen automatically.



I've not just heard rumours of, but have _played through_, counter-examples to this. Mostly in an AD&D 2nd ed context, but also CoC and Rolemaster.



Hussar said:


> You can't perform your character without becoming the protagonist.  It's just not possible.



That's not my experience. You could perform your dwarf - reciting old bits of lore from the dwarvish halls, complaining about the quality of the local ale, remarking on the state of your beard, swearing oaths "by the Mountains of Moradin", etc - while all the while the game rolls of the GM's "plot wagon" much as it would if you were performing an elf instead.

I've lived through this. (Though I was playing a version of a Teutonic Knight rather than a dwarf.)



Hussar said:


> Protagonism without performance is what we do in board games, not RPG's.



I don't think boardgames have protagonism. They just have players.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> Number 2.  Not because of language difference, but because of the size of number 1.  I encountered this in some old modules in 1e and 2e.  The text blocks were so long that the players lost track of what had been said halfway through the reading.




So in this case, the attempt to use more evocative language, for the GM to set the scene more fully, actually serves as an obstacle to play? Is that what you’re saying? 

I’d have thought it would be number 2 simply because of the possible presence of the player’s stated goal for his character. But I can see your point as well.


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> I've not just heard rumours of, but have _played through_, counter-examples to this. Mostly in an AD&D 2nd ed context, but also CoC and Rolemaster.
> 
> That's not my experience. You could perform your dwarf - reciting old bits of lore from the dwarvish halls, complaining about the quality of the local ale, remarking on the state of your beard, swearing oaths "by the Mountains of Moradin", etc - while all the while the game rolls of the GM's "plot wagon" much as it would if you were performing an elf instead.
> 
> I've lived through this. (Though I was playing a version of a Teutonic Knight rather than a dwarf.)
> 
> I don't think boardgames have protagonism. They just have players.




Would you say that the difference you’re bringing up is about what’s important to the specific character? That you want for the game to be about the characters and their desires rather than just feature them?


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> Would you say that the difference you’re bringing up is about what’s important to the specific character? That you want for the game to be about the characters and their desires rather than just feature them?



Yes, _in that context_. I'll explain the qualification by way of an example from a specific system.

Each PC in Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic has two _Milestones_. Here are two example milestones - one is from Captain America in the core rulebook, the other is one that I made up in collaboration with the player for the berserker in my Cortex+ Fantasy Hack Vikings game:

MENTOR THE HERO
1 XP when you choose to aid a specific hero for the first time.
3 XP when you aid a stressed-out hero in recovery.
10 XP when you either give leadership of the team to your chosen hero or force your chosen hero to resign or step down from the team.

WORDS, NOT DEEDS
1 XP when you begin an action scene with a non-attack action
3 XP when you inflict emotional stress or take mental stress via an argument
10 XP when you either foreswear conversation as useless (“words are for women and lovers”) or when you foreswear the initiation of violence​
There is no limit (other than inherent constraints, like you can only do something for the first time once) on how often you can achieve the 1 XP milestone. The 3 XP milestone will only accrue XP once per scene, even if repeated. When the 10 XP milestone is completed then that particular character arc is done, and a new milestone is needed. The WORDS, NOT DEEDS milestone was taken up by the berserker in my game after he'd completed his initial DEEDS, NOT WORDS milestone (because _an impulsive action caused him to be stressed out_, which was one of the options at the top of that original milestone).

The feature of these milestones that I want to point to at the moment is that _a player can play them, earning XP_ somewhat independently of what the GM is serving up. Not completely, but somewhat. (This degree of independence can also vary a bit between milestones. I've chosen two examples that clearly illustrate the point.) I think this is a deliberate feature of the system, that reflects its starting point as a supers system - it tends to detach the character arc from the details of the practical ingame situation, just as Spidey's character arc will tend to progress whether it's The Vulture or Sandman who features as the villain in this month's issue.

But the system also has mechanical features that support these milestones. For instance, taking non-attack actions in action scenes, including aiding other heroes, isn't the sort of sub-optimal choice that it often would be in D&D - conflict can be won by attrition but doesn't have to be, and building up assets (which are generated by aiding others and/or taking non-attack actions) is one way to establish a dice pool that can allow a one-shot victory rather than require attrition.

So it's pretty hard for the GM to _actively get in the way_ of the players exploring and playing out their milestones in the course of engaging with the GM's material.

Now to bring this back to my AD&D 2nd ed experiences: obviously there's no _mechanical_ subystem comparable to the Milestone system. But, in play, we as players would develop our characters in interaction with one another and these arc-potentials would emerge somewhat organically. However, in AD&D it's incredibly easy, I would say almost to the point of inevitability, for the GM to get in the way. For a start, you almost always have to subordinate this stuff to more pragmatic considerations once the action starts. And the GM has such a high degree of control over aspects of the gameworld that player action declarations become very dependent on what the GM has put there.

So I think, _in an AD&D context_ - and the same is true (I would say) for Rolemaster, 4e D&D, and I would expect 5e too - that in practical terms _the GM not getting in the way_ turns into _the GM brings up stuff that is important to this character_. These systems just don't support leaving that to occur on the player side.

I hope that makes sense, though it really only scratches the surface of this particular topic. (Eg MHRP/Cortex+ at least in my experience isn't an ideal vehicle for _intense_ play for the exact same reason - there's a "background-ish" aspect to the GM's material relative to the PC story arcs. I think intense play wants these to be more tightly connected (necessary but not sufficient condition). But not all protagonism has to be intense protagonism.)


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> So in this case, the attempt to use more evocative language, for the GM to set the scene more fully, actually serves as an obstacle to play? Is that what you’re saying?




Me: It's not the language.  It's the length.

You: So you're saying it's the language?

C'mon man. 

You can attempt to use more evocative language with a much shorter description.  It doesn't have to be multiple paragraphs to be evocative.



> I’d have thought it would be number 2 simply because of the possible presence of the player’s stated goal for his character. But I can see your point as well.




You could have put the man with the eye patch in #1 as well, though, and my answer would still be the same.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> That's not my experience. You could perform your dwarf - reciting old bits of lore from the dwarvish halls, complaining about the quality of the local ale, remarking on the state of your beard, swearing oaths "by the Mountains of Moradin", etc - while all the while the game rolls of the GM's "plot wagon" much as it would if you were performing an elf instead.
> 
> I've lived through this. (Though I was playing a version of a Teutonic Knight rather than a dwarf.)




You use a different definition of protagonist than most of us, though.  We use the definition of, "Main character in a story."  With that definition, as long as the DM's plot wagon rolls on with your PC as a main character, your character is a protagonist.



> I don't think boardgames have protagonism. They just have players.




They don't have protagonism, because they don't have a story.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> You use a different definition of protagonist than most of us, though.  We use the definition of, "Main character in a story."  With that definition, as long as the DM's plot wagon rolls on with your PC as a main character, your character is a protagonist.



The concept of "protagonism" in RPGing is (I believe) relatively well known.

If it's unclear what I have in mind, here's the relevant remarks from the OP:



pemerton said:


> What matters to me is that the players _feel the significance_ of the situations the GM describes - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction. That is, that the situation _engage and motivate_ the players _as players_, not as an audience to a performance. And player narration should, in my view, engage with and build on this fiction in ways that display the player's view of the fiction, perhaps challenge other players (and even the GM), that make the other participants go "I didn't see that coming!"




If (to further self-quote) "the game rolls off the GM's 'plot wagon' much as it would if you were performing an elf instead" of a dwarf, then the things I've described aren't happening - the player's narration clearly is not engaging with and building on the fiction in ways that display the player's view of it, and certainly is not challenging the GM and making him/her go "I didn't see that coming!"


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> I never said it did.




Okay. 



> This is a true dichotomy.  Either you don't care about the narrative literary quality, in which case you are okay with dull descriptions, or you do care about it.




Wait, you just said you didn't say this. Just because something is literary doesn't mean it can't be dull. A dull description is a dull description, not a non-narrative literary description. Caring about whether a description is dull, doesn't mean you care about it being a narrative literary description. 



> And you don't have to be thinking about literary quality to care about it.  It only requires that you want descriptions that are not dull.




No, this is just wrong. Something can be of very high literary quality and be dull. Something can be of terrible literary quality and be exciting. Caring that your descriptions are not dull, just means you care that your descriptions are not dull. It doesn't mean you care about their literary quality. Also, if you are not thinking about something when it would be very relevant, literally not giving it a thought, I'd say you don't particularly care about it in that respect. 



> Are you okay with all of your descriptions being dull?




I don't want to be bored listening to the GM or the bore my players talking. But this has more to do with length of description in my opinion. But I don't particularly care if my descriptions are in themselves exciting. Like I am not interested in crafting words that impress on paper if that is what you are asking.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> You use a different definition of protagonist than most of us, though.  We use the definition of, "Main character in a story."  With that definition, as long as the DM's plot wagon rolls on with your PC as a main character, your character is a protagonist.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have protagonism, because they don't have a story.




This is probably getting into territory where people really start to disagree (whereas now we've just been arguing about the quality of GM description). I know I am likely an odd man out here but I don't think story is a necessary component of an RPG. Granted it is pretty clear many of us define story differently. But just going back to my point about equivocation: story has several meanings. It can mean, among other things 1) stuff that happened (which most people would agree RPGs always have, 2) fictional or dramatic narrative (which I think some RPGs have but not others), 3) A plot that follows a literary structure and tackles literary themes (which again some RPGs have but not others). The problem is when these conversations around 'how we should be gaming' and people advance a definition like 1, which you kind of have to accept, then equivocate to say RPGs should be good example of 2 and 3. Just to be clear here. I am not saying RPGs can't have story, or that they are not RPGs if they involve 2 or 3, I am just saying not every RPG has to have story, and some avoid stories in the sense of 2 and 3. This does matter because it is relevant when talking about what makes a good session or adventure of an RPG. Someone who is expecting 2 or 3 is going to be terribly frustrated in a free-form old school sandbox. Someone who doesn't want 2 or 3 is going to be frustrated by a game with more focus on story, character arcs, etc. I think people often dig their heels too much on these issues, and don't try things outside there comfort zone, which is a shame. But just speaking to the should and ought aspect of design and play, I think this is a key area of equivocation to be aware of in order to have a good faith discussion about these playstyle differences.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> Me: It's not the language.  It's the length.
> 
> You: So you're saying it's the language?
> 
> C'mon man.




First, as someone who’s taken the idea that dialogue is a literary technique and then leaped to the conclusion that all spoken word is therefore literature, you might want to not condescend. 

Second, I’m not saying it’s the language, although that’s part of it. I’m saying that the attempt to be more descriptive gets in the way in this case. 



Maxperson said:


> You can attempt to use more evocative language with a much shorter description.  It doesn't have to be multiple paragraphs to be evocative.




I would agree. This is why I also think that placing the focus on the fictional situation is more important.

Do you tend to run more published material or your own? Do you tend to read narration boxes and scripted material more or do you just narrate off the cuff? 




Maxperson said:


> You could have put the man with the eye patch in #1 as well, though, and my answer would still be the same.




That would have defeated the purpose of what I was trying to show with the example....although it would have perhaps shown something else.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> Do you tend to run more published material or your own? Do you tend to read narration boxes and scripted material more or do you just narrate off the cuff?




I think this is a key point. I don't think either of them run more published material than off the cuff material. But I do think there is a much different approach to taking inspiration from the form and structure of published material. Where I am coming from here is basically saying, I don't personally find it helpful to use things like boxed text as a model for communicating with players. The way of talking that Hussar and Maxperson are in favor of, seems very boxed text inspired to me.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> I think this is a key point. I don't think either of them run more published material than off the cuff material. But I do think there is a much different approach to taking inspiration from the form and structure of published material. Where I am coming from here is basically saying, I don't personally find it helpful to use things like boxed text as a model for communicating with players. The way of talking that Hussar and Maxperson are in favor of, seems very boxed text inspired to me.




Yeah, I’ve come to that conclusion myself. Most of my games contain more homebrew material, but I have incorporated a couple of 5e adventures into our campaign as well. Most recently with Tomb of Annihilation. Sometimes the boxed text was fine; I read it and it worked. On a few occasions, I’d even go so far as to say that it helped set the mood. But more often than not, I think it got in the way, especially in the later part of the adventure when the PCs enter the Tomb. At that point, the adventure becomes much more of an old school procedural dungeon crawl, and as such, I think clarity is more important than creative language. I found myself having to repeat or reword the entries so often that I just started giving the essentials as a bullet list up front (dimensions, main features, inhabitants, etc.) and then more descriptive elements afterward.

For me, it was a definitive point. Combined with the fact that my next bit of GMing was for Blades in the Dark, where there is no boxed text and the game is meant to be much more conversational (yet no less evocative) I don’t expect I’ll rely on boxed text anymore. If I ever decide to run a published adventure again for D&D, I’ll just paraphrase or provide my own narration.


----------



## Aldarc

I honestly am having a difficulty of following the obfuscated use of "literary" in this thread. At times it seems equated variously with "text," "anything written" (not to be confused with 'text'), "narrative/story," "oral performance," "anything spoken/conversation," etc. The goal posts keep getting moved and obscured for the sake of claiming that whatever transpires in RPGs is "literature" or "literary." I can definitely sympathize with why [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] is frustrated by all of the equivocation that transpires in trying to justify RPG as literary. 

I will say that attempting to claim TTRPGs as a literary endeavor shortchanges what makes TTRPGs unique as a storytelling medium. Yes, there will be overlap between TTRPG storytelling with literary storytelling, oral storytelling, performative storytelling, cinematic storytelling, video game storytelling, etc. Why? Because stories often follow patterns in human culture but many of these media are exceptionally new to human civilization (e.g., film, TV serials, comic books, video games, etc.), and we are only beginning to unravel how they are distinctive from prior modes of literature and theater. And I think that attempting to claim TTRPGs as a form of literature or as incorporating literary techniques (which some seem to equate to broader storytelling techniques) is attempting to turn TTRPGs into something that they are not.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Wait, you just said you didn't say this.



No.  It's subtle, though, so I'll explain it.  What I just said was that if you don't care at all about literary quality of narration, you are okay with everything being dull, not that it will be dull.  If you don't care, then dull narration doesn't bother you.  If dull narration DOES bother you, you care about the quality.  I wasn't saying literary narration was all or nothing, which would be a False Dichotomy.



> No, this is just wrong. Something can be of very high literary quality and be dull. Something can be of terrible literary quality and be exciting. Caring that your descriptions are not dull, just means you care that your descriptions are not dull. It doesn't mean you care about their literary quality.




It's the improved literary quality that makes them not dull.  So if you prefer not dull, you do in fact care about the literary quality, even if you refuse to admit it to yourself.



> I don't want to be bored listening to the GM or the bore my players talking. But this has more to do with length of description in my opinion. But I don't particularly care if my descriptions are in themselves exciting. Like I am not interested in crafting words that impress on paper if that is what you are asking.




We aren't talking about length of description, though.  The description number 1 and 2 that we discussed earlier showed that.  The one you disliked was 3 words longer, so it's clearly not the length.  It's the quality.


----------



## Bedrockgames

That makes even less sense Maxperson


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> This is probably getting into territory where people really start to disagree (whereas now we've just been arguing about the quality of GM description). I know I am likely an odd man out here but* I don't think story is a necessary component of an RPG*. Granted it is pretty clear many of us define story differently. But just going back to my point about equivocation: story has several meanings. It can mean, among other things 1) stuff that happened (which most people would agree RPGs always have, 2) fictional or dramatic narrative (which I think some RPGs have but not others), 3) A plot that follows a literary structure and tackles literary themes (which again some RPGs have but not others). The problem is when these conversations around 'how we should be gaming' and people advance a definition like 1, which you kind of have to accept, then equivocate to say RPGs should be good example of 2 and 3. Just to be clear here. I am not saying RPGs can't have story, or that they are not RPGs if they involve 2 or 3, I am just saying not every RPG has to have story, and some avoid stories in the sense of 2 and 3. This does matter because it is relevant when talking about what makes a good session or adventure of an RPG. Someone who is expecting 2 or 3 is going to be terribly frustrated in a free-form old school sandbox. Someone who doesn't want 2 or 3 is going to be frustrated by a game with more focus on story, character arcs, etc. I think people often dig their heels too much on these issues, and don't try things outside there comfort zone, which is a shame. But just speaking to the should and ought aspect of design and play, I think this is a key area of equivocation to be aware of in order to have a good faith discussion about these playstyle differences.




The only thing I disagree with is the bolded portion.  The key factor in your post here is that those are all ways to have story.  If you have a DM and players interacting, your number 1, what results will be a story.  Story doesn't have to be a primary focus like it is in some games, but story is automatically a component of all RPGs.  

Now that story is established in all RPGs, so long as the PCs are the main characters of that story, they are protagonists.  They are protagonists regardless of how much narrative control they have.  The DM could be railroading them down the track on a plot wagon and so long as the PCs are the main characters, they are still protagonists.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> Second, I’m not saying it’s the language, although that’s part of it. I’m saying that the attempt to be more descriptive gets in the way in this case.




But only because it was taken to an extreme and the length got out of hand.  Things taken to extremes are bad.  In the case of your example, the extreme length was the problem, not the language itself.



> I would agree. This is why I also think that placing the focus on the fictional situation is more important.
> 
> Do you tend to run more published material or your own?




Mostly my own.  It takes far more work to convert something published into something I will run than to just create something.



> Do you tend to read narration boxes and scripted material more or do you just narrate off the cuff?




Mostly I go off of the cuff.  The only time I use boxes is if I use published material, and then I've highlighted portions of the box that are usable, and sometimes re-written portions.  Altering text boxes is probably the one time where I will pick and choose words, and even then only when the writer has used a word I don't like.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> That makes even less sense Maxperson




Then you aren't even trying and we can end this part of the discussion between us.


----------



## Imaro

Maxperson said:


> But only because it was taken to an extreme and the length got out of hand.  Things taken to extremes are bad.  In the case of your example, the extreme length was the problem, not the language itself.





Yeah got to agree here... it's the same objection that was being made when non-literary was being equated to dull and boring.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> But only because it was taken to an extreme and the length got out of hand.  Things taken to extremes are bad.  In the case of your example, the extreme length was the problem, not the language itself.




I didn’t think it was very extreme as a scene setting bit of narration. It takes about a minute and a half to deliver. Is that too long for an establishing bit of narration? Don’t the additional details provided in this longer narration more fully set the scene? It’s not just an inn, it’s a warm inn and a welcome respite, it’s crowded from people seeking shelter from the rain. It’s run by a friendly innkeeper who notices things and whose serving maid, Tansy, is likely his daughter. There’s the smell of the stew, and the entrance of an enigmatic figure. 

Doesn’t all of this detail relate to your initial point? Presentation and interesting description being as important as the content? 

In the second bit, the description is pretty bare bones. It’s an inn, it’s crowded due to heavy rain. In walks a man with an eyepatch.

The second has much less description. Is it dull? Maybe not quite the right word. Spare, for sure. But there’s that one really key bit about the eyepatch (and nothing else about him beyond that) that likely would trigger a response from the player. 

I’d likely use something like the first approach if I wanted to simply set a scene, and then maybe move toward some kind of action or decision. 

The second would be if I wanted to get right to the decision point. Which method I’d use would depend on what I wanted to get out of the session, based on my and the players’ desires.



Maxperson said:


> Mostly my own.  It takes far more work to convert something published into something I will run than to just create something.
> 
> Mostly I go off of the cuff.  The only time I use boxes is if I use published material, and then I've highlighted portions of the box that are usable, and sometimes re-written portions.  Altering text boxes is probably the one time where I will pick and choose words, and even then only when the writer has used a word I don't like.




Based on this and other recent comments, it sounds to me like you’re much more in agreement with the OP than it seemed. You seem unconcerned with making the narration as high quality as possible, and that you’re more concerned with conveying the necessary details.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> No.  It's subtle, though, so I'll explain it.  What I just said was that if you don't care at all about literary quality of narration, you are okay with everything being dull, not that it will be dull.  If you don't care, then dull narration doesn't bother you.  If dull narration DOES bother you, you care about the quality.  I wasn't saying literary narration was all or nothing, which would be a False Dichotomy.




Why does it follow that if you don't care about literary quality in GM narrative, you also don't care if it is dull. Unless non-literary means dull this doesn't make sense (and non-literary can be dull or exciting just as literary can be dull or exciting). Also you are playing games with the word quality here. You are using it particularly broadly so that any improvement at all to a description (even for purely conversation purposes) can be slipped into the 'literary quality' category. 

Also I think much more important to whether a description is dull is what is going on, rather than the veneer of words used to describe it. You can say 'you slide open the panel and see an orc face through the wall', or you can say 'you slide the panel revealing a green-hued face with beastly eyes and teeth that stares at you through the wall'. What is interesting and not dull here, to me, is that there is face of a monster looking back at me through the wall. If I were reading a book, I'd probably favor something like number 2 (though it depends on the book). In a game, I would be okay with either, but I wouldn't be more impressed with number 2 (and I'd find it slightly artificial). And number 2 wouldn't get me more into what is going on.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> I didn’t think it was very extreme as a scene setting bit of narration. It takes about a minute and a half to deliver. Is that too long for an establishing bit of narration? Don’t the additional details provided in this longer narration more fully set the scene? It’s not just an inn, it’s a warm inn and a welcome respite, it’s crowded from people seeking shelter from the rain. It’s run by a friendly innkeeper who notices things and whose serving maid, Tansy, is likely his daughter. There’s the smell of the stew, and the entrance of an enigmatic figure.




It takes about a minute and a half to deliver, and the players are going to forget paragraph one by the time you finish two or hit three.  If the players are forgetting what you are describing, it's way too long.



> Doesn’t all of this detail relate to your initial point? Presentation and interesting description being as important as the content?




Too much presentation comes at the expense of content.  You are describing lots of content there, and then the players are forgetting things before you reach the end of the super long narration.



> In the second bit, the description is pretty bare bones. It’s an inn, it’s crowded due to heavy rain. In walks a man with an eyepatch.




And this is too light for my tastes.  It's probably just fine for @_*Bedrockgames*_, though.



> I’d likely use something like the first approach if I wanted to simply set a scene, and then maybe move toward some kind of action or decision.




My descriptions would probably be one of those paragraphs in length.  Two maximum if I was describing something grand or immense. 



> The second would be if I wanted to get right to the decision point. Which method I’d use would depend on what I wanted to get out of the session, based on my and the players’ desires.




See, for me, one of your paragraphs is getting right to the decision point.  



> Based on this and other recent comments, it sounds to me like you’re much more in agreement with the OP than it seemed. You seem unconcerned with making the narration as high quality as possible, and that you’re more concerned with conveying the necessary details.




Except that I do want to provide interesting narration.  I'm somewhere in the middle of the OP and your example.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Why does it follow that if you don't care about literary quality in GM narrative, you also don't care if it is dull. Unless non-literary means dull this doesn't make sense (and non-literary can be dull or exciting just as literary can be dull or exciting). Also you are playing games with the word quality here. You are using it particularly broadly so that any improvement at all to a description (even for purely conversation purposes) can be slipped into the 'literary quality' category.




I'm playing no games at all.  If you improve the quality of the description, the literary quality is improving.  It's greater than some descriptions, and less than others.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> I'm playing no games at all.  If you improve the quality of the description, the literary quality is improving.  It's greater than some descriptions, and less than others.




There is definitely slight of hand going on here. And I am not 100% sure where it resides. You are asserting that reducing the dullness, improves quality and therefore improves the literary quality, therefore GMing relies on higher literary quality if you don't want dullness. Something to that effect. The problem is Quality (B) and Literary Quality (C) are not the same thing. This feels like it is operating in the same realm as your argument that all conversations are literary (because literature can contain conversations). Just because literary efforts can be concerned with quality, that doesn't make any improvement of quality literary. It is getting to a pretty dizzying point, but I think there are serious flaws in these arguments. 

Either way, rhetoric aside. I don't need to be concerned about narrative techniques, taking inspiration from boxed text or speaking in a  way that is prose-style description to not be boring. If I slap you in the face during a conversation, that isn't boring, but it also isn't particularly literary (nor does it add to the literary quality of our discussion).


----------



## Lanefan

uzirath said:


> I always focus on that as job #1 for the GM. But I don't know that I provide much specific advice on how to actually do that beyond the basics ( ... avoid TPK ... ).



Side question: since when exactly is it the GM's job to *avoid* TPK?

Avoiding TPK is the players' job.  It's the GM's job to ensure that every now and then the players have to do this job.


----------



## Lanefan

Hussar said:


> Are you seriously saying that "Hey that looks like the critter from Men in Black" is an in character speech?  That your NPC's would "get" the joke and react to it as a joke rather than as the complete gibberish it is from their point of view?
> 
> Ok.  Now, since you keep insisting on "lots of people" to support your argument, would you argue that completely anachronistic comments being taken as in character role play is commonly accepted?  That your DM/GM, upon hearing you state something 100% outside of genre and the game, would automatically assume that you made these comments in character?



In order to put an end to otherwise-ceaseless out-of-game chatter I have in the past occasionally done exactly this - made it clear to all that anything said henceforth by any player would be assumed to have been said by that player's character even if it didn't make any sense in the fiction (unless what's said is directly related to the game e.g. an action declaration, a request for DM clarification, etc.).

It works.  Just ask the player whose character died when, after this warning, he still wouldn't shut up about [whatever he was on about - hockey, probably] while his character was trying to quietly hide from some dangerous foes - Giants, if I recall......



> You have a really weird table if so.



Guilty as charged, sir, but not for this I don't think.


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> /snip
> 
> I don't think boardgames have protagonism. They just have players.




Yup.  And an RPG without performance or any sort of eye towards literary notions like pacing, character development, tone, etc, is a board game.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> There is definitely slight of hand going on here. And I am not 100% sure where it resides. You are asserting that reducing the dullness, improves quality and therefore improves the literary quality, therefore GMing relies on higher literary quality if you don't want dullness. Something to that effect. The problem is Quality (B) and Literary Quality (C) are not the same thing. This feels like it is operating in the same realm as your argument that all conversations are literary (because literature can contain conversations). Just because literary efforts can be concerned with quality, that doesn't make any improvement of quality literary. It is getting to a pretty dizzying point, but I think there are serious flaws in these arguments.
> 
> Either way, rhetoric aside. I don't need to be concerned about narrative techniques, taking inspiration from boxed text or speaking in a  way that is prose-style description to not be boring. If I slap you in the face during a conversation, that isn't boring, but it also isn't particularly literary (nor does it add to the literary quality of our discussion).




Really, you are not concerned about narrative techniques?  At all?  So, when you create a situation, things like tone, pacing, mood, character development, exposition, and a host of other things are not a concern at all?  You create adventures like that random dungeon I posted a few pages back and you're good to go?

Yeah, didn't think so.

While I can see the point of RPGing =/= literary when the definition of literary=high art, fair enough, the notion that you, as a DM do not need to be concerned with narrative techniques is flat out false.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Hussar said:


> REH is "literary"?  Seriously?  A minor genre author who wasn't good enough to actually publish a novel and is virtually unheard of outside of genre circles is "literary"?  CONAN qualifies as literature?



 Yes.  He practically created the S&S genre, and his writing broke with tradition, he was the freak'n Henry Miller of pulp.



> literary=high art stuff like Shakespeare or whatnot.  Which, fair enough, if that's our definition, certainly RPGing is not a literary endeavour.



 Well, Shakespear wrote the Temest, and it's wizard, Prospero, /used a spellbook/, so, yeah, D&D is totally emulating high art, there.


----------



## uzirath

Lanefan said:


> Side question: since when exactly is it the GM's job to *avoid* TPK?
> 
> Avoiding TPK is the players' job.  It's the GM's job to ensure that every now and then the players have to do this job.




While I mostly agree with this proposition for a mature game, I find that kids tend to TPK every other encounter. Some of them don’t understand how to balance encounters. Others think it’s GM vs PCs. So, for beginners I think it is useful to advise them to try to craft scenarios that don’t immediately risk rapid violent death for the whole group.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> What makes evocative language so important to the game? What does it add? When compared to interesting situations, how is it more important?



It adds interest to an interesting situation; and (most important) can make what might otherwise be a boring situation be or become interesting.

Simple as that.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> Okay....let’s continue with our one eyed brother killer example. The player made a character whose goal is to find his brother’s killer, the one eyed man.
> 
> GM 1 gives that player this bit of narration:
> “The Great Northern road has been little more than a muddy trail for the past two days. The rain’s been incessant, varying only between total downpour and deluge. Finally, as night begins to take hold, you see firelight in the distance. You head towards it and are relieved to find it’s an inn and tavern. There’s a sign swinging wildly above the door, it reads ‘The Whispering Eye Inn’.
> 
> “You make your way inside. A small bell rings when you open the door. The small common room is packed with travelers seeking shelter. They look up at you with uninterested expressions, before turning back to their drinks. You remove your sodden cloaks, hanging them on a row of pegs along the wall beside the door. Immediately, the warmth from the large fireplace across the room hits you. You’d nearly forgotten what warmth was.
> 
> “The tables are all full, so you make your way to the only available seats, a pair of stools by the bar. As you cross the room, a redheaded serving girl emerges from the kitchen with a tray full of bowls, and a delicious smell wafts your way. From behind the bar, a bald man of middling years and a red beard smiles at you and gestures toward the stools. ‘Come in and warm yourselves, friends. What you smelled is my old marm’s beef and apple stew. I’ll have Tansy fetch you each a bowl. It’ll warm your bones.’ He looks at each of you, his eyes taking note of your gear, but he does not react in any way. He nods as you sit and then asks ‘Wine or ale, friends?’
> 
> “Soon enough you’ve a drink in hand and a bowl of stew before you, and you think your clothes may actually be less wet than they were. The bell rings, and heads turn to see who’s entering. The tall man removes his wide brimmed hat, revealing long dark hair. He shakes the rain from his hat with a look of contempt. He then eyes the wall pegs reluctantly before finally hanging his hat and cloak on one of the hooks. He moves with an economy of motion that you recognize as that of a fighting man, and indeed, a finely crafted sword hangs at his hip. One hand comes to rest on the pommel as his gaze sweeps across the room. Again, his lip curls dismissively. Wiping rain from his face, he makes his way into the room. You feel like perhaps you know this man, but you can’t say why.“
> 
> 
> Now, GM 2 gives that player this bit of narration:
> “You’re all seated at the bar of the Whispering Eye Tavern. It’s raining heavily outside. The common room is a bit crowded with folks taking shelter from the rain. The front door swings open, and in walks a man. He’s wearing an eyepatch.”
> 
> 
> Which of these do you think will engage the player more?



The first description is wonderfully evocative and engaging except that it's missing one very obvious element: if the PCs can see that his gaze is sweeping the room they should also be able to see that said gaze is being done with just one eye; thus that little detail should be included in the narration, hm?

And if the eyepatch was intentionally left out of the first description as a trap then I call shenanigans.


----------



## Aldarc

Hussar said:


> Yup.  And an RPG without performance or any sort of eye towards literary notions like pacing, character development, tone, etc, is a board game.



But these are not distinctly literary notions. Pacing, character development, and tone, etc. all exist within film media, for example, but these are not regarded as "literary." This is a categorical issue.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Really, you are not concerned about narrative techniques?  At all?  So, when you create a situation, things like tone, pacing, mood, character development, exposition, and a host of other things are not a concern at all?  You create adventures like that random dungeon I posted a few pages back and you're good to go?
> .




I don't run random dungeons, but I don't worry about pacing, tone, mood, character development, exposition or any of that stuff. I let the players lose, and treat NPCs as live moving parts in the setting. i don't have adventure arcs, character arcs, or any of that stuff in mind. I don't worry about pacing at all. I just let things unfold at the table at their own pace. It is a game. i don't need to control pace. Obviously I put effort into making the world, into making the NPCs, into figuring out what is going on around the PCs, what challenges might exist out there, etc. But I am not treating the running of it like I am a narrator or story teller, and I don't employ literary techniques towards the end of adjudicating the game. 

Now we are talking abstractly, so maybe we are just speaking past each other. But based on what I have seen you express as your interests and preferences, I do think we run games and look at games quite differently. 



> Yeah, didn't think so.




I really don't understand this remark. Again, perhaps we are talking past each other. All we are discussing is GM narration, and whether we emulate literary techniques. I don't see why you think it would be impossible for someone not to emulate those kinds of things during play.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> While I can see the point of RPGing =/= literary when the definition of literary=high art, fair enough, the notion that you, as a DM do not need to be concerned with narrative techniques is flat out false.




But I am just talking to my players and I run games without trying to advance some kind of plot of story on the party. I want to be surprised by the outcomes as much as my players. And I don't want my communication style to feel like words on a page. Obviously, I am not sitting there with a frown coldly issuing details. I am engaged in a conversation. I am just not thinking in the terms you appear to be thinking while I do so. Again, I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. I don't see my game as high literature, but I also don't see it as emulating anything to do with novels either. It is a totally different medium.

EDIT: I want to give some specific examples here so it is more apparent what is going on in my game and move away from the generalizations and abstract principles we are fighting over. I just want to add for clarification here since emulating novels was mentioned. There are elements of other media that get borrowed of course. All of  my campaigns presently are wuxia or horror. I like drawing on genre. But I just don't worry about the structures or techniques of the mediums involved. You can totally do that. And it is fine. It just isn't how I like emulating genre. I prefer to bake the physics of genre into the GM tools and mechanics, and I prefer to still view this as a game where the outcomes are not determined and where I can't really chart out plots in advance. So for example I have a tool I call the Grudge Table. Anytime players kill someone, cause trouble or violate the principles of the martial world in a way that causes someone to take exception, I add that person or their sect to the Grudge Encounter table (which is rolled on periodically). This ensures a genre element (the cycle of revenge and feuding clans of the martial world) recurs in the campaign. But I don't use it in a literary way. I will also occasionally throw in dramatically appropriate developments. But I am very careful when I do this because I have big concerns about the GM railroading or trying to force a story on the party. My way of handling that is to treat this aspect of the game as part of the setting cosmology (for example if players bump into an NPC at an oddly dramatically appropriate time, I treat that as a fated relationship---so you can expect in the future that character will come up). At the end of the day, what it is about for me is understanding this is a different medium than novels, and that things which are assumed to be necessarily tools or techniques in that medium, won't necessarily work in this one. You can still have the excitement you find in novels. You can still have lots of the things that go on. I just think it works better if they happen in a way that fits the medium. One thing I want to preserve is the fact that this is a game. And the biggest thing that needs respecting is the ability of players to try things and get results you were not planning or expecting. I want my players to feel like the scenario is unfolding fairly and they actions are adjudicated fairly. And I don't want to narrate story to them as much as facilitate the game.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Yup.  And an RPG without performance or any sort of eye towards literary notions like pacing, character development, tone, etc, is a board game.




No it isn't because in an RPG the players are identifying with their character. In Risk you have to move pieces on the board and you can't go beyond the premise. RPGs are as if you allowed the players to play single individuals in the army and explore the world or go on adventures at the ground level. That doesn't necessitate character development, pacing, tone, etc. It can include those things. But it doesn't have to have them. Particularly if you are using them in the literary sense.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> But these are not distinctly literary notions. Pacing, character development, and tone, etc. all exist within film media, for example, but these are not regarded as "literary." This is a categorical issue.




There is also this. Personally I find the hardest of these to force into an RPG is character development. At least the way it would be handled in a novel or book. Similar with pacing. In novels and books the director or writer has total control over what characters do and how quickly they do it. They can plan character arcs and develop their characters in a way that gives cohesion to the story. In an RPG I can't control if a player wants to fullfill some kind of character arc. By the same token, I can't control if my NPCs survive or succeed in all their plans, because the X factor of player characters. There are systems that provide tools for this. But many don't have those kinds of tools. I do run my NPCs as if they are player characters, so if a player kills an NPCs daughter, it is likely he will come after them for revenge or something. I am just not thinking in literary terms when it comes to that stuff, and definitely try to avoid having future outcomes in my head about these things (with NPCs I just try to keep in mind what they want and what they are trying to do). But I am not going to plan out some kind of redemption story with an NPC. 

Tone is also very difficult to control as a GM. And I think a lot of western media is obsessed with keeping a single tone (which I think is impacting this discussion). Not all media is single tone focused like that (watch some 80s or 90s Hong Kong films and you'll find the tone rapidly shifts and is all over the map---but the experience overall is very rewarding). In an RPG I can't force my players to abide by the tone of Schindler's List for a super serious campaign, or force them to be in a state of dread for a horror campaign (or force them to be funny for a humorous campaign). I can control the content though. And through the content I can emulate the physics and elements of these genres). I think there is nothing wrong with speaking in a style that fits the genre as well, but that is just not my way of doing things. I find it feels too forced and doesn't fit my natural personality.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Lanefan said:


> It adds interest to an interesting situation; and (most important) can make what might otherwise be a boring situation be or become interesting.
> 
> Simple as that.




But it can also come off as artificial, like you are trying to sound like  book or movie narrator. Again, I am not saying people shouldn't do this nor am I saying it isn't something that people try to do in RPGs. I am just saying, everyone has a different style. I think if something doesn't fit your personality you shouldn't force it. And giving these kinds of descriptions isn't a requirement of helping to establish an image in peoples' minds (not everyone reacts the same way to this stuff either).

Look, I have a group of four very different players in one of my games. One is very skilled at acting out his character in the manner of an actor. And it fits his personality because he is also very charming and charismatic. So we enjoy watching him perform his character in this way. That is great, and I like it but I don't know that I'd want all four of the players doing that at the table. The other players each have their own personality. One of them is very good at figuring out the internal workings of his character and his dialogue is great (as are his out of character comments and observations about what is going on in the campaign). But he isn't performative the way the first player is. My other two players are drier but one of them very enthusiastic. One approaches things very seriously, knows how to act because he has done lots of improv and theater, but chooses to play the game in a more reserved manner (because he doesn't see RPGing and acting as the same thing). The other player embraces the things that happen in the game in a way that really adds to play, he also gets very invested in his character's goals. This is a player whose character has lost multiple limbs and rolls with it, helping that sort of detail add to his character's goals and personality. Everyone feels quite engaged, and they engage in the game in a way that fits who they are as people. Ultimately the reason the game works is we all get along as people. I don't have a list of things I am looking for in terms of performance from players. And while performance may arise, I don't think it is a requirement, nor do I think it is always a good thing  for its own sake. I like a down to earth, balanced group where people can be themselves (and that extends to the GM). I am not interested in controlling tone, pacing, or character development. I am not interested in speaking in a hushed whisper and carefully selecting my adjectives. Doesn't mean my descriptions suck, they are just more conversational than prose or literary inspired.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Lanefan said:


> The first description is wonderfully evocative and engaging except that it's missing one very obvious element: if the PCs can see that his gaze is sweeping the room they should also be able to see that said gaze is being done with just one eye; thus that little detail should be included in the narration, hm?
> 
> And if the eyepatch was intentionally left out of the first description as a trap then I call shenanigans.




Description one is excessive and, I think, not what Hussar or Maxperson are pushing for (it is way too long). But it is an example of the downside of a literary focus because I have had GMs attempt this kind of narration and I view it as a product of thinking in terms of boxed text or novel prose. I wouldn't object to a bit of this. Where it goes off the rails for me is giving me every single detail. But the worst part is it assumes PC actions in the inn. It just glosses over so many places where a player character might attempt an action or try to engage someone in conversation. It assumes they hang their cloaks up on their way in for example. And it walks the players through the game as if they are on a rail in a story (and they can't get off that rail until the GM is done describing the inn).


----------



## Umbran

Bedrockgames said:


> But I am just talking to my players and I run games without trying to advance some kind of plot of story on the party. I want to be surprised by the outcomes as much as my players. And I don't want my communication style to feel like words on a page.




Not all things that fall into "narrative techniques" (as I'd define them, at least) are about communication style.  It isn't all word choice and funny voices.

As an example, if your players get stuck, and start getting frustrated or bored, do you let them sit there, or do you as a GM do something to get some action or decision making to happen?  Giving some nudge to get *something* to happen isn't necessarily driving them to a specific, pre-planned narrative (wandering monsters, anyone?), but it is applying some control to the pace of the session.

And, you know, one of the aspects we think about with literature is... pacing.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Umbran said:


> Not all things that fall into "narrative techniques" (as I'd define them, at least) are about communication style.  It isn't all word choice and funny voices.




I understand that, but the thread has mainly been focused on narrative and literary style descriptions by the GM. I think part of the reason the conversation is so hard to have is because, as you point out, it can be about other things. I've just been trying to stay focused on the description since that is what seems to be the subject. 



> As an example, if your players get stuck, and start getting frustrated or bored, do you let them sit there, or do you as a GM do something to get some action or decision making to happen?  Giving some nudge to get *something* to happen isn't necessarily driving them to a specific, pre-planned narrative (wandering monsters, anyone?), but it is applying some control to the pace of the session.




I think my approach to a campaign is a bit different here. There isn't the sense in my campaigns that the players have to get to the end of an adventure. They can lose an adventure by not making progress. Things still happen of course. And many of those things are interesting and even dramatic. But I don't think it makes them literary if you are just trying to solve the problem of the game grinding to a halt. I mean, that is a problem that can arise in the medium of roleplaying games. You can use literary techniques to get around it, but you can also use techniques designed for the medium itself (like wandering monsters). You use these yourself as an example. I don't see wandering monster tables as a literary technique. I certainly wouldn't want books written using encounter tables. 



> And, you know, one of the aspects we think about with literature is... pacing.




Like another poster pointed out, this is not unique to literature and it isn't something I actively worry about controlling. When people talk about pacing, they don't just mean "keep the game from grinding to a halt". That is an extreme situation. They also mean controlling the flow of encounters, controlling the rate at which the players make it through the adventure, providing a steady course of entertainment in the right proportions over the evening. A disastrous issue like the game grinding to a halt, would obviously be a concern, but that is clearly an edge case and being worried with that a lone isn't sufficient to say a GM is particularly worried about pacing. These other elements I just listed, I genuinely don't care about. If the players figure out they can win the adventure by shooting the messenger who delivers the hook in the first ten seconds, then I give them that victory. i don't worry about how it impacts pacing of the adventure or the session. If the adventure ends without a climactic fight, that is fine with me. I treat each session as a game, where I don't know what is going to happen, when or how. And I make a point of not considering literary things that would me to interfere with that. Now that doesn't mean you can't find examples of it. 

I think the danger here when we talk about literary techniques is failing to see this is a different medium with different needs. I hate to sound like a broken record on this subject but so often I see people start with this idea that there is a similarity between RPGs and novels, and therefore a good RPG session/system/adventure should play out like a novel or feature the essential things that a novel has. And you see that in this discussion where it is simply assumed by some posters that a GM should sound like an author writing book in their descriptions. I am not saying RPGs can't have these things. But clearly there are posters in this thread who feel there are other ways to think about RPGs and that thinking about RPGs in the ways we talk about is much more fitting for what we are after. If you want literary techniques in your game Umbran, I am fine with it. And if you have a cool way of bringing literary techniques into the realm of RPGs, I am even more interested in what you have to say than if you are just porting them in whole. But we've all come about this from different paths. I developed my style of GMing largely asa result of my extreme dissatisfaction with what was prevalent at the height of the d20 boom and based on the lessons I learned as a GM during the height of GM as storyteller in the 90s. I learned that a lot of the things I didn't like in gaming, not all, but a lot, were a product of forcing aspects of other mediums into RPGs.


----------



## Aldarc

Umbran said:


> And, you know, one of the aspects we think about with literature is... pacing.



We also think about pacing when cooking, but I would not call TTRPGS cooking either.  

At times the argumentation in this conversation feels like people are insisting that because cakes are made using flour and eggs that making pasta ergo is baking a cake.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> But these are not distinctly literary notions. Pacing, character development, and tone, etc. all exist within film media, for example, but these are not regarded as "literary." This is a categorical issue.




But they ARE literary notions, because they exist in written works.  Just because they do not exist ONLY in written works does mean that they are not literary techniques.  Also, many do consider film to be literary since film is a representation of written media(the script).


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Description one is excessive and, I think, not what Hussar or Maxperson are pushing for (it is way too long).




I can't speak for [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], but it's certainly not what I'm pushing for.



> But it is an example of the downside of a literary focus because I have had GMs attempt this kind of narration and I view it as a product of thinking in terms of boxed text or novel prose.




I don't accept this "downside" argument as a reason not to do or like something.  I mean, cheating is a downside of playing a game.  Just because there are some DMs out there who will write excessive descriptions does not make literary descriptions bad, just like there being some players out there who cheat does not make playing games bad.  These are examples of bad DMs and bad players, not bad writing styles or bad games.



> I wouldn't object to a bit of this.




A bit is all that's really needed.



> Where it goes off the rails for me is giving me every single detail. But the worst part is it assumes PC actions in the inn. It just glosses over so many places where a player character might attempt an action or try to engage someone in conversation. It assumes they hang their cloaks up on their way in for example. And it walks the players through the game as if they are on a rail in a story (and they can't get off that rail until the GM is done describing the inn).




When I describe a room or situation, I'm giving the players the details that are immediately visible or audible to their PCs.  If I were to describe a room, I would mention the desk in the middle of it, but not the small objects on top of it, unless it was something like a glowing ring.  If the room is poorly lit, I will mention that, because it's relevant and immediately discernible.  If there's a large hole in the back wall, I will mention it, but not large spider since it's at the back of a poorly lit room inside an even darker hole.  And so on.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I think my approach to a campaign is a bit different here. There isn't the sense in my campaigns that the players have to get to the end of an adventure. They can lose an adventure by not making progress. Things still happen of course. And many of those things are interesting and even dramatic. *But I don't think it makes them literary if you are just trying to solve the problem of the game grinding to a halt*. I mean, that is a problem that can arise in the medium of roleplaying games. You can use literary techniques to get around it, but you can also use techniques designed for the medium itself (like wandering monsters). You use these yourself as an example. I don't see wandering monster tables as a literary technique. I certainly wouldn't want books written using encounter tables.




Whether or not you are specifically thinking in literary terms, you are in fact employing the literary technique of pacing when you do that.  Wandering monsters by the way, are an example of the literary technique of pacing at work.  In books, the protagonists often come across a wandering monster as an encounter.  That the wandering monster was written in, instead of rolled randomly does not change the fact that both the story and the RPG are using the literary technique of pacing.  Both the author and the DM decided that something exciting needed to happen at that spot and engaged the technique to move the pace along.



> Like another poster pointed out, this is not unique to literature and it isn't something I actively worry about controlling.




That was a deflection(not saying it was an intentional deflection), though.  It's irrelevant whether it's unique to literature.  All the matters is that it is a literary technique.  To give an analogy, while breathing isn't unique to humans, it is still a human activity.  It doesn't stop being a human activity just because millions of other species also breathe. 



> When people talk about pacing, they don't just mean "keep the game from grinding to a halt". That is an extreme situation. They also mean controlling the flow of encounters, controlling the rate at which the players make it through the adventure, providing a steady course of entertainment in the right proportions over the evening.




Not quite.  It doesn't ALSO mean controlling the flow of encounters and the rate that players make it through the adventure. It CAN mean those things.  Keeping the game from grinding to a halt is pacing, but the DM is not required to also control the flow of all of his encounters and the rate of the adventure in order to engage in pacing.  Like many things, there are varying degrees of pacing.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> We also think about pacing when cooking, but I would not call TTRPGS cooking either.




I guess it was a deliberate Red Herring after all, as well as a False Equivalence.  Cooking, even though it has pacing, is entirely irrelevant here and is a deflection.  RPGs are not cooking, so they are not comparable.  

RPGs ARE literary, though.  The rule books are literature.  The techniques the rules suggest to DMs are literary techniques.  DMs engage in these literary techniques, even when they are unaware that they are doing so(see pacing and descriptions).  And so on.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> I don't accept this "downside" argument as a reason not to do or like something.  I mean, cheating is a downside of playing a game.  Just because there are some DMs out there who will write excessive descriptions does not make literary descriptions bad, just like there being some players out there who cheat does not make playing games bad.  These are examples of bad DMs and bad players, not bad writing styles or bad games.
> .




I agree that isn't a good reason not to do it. I never said people shouldn't do it. I prefer not to myself, but I've never taken issue with you doing so. However, would you agree it is a potential pitfall? I think it is something one should consider if it is an approach they are weighing. My approach certainly has its pitfalls and being aware of them is useful for knowing whether it is a style that fits you and for engaging the style in a way that doesn't succumb easily to its pitfalls.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> I guess it was a deliberate Red Herring after all, as well as a False Equivalence.  Cooking, even though it has pacing, is entirely irrelevant here and is a deflection.  RPGs are not cooking, so they are not comparable.




It isn't a red herring at all. It is a very valid point. He is saying many different activities include pacing. Just because activities share pacing with literature, that doesn't mean their use of pacing makes them literary. Yes RPGs are not cooking. They also are not literature, they are not movies, they are not sporting events and they are not game shows. All those things do have pacing though.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> RPGs ARE literary, though.  The rule books are literature.  The techniques the rules suggest to DMs are literary techniques.  DMs engage in these literary techniques, even when they are unaware that they are doing so(see pacing and descriptions).  And so on.




But you haven't established this and it has been the main point of contention over the thread. I don't think most of the people here agree that rulebooks are literature. But even if they did, fewer would agree that the games once played are literary. Even if you are trying to bring in techniques from movies, books, etc (and we clearly disagree on whether you are or not), that doesn't make a game a literary endeavor. At the end of the day, the purpose of a game isn't to produce literary content. And as a medium it has many things pulling away from producing good literary content. For example, the participants and the audience are the same. Unless you are talking about an RPG podcast or show, there are not people watching the story of the game unfold. In that respect it is more like being involved in a pick up game of flag football with no spectators. 

And I think sports are another great analogy here. RPGs involve teamwork, they involve procedures, they have an element of competition to them at times (at least in terms of players competing against bad guys and competing against the adventure itself), they produce thrills in much the same way (you don't know if your PC is going to land his attack just like you don't know if someone is going to land a goal in a sporting event, and that sense the it could go either way produces a lot of excitement). There are many techniques, tools and features of RPGs that come from sports are a part of sports. Would you argue that RPGs are a sporting activity? I wouldn't.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> That was a deflection(not saying it was an intentional deflection), though.  It's irrelevant whether it's unique to literature.  All the matters is that it is a literary technique.  To give an analogy, while breathing isn't unique to humans, it is still a human activity.  It doesn't stop being a human activity just because millions of other species also breathe.
> 
> .



That is a very strange argument. Again we are back into your "all conversations in the real world are literary because books have dialogue" argument. This makes very little sense. This isn't a deflection at all, it is one of the most substantive points made on the thread. You can take the argument you are making and use it to argue that RPGs are literally anything. I could make an argument that because they feature systems, and computers feature systems, RPGs are really computer programs. I could argue that you use sales techniques to get players to buy into hooks, therefore GMs need to know how to make sales pitches to their players and RPGs are really sales. I am sure there are better examples, but it is pretty clear to me where this kind of argumentation leads.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Not quite.  It doesn't ALSO mean controlling the flow of encounters and the rate that players make it through the adventure. It CAN mean those things.  Keeping the game from grinding to a halt is pacing, but the DM is not required to also control the flow of all of his encounters and the rate of the adventure in order to engage in pacing.  Like many things, there are varying degrees of pacing.




So the only pacing that is required in play is keeping the game from grinding to a halt? Doesn't sound like pacing is all that important. 

This also seems like a weird point. Either something is an element of pacing or it isn't. The things I listed are all clearly pacing concerns that can come up in a game. I've explained that I am only interested in 1 of them. And so your response, rather than just admit I don't seem that interested in pacing, is that those other things are not necessary requirements of pacing (even though they are pacing considerations), so I am still interested in pacing as a GM. 

Let me ask you this, if a GM showed zero concern for pacing during a campaign, except when the game ground to a halt. The only time this GM literally engages anything to do with pacing is when everything just stops because the players are stumped, would you say this GM cares about pacing very much? The GM is fine with the session ending five minutes into the game. The GM is fine with there being no climactic battle or encounters just happening however. The GM is fine with there being no sense of rising action or tension. The GM is not trying to emulate any of the pacing flow of a story. But if the game grinds to a halt because the players can't put together some clues and they can't think of anything else to do, he nudges them so they are not just trifling their thumbs. Would you say this GM is concerned with pacing?


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> But they ARE literary notions, because they exist in written works.  Just because they do not exist ONLY in written works does mean that they are not literary techniques.  Also, many do consider film to be literary since film is a representation of written media(the script).



We are not debating whether or not these are notions found in literature, Max. The issue is when people argue that the presence of these elements identify a thing as being "literary." Yes, they ARE literary notions, but they are notions also found in other media and not exclusive to literature. We cannot categorically assert that because RPGs can share these overlapping notions that RPGs are therefore literature, i.e., categorical errors. 

Would help if we explained this to you by drawing you a picture? Maybe a venn diagram with overlapping concentric circles? I'm not entirely sure how this is controversial. 

Let's spot the logical fallacy: 
X is a technique that can be found in literature. 
Film also contain X technique.  
Therefore films are literature. 

Dogs have four legs. 
Cats also have four legs. 
Therefore cats are dogs. 

Cakes contain eggs and flour. 
Pasta also contain eggs and flour. 
Therefore pasta is a type of cake. 



Maxperson said:


> I guess it was a deliberate Red Herring after all, as well as a False Equivalence.



Or none of the above because you are misusing informal fallacies as the basis of your argument. Thankfully, [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] has the right of my post.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> But you haven't established this and it has been the main point of contention over the thread. I don't think most of the people here agree that rulebooks are literature.




To be blunt, it doesn't matter what they agree with.  The definition of literature is anything written.  Period.  That makes RPGs objectively literary as they are literature.  Those who object to calling RPGs literature can also object to calling Earth a planet, the sun a star or that diamonds are hard.  Those objections are irrelevant to the facts and reality.



> But even if they did, fewer would agree that the games once played are literary. Even if you are trying to bring in techniques from movies, books, etc (and we clearly disagree on whether you are or not), that doesn't make a game a literary endeavor.




 At the end of the day, the purpose of a game isn't to produce literary content. And as a medium it has many things pulling away from producing good literary content. For example, the participants and the audience are the same. Unless you are talking about an RPG podcast or show, there are not people watching the story of the game unfold. In that respect it is more like being involved in a pick up game of flag football with no spectators. 



> And I think sports are another great analogy here. RPGs involve teamwork, they involve procedures, they have an element of competition to them at times (at least in terms of players competing against bad guys and competing against the adventure itself), they produce thrills in much the same way (you don't know if your PC is going to land his attack just like you don't know if someone is going to land a goal in a sporting event, and that sense the it could go either way produces a lot of excitement). There are many techniques, tools and features of RPGs that come from sports are a part of sports. Would you argue that RPGs are a sporting activity? I wouldn't.




If you stretch the term of sports they way the Olympic committee has for some of its "sports," then sure.

Oxford Dictionary defines sport as "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or a team competes against another or others for entertainment".  Rolling dice takes physical exertion, and larping even more than that.  You write things down on paper, which is physical exertion, and there is definitely skill involved in the game.  The DM and players are on different teams and it's for entertainment.  So why, not.  D&D is a sport.


----------



## Bedrockgames

I think your quote formatting may be a bit off max person


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> To be blunt, it doesn't matter what they agree with.  The definition of literature is anything written.  Period.  That makes RPGs objectively literary as they are literature.  Those who object to calling RPGs literature can also object to calling Earth a planet, the sun a star or that diamonds are hard.  Those objections are irrelevant to the facts and reality.




There is a lot wrong with this, and we've already gone over it many times, but just to focus on the point most important to your own argument: the reason this is a big problem is because your point doesn't just rely on meaning A of literature (written works), it also relies on meaning B ( especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit). This is the equivocation I have been talking about. You have been repeatedly relying on A in order to assert that RPGs should have some kind of quality in the descriptions (which is more a part of meaning B). You need to prove both A and B are the case with RPGs in order to make your argument. You can't just get by trying to make a case for A, and then equivocate with B. 

Also, and this is really, really, really important. The 'especially' part of that definition is not insignificant. It matters a great deal.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> So the only pacing that is required in play is keeping the game from grinding to a halt?




No.



> This also seems like a weird point. Either something is an element of pacing or it isn't. The things I listed are all clearly pacing concerns that can come up in a game. I've explained that I am only interested in 1 of them. And so your response, rather than just admit I don't seem that interested in pacing, is that those other things are not necessary requirements of pacing (even though they are pacing considerations), so I am still interested in pacing as a GM.




It's more a matter of you don't have to engage all of those for pacing to be present.  It's like saying that chickens, pigeons, ducks and geese are all birds.  That is true.  You only need chickens to be present for birds to be present, though.  



> Let me ask you this, if a GM showed zero concern for pacing during a campaign, except when the game ground to a halt. The only time this GM literally engages anything to do with pacing is when everything just stops because the players are stumped, would you say this GM cares about pacing very much? The GM is fine with the session ending five minutes into the game. The GM is fine with there being no climactic battle or encounters just happening however. The GM is fine with there being no sense of rising action or tension. The GM is not trying to emulate any of the pacing flow of a story. But if the game grinds to a halt because the players can't put together some clues and they can't think of anything else to do, he nudges them so they are not just trifling their thumbs. Would you say this GM is concerned with pacing?




The answer to your question is yes, the DM still cares about pacing.  The only time the DM only needs to care about pacing on rare occasions is when the players are driving the pacing.  If you have proactive players who drive the pacing, the DM has to do very little.  If you have groups like a few that I've had in the past who just stare at you if you are not providing them things to do, the DM is driving all of the pacing.  Pacing is critical to the survival of the game, so the DM has to care about it.  The extent that he can ignore it is a sign of proactive players, not his ability to not care.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> There is a lot wrong with this, and we've already gone over it many times, but just to focus on the point most important to your own argument: the reason this is a big problem is because your point doesn't just rely on meaning A of literature (written works), it also relies on meaning B ( especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit).




Referring to this mythical meaning B is the equivocation here.  There is no meaning B.  It doesn't exist.  What you a mischaracterizing as meaning B is nothing more than a subset of the only meaning of literature.  The only meaning is written works.  Period.  End of definition.  All else, including the "especially" portion are just subsets of that meaning.  Sure, you can more highly prize high quality written works, but that doesn't make what you more highly prize a different meaning of literature.



> Also, and this is really, really, really important. The 'especially' part of that definition is not insignificant. It matters a great deal.




Sure, but ONLY to preference, not to what is or is not literature.  The especially part doesn't change the fact that all writing is literature.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Referring to this mythical meaning B is the equivocation here.  There is no meaning B.  It doesn't exist.  What you a mischaracterizing as meaning B is nothing more than a subset of the only meaning of literature.  The only meaning is written works.  Period.  End of definition.  All else, including the "especially" portion are just subsets of that meaning.  Sure, you can more highly prize high quality written works, but that doesn't make what you more highly prize a different meaning of literature.




First, yes this meaning certainly exists. It is only the most important part of the definition itself: "written works, _especially _those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit". That is what especially means. 

But okay, let's say your right. If that is the case then you have no argument for all your other points. If RPGs are literature because they involve words on a page, that says nothing about whether descriptions ought to be or are of literary quality, or that the literary quality of any of it matters. 





> Sure, but ONLY to preference, not to what is or is not literature.  The especially part doesn't change the fact that all writing is literature.




It is the most important meaning of the word. Literature in the very general sense of words on a page, is very broad. It has its uses. But we are clearly not just talking about words on a page here. You have been specifically advocating for quality. What this means is it isn't enough for you to just prove that RPGs involve words on a page. Getting people to accept meaning A of literature for RPGs has no relevance to all the other points you are making. It is fairly meaningless (except to equivocate).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> The answer to your question is yes, the DM still cares about pacing.  The only time the DM only needs to care about pacing on rare occasions is when the players are driving the pacing.  If you have proactive players who drive the pacing, the DM has to do very little.  If you have groups like a few that I've had in the past who just stare at you if you are not providing them things to do, the DM is driving all of the pacing.  Pacing is critical to the survival of the game, so the DM has to care about it.  The extent that he can ignore it is a sign of proactive players, not his ability to not care.




This isn't just sophistry. It is bad sophistry. Again, you are using an edge case to build  a general rule when I've established I don't care about the other six areas of pacing. You are insisting that pacing matters to me because on the rare occasion that the game grinds to a halt, I may nudge the players. Then you introduce absurdly inactive players as the norm in gaming to assert this would be a constant problem if the GM wasn't on top of pacing or didn't have extremely proactive players. I run multiple campaigns at a time. One of my groups has two very non-proactive players. Yet I don't have to worry about pacing because, like most other players I've met, if you give them the freedom, they do stuff with it. I literally only have to worry about pacing maybe once every several months. That is hardly a priority or even a real concern. 

What I think is going on is you are taking your experience of playing and running the game, which is totally valid, and then projecting onto the whole hobby. There are lots of different ways to play and to think about playing. And I can assure you, not being very concerned about pacing, is a way. 

Now you can try to assert that I am still concerned about it. But we all know discussions about pacing techniques are a big issue, particularly around playstyle. There is a reason this part of the discussion is important to people. And you telling people how they run the game, telling them they are doing X when they know they aren't, is extremely frustrating (_especially_ when your using arguments that don't add up)


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> To be blunt, it doesn't matter what they agree with.  The definition of literature is anything written.  Period.  That makes RPGs objectively literary as they are literature.  Those who object to calling RPGs literature can also object to calling Earth a planet, the sun a star or that diamonds are hard.  Those objections are irrelevant to the facts and reality.



It makes RPGs literature to the extent that recipes make cooking literature or a rulebook for the NBA makes basketball literature. But I think that we can recognize that RPGs, cooking, and basketball are defined by more than their associated literature.


----------



## Lanefan

Bedrockgames said:


> Description one is excessive and, I think, not what Hussar or Maxperson are pushing for (it is way too long). But it is an example of the downside of a literary focus because I have had GMs attempt this kind of narration and I view it as a product of thinking in terms of boxed text or novel prose. I wouldn't object to a bit of this. Where it goes off the rails for me is giving me every single detail. But the worst part is it assumes PC actions in the inn. It just glosses over so many places where a player character might attempt an action or try to engage someone in conversation. It assumes they hang their cloaks up on their way in for example.



True; though I would assume that if one or more players objected they'd interrupt with their own take, as in "No, I'm keeping my cloak with me - some of my gold is in the inner pocket; no way I'm leaving that where I can't see it."

The DM can allow for this by also pausing briefly between each paragraph, almost as if seeking clearance to continue.


----------



## Lanefan

Bedrockgames said:


> But you haven't established this and it has been the main point of contention over the thread. I don't think most of the people here agree that rulebooks are literature.



That entirely depends on one's definition of 'literature', doesn't it.

The rulebooks both are literature, in that they have some organized words on paper that are intended to be read by others; and are not literature, in that their quality of prose is for the most part rather mundane.



> But even if they did, fewer would agree that the games once played are literary. Even if you are trying to bring in techniques from movies, books, etc (and we clearly disagree on whether you are or not), that doesn't make a game a literary endeavor. At the end of the day, the purpose of a game isn't to produce literary content.



Again, this varies table by table.  After each session, for example, I post a point-form game log online which over time adds up to becoming the record and story of what happens in the game.

Is it high-quality writing?  Hells no.

Is it literary content?  Absolutely.

But the key point is that the literary part mostly comes after the fact, where you seem to be more talking about whether literary content can or does arise during the actual run of play.


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> Referring to this mythical meaning B is the equivocation here.  There is no meaning B.  It doesn't exist.



Actually, and unfortunately perhaps, it does.

At least as far as general common usage is concerned, anyway, the term 'literature' has somewhat taken on the mantle of referring primarily to the high-end stuff...with one notable common exception.

It's not unusual at all at, say, a table at a trade fair or wherever; when after being shown or demoed a product a prospective customer will say "Sounds great.  Got any literature I can take with me and read over later?".  Here the 'literature' being referred to is stuff like product info sheets, sales flyers, price guides, spec sheets, and so forth - all of which are 99.999% likely to be a very long way from anything resembling high-end prose!


----------



## Bedrockgames

Lanefan said:


> It's not unusual at all at, say, a table at a trade fair or wherever; when after being shown or demoed a product a prospective customer will say "Sounds great.  Got any literature I can take with me and read over later?".  Here the 'literature' being referred to is stuff like product info sheets, sales flyers, price guides, spec sheets, and so forth - all of which are 99.999% likely to be a very long way from anything resembling high-end prose!




Yes. While the word means both these things. Both these things are not the same. The shift in usage is where the equivocation comes in and I've just found this to be one of the central problems I encounter in any debate about terms and playstyle.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Lanefan said:


> That entirely depends on one's definition of 'literature', doesn't it.
> 
> The rulebooks both are literature, in that they have some organized words on paper that are intended to be read by others; and are not literature, in that their quality of prose is for the most part rather mundane.
> 
> Again, this varies table by table.  After each session, for example, I post a point-form game log online which over time adds up to becoming the record and story of what happens in the game.
> 
> Is it high-quality writing?  Hells no.
> 
> Is it literary content?  Absolutely.
> 
> But the key point is that the literary part mostly comes after the fact, where you seem to be more talking about whether literary content can or does arise during the actual run of play.




To be clear, I am not saying literary stuff can't arise. I am saying it doesn't have to, and it doesn't have to be the point of play. But the main thing is people are taking meaning A of literature, in order to build an argument for B being necessary as well


----------



## Bedrockgames

Lanefan said:


> The DM can allow for this by also pausing briefly between each paragraph, almost as if seeking clearance to continue.




But again, it then feels like a narrative the GM had planned. There are just much more natural ways of handling an entrance into a tavern where the players can feel like they are active participants in what is going on. My feeling is heavy narration builds a wall between feeling like an active participant and puts you more in the position of a spectator. You can interrupt. but you have to interrupt the flow. There is a flow.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Lanefan said:


> That entirely depends on one's definition of 'literature', doesn't it.
> 
> The rulebooks both are literature, in that they have some organized words on paper that are intended to be read by others; and are not literature, in that their quality of prose is for the most part rather mundane.




It does, and I've said if one means literature to be just words on a page. Sure a rule book is literature. but there is a lot more in this argument. People are trying to establish rulebooks and narration in gaming are literary because 'words on page'. But then they shift to the second part of the definition making an argument that the literary quality matters. This is the problem. The 'all things are literature' part of the debate is just so literary can be established as the measure of good gaming.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> First, yes this meaning certainly exists. It is only the most important part of the definition itself: "written works, _especially _those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit". That is what especially means.




You're seriously denying that it's a subset of literature?



> But okay, let's say your right. If that is the case then you have no argument for all your other points. If RPGs are literature because they involve words on a page, that says nothing about whether descriptions ought to be or are of literary quality, or that the literary quality of any of it matters.




As I said in a prior post, many treat movies, T.V. and plays as literary, because they portray written words.  So does roleplaying.  The PCs are written words.  Their backgrounds(if any) are written words.  The rules governing actions are written words. 



> It is the most important meaning of the word.




There is by definition, only one meaning of the word.  The "especially" part only denotes a subset of literature that is prized.  Nothing more.



> Literature in the very general sense of words on a page, is very broad. It has its uses. But we are clearly not just talking about words on a page here.




Right.  We're also discussing subsets of literature, such as "those considered superior or lasting artistic merit."



> This isn't just sophistry. It is bad sophistry.




It's not sophistry at all.



> Again, you are using an edge case to build a general rule when I've established I don't care about the other six areas of pacing. You are insisting that pacing matters to me because on the rare occasion that the game grinds to a halt, I may nudge the players.






> Then you introduce absurdly inactive players as the norm in gaming to assert this would be a constant problem if the GM wasn't on top of pacing or didn't have extremely proactive players. I run multiple campaigns at a time. One of my groups has two very non-proactive players. Yet I don't have to worry about pacing because, like most other players I've met, if you give them the freedom, they do stuff with it.




You have just made two opposing claims.  Claim one, you have two very non-proactive payers.  Claim two, if you give those non-proactive players freedom, they do stuff with it.  Doing stuff with freedom is being proactive.  If they are doing stuff when you give them freedom to choose, they are not "very non-proactive."  You have a full group of proactive players it seems, so pacing doesn't fall on you very often, which is why you are allowed to think you don't care about it.  Even if they were truly reactive, instead of proactive, they would still be carried along by your other proactive players, so the pacing would still not fall on you.



> I literally only have to worry about pacing maybe once every several months. That is hardly a priority or even a real concern.




Same here.  It's a blessing to have proactive players to move things along so that we don't have to.



> And I can assure you, not being very concerned about pacing, is a way.




Sure, but it's only made possible by proactive players.  If you had a reactive group, you'd have to be concerned with it.


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> That entirely depends on one's definition of 'literature', doesn't it.
> 
> The rulebooks both are literature, in that they have some organized words on paper that are intended to be read by others; and are not literature, in that their quality of prose is for the most part rather mundane.



But hopefully we can recognize that RPGs exist as far more than their rulebooks, much as cooking is more than the recipes and sports are more than their rulebooks.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> It adds interest to an interesting situation; and (most important) can make what might otherwise be a boring situation be or become interesting.
> 
> Simple as that.




I don’t know about that last bit. In actual literature, I’d say yes, the quality of prose can make what would otherwise be a bland situation to actually be compelling. When it comes to RPGs though....I don’t think the same is true. A boring encounter is gonna be boring no matter how the GM may try and spruce it up with narration. 



Lanefan said:


> The first description is wonderfully evocative and engaging except that it's missing one very obvious element: if the PCs can see that his gaze is sweeping the room they should also be able to see that said gaze is being done with just one eye; thus that little detail should be included in the narration, hm?
> 
> And if the eyepatch was intentionally left out of the first description as a trap then I call shenanigans.




The eyepatch was indeed left out. I provided one example where the GM was relying on evocative narration and one where he provided content relevant to the player. Which touches upon the OP.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> I don’t know about that last bit. In actual literature, I’d say yes, the quality of prose can make what would otherwise be a bland situation to actually be compelling. When it comes to RPGs though....I don’t think the same is true. A boring encounter is gonna be boring no matter how the GM may try and spruce it up with narration.
> .




This is my experience.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> You're seriously denying that it's a subset of literature?




What I am saying is literature has many meanings as a word. One use of the word is broadly 'all written works'. But that especially part of the definition is important. It isn't just a mere subset, it is one of the most prevalent uses of the word literature. That is what especially means. And your argument relies on us accepting lit as 'words on a page' only to make further arguments that require lit to be aspiring to a higher quality. Whether or not lit is a subset or the most frequent meaning of the word: the important thing is, in either case you are equivocating on that distinction between the more general term and the more specific. 





> As I said in a prior post, many treat movies, T.V. and plays as literary, because they portray written words.  So does roleplaying.  The PCs are written words.  Their backgrounds(if any) are written words.  The rules governing actions are written words.




First off, shows are scripted, RPGs are not. Shows rely much more heavily on the actual written words than RPGs in that respect. If you scripted all your games, by all means, make an argument for it being literature. But more importantly, when people talk about shows, movies, etc being literary it is usually because they are aspiring to part B of the definition (great works) rather than mere 'words on a page'. 





> There is by definition, only one meaning of the word.  The "especially" part only denotes a subset of literature that is prized.  Nothing more.




That isn't how words work Max. Words do have multiple meanings. That first definition identifies two. Yes you can form a venn diagram with them, but they are still different meanings and uses of the word. Further that is just the first definition. Most definitions of literature offer up about 3-4 meanings. You are definitely equivocating on two very different meanings of the word. 



> Right.  We're also discussing subsets of literature, such as "those considered superior or lasting artistic merit."




But you need to demonstrate that is what RPGs are in order to do that (and not get it in the door by arguing they are literature because they use words. This is where you use equivocation in your argument. 




> It's not sophistry at all.




Yes it is. I just explained why.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> You have just made two opposing claims.  Claim one, you have two very non-proactive payers.  Claim two, if you give those non-proactive players freedom, they do stuff with it.  Doing stuff with freedom is being proactive.  If they are doing stuff when you give them freedom to choose, they are not "very non-proactive."  You have a full group of proactive players it seems, so pacing doesn't fall on you very often, which is why you are allowed to think you don't care about it.  Even if they were truly reactive, instead of proactive, they would still be carried along by your other proactive players, so the pacing would still not fall on you.
> cerned with it.




You are once again playing word games and ignoring what I am actually saying (and you are insisting I am doing things, I am point blank telling you I am not doing). There is an enormous spectrum of behavior within pro-active and non-proactive. You offered up an extreme case so bad, I haven't actually seen it in play. But I do have two players I would describe as particularly not pro-active. They still do things. They just don't in relation to most other players I've met, and they take their time. But eventually they start to explore if you give them that freedom. I am saying you can take someone who does nothing in a more railroaded adventure and they will do more if they know they have the freedom to do so. 

Either way, my point was I have literally never encountered the issue you said was an ever-present threat and required considering pacing. Further, this was  just a side trek because I identified something like 4-6 pacing considerations I don't worry about at all. Again. Word games. If there are 7 pacing concerns, and only 1 of them ever matters to me (and it matters so infrequently that I barely ever think of it). I don't think it is reasonable to assert I am a GM concerned with pacing. Particularly when we know there are GMs who are concerned with all 7 areas of pacing. Again, you are just using sophistry to say something is always the case and therefore all GMs actually do the things you care about in play. It is a terrible, terrible argument.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> As I said in a prior post, many treat movies, T.V. and plays as literary, because they portray written words.  So does roleplaying.  The PCs are written words.  Their backgrounds(if any) are written words.  The rules governing actions are written words.



Not quite. "Many treat movies, T.V. and plays" not so much as "literary," but, rather, as 'text,' which is a distinction that actual literary theorists do care about. And understanding these media as texts is more of a metaphorical/analogical understanding than a literal one. We should not confuse/equivocate the metaphorical sense for the literal here. We speak metaphorically, for example, of film literacy. No one believes that film literacy represents any person's actual reading literacy of films, but, instead, it represents a person's ability to know, understand, and interpret the intricacies of films and their craft. 

The main reason why these media are discussed as "text" is because literary criticism is far more advanced chronologically than other burgeoning forms. Literary criticism dictated the terms of conversation, and many of the earliest film studies academics came out literary studies or imported their terms from literary studies. Film studies was largely discussed through literary criticism until the discipline began establishing for itself its own identity, idioms, and issues as a field. We probably should not claim that films are literature simply as a result of this historical accident. 

So if you think that "many treat movies...as literary" it helps to appropriately understand how and why that is the case. Furthermore, _treating_ something as literary does not necessarily mean that they are _regarded_ as literary. 

In TTRPGs, characters are far more than their representation on a character sheet. (Some players might even be offended by such an insinuation of their characters, since their characters are also their histories, actions, and words that may never one be committed to the written page.) Whatever rules may govern their actions are trumped by "rulings and not rules" (per 5e) where the DM frequently acts as a metatextual authority that exists above and beyond any notions of a governing text which implies that RPGs relegate the literature to a marginalized or less privileged role in the RPG process. (Here I would again note the parallel between cooking recipes and RPG rules.) 

Max, one of the problems with your argument is that while you are doing a wonderful job arguing that texts exist as part of RPGs, which has never been in doubt, you are not doing a good job arguing that because RPGs utilize literature and text that RPGs are therefore literature.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> What I am saying is literature has many meanings as a word. One use of the word is broadly 'all written works'.




Then end of story.  If that's one use of the word, then RPGs are in fact literature.  Regardless of any other uses.



> But that especially part of the definition is important. It isn't just a mere subset, it is one of the most prevalent uses of the word literature. That is what especially means. And your argument relies on us accepting lit as 'words on a page' only to make further arguments that require lit to be aspiring to a higher quality.




I've made multiple different arguments.  What I have not done is make arguments that require literature to be aspiring to a higher quality.  



> First off, shows are scripted, RPGs are not. Shows rely much more heavily on the actual written words than RPGs in that respect. If you scripted all your games, by all means, make an argument for it being literature. But more importantly, when people talk about shows, movies, etc being literary it is usually because they are aspiring to part B of the definition (great works) rather than mere 'words on a page'.




Actors improvise lines all the time.  



> But you need to demonstrate that is what RPGs are in order to do that (and not get it in the door by arguing they are literature because they use words. This is where you use equivocation in your argument.




I have established that RPGs are literature.  That's not in doubt.  We can either leave it at that, or discuss the more narrow subcategories of literature that might or might not apply.



> Yes it is. I just explained why.




You don't get to tell me what I am doing.  I know what I am doing, and it's not sophistry.



> You are once again playing word games and ignoring what I am actually saying (and you are insisting I am doing things, I am point blank telling you I am not doing).




Tell you what.  You stop telling me what I am doing that I am telling you that I am no doing, and I'll stop telling you what you are doing.



> There is an enormous spectrum of behavior within pro-active and non-proactive. You offered up an extreme case so bad, I haven't actually seen it in play.




I have.  It was very frustrating.  They would react to what I provided, but did very little else.  One of my current players also started out that way, but I encourage and guide players and he's much more proactive now.


----------



## Hussar

Aldarc said:


> But these are not distinctly literary notions. Pacing, character development, and tone, etc. all exist within film media, for example, but these are not regarded as "literary." This is a categorical issue.




Sigh.  Just because it exists in film, does not suddenly make it "not literary".  Where do you think film gets it from?


----------



## Hussar

Yeah.  Again, the last six or seven pages of this "discussion" has all been because folks absolutely refuse to pin down what definition of "literary" they would like us to use.  If Literary=high art, then this discussion is, for all intents and purposes, over because we all agree that RPGing isn't meant to be high art.  

So, [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION], and anyone else who cares to weigh in, would you PLEASE define your terms.  What do YOU mean by "literary".  Not, playstyle or any other dodge, or comparisons to baking a cake.  What do YOU mean, and we'll discuss using THAT definition.

Because, boys and girls, until such time as you folks want to plant the goal posts, this conversation is just going to keep circling the same rabbit hole.  [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is, if we use his definition of literary, 100% correct.  But, if we use [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s definition, he's 100% wrong.  So, which definition do you want us to use?  Pick one, stick with it, and we can move on.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Yeah.  Again, the last six or seven pages of this "discussion" has all been because folks absolutely refuse to pin down what definition of "literary" they would like us to use.  If Literary=high art, then this discussion is, for all intents and purposes, over because we all agree that RPGing isn't meant to be high art.
> 
> So, [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION], and anyone else who cares to weigh in, would you PLEASE define your terms.  What do YOU mean by "literary".  Not, playstyle or any other dodge, or comparisons to baking a cake.  What do YOU mean, and we'll discuss using THAT definition.
> 
> Because, boys and girls, until such time as you folks want to plant the goal posts, this conversation is just going to keep circling the same rabbit hole.  [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is, if we use his definition of literary, 100% correct.  But, if we use [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s definition, he's 100% wrong.  So, which definition do you want us to use?  Pick one, stick with it, and we can move on.




The people making assertions about the literary nature of RPGs are the ones who need to settle on a definition to be used. The problem is we keep getting told we are using one definition, then the other gets used in order to broaden the claims. It is equivocation and it makes this kind of discussion nearly impossible to have.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> The people making assertions about the literary nature of RPGs are the ones who need to settle on a definition to be used. The problem is we keep getting told we are using one definition, then the other gets used in order to broaden the claims. It is equivocation and it makes this kind of discussion nearly impossible to have.




No.  Absolutely not.  I have defined what I meant by literary numerous times.  I have been explicitly clear about what I consider to be literary.

Time to pony up.  

Do you mean literary as "high art" or simply "something found in fiction writing"?


----------



## Aldarc

Hussar said:


> Sigh.  Just because it exists in film, does not suddenly make it "not literary".



Hmmmm... I was not aware that I was arguing this position, Hussar. So where did you get this from?  



> Where do you think film gets it from?



::Looks at my post several posts before yours, quoted below for your convenience:: 



Aldarc said:


> The main reason why these media are discussed as "text" is because literary criticism is far more advanced chronologically than other burgeoning forms. Literary criticism dictated the terms of conversation, and many of the earliest film studies academics came out literary studies or imported their terms from literary studies. Film studies was largely discussed through literary criticism until the discipline began establishing for itself its own identity, idioms, and issues as a field. We probably should not claim that films are literature simply as a result of this historical accident.



So no,  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I clearly have no idea where film gets it from. But the point is not where film gets "it" from but the fact that we cannot say that RPGs or film are literature just because they both have "it."  

Normally, we see fairly eye-to-eye, Hussar. But since we are not here, I will be clear with what I am arguing so you don't repeat errors like the above. 

I am aware that the discourse of film studies originally came out of literary studies. I am not arguing that because these elements exist in film they do not exist in literature. My point is that these things are _not distinctly literary elements._ Instead, there is an overlapping set of storytelling techniques that exist _across different types of media_. [insert venn diagram here] It is inaccurate, for example, to say that pacing in TTRPGs is literary on the basis that story pacing also exists as a technique of literature. This is the categorical error that you dismissively sighed about while ignoring. 

This is because story pacing is also an integral part of storytelling in oral stories, theater, television, film, and video game media. Moreover, the issues of story pacing will also be unique to each particular medium. How to appropriately pace your book's story will differ from how to appropriately pace your theatrical play, or your video game, or your movie, or your serialized television show,* or your TTRPG game sessions. This is something that most people recognize outside of this niche web forum. 

* This issue of pacing in television has also changed with the advent of online original produced by streaming services like Netflix and Amazon. These services have changed how we watch shows, which changes how these shows are produced, scripted, and paced. E.g., A cliffhanger makes less sense at the end of a midseason episode of a Netflix original when you will immediately watch the next episode of an entire season that has been uploaded at once. 



Hussar said:


> So,   [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION], and anyone else who cares to weigh in, would you PLEASE define your terms.  What do YOU mean by "literary".  Not, playstyle or any other dodge, or comparisons to baking a cake.  What do YOU mean, and we'll discuss using THAT definition.
> 
> Because, boys and girls, until such time as you folks want to plant the goal posts, this conversation is just going to keep circling the same rabbit hole.  [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is, if we use his definition of literary, 100% correct.  But, if we use [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s definition, he's 100% wrong.  So, which definition do you want us to use?  Pick one, stick with it, and we can move on.



There are two definitions that have been floated and utilized in this thread. (And often with the equivocation that  [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] has rightfully criticized.) So in regards to one definition: 
You agree, for example, that if we take the position that literature pertains to "higher literature" (per its cognitive association, connotation, and common parole) then RPGs probably would not qualify as literature. I have not argued either way regarding that. So we can put that definition to the side and instead focus on Max's definition, which is what I have been criticizing. 

I don't think that Maxperson is 100% correct that RPGs are literature or literary on the basis that RPGs utilize literature, using his broader definition of "pertaining to a written text." You may call it a dodge, but my point with raising the analogy of cooking and sports is to illustrate that both activities are defined by more than their associated literature (i.e., recipes and rulebooks, respectively) and we do not consider either of these activities to be "literature" (with Max's sense) simply because they have associated written texts. There is more to cooking than the recipe. There is more to a sport than the rulebook. There is more to TTRPGS than the rulebook, character sheet, or other associated literature. We typically talk more about playing the game and the processes around it. We may argue about the rulebooks, much as sports fans argue about its rules or changes thereof (e.g., changing the shot clock time, what constitutes a foul, what is a legal catch, what is unsportsmanlike conduct, etc.). This is typically for the sake of making informed rulings.


----------



## Hussar

Sorry, [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION], but, which definition are YOU using?  Until such time as you and [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] actually tell me which definition you want to use, then we can't actually have any sort of meaningful discussion.  Are we going to use [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s broader definition or not?  Pick one and we'll stick with that.

You say that I'm making a category error.  That's only true if we're using the broader definition.  And, well, I do think it's a complete dodge to say, "Well, pacing exists in other media, so, it's not literary".  That's not true.  It IS literary, as well as other things.  Now, since TV, movies, books, short stories, etc, all have pacing concerns, then, it's fair to say that any narrative form (which is what I was arguing with [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] about, not simply literary form) will have pacing concerns.  They have to.

Now, [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] claims that he does not pay any attention to pacing whatsoever in his adventure creation, nor during play.  Now, I have to take him at his word for that, but, to me, that sounds like a terrible game.   And "ignore pacing" is advice I would never give to any DM.  To me, that's horrible advice.

But, in any case, can we at least just use ONE definition?  Otherwise, we're just talking past each other and it's very frustrating.


----------



## Aldarc

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], you should consider reading before you jump into responding because my above post does address (fairly directly) many of your questions and issues. As it stands, you are the one who is talking past me. 



Hussar said:


> That's only true if we're using the broader definition.  And, well, I do think it's a complete dodge to say, "Well, pacing exists in other media, so, it's not literary".  That's not true.



I do wish that you and Max would stop rudely repeating this strawman argument. Hussar, you are better than this. Cut it out. I also have explained myself about this as well in the above post.

To repeat: 


Hussar said:


> Sigh.  Just because it exists in film, does not suddenly make it "not literary".



This is not my argument. So where did you get this argument from?


----------



## Sadras

I'm running a heavily modified B10, with tie-ins to past characters of our table's failed/abandoned adventuring parties. It took me a significant period of time to lace together a backstory for this linear mini-campaign that logically incorporates parts of the module as well as the various characters (PCs and ex-PCs) and their motivations.

Now I am no wordsmith, but at the simplest level I do consider my efforts in structuring this inter-connected backstory that engages and surprises the players a literary endeavour.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Do you mean literary as "high art" or simply "something found in fiction writing"?




I don't understand why you think I need to 'pony up'. 

Both of those definitions are more than 'written works'. And both of those, in my opinion, are not things I would consider roleplaying games to be. But I am not the one making assertions about RPGs being a literary endeavor. For the main discussion on this thread, I was adhering to the OPs use of literary. And generally I think literary has a strong implication of meaning B that I was talking about. But my issue isn't with what definition people want to go with. It is that you can't use meaning A to equivocate in order to argue for meaning B, or definition 2, being a key part of RPGs.


----------



## Hussar

What's A or B?

Good grief.  How hard is it to define your terms?

Third time I'm asking now.  

Please, for the love of little fishes DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN.


----------



## Aldarc

Hussar said:


> What's A or B?
> 
> Good grief.  How hard is it to define your terms?
> 
> Third time I'm asking now.
> 
> Please, for the love of little fishes DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN.



Hussar, these are not "[our] terms," but, rather, terms that others have supplied in this thread. We have been responding to those terms. I have been working with those terms. If you ever bother reading the literature provided in this discussion, I have indicated quite explicitly which sense I have been working with for engaging one line of reasoning in the discussion. 

You yourself listed two senses of the word "literature": (1) literature as "written texts"  and (2) literature as "high written art". 

Bedrockgames generally operates from a more conventional sense of literature: sense (2). However, Bedrockgames also opposes the equivocation of these two meanings, particularly when people argue that RPGs are written texts (1) and then using that to then advocate that RPGs should be approached as "high art" (2). He also opposes Maxperson turning nearly everything into qualifying as "literature," including conversations. 

I don't particularly care about meaning (2) because you have asserted repeatedly now that you agree that RPGs would not qualify as (2). So I have been arguing against RPGs as literature on the basis of (1), i.e., Max's use. 

I am not making the positive assertion that RPGs qualify as literature. People arguing that RPGs qualify as literature (1) have supplied their definitions. So I am engaging those definitions and arguments. The argumentative onus is not on me to supply a definition of "literature," because I am not the one who making a positive statement. 

So let us be clear here where Bedrockgames and I align: 
If we define literature as (2), then RPGs are not literature. 
If we define literature as (1), then RPGs are not literature.


----------



## pemerton

I have made it clear what I mean by a *literary endeavour*. I mean an endeavour that regards the formal quality of words - _wordcraft, if you like - as its main, or perhaps one of its main, techniques for evoking aesthetic resonses. Without wanting to detract from any of [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s excellent points, I would regard at least some film and theatre as literary endeavours in this sense. So are poetry recitals. But cooking certainly is not; and nor are you Youtube instructional videos I was using earlier this year when I wanted to puree mango without a blender/food processor. Whereas the typical Nigella Lawson show probably does count as a literary endeavour in my sense.

The pacing issue was first raised by [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] early in the thread, and I stand by my reply to him as far as my particular contention is concerned._


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> What's A or B?
> 
> Good grief.  How hard is it to define your terms?
> 
> Third time I'm asking now.
> 
> Please, for the love of little fishes DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN.




I am not staking out one particular meaning for Literary. I am pointing out that there are multiple meanings and the crux of this debate centers around posters equivocating around meaning A and meaning B and not recognizing what they are doing. This fundamentally makes the argument impossible to have. 

But also I think Aldarc and I have been very clear: no matter what meaning you utilize, it seems pretty shaky to say because roleplaying games involve Literary A, B or C, they are therefore literary endeavors. The cooking and sports analogy is a perfect example of why. Now Maxperson was willing to argue that sports are literary when this point was made. But that is clearly an absurd claim. Also, to what end are we having this discussion about definitions? What is it about RPGs being literary that is important to you Hussar and why are you so insistent that we see RPGs in this way as well? Again, I suspect the answer will bring us to points about playstyle. If that is the case, then make your playstyle claims, don't try to win a playstyle argument by controlling definitions and terms. RPGs are X or are not Y is a classic debating tactic that I've just seen too frequently, and even used myself, in arguments around playstyle. And clearly, based on you and Maxperson's posts, we are debating what should be going on at the gaming table, what GM advice is good or bad, etc. Whether you think me not caring about pacing is a playstyle point that has almost nothing to do with wether pacing is or is not a literary concern. The reason you dislike it is going to be something more like "because it makes the game dull" than "because it isn't literary". So let's focus on what the actual lines of dispute are, rather than fight endlessly over the definition of literary.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> What's A or B?
> 
> Good grief.  How hard is it to define your terms?
> 
> Third time I'm asking now.
> 
> Please, for the love of little fishes DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN.




I defined A and B like five or six times in this discussion. 

A: written works, 
B: especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit.

But again, I was merely trying to identify the points of equivocation around how people were using the term. If we want to have a debate about what literature really, that is a longer and separate discussions in my view.

and if we use Max Person's usage it is something like A-Words on a page & B-works aiming for higher literary quality. Again the point here is to identify where the equivocation is occurring. 

Look I am not just being a jerk here. This logical error is one of the most frequent ones I see in debates about terms and play styles. I encounter it all the time. I've even at times been persuaded by it before I realized what was going on. It isn't a good argument to establish A in order to promote B.


----------



## Hussar

I too am not trying to be a jerk here.  Honest.  

The problem is, as soon as any point gets brought up, regardless of its merit or not, is immediately brushed off as "well, that's not what I mean by literary".  It's "part of theater" or "part of a cookbook" or "part of movies" or whatever.  

So, until such time as you folks would kinds SPECIFICALLY detail what you EXACTLY mean by literary, there's no point.  Because simply saying, "well, I mean wordcraft... unless that line of reasoning hurts my point in which case wordcraft isn't what I mean, because that kind of wordcraft belongs to this other art form and...." so on and so forth.

If we're going with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s point that literary= using wordcraft as in high art, then this conversation is over.  It's done.  Everyone agrees with you [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION].  

But, again, what the hell does "wordcraft" mean?  Why do you repeatedly have to invent words to try to make your point?  Is it that hard to define your terms using actual English?

At the end of the day, if you folks aren't willing to specify exactly what you mean, then this conversation is done.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> I too am not trying to be a jerk here.  Honest.
> 
> The problem is, as soon as any point gets brought up, regardless of its merit or not, is immediately brushed off as "well, that's not what I mean by literary".  It's "part of theater" or "part of a cookbook" or "part of movies" or whatever.
> .




We are not saying it 'isn't how I use literary', we are pointing out the posters are using it multiple ways and equivocating, or they are making a logical mistep in thinking just because something has some literary in it, that makes it a literary endeavor. We are trying to follow the meanings of the people making the claims about the literariness of RPGs.


----------



## Aldarc

So what part of my cookbook or sports rulebook analogy do you not understand? I feel that I have explained it quite well (if not overly so) several times now.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> I too am not trying to be a jerk here.  Honest.
> 
> The problem is, as soon as any point gets brought up, regardless of its merit or not, is immediately brushed off as "well, that's not what I mean by literary".  It's "part of theater" or "part of a cookbook" or "part of movies" or whatever.
> 
> So, until such time as you folks would kinds SPECIFICALLY detail what you EXACTLY mean by literary, there's no point.  Because simply saying, "well, I mean wordcraft... unless that line of reasoning hurts my point in which case wordcraft isn't what I mean, because that kind of wordcraft belongs to this other art form and...." so on and so forth.
> 
> If we're going with @_*pemerton*_'s point that literary= using wordcraft as in high art, then this conversation is over.  It's done.  Everyone agrees with you @_*pemerton*_.
> 
> But, again, what the hell does "wordcraft" mean?  Why do you repeatedly have to invent words to try to make your point?  Is it that hard to define your terms using actual English?
> 
> At the end of the day, if you folks aren't willing to specify exactly what you mean, then this conversation is done.




I think there are three basic meanings of Literary being used by different posters. The first is simply 'written works' (A). The second written works aspiring to high art (B) and the third is written works of quality or resembling those found in a novel (C). You and Maxperson seem to be emphasizing C, but Maxperson is getting to see by way of A. Pemerton is speaking strictly about B, which I think is the more immediately recognizable meaning of literary. Wordcraft is also pretty self explanatory and an existing word (and I am definitely not one to advocate for the proliferation of jargon because it clouds discussion). In this case, I don't think Pemerton was being at all cloudy about what he meant, and he didn't equivocate. He stuck to B. There has been tremendous equivocation by others advocating that RPGs should be like B or C, but done by trying to establish that A is the case. Also, Pemerton is making a negative claim about B (RPGs generally are not B), and you and Maxperson are making positive claims about A, B and C (but again, this only seems to be done by trying to prove A is the case, then equivocating onto B and C).


----------



## hawkeyefan

Sadras said:


> I'm running a heavily modified B10, with tie-ins to past characters of our table's failed/abandoned adventuring parties. It took me a significant period of time to lace together a backstory for this linear mini-campaign that logically incorporates parts of the module as well as the various characters (PCs and ex-PCs) and their motivations.
> 
> Now I am no wordsmith, but at the simplest level I do consider my efforts in structuring this inter-connected backstory that engages and surprises the players a literary endeavour.




I would say that as an attempt to craft a story....or at least to craft the beginning of a story that the players will pick up and run with...this would be a literary endeavor. 

Now, having crafted that story from all those threads, what would you say would most engage your players? The literary merit of your efforts? Or the content of the fiction? 

I think that this is part of the issue with this discussion. Some folks are simply trying to answer the question posed in the thread title (I was guilty of this with my first post, too) instead of reading the OP and additional posts that explained what the actual point was. For the most part, that element of the discussion’s become mired in arguments over definition.

But the actual point raised in the OP asks if literary quality is more important than content as it relates to player engagement. 

So I would agree with you that your effort (and by extension any such story crafting effort by a GM and players) does constitute a literary endeavor. 

But for the second part of the discussion, without knowing all the details, it’s hard to say. What do you think? Are your players going to be more excited about what you’ve set up, or how you’ve set it up?


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> I don't think that Maxperson is 100% correct that RPGs are literature or literary on the basis that RPGs utilize literature, using his broader definition of "pertaining to a written text." You may call it a dodge, but my point with raising the analogy of cooking and sports is to illustrate that both activities are defined by more than their associated literature (i.e., recipes and rulebooks, respectively) and we do not consider either of these activities to be "literature" (with Max's sense) simply because they have associated written texts. There is more to cooking than the recipe. There is more to a sport than the rulebook. There is more to TTRPGS than the rulebook, character sheet, or other associated literature. We typically talk more about playing the game and the processes around it. We may argue about the rulebooks, much as sports fans argue about its rules or changes thereof (e.g., changing the shot clock time, what constitutes a foul, what is a legal catch, what is unsportsmanlike conduct, etc.). This is typically for the sake of making informed rulings.




Something can be literary AND something else.  It's not all or nothing.  That RPGs are more than just the literature and literary elements doesn't mean that they suddenly cease to be literature and/or literary.  Since literature encompasses all things written, RPGs cannot be "not-literature."  RPGs can fail to be one of the sub-categories, such as high quality literature, though.


----------



## darkbard

Attempting to pigeonhole "literary" or "literature" into objective, unassailable categories is a fool's errand. As [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] points out several times, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has been consistent in his use of _a_ definition for this particular discussion, and he has clarified that definition _for the purpose of this discussion_ when needed. 

I think what qualifies as literary/literature and why can make for fascinating analysis, but that is not what's happening here in this thread, at least not any longer.

I also do think [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] is on to something when he says, ultimately, this discussion now has become a mask for playstyle arguments. Of course it has. This is inevitable, for aesthetic judgments are inseperable from "our deeper structures of belief," as literary critic Terry Eagleton calls them:



> If it will not do to see literature as an 'objective', descriptive category, neither will it do to say that literature is just what people whimsically choose to call literature. For there is nothing at all whimsical about such kinds of value-judgement: they have their roots in deeper structures of belief which are as apparently unshakeable as the Empire State building. What we have uncovered so far, then, is not only that literature does not exist in the sense that insects do, and that the value-judgements by which it is constituted are historically variable, but that these value-judgements themselves have a close relation to social ideologies. They refer in the end not simply to private taste, but to the assumptions by which certain social groups exercise and maintain power over others.




For any interested in Eagleton's deep examination of the struggles professional literary critics have gone through in engaging a definition of the term, leading to the above conclusion, I refer you to the excellent prefatory chapter to his _Literary Theory: An Introduction_, "What Is Literature?" linked here for your convenience.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> I do wish that you and Max would stop rudely repeating this strawman argument.




ROFL  Since we are not attributing that as an argument to other people, it cannot be a Strawman.  Responses that you disagree with don't automatically become Strawman dude.  What is rude, though, are false accusations like that.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> \I don't particularly care about meaning (2) because you have asserted repeatedly now that you agree that RPGs would not qualify as (2). So I have been arguing against RPGs as literature on the basis of (1), i.e., Max's use.
> 
> I am not making the positive assertion that RPGs qualify as literature. People arguing that RPGs qualify as literature (1) have supplied their definitions. So I am engaging those definitions and arguments. The argumentative onus is not on me to supply a definition of "literature," because I am not the one who making a positive statement.
> 
> So let us be clear here where Bedrockgames and I align:
> If we define literature as (2), then RPGs are not literature.
> If we define literature as (1), then RPGs are not literature.




Yeah.  I've been amused at watching you argue that the Moon isn't in orbit around the earth and the Sun won't come up in the morning.  The definition of literature is all things written.  Period.  You can't rationally argue that RPGs aren't literature under the definition of literature.  Trying to argue that because RPGs also involve things beyond the literature isn't an argument that they aren't literature.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not staking out one particular meaning for Literary. I am pointing out that there are multiple meanings and the crux of this debate centers around posters equivocating around meaning A and meaning B and not recognizing what they are doing. This fundamentally makes the argument impossible to have.
> 
> But also I think Aldarc and I have been very clear: no matter what meaning you utilize, it seems pretty shaky to say because roleplaying games involve Literary A, B or C, they are therefore literary endeavors. The cooking and sports analogy is a perfect example of why. Now Maxperson was willing to argue that sports are literary when this point was made. But that is clearly an absurd claim. Also, to what end are we having this discussion about definitions? What is it about RPGs being literary that is important to you Hussar and why are you so insistent that we see RPGs in this way as well? Again, I suspect the answer will bring us to points about playstyle. If that is the case, then make your playstyle claims, don't try to win a playstyle argument by controlling definitions and terms. RPGs are X or are not Y is a classic debating tactic that I've just seen too frequently, and even used myself, in arguments around playstyle. And clearly, based on you and Maxperson's posts, we are debating what should be going on at the gaming table, what GM advice is good or bad, etc. Whether you think me not caring about pacing is a playstyle point that has almost nothing to do with wether pacing is or is not a literary concern. The reason you dislike it is going to be something more like "because it makes the game dull" than "because it isn't literary". So let's focus on what the actual lines of dispute are, rather than fight endlessly over the definition of literary.




You just can't ever get my position right, can you?  At this point I think it's deliberate.  For someone who cries fallacy as often as you do, you pretty much engage in nothing but fallacy when talking about or responding to me. 

I didn't argue that sports were literary.  I may have said the written sport rules were literature, and they are.  And I made a joke that you could consider D&D a sport by the strict definition of sport, as there is physical exertion(albeit very, very minor) and skill involved with D&D.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> and if we use Max Person's usage it is something like A-Words on a page & B-works aiming for higher literary quality. Again the point here is to identify where the equivocation is occurring.




There is no equivocation going on.  I never said both of those were one usage, something you would have realized on your own if you were paying attention to what I've been saying. I said literature is by definition(and it is) words on a page.  Someone else brought up [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s usage about quality, and I pointed out that if you care about the description(and someone does if they don't want dull description), then quality of the narration is important to them to some degree.  That's a different argument.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> There is no equivocation going on.  I never said both of those were one usage, something you would have realized on your own if you were paying attention to what I've been saying. I said literature is by definition(and it is) words on a page.  Someone else brought up [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s usage about quality, and I pointed out that if you care about the description(and someone does if they don't want dull description), then quality of the narration is important to them to some degree.  That's a different argument.




Maxperson, you did equivocate, you because then you started arguing, on the basis that RPGs having words on a page makes them literature, that literary quality matters in GMing and in GM narration. Either way, if all you are saying is you think RPGs having words on a page makes them literature, but this in no way has any impact on the remainder of your argument about literary quality: what is the point of this claim?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> You just can't ever get my position right, can you?  At this point I think it's deliberate.  For someone who cries fallacy as often as you do, you pretty much engage in nothing but fallacy when talking about or responding to me.
> 
> I didn't argue that sports were literary.  I may have said the written sport rules were literature, and they are.  And I made a joke that you could consider D&D a sport by the strict definition of sport, as there is physical exertion(albeit very, very minor) and skill involved with D&D.




It isn't deliberate. I was reading your posts literally because that is how it sounded to me. If you were kidding, then fair enough.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> The definition of literature is all things written.  Period.  .




Again Max this isn't how words work. This isn't the end of the definition. There literally isn't a period, but a big qualification. Literature as a word is pretty nuanced, and can carry this broad meaning, but generally doesn't. You can advocate for the broad meaning. But in a thread that began with meaning B, it is strange to do so. Especially when you seem to be making the case for using literary techniques associated with meaning B (or at least arguing that RPGs ought to meet some literary level of quality in their delivery). Either way, you are still not grasping the importance of what Aldarc is saying. Again, if you don't accept that cooking or sports are literature, then you also can't assert that RPGs are literature just because some aspect of them involves text.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Something can be literary AND something else.  It's not all or nothing.  That RPGs are more than just the literature and literary elements doesn't mean that they suddenly cease to be literature and/or literary.  Since literature encompasses all things written, RPGs cannot be "not-literature."  RPGs can fail to be one of the sub-categories, such as high quality literature, though.




But this discussion is also trying to establish what RPGs ought to be doing, and how they ought to be played. People are concerned about whether RPGs can rightly be categorized as literary because there are claims being made that they should abide by literary rules and styles. This is a problem when you are using one point of contact between two mediums (words) and then trying to port in the rules and styles of one medium into the other. They share the fact that they involve written words. Beyond that you can't really say much. You can't say for example, both literature and RPGs involve words, therefore GM narration should abide by the rules of good writing. Because they are different mediums, they will have different rules and concerns. And when they do happen to share a rule or concern, they will handled in very different ways because fundamentally literature and RPGs have totally different aims.


----------



## Sadras

hawkeyefan said:


> I would say that as an attempt to craft a story....or at least to craft the beginning of a story that the players will pick up and run with...this would be a literary endeavor.
> 
> Now, having crafted that story from all those threads, what would you say would most engage your players? The literary merit of your efforts? Or the content of the fiction?
> 
> I think that this is part of the issue with this discussion. Some folks are simply trying to answer the question posed in the thread title (I was guilty of this with my first post, too) instead of reading the OP and additional posts that explained what the actual point was. For the most part, that element of the discussion’s become mired in arguments over definition.
> 
> But the actual point raised in the OP asks if literary quality is more important than content as it relates to player engagement.
> 
> So I would agree with you that your effort (and by extension any such story crafting effort by a GM and players) does constitute a literary endeavor.
> 
> But for the second part of the discussion, without knowing all the details, it’s hard to say. What do you think? Are your players going to be *more* excited about what you’ve set up, or how you’ve set it up?




Bold emphasis mine.
I agree with your assessment in that the content is more important than the execution, that is not to say that the execution does not have its value - it just does not need to be The Brothers Karamazov. I think we are in agreement.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Again Max this isn't how words work. This isn't the end of the definition. There literally isn't a period, but a big qualification.




It's not a qualification, which is what you don't seem to get.  This would be a qualification, "Written works considered to be of superior or lasting artistic merit."  That qualifies the written works as having to be of superior or lasting merit.  This, "Written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit." does not qualify them like that.  It only specifies that a subset is more valued, not that all things written are not literature.  The "especially" portion does not disqualify my grocery list from being literature.



> Literature as a word is pretty nuanced, and can carry this broad meaning, but generally doesn't.




This is wrong. It always carries the broad meaning, as the definition is broad. It's just often used more narrowly by someone who wishes to use the subset of "superior or lasting artistic merit."



> You can advocate for the broad meaning. But in a thread that began with meaning B, it is strange to do so. Especially when you seem to be making the case for using literary techniques associated with meaning B (or at least arguing that RPGs ought to meet some literary level of quality in their delivery). Either way, you are still not grasping the importance of what Aldarc is saying. Again, if you don't accept that cooking or sports are literature, then you also can't assert that RPGs are literature just because some aspect of them involves text.




Cookbooks are literature.  Sports rules are literature.  RPGs books are literature.  Character sheets are literature.  Player notes are literature.  DM notes are literature.  Modules are literature.  DM adventures are literature.  There's a lot more writing going on in RPGs, even to the point of typically happening by every player and the DM every session(updates to the character sheet, notes, etc.) than in sports or cooking.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> It's not a qualification, which is what you don't seem to get.  This would be a qualification, "Written works considered of superior or lasting artistic merit."  That qualifies the written works as having to be of superior or lasting merit.  This, "Written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit." does not qualify them like that.  It only specifies that a subset is more valued, not that all things written are not literature.  The "especially" portion does not disqualify my grocery list from being literature.




I am open to correction here if I am wrong that this is a qualifier. But it seems to meet all the requirements of being a qualifier to me. And your response is essentially just 'it isn't a qualifier'. It isn't specifying that a subset is more valued. It is clearly stating that this secondary meaning (meaning B) is what the word usually means. It is setting it apart as the most significant use of the word.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Sadras said:


> Bold emphasis mine.
> I agree with your assessment in that the content is more important than the execution, that is not to say that the execution does not have its value - it just does not need to be The Brothers Karamazov. I think we are in agreement.




We are! 

I think that’s the crux of the initial discussion. To put it slightly differently, because it’s a different type of media, is it more important that RPGing aspire to literary quality of the kind we typically attribute to novels or plays, or that it function as a game in which players interact with the fiction?


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I am open to correction here if I am wrong that this is a qualifier. But it seems to meet all the requirements of being a qualifier to me. And your response is essentially just 'it isn't a qualifier'. It isn't specifying that a subset is more valued. It is clearly stating that this secondary meaning (meaning B) is what the word usually means. It is setting it apart as the most significant use of the word.




It's NOT a second meaning.  If it was, it would be part of a different definition with a different number.  It's clearly a subset of literature.  One that is often more highly valued.


----------



## Maxperson

Sadras said:


> Bold emphasis mine.
> I agree with your assessment in that the content is more important than the execution, that is not to say that the execution does not have its value - it just does not need to be The Brothers Karamazov. I think we are in agreement.




I think they are equal in value.  Writing like The Brothers Karamazov would be if you valued execution more highly than content.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> It's NOT a second meaning.  If it was, it would be part of a different definition with a different number.  It's clearly a subset of literature.  One that is often more highly valued.




But that establishes two potential meanings: 1) written works and 2) written works of superior or artistic merit. And in this conversation we see people equivocating between those two different meanings. I think at this point, we just have to leave this be. There isn't any further convincing of you I am sure. But this is definitely a second meaning imbedded in the definition. There is just no way around that.


----------



## Manbearcat

> Quote Originally Posted by Manbearcat
> 
> For instance, a few things come to mind.
> 
> <snip 1 and 2>
> 
> 3) I think understanding how pacing and a dramatic arc compels emotion and investment in content (even if you aren't scripting them to railroad a set of players through) are extremely important aspects of both GMing and writing a game (particularly a game like My Life With Master where you're running through a pre-conceived, but not pre-rendered, thematic arc with a diversity of ultimate outcomes).






pemerton said:


> I think your (3) puts more pressure on my contention - I would describe the source of this being that _it puts pressure on the contrast between form and content_ - this is the contrast that [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has helpfully articulated upthread, and that I also tried to capture (via some examples, and comments around them) in my post not too far upthread from yours.
> 
> This is because dramatic pacing (probably) can't be completely divorced from the words - the form - whereby the content is conveyed.
> 
> In the context of a RPG, though, where the pacing concerns - at least the sort that you refer to - are more at the "scene" level than the line-by-line level, I think the dependence of pacing on words becomes pretty lose. A GM who can't control his/her words at all is going to have troube wrapping up a scene, or cutting to the next situation, in a smooth way; but I think the threshold of skill to be able to do this falls well short of being able to write an evocative opening or closing line.
> 
> I'll finish this post by saying that, in denying that RPGing is a *literary* endeavour I'm not denying that it has an important aesthetic component. But I think that the aesthetic component is much more connected to a sense of motion and drama in human affairs, than to a sense of beauty in composition or performance.




Alright, so about 5 weeks late to the party with this response, but that is the kind of ENWorld timescale I work off of these days!

When reading this my brain goes to the following question:

In scene resolution mechanics (say, 4e Skill Challenges), or in conflict resolution mechanics within a scene (say, Clocks in Apocalypse World or Blades in the Dark), how does the GM's management of the necessary dramatic arc inherent to the _fiction <> mechanics < > fiction < > mechanics <rince/repeat> win/loss condition_ paradigm interact with your premise?

For reference, when I write management above, I mean:

1)  Managing the evolving fictional framing of the arc as the mechanics dictate the arc moves through its phases toward macro resolution.  This includes the situation changing dynamically in accordance with what the arc necessitates and...

2)  The nature of language used to transliterate the evolved fiction from its related gamestate.  For instance, I think most people can agree that economy of language is a large component of pacing.  If a scene is in the midst of the precipice of its Rising Action to where its transitioning to Climax (because the mechanical state of affairs says it should be there), I think we can agree that its poor GMing for a GM deploying 100 words where 10 will more impactfully convey the information.  Quantity, economy of language, matters.  

So after quantity, we have type/kind.  When you're evolving a scene from one (lets call it) "arc-state" to the next, can one descriptor (of the same quantity) more aptly convey the urgency, gravity, or tempo of a situation vs another?


----------



## Manbearcat

I want to do a quick example of the above:

You're in a Level +3 Complexity 3 Skill Challenge at mid Paragon Tier.

Let us say the following is true about the gamestate:

1)  Both Advantages and all 3 Secondary Skills have been used (to buff actions/wipe out failures etc).

2)  We're at 7 Successes and 2 Failures.

3)  Only 1 Hard DC has been deployed by the GM thus far.  As such, this final obstacle will be at the Hard DC.  Given that it is Level +3, that means that the Hard DC here will be 2 beyond the of-level Hard DC.

In terms of the fiction, let us say that its an exorcism in the throne room to determine whether the powerful demon possessing the princess (who is the sole heir...the king was cursed with infertility after her birth) claims her body forever (thus cueing a significantly up-leveled battle where not only must she/it be defeated, but the King and Queen, Minions, must be protected) or the demon is cast out, back to the Abyss.

So the situation is dire (both mechanically and fiction-wise), on the precipice of disaster or fortune (on the roller coaster plunge of the Falling Action).

Is there a collection of, say, 15 words that can impel the gravity (say, better depict the steep angle of descent down the Falling Action roller coaster) better than any other collection of 15 words, where both collections of words conveys the situation _appropriately_ (appropriately here meaning, inform players sufficiently that they can make intuitive action declarations for their PCs).


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> Cookbooks are literature.  Sports rules are literature.  RPGs books are literature.  Character sheets are literature.  Player notes are literature.  DM notes are literature.  Modules are literature.  DM adventures are literature.  There's a lot more writing going on in RPGs, even to the point of typically happening by every player and the DM every session(updates to the character sheet, notes, etc.) than in sports or cooking.



Sure, but you are not demonstrating that TTRPGs are literature, only that its associated literature is literature, which I don't think has been in doubt. 



Maxperson said:


> ROFL  Since we are not attributing that as an argument to other people, it cannot be a Strawman.  Responses that you disagree with don't automatically become Strawman dude.  What is rude, though, are false accusations like that.



Nice gaslighting you're doing there, Max. But I'll call your bluff: 


Maxperson said:


> But they ARE literary notions, because they exist in written works.  Just because they do not exist ONLY in written works does mean that they are not literary techniques.  Also, many do consider film to be literary since film is a representation of written media(the script).



It turns out that you did present this strawman argument in a response to my post before and so it seems that you are full of crap, Max. So I would say that my accusation was verified by the literature you provided in this thread.


----------



## Manbearcat

One last post.

We're all familiar with the axiom:

"Its not what you say, its how you say it."

We are social animals.  We are evolved to respond to inflection, tone, countenance.

But I don't agree with the first part in the slightest, in any arena, but especially in the conversation of TTRPGs.

Obviously its "what you say" in TTRPGs.

But, there is also an aspect of "how you say it."

Then, there is the significantly important aspect of GMing; "how deftly you integrate it (within the particular game's paradigm)."

I think these three components are what is in play in this conversation.  For my mileage, each are important, but there is a hierarchy of import.  Personally, I'm putting the hierarchy as follows:

1)  How deftly you integrate it.

2)  What you say.

3)  How you say it.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> But that establishes two potential meanings: 1) written works and 2) written works of superior or artistic merit. And in this conversation we see people equivocating between those two different meanings. I think at this point, we just have to leave this be. There isn't any further convincing of you I am sure. But this is definitely a second meaning imbedded in the definition. There is just no way around that.




Do you at least acknowledge that the second "meaning" does not exclude the first?


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Sure, but you are not demonstrating that TTRPGs are literature, only that its associated literature is literature, which I don't think has been in doubt.
> 
> Nice gaslighting you're doing there, Max. But I'll call your bluff:
> It turns out that you did present this strawman argument in a response to my post before and so it seems that you are full of crap, Max. So I would say that my accusation was verified by the literature you provided in this thread.




You REALLY need to learn the difference between a response to an argument, and attributing an argument to someone else.


----------



## Umbran

Bedrockgames said:


> There isn't any further convincing of you I am sure.




Let's be even-handed about it - after this much argument, nobody is apt to convince anyone about things, are they?  I mean, really, wouldn't that have happened already?  Isn't everyone pretty much dug in and un-moving now?

Folks went something like 70 pages before you started addressing the definition in earnest.  70 pages.

Don't you all think that the emotional attachments to arguments - to lines drawn in the sand, were pretty much set by that point?  I mean, folks had already decided if rpgs were, or were not, literary, some time ago.  Nary a one is going to admit to wrongness and shift at this point, are they?  

Consider whether bull-dogging on this one is constructive, folks.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> So let's focus on what the actual lines of dispute are, rather than fight endlessly over the definition of literary.



Yeah, I didn't expect this thread to be a debate about the meaning and scope of the term "literary".

I thought it might be a discussion about whether or not _wordcraft_ is a principal or essential means of evoking emotional responses in a RPG. The point of my OP is to deny such a claim. On the other hand, I believe that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] affirms such a claim, as does [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]. I'm frankly not sure what [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] thinks about it.



Hussar said:


> Everyone agrees with you @pemerton.



This isn't true at all. Unless you've changed your mind, upthread you asserted that the use of wordcraft and associated performance is a key means of promoting emotional responses in RPGing. Which is what I am disagreeing with.

************************

On the issue of "playstyle arguments/agendas", which has been flagged by [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION]: I think (and hope) it's obvious that my OP is putting forward a view about where the aesthetic merit and aeshetic power of RPGIng lies, and therefore a view about what the point of RPGing ultimately is.

I recognise that others will disagree. That's not uncommon in critical discussions.

I'm not 100% sure that I agree with Eagleton that these "deep structures" of aesthetic evaluation correlate to, or express, social power relations and any resultant ideologies. That's a further, and harder, question. But as I posted upthread in reply to [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION], I do think that these aesthetic preferences can be connected to broader trends in RPG design and RPG play.

Some of [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s posts (about "plot wagons", and criticising player passivity) seem to me to imply a conception of RPGing where the GM brings the story and the players bring the expressive energy. Now maybe that's wrong, and Hussar is welcome to correct me if it is. But that conception of RPGing that I'm seeing there, even if not Hussar's, is I think quite a widespread one. I would associate it classicaly with White Wolf, Ravenloft and Dragonlance, and also with more contemporary "story-oriented" D&D.

And it's what I'm pushing against in my OP.


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> But hopefully we can recognize that RPGs exist as far more than their rulebooks, much as cooking is more than the recipes and sports are more than their rulebooks.




Of course.  The reference I was replying to, however, dealt only with the rulebooks.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> I don’t know about that last bit. In actual literature, I’d say yes, the quality of prose can make what would otherwise be a bland situation to actually be compelling. When it comes to RPGs though....I don’t think the same is true. A boring encounter is gonna be boring no matter how the GM may try and spruce it up with narration.



To each their own, I suppose.



> The eyepatch was indeed left out. I provided one example where the GM was relying on evocative narration and one where he provided content relevant to the player. Which touches upon the OP.



So it's a BS example then.  Got it.

Had the eyepatch been in the first example then yes, it would provide a fine point of comparison between styles; and we could have gone on to dissect them and explain why we liked one or the other or a bit of both.  That the eyepatch isn't there only serves to unfairly skew that comparison in a particular direction - I can only assume from what you say here that this was intentional.

Not cool.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> In terms of the fiction, let us say that its an exorcism in the throne room to determine whether the powerful demon possessing the princess (who is the sole heir...the king was cursed with infertility after her birth) claims her body forever (thus cueing a significantly up-leveled battle where not only must she/it be defeated, but the King and Queen, Minions, must be protected) or the demon is cast out, back to the Abyss.
> 
> So the situation is dire (both mechanically and fiction-wise), on the precipice of disaster or fortune (on the roller coaster plunge of the Falling Action).
> 
> Is there a collection of, say, 15 words that can impel the gravity (say, better depict the steep angle of descent down the Falling Action roller coaster) better than any other collection of 15 words, where both collections of words conveys the situation _appropriately_ (appropriately here meaning, inform players sufficiently that they can make intuitive action declarations for their PCs).



Probably, but my immediate question is why the word limit?  Some GMs might convey it wonderfully in 10 words (or even simply a raised eyebrow!) while others might do it equally wonderfully using 50 words or more.

It's table- and person-dependent, I think.

Lan-"Assuming the scene and situation had already been described to death, I'd probably use just six words here: make this roll or you're effed"-efan


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Yeah, I didn't expect this thread to be a debate about the meaning and scope of the term "literary".
> 
> I thought it might be a discussion about whether or not _wordcraft_ is a principal or essential means of evoking emotional responses in a RPG. The point of my OP is to deny such a claim.




I've seen you engage in it.   You once gave an example of the angel feather being a potential object for the PC to rescue his brother from the balrog.  You didn't describe it a widget.  You didn't describe it as object #1.  You didn't describe it as a thing.  You made it an angel feather, because an angel feather will evoke an emotional response that object #1 or widget won't.  You engaged in wordcraft to make the situation more interesting and compelling. It may not have been wordcraft to the level of Shakespeare, but it was still wordcraft.


----------



## Hussar

Lanefan said:


> Probably, but my immediate question is why the word limit?  Some GMs might convey it wonderfully in 10 words (or even simply a raised eyebrow!) while others might do it equally wonderfully using 50 words or more.
> 
> It's table- and person-dependent, I think.
> 
> Lan-"Assuming the scene and situation had already been described to death, I'd probably use just six words here: make this roll or you're effed"-efan




I think the point is, can we convey the same information in the same number of words, where one description will evoke an emotional response better than another.

I'd say, yup, absolutely.  I posed a similar description pages back of a Vengaurak where the difference between the two descriptions was 5 words, yet, one was deemed "too literary" and the otehr was accpetable.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> It's not a qualification



"Especially" is an adverb used to introduce a qualification. Eg "I like people, especially cheerful people."



Maxperson said:


> The definition of literature is all things written. Period.



Maxperson, I don't know what your field of endeavour is, nor your education and/or professional training.

But what you are saying here, assuming that it is sincere, suggests a lack of familiarity with how English dictionaries work, and also how English essay writing works.

An English dictionary is (or at least aspires to be) an account of the establshed usages of English speakers. A serious scholarly dictionary (like the OED) for this reason contains illustrations of usage, with dages, that illustrate the development of these patterns of usage and thus justify the dictionary-makers assertions about them.

When the dictionary says that literature means _the As, and especially the As that are also Bs_, it is telling us that the word "literature" is used to mean A, but also, and especially, is used to mean the As that are Bs. There would be no point to including that second element of the definition if, in fact, there was no such distinctive and typical pattern of usage. In this case, one doesn't need to refer to a dictionary to make the point - it's not an obsecure one. If someone says, for instance, that s/he studies literature, I think most of us would assume that cookbooks and railway guides and stereo installation instructions are not on the syllabus. (Contrast if she said that she studies _communication_, in which case those things might well be candidate objects of study.)

Another feature of dictionaries is that they play a normative as well as a descriptive role: that is, people look to them for guidance on how they should use words. But of course this guidance is nothing more than that - if it was, then usage would never change! And a standard feature of essay writing in Engllish is the coining of neologisms, or the use of common place words with nuanced or narrowed meaning, whether expressly stated by the author or implied in some fashion. For a well-known example of the former, consider the final (I think, from memory) chapter of Bertrand Russell's well-known book The Problems of Philosophy, where he explains why much of what is ordinary called _knowledge_ is, according to him, not worthy of that label - rather, he calls it "probable opinion". Russell - who won a Nobel Prize for Literature - is not ignorant of the use or meaning of the English word "knowledge". His distinct approach to use of it is in service of his phisophical position.

Providing an example of implied narrowing or nuancing is something I'll leave to another post if anyone is interested, as it takes more time to set one out, and the examples that are occurring to me at the present may be a bit controversial from the point of view of board rules. But I think it's a pretty well-known phenomon.

Antyway, the upshot is that when I ask _is roleplaying a literary endeavour_, and make it clear by my follow-up discussion in the OP that I'm focusing on whether it is _wordcraftp_ or something else that is the principal device in RPGing for establishing the key aesthetic properties and provoking emotional responses, it's completely pointless to respond by saying that there is a usage of "literary" according to which the answer is trivially "yes". Because that's very obviously not how I was using the word "literary" in the phrase "literary endeavour". (And that's before we even get to the point that it is the whole phrase, and not just its adjecitival component, that is central to the position I'm articulating in this thread.)


----------



## Hussar

Maxperson is unfamiliar with how dictionaries work?  The hell you say.


----------



## Sadras

Maxperson said:


> I think they are equal in value.




I'm not necessarily convinced of that claim.

However, unlike @_*pemerton*_ I do think _literary endeavour_ exists within RPGs. Certainly when one looks at CR, the word usage by Mercer is important in order to immerse the players (and viewers) into the fictional world and the unravelling story.
Many of us attempt to do same in our own games. 

All you have to do is look at Stephen Colbert's eyes as Mercer was wordsmithing away.
It is important, whether you're writing a book for the enjoyment of millions or whether you're forming a tale together at the table for the enjoyment of a handful. They're both _literary endeavours_.


----------



## Aldarc

Sadras said:


> I'm not necessarily convinced of that claim.
> 
> However, unlike @_*pemerton*_ I do think _literary endeavour_ exists within RPGs. Certainly when one looks at CR, the word usage by Mercer is important in order to immerse the players (and viewers) into the fictional world and the unravelling story.
> Many of us attempt to do same in our own games.
> 
> All you have to do is look at Stephen Colbert's eyes as Mercer was wordsmithing away.
> It is important, whether you're writing a book for the enjoyment of millions or whether you're forming a tale together at the table for the enjoyment of a handful. They're both _literary endeavours_.



It seems like they are narrative endeavors or storytelling endeavors. I don't necessarily think that the word "literary" applies when we are talking more about story-craft or fiction-craft than the crafting of literature, even if we apply the technical sense of pertaining to written words.


----------



## Hussar

Aldarc said:


> It seems like they are narrative endeavors or storytelling endeavors. I don't necessarily think that the word "literary" applies when we are talking more about story-craft or fiction-craft than the crafting of literature, even if we apply the technical sense of pertaining to written words.




See, this?  This right here?  This is the goalposts on roller skates I'm talking about.  It's not "literary", it's "narrative".  It's not "wordcraft" it's "story-craft or fiction-craft".  Good grief, you folks complain about shifting definitions?  

 [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is pretty clear that literary refers to "wordcraft".  Which is also pretty clear what [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] means.  

I'm getting the feeling that the meaning of "literary" = stuff I don't like or care about.  If it is stuff I care about, then it obviously can't be literary because I don't care about literary.


----------



## Aldarc

Hussar said:


> See, this?  This right here?  This is the goalposts on roller skates I'm talking about.  It's not "literary", it's "narrative".  It's not "wordcraft" it's "story-craft or fiction-craft".  Good grief, you folks complain about shifting definitions?



See what, Hussar? It may have escaped your otherwise astute notice, Hussar, but I am not pemerton. I have my own opinions, and I am not obligated to be beholden to pemerton's. I _personally_ don't think that we should equate "literary" with "narrative" or "story." 



> I'm getting the feeling that the meaning of "literary" = stuff I don't like or care about.  If it is stuff I care about, then it obviously can't be literary because I don't care about literary.



Oh? I'm getting the sense that you aren't listening to me at all. But when my positions in this thread haven't changed and you accuse me of shifting the goalposts, then this gets a big aggravating and your behavior comes across as dickish.


----------



## Sadras

Aldarc said:


> It seems like they are narrative endeavors or storytelling endeavors. I don't necessarily think that the word "literary" applies when we are talking more about story-craft or fiction-craft than the crafting of literature, even if we apply the technical sense of pertaining to written words.




Ok you are making a distinction between story/narrative and literary. As a layman, I have to ask, is the crafting of a good story not part of crafting great literature? What are the differences?

I can also understand @_*Hussar*_'s frustration. See below.



			
				Pemerton said:
			
		

> I thought it might be a discussion about whether or not *wordcraft is a principal or essential means of evoking emotional responses in a RPG. The point of my OP is to deny such a claim.* On the other hand, I believe that @_*Hussar*_ affirms such a claim, as does @Imaro. I'm frankly not sure what @Maxperson thinks about it.




 @_*Aldarc*_, the bolded section (emphasis mine) could be utilised in any of the crafts you mentioned above. @_*pemerton*_ here IS equating wordcraft with literary endeavours as he refers back to his OP, thereby introducing a new term and opening up the door to more rebuttle and confusion (hence the accusation of goal post shifts). 

For me wordcraft is important when attempting to convey certain images and framing particular scenarios to players to evoke certain emotions as reflected on my post using CR/Mercer as an example. 
The result being wordcrafting is important in RPGs, therefore literary endeavours are important to RPGs.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Sadras said:


> For me wordcraft is important when attempting to convey certain images and framing particular scenarios to players to evoke certain emotions as reflected on my post using CR/Mercer as an example.
> The result being wordcrafting is important in RPGs, therefore literary endeavours are important to RPGs.




And I think this is fine. If you find the game to be a literary endeavor in this way, and if you are a GM in the style of Matt Mercer, then that is what you should do. I am not saying it can't be these things. All I am saying is it does not have to be these things. Matt Mercer's style of GMing isn't the only way, or the best way: it is just one way to it. I personally don't like running games the way he does and I don't like utilizing the kinds of descriptions he uses. I just don't value woodcraft because I am speaking everyday plain English to my players and not trying to affect a style. I am talking in my natural voice. These are two very different approaches to play.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Sadras said:


> All you have to do is look at Stephen Colbert's eyes as Mercer was wordsmithing away.
> It is important, whether you're writing a book for the enjoyment of millions or whether you're forming a tale together at the table for the enjoyment of a handful. They're both _literary endeavours_.




But this is a public performance of D&D involving a late night host. I hope understand most of that banter you see on late night TV is planned and rehearsed. There is a performative aspect to a game involving Colbert and Mercer that isn't going to be present at most tables. Colbert's expression may have been sincere, but he also might have been putting on a show. And either way, these are both people with improv and acting backgrounds, so naturally this is going to be a style of play they both find engaging. Again, the point is, this isn't what everyone is looking for in play. If it works for you, I say go for it. But it isn't what I want (either as a GM or player).


----------



## Aldarc

Sadras said:


> Ok you are making a distinction between story/narrative and literary. As a layman, I have to ask, is the crafting of a good story not part of crafting great literature? What are the differences?



Crafting a good story can be part of crafting great literature, but crafting a good story is also part of crafting good cinematic film or crafting a good televised serial or crafting a good video game. These latter things are necessarily regarded as "literary" with any conventional usage. I would also add that just because you have a good story does not mean that you have good literature, and just because you have good wordcraft does not mean that you have good literature or a good story. "Good literature" is generally about the sum of its parts rather than its particular elements though what constitutes good literature is culturally and historically subjective. And typically every generation challenges what prior generations regarded as good literature. 

Film, for example, leans heavily on audio-visual storytelling issues that do not apply to literary works. Films, much like books, may enhance their storytelling through how it cuts between scenes, but there is obviously a critical difference with film: it can do so audio-visually. It does not have to rely on its wordcraft. And there are a wide variety of techniques that film can use for transitioning between scenes that books cannot readily achieve. And without any wordcraft at all, films can evoke tremendous emotional responses: see the first 5 minutes of the Pixar film Up. Another good example is when we see Luke Skywalker on Tatooine in A New Hope looking out at the horizon at sunset with John Williams using the music including Luke's leit motif in the background. We feel his frustration, his hopes, and his wanderlust. Given how much screen time hangs on this one wordless moment so early in the film, we understand that Luke will probably be our focus in the film and that the film will probably delve into Luke's growth as a character. His eyes are drawn outward to space, and his journey will likewise take him to where his eyes gaze. This is one of the wonderous things about how film is able to construct story in unique ways. 

Likewise, just because are attempting to craft a good story for TTRPGs, I don't think that this makes TTRPGs a "literary endeavor." IMHO, I believe that we are mostly discussing something more of a storytelling/narrative endeavor, which may or may not lead to immersive play. So I think that it is important to recognize that crafting a good story for TTRPGs will not involve the same processes as crafting a good story for literature. This is because the process of TTRPG-craft will face issues that are unique to TTRPGs. For example, how you frame a scene in a TTRPG will differ from how you would frame a scene film or a book. Premade text is often provided for TTRPG modules and adventures. But you can also ignore or modify that text entirely. Texts are not required for "wordcraft." Most of the play will not be scripted, but conversational (as per John Harper). You don't even need good "wordcraft" to evoke a powerful emotional response. Sometimes it can be as simple as "you see your sister there." That may be all that you need to trigger an emotional response. You may also use maps, grids, and minis. This shapes the framing of the story. As do the rules of the game system. They will impact how the story will be told because these are the mechanics that players and game master will likely be engaging concurrently with the story. A lot of story tension even hangs on the randomness of dice! 



> @_*Aldarc*_, the bolded section (emphasis mine) could be utilised in any of the crafts you mentioned above. @_*pemerton*_ here IS equating wordcraft with literary endeavours as he refers back to his OP.
> 
> Now this is where confusion lies as wordcrafting (for me) is important in when attempting to convey certain images and framing particular scenarios to players to evoke certain emotions as reflected on my post using CR/Mercer as an example.
> The result being wordcrafting is important in RPGs, therefore literary endeavours are important to RPGs.



Again, please be aware that I am not pemerton and that I do not necessarily share his broader sense of "literary."


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> When the dictionary says that literature means _the As, and especially the As that are also Bs_, it is telling us that the word "literature" is used to mean A, but also, and especially, is used to mean the As that are Bs. There would be no point to including that second element of the definition if, in fact, there was no such distinctive and typical pattern of usage. In this case, one doesn't need to refer to a dictionary to make the point - it's not an obsecure one. If someone says, for instance, that s/he studies literature, I think most of us would assume that cookbooks and railway guides and stereo installation instructions are not on the syllabus. (Contrast if she said that she studies _communication_, in which case those things might well be candidate objects of study.)




What it also doesn't do, is exclude A.  The use of especially still leaves A as a what literature means.  Just yesterday we a bunch of new furniture arrived.  My wife said, "We're going to need to watch the dogs.  They like to spray to mark territory."  I responded, "Yep. They do like to spray, especially the white one."   To believe you guys, my response meant that our black dog suddenly doesn't mark any longer.  The especially doesn't work that way.  It just points out one aspect of the set, in this case spraying and in the above case literature, and call it out as greater.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> And I think this is fine. If you find the game to be a literary endeavor in this way, and if you are a GM in the style of Matt Mercer, then that is what you should do. I am not saying it can't be these things. All I am saying is it does not have to be these things. Matt Mercer's style of GMing isn't the only way, or the best way: it is just one way to it. I personally don't like running games the way he does and I don't like utilizing the kinds of descriptions he uses. I just don't value woodcraft because I am speaking everyday plain English to my players and not trying to affect a style. I am talking in my natural voice. These are two very different approaches to play.




Try an experiment the next time you play.  Let the players know that they meet a sex #2 race #2 class #12 that holds an object #1 and wears object number #2, object #3, and object #4.  See if they engage as well as if you let them know that they meet a female elven wizard, holding a staff and wearing a robe, 2 rings and some slippers.  

If they prefer the latter and if you use the latter typically when describing things, wordcraft is both preferred and used.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> Try an experiment the next time you play.  Let the players know that they meet a sex #2 race #2 class #12 that holds an object #1 and wears object number #2, object #3, and object #4.  See if they engage as well as if you let them know that they meet a female elven wizard, holding a staff and wearing a robe, 2 rings and some slippers.
> 
> If they prefer the latter and if you use the latter typically when describing things, wordcraft is both preferred and used.



I'm not sure if that is a good experiment given how that does not necessarily represents the natural conversational language that Bedrockgames prefers.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> I'm not sure if that is a good experiment given how that does not necessarily represents the natural conversational language that Bedrockgames prefers.




The point is, his natural conversational language is still wordcraft.  He's picking and choosing words that work better than other words.  Even in natural conversation, a person will use word A over B or C, because it fits better with what he is trying to say.  It may not be with literary improvement in mind, but it's still being done.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Try an experiment the next time you play.  Let the players know that they meet a sex #2 race #2 class #12 that holds an object #1 and wears object number #2, object #3, and object #4.  See if they engage as well as if you let them know that they meet a female elven wizard, holding a staff and wearing a robe, 2 rings and some slippers.
> 
> If they prefer the latter and if you use the latter typically when describing things, wordcraft is both preferred and used.




This is a false choice and it takes things to an absurd level. We are not arguing for this kind of description. We are saying we don’t want Matt Mercer like wordcraft. You are turning a spectrum into s binary and only allowing for the extreme ends. Look, I don’t know how much more clear I can be: I don’t talk like Matt Mercer in my games and I don’t want to. Word craft just isn’t something I put effort into. I communicate naturally in a casual way. I can understand what you like and accept you play that way. I really don’t know why it is so difficult for you to understand and accept how I approach the game.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> The point is, his natural conversational language is still wordcraft.  He's picking and choosing words that work better than other words.  Even in natural conversation, a person will use word A over B or C, because it fits better with what he is trying to say.  It may not be with literary improvement in mind, but it's still being done.




You are pulling the same word games as before yo make something you value inescapable and force your view if RPGs on others.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> The point is, his natural conversational language is still wordcraft.  He's picking and choosing words that work better than other words.  Even in natural conversation, a person will use word A over B or C, because it fits better with what he is trying to say.  It may not be with literary improvement in mind, but it's still being done.



I think that sort of equivocation is misrepresenting what seems to be meant by "wordcraft" in this thread.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> This is a false choice and it takes things to an absurd level. We are not arguing for this kind of description. We are saying we don’t want Matt Mercer like wordcraft. You are turning a spectrum into s binary and only allowing for the extreme ends. Look, I don’t know how much more clear I can be: I don’t talk like Matt Mercer in my games and I don’t want to.




The only binary here is you.  To suggest that in order to be engaging in wordcraft you have to be like Mercer is binary.  Wordcraft is on a sliding scale.



> Word craft just isn’t something I put effort into. I communicate naturally in a casual way.




Sure, and in casual conversation, people still pick and choose words, which is engaging in wordcraft.  Even if you don't put effort into it, you are engaging in it.



> I can understand what you like and accept you play that way. I really don’t know why it is so difficult for you to understand and accept how I approach the game.




I do understand and accept it.  Nothing I've said has indicated otherwise.  I just think you are unaware that despite the lack of care and effort, you are still engaging in wordcraft to a degree.  

Just look at my example above.  My wife and I were having a normal conversation about our dogs.  We chose the word spray.  We could have chosen spotting, or marking, or peeing, but we didn't.  We didn't put any particular effort into it, and we didn't particularly care, but we did choose one word over the others and use it, because that's what people do in conversations.  We still used wordcraft, despite the lack of effort and care.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> You are pulling the same word games as before yo make something you value inescapable and force your view if RPGs on others.




LOL  I assure you, that was just normal conversational language, without an particular care or effort.  If I was "pulling word games"(wordcraft) with that normal conversation, then you do it as well with your normal conversational language.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Ovinomancer

Aldarc said:


> It seems like they are narrative endeavors or storytelling endeavors. I don't necessarily think that the word "literary" applies when we are talking more about story-craft or fiction-craft than the crafting of literature, even if we apply the technical sense of pertaining to written words.



It's fair to pull out narration or storytelling as components of literary endeavour, perhaps as necessary but not sufficient.  However, I think your focus here on the format sidesteps the question a bit -- would this be "literary" in a different format?  Would tge sane oresentations in a play-by-email or play-by-post or play-by-chat format change you evaluation because it's now a written work?  IE, is the main differentiator the format of the work?

If so, then it would be interesting to note this.  And interesting to follow this into written adventures ir home-brew planning as potentially literary endeavors.

FWIW, I see RPGs have having literary potential, but not inantely requiring it.  As with most artistic efforts, it's hard to define.  Hence, in a thread premised on discussing whether RPGs meets an artistic classification, there is strong disagreement.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Aldarc

Ovinomancer said:


> It's fair to pull out narration or storytelling as components of literary endeavour, perhaps as necessary but not sufficient.  However, I think your focus here on the format sidesteps the question a bit -- would this be "literary" in a different format?  Would tge sane oresentations in a play-by-email or play-by-post or play-by-chat format change you evaluation because it's now a written work?  IE, is the main differentiator the format of the work?
> 
> If so, then it would be interesting to note this.  And interesting to follow this into written adventures ir home-brew planning as potentially literary endeavors.
> 
> FWIW, I see RPGs have having literary potential, but not inantely requiring it.  As with most artistic efforts, it's hard to define.  Hence, in a thread premised on discussing whether RPGs meets an artistic classification, there is strong disagreement.



A big part of that will likely depend on the play mode in which RPGs are performed, which will shape how scenes can be framed. But at most this would mean that RPGs can be literary but that they are not inherently so. But I think that it is important that we recognize how the crafting of story and narrative will differ through TTRPGs than in other media forms.


----------



## darkbard

Manbearcat said:


> Is there a collection of, say, 15 words that can impel the gravity (say, better depict the steep angle of descent down the Falling Action roller coaster) better than any other collection of 15 words, where both collections of words conveys the situation _appropriately_ (appropriately here meaning, inform players sufficiently that they can make intuitive action declarations for their PCs).




For my part, the answer to this question is yes, the collection of words that best invites the players to action, directly and explicitly, is the collection of words best suited to convey the situation. In such a way, wordcraft of the "literary" sort articulated by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] can impede direct and explicit communication, for it puts artfulness (including, perhaps, subtlety, implication, and other techniques thay may mask clarity for effect) to the fore.

In this way, I see my position aligning pretty closely with that of pemerton and [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION].



Manbearcat said:


> One last post.
> 
> We're all familiar with the axiom:
> 
> "Its not what you say, its how you say it."
> 
> We are social animals.  We are evolved to respond to inflection, tone, countenance.
> 
> But I don't agree with the first part in the slightest, in any arena, but especially in the conversation of TTRPGs.
> 
> Obviously its "what you say" in TTRPGs.
> 
> But, there is also an aspect of "how you say it."
> 
> Then, there is the significantly important aspect of GMing; "how deftly you integrate it (within the particular game's paradigm)."
> 
> I think these three components are what is in play in this conversation.  For my mileage, each are important, but there is a hierarchy of import.  Personally, I'm putting the hierarchy as follows:
> 
> 1)  How deftly you integrate it.
> 
> 2)  What you say.
> 
> 3)  How you say it.




I think I agree with your hierarchy here. Of course there is a role for "how you say it." But that role is, to my taste, secondary (or tertiary here  ) to the situation as invitation to action. This invitation to action is what separates TRPGs, in my opinion, from other artistic endeavors: In the talk of venn diagrams, this is the part of the circle that is not shared by other artforms with which it overlaps.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> The only binary here is you.  To suggest that in order to be engaging in wordcraft you have to be like Mercer is binary.  Wordcraft is on a sliding scale.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, and in casual conversation, people still pick and choose words, which is engaging in wordcraft.  Even if you don't put effort into it, you are engaging in it.




But then we are talking about degree. And you are the one asserting if there is any wordcraft, or any literariness, then something is that thing. But I've already explained my interest in both is minimal. It would be misleading to describe my GMing style as wordcraft or at aiming for literary quality in its descriptions. I think most rational people would agree based on what I've been saying. But you are playing word games by saying if there is a trace of something presence, then that is how the thing is described. Look I am something like 1/16th Native American, but I wouldn't describe myself as Native American. Or to use another example. Like all people, I have some anger in me, and get angry form time to time. But I wouldn't describe myself as an angry person. Do you understand that the degree matters here? You are trying to win the argument by claiming the whole scale for yourself.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> LOL  I assure you, that was just normal conversational language, without an particular care or effort.  If I was "pulling word games"(wordcraft) with that normal conversation, then you do it as well with your normal conversational language.




Max, I think you would do well to actually listen to what I am trying to say, rather than just assume you are always right and always smarter than me. You don't have to agree with me. But I am making valid points, and this is a case of exactly the kind of "X is inescapable' that I am talking about.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Sure, and in casual conversation, people still pick and choose words, which is engaging in wordcraft.  Even if you don't put effort into it, you are engaging in it.




That isn't wordcraft


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> I do understand and accept it.  Nothing I've said has indicated otherwise.  I just think you are unaware that despite the lack of care and effort, you are still engaging in wordcraft to a degree.
> 
> Just look at my example above.  My wife and I were having a normal conversation about our dogs.  We chose the word spray.  We could have chosen spotting, or marking, or peeing, but we didn't.  We didn't put any particular effort into it, and we didn't particularly care, but we did choose one word over the others and use it, because that's what people do in conversations.  We still used wordcraft, despite the lack of effort and care.





Again, this is just semantics at this point. But the larger point, whether we call it wordcraft or not, is if we have a scale of wordcraft: I am way, way down on the bottom. You may describe that as still engaging in wordcraft because in your world everything is always everything. I wouldn't describe it as such. We have disagreements over what wordcraft means and how words function, that we frankly are not going to resolve in this thread.


----------



## Sadras

Maxperson said:


> The only binary here is you.  To suggest that in order to be engaging in wordcraft you have to be like Mercer is binary.  Wordcraft is on a sliding scale.
> 
> Sure, and in casual conversation, people still pick and choose words, which is engaging in wordcraft.  Even if you don't put effort into it, you are engaging in it.
> 
> I do understand and accept it.  Nothing I've said has indicated otherwise.  I just think you are unaware that despite the lack of care and effort, you are still engaging in wordcraft to a degree.
> 
> Just look at my example above.  My wife and I were having a normal conversation about our dogs.  We chose the word spray.  We could have chosen spotting, or marking, or peeing, but we didn't.  We didn't put any particular effort into it, and we didn't particularly care, but we did choose one word over the others and use it, because that's what people do in conversations.  We still used wordcraft, despite the lack of effort and care.




Max, you have a tendency to be rather liberal in your definitions and technically you are not wrong but by broadening the use of wordcraft to such a degree you make its value in this debate somewhat meaningless. You applied the same thought to _literary endeavour_ and came up with your grocery list example.

In this very post I had to technically wordcraft, that does not mean I consider my post to be some sort of literary endeavour. 

You can afford to be a little more conservative and fair in the terminology used. Don't go full progressive on us.


----------



## Sadras

Bedrockgames said:


> And I think this is fine. If you find the game to be a literary endeavor in this way, and if you are a GM in the style of Matt Mercer, then that is what you should do. *I am not saying it can't be these things. All I am saying is it does not have to be these things.* Matt Mercer's style of GMing *isn't the only way*, or the best way: it is just one way to it.




Bold emphasis mine.
I agree with you, but here is the rub, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] does not as per his OP. He does not even make that concession that someone could engage in a literary endeavour for their RPGing. 

This is the issue [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] has been highlighting for a while.


----------



## darkbard

Sadras said:


> Bold emphasis mine.
> I agree with you, but here is the rub,   [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] does not as per his OP. He does not even make that concession that someone could engage in a literary endeavour for their RPGing.
> 
> This is the issue   [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] has been highlighting for a while.




You are correct that  [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] keeps asserting this. But you are both wrong in your characterization of  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s position. Many times now he has articulated that _all things being equal_, literary presentation can improve the quality of a game, but that caveat requires that the core activity of TRPGing be not in the presentation itself but in the invitation to meaningful engagement of the situation on the part of the PCs, that at its heart the issue is not performance but framing situations that invite protagonism.

I'm sure pemerton will correct me if I have inadvertendly mischaracterized his position.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran

lowkey13 said:


> But Umbran .... someone on the internet .... IS WRONG.




Two people on the internet are wrong.  One is the person who is wrong.  The other is the person who thinks they can change the mind of the wrong person on the internet by tossing facts and arguments at them.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran

lowkey13 said:


> But if two wrongs make a right ....




[video=youtube_share;PKo7Ivssqfk]https://youtu.be/PKo7Ivssqfk[/video]


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> To each their own, I suppose.




Well, of course....it's all opinion. But do you have any examples to share? Is there a module or adventure book you can think of where the actual content is pretty bland, but is presented so well that playing the adventure is worthwhile? 

I really can't think of any myself, but it's certainly possible they're out there. 



Lanefan said:


> So it's a BS example then.  Got it.
> 
> Had the eyepatch been in the first example then yes, it would provide a fine point of comparison between styles; and we could have gone on to dissect them and explain why we liked one or the other or a bit of both.  That the eyepatch isn't there only serves to unfairly skew that comparison in a particular direction - I can only assume from what you say here that this was intentional.
> 
> Not cool.




I wouldn't call it a BS example. The two examples speak to the two things that were being compared in the OP. One makes more of an attempt to use evocative language to engage the players, and the second uses content (a man with an eyepatch) that will engage the players. 

The fact that you think it's so skewed, to me, implies that you know which is more engaging. Content simply matters more.

I'm all for compelling description and evocative language and in painting a scene for players. But to me, that stuff is all dressing. The content is what's always going to matter the most.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:
			
		

> about where the aesthetic merit and aeshetic power of RPGIng lies, and therefore *a view* about what the point of RPGing ultimately is.







lowkey13 said:


> To the extent someone is telling me what the REAL POINT of RPGing is ... well, they can pound sand. And I would expect them to say the same to me if I told them they were playing it wrong, because I knew "what the point of RPGing ultimately is."(tm).




No one is saying what THE REAL POINT of RPGing is. Someone has offered A VIEW about what the real point is. 

Seriously.....it's his opinion. Feel free to discuss it, agree or disagree or make a new point, but everyone needs to relax with this cry of one true wayism anytime someone puts forth their opinion without a giant disclaimer that it's their own view. 

As much disagreement as there seems to have been with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s point, I don't think I've seen much in the way of an actual counter-argument so much as challenging the way he's worded his argument. 

Does anyone have some compelling argument about how the literary quality of narration can be more engaging to players than content? Does anyone have an example of an incredibly well written module or game book that they think displays this? 

It'd be nice to see what people have in mind in that regard rather than the continuing discussion on the meaning of literary and so forth.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## hawkeyefan

lowkey13 said:


> _I think (and hope) it's obvious that my OP is putting forward a view about where the aesthetic merit and aesthetic power of RPGIng lies, and therefore a view that optimization is the right way to play TTRPGs._
> 
> 
> See? It's just a view.
> 
> 
> How about this?
> 
> _I think (and hope) it's obvious that my OP is putting forward a view about where the aesthetic merit and aesthetic power of RPGIng lies, and therefore a view that (a particular edition of D&D is garbage).
> _
> 
> Good?
> 
> Dude- say whatever you will about the tenets of National Socialism, it's just a view, dude.
> 
> 
> As for the rest- I am sure that no one could possibly have offered any substantive rebuttal to the points offered by the OP in any of the hundreds of comments.
> 
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 
> 
> Anyway, enjoy. It's not like my posts now, or 500 posts ago, will change your mind.




Change my mind how? I'm willing to listen to your opinion on the topic. You obviously disagree with the OP, but how so? Other than his choice of words, I mean.....the tenets he put forth, how do you disagree with those? I don't think that pemerton ever actually implied anything negative about the opposing view.....he even said how most of the time it was a good thing.....so your edition war analogy doesn't really hold water. 

If anyone said anything substantive about the pros of literary quality in RPGs, I very well may have missed it. I heard a lot of assertion that it was important....and I would absolutely agree that it is.....but I don't think anyone said why it was more important than the situation. 

I'm genuinely interested in hearing about that, and have been trying to keep to that topic as much as possible, rather than debate semantics.


----------



## hawkeyefan

lowkey13 said:


> *If this is too subtle, how about this?
> It is my VIEW that my way of playing is correct, and that the way you play is terrible and stupid.
> 
> See? It's just a view.




Ah....well I'd have to see where that was said in the posts, because I didn't see any such negativity in the OP or related posts. Things got a little terse during the debate on definitions and all that, but everyone seems to have made it through unscathed.

Or at least, almost everyone...you'll have to excuse me while I go and weep uncontrollably, curled into the fetal position in my shower.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## hawkeyefan

lowkey13 said:


> At the risk of repeating myself from the very beginning of the the thread-
> 
> First, the OP was saying something negative about other playstyles by definition. If he hadn't been, then people wouldn't have reacted the way they did. Notice that when Hussar tried to agree with him, he reiterated his thesis statement by asserting the strong version (that RPGs have a point, and he was telling us what the point was). That you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. It's not your ox being gored.




I didn't see it as a negative comment on other playstyles. But maybe you have a point in that it's not my ox. Although, I use plenty of narration and description in my play, so I don't think of it as a case where it doesn't pertain to me. 




lowkey13 said:


> But to your other point- as already discussed:
> 
> Certain genres of TTRPGs are depending on performance and/or the use of narrative to evoke emotion.*
> 
> An easy example is Paranoia, and other games that use humor.
> 
> Another easy example is any type of LARPing.
> 
> Moving on, we have diceless systems (Amber, for example) and other RPGs that depend heavily on narrative and/or performance.
> 
> Then, we have other genres- horror, for example. Call of Cthulhu is an example of a game where narrative matters a great deal.




I think Call of Cthulhu is a great example. I would expect most games of it would lean heavily on mood, and that one of the ways mood would be established would be through description, and choice of narration, and tone, and so on. 

But do you think that this is a question of style over substance? 

Do you think that you can achieve an engaging Call of Cthulhu session without leaning heavily on these things? 




lowkey13 said:


> From there, we can look at thematic choices within a game. For example, some groups might be drawn to Ravenloft, or Dark Sun, within D&D because these particular settings allow for more narrative and/or performance than "traditional" D&D.
> 
> What has been aggravating is that, for some of us, performance and narration matters; both as DMs and as players. In fact, the emergent quality of the game is improved by the component abilities of both the DM and the players. To see that level of engagement that some of us enjoy reduced to "funny voices" as we have repeatedly seen throughout this thread is the type of hostile denigration that is not productive.




The "funny voices" comments I can see as being annoying. I don't think all of them were meant that way so much as they were simply a shorthand for "performance", but I can see how repeated use of that kind of phrase would be annoying. 




lowkey13 said:


> Put another way; it is inarguable that RPGs can use different techniques to evoke emotion and engagement than other media; but they also share techniques as well. To use an example I used hundreds of comments ago- you can't use a jump scare in a book, and you can't use the repetition of words to evoke fear in a movie; but just because movies and books are different doesn't mean that they don't share some commonalities when it comes to creating tension and fear, and no one would credibly argue, "You can only use JUMP SCARES in movies. That's it. Because they are different."  By the same token, there are commonalities between books, movies, video games, and RPGs when it comes to creating a sense of horror, dread, and fear.




I agree with this. Each media will have its own techniques, but there will also be a pool of techniques that are available to multiple media.  I do think that RPGing is unique in that it is a game, and potentially open ended in that sense. Much of it is undetermined even as those who are participating are experiencing it. So is that element, the fact that it is a game, important? 

If so, is it paramount? 

Must the RPG engage the players in the way a game engages participants more than an RPG must engage an audience in the way other media do? 

I feel like the game is more important to the performance. I don't think it must always be so, but I would tend to make that call. 

Do you think that the performance is more important than the game?


----------



## Umbran

lowkey13 said:


> Melf, the Erudite: "Although a double negative, in English, implies a positive meaning, there is no language in which a double positive makes a negative."




Hey, we should be feel lucky that language has at least that passing acquaintance with formal logic!

The best bit on double negatives comes from a film, _The Lost Skeleton Returns Again_.  Unfortunately, it seems no clips of it come up on youtube using the obvious search terms I can think of.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran

hawkeyefan said:


> But do you think that this is a question of style over substance?




That may be a false dichotomy.

Remember that Call of Cthulhu is a *horror* game.  Can we agree that achieving some sensation of horror is one (possibly among many) implicit goal of play?  

Things that achieve the goals of play are the _substance_, are they not?  



> Do you think that you can achieve an engaging Call of Cthulhu session without leaning heavily on these things?




Well, of course you can play Call of Cthulhu without these things.  But I counter the question with a question - How likely are you to achieve horror without these things?

Same things goes with humor, for games like Paranoia, or Toon.  Being *funny* is a significant part of the point of playing.  Do you want to try to be funny without putting consideration to how you present the material?  




> If so, is it paramount?
> 
> Must the RPG engage the players in the way a game engages participants more than an RPG must engage an audience in the way other media do?
> 
> I feel like the game is more important to the performance. I don't think it must always be so, but I would tend to make that call.
> 
> Do you think that the performance is more important than the game?




I don't see a particular need to make the generalization, to be honest.  We could speak about particular moments during play, when we could say that one perhaps should take precedence over the other.  But, I don't at this point see much value to be found in proclaiming that, over play in general, one is (or should be) predominant.  But, I'm game to hear some ideas.

What do we gain, in our consideration of our hobby, from proclaiming one over the other?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Lanefan

Bedrockgames said:


> That isn't wordcraft



Er...how isn't it?

I mean, right now I'm engaging in wordcraft as I try to come up with appropriate words to type (and in the right sequence) in order to get my point across.  Doubtless you'll do the same if-when you reply to this.

Same thing happens in conversation, though often at a more rapid pace and with less and sometimes no conscious effort.  And for those speaking in a language not natively their own, much more conscious effort is involved until-unless complete fluency is attained.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> Well, of course....it's all opinion. But do you have any examples to share? Is there a module or adventure book you can think of where the actual content is pretty bland, but is presented so well that playing the adventure is worthwhile?



In its writing?  Not often.  Maybe some WotC 4e modules such as Keep on the Shadowfell - the presentation in some of those make them seem like they'll play better than they actually do. (no I don't run 4e but I have converted several of its modules for my own game).  B-10 Night's Dark Terror is another such - it reads much better than it plays, as I've twice now learned.

But I have seen the reverse: good content made bland (or much harder to use) by poor presentation.  Some DCCRPG modules are like this for me - great ideas but the presentation (usually involving their terrible arthouse style of mapping) ruins it.   

As presented at the table?  Hells yeah.  As a player I've been through many adventures where, in hindsight, an analyst would look back and think "You know, that was a fairly bland-and-boring adventure based only on what was in it" but in fact it was roaring fun to play through due in very large part to how it was presented by the DM and in much smaller part to what the players did with - or to - it.



> I wouldn't call it a BS example. The two examples speak to the two things that were being compared in the OP. One makes more of an attempt to use evocative language to engage the players, and the second uses content (a man with an eyepatch) that will engage the players.
> 
> The fact that you think it's so skewed, to me, implies that you know which is more engaging. Content simply matters more.
> 
> I'm all for compelling description and evocative language and in painting a scene for players. But to me, that stuff is all dressing. The content is what's always going to matter the most.



My assumption - silly me - was that the underlying content would be the same in both examples and thus the comparison is merely one of how that content is presented and which presentation is more engaging.


----------



## darkbard

Umbran said:


> What do we gain, in our consideration of our hobby, from proclaiming one over the other?




Uncritical advocacy may not add anything at all. But critical analysis and discussion can help sharpen the focus of what separates the activity of RPGing from other endeavors. This is not to say that critical analysis of elements RPGing shares with other activities is ipso facto useless, but it does provide a locus for discussion on the unique attributes of RPGing, and I think that's pretty useful.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Lanefan said:


> Er...how isn't it?
> 
> I mean, right now I'm engaging in wordcraft as I try to come up with appropriate words to type (and in the right sequence) in order to get my point across.  Doubtless you'll do the same if-when you reply to this.
> 
> Same thing happens in conversation, though often at a more rapid pace and with less and sometimes no conscious effort.  And for those speaking in a language not natively their own, much more conscious effort is involved until-unless complete fluency is attained.




I think there is a huge difference though between conversational English where I am not seeking to utilize literary or oratorical skill and wordcraft. Otherwise, wordcraft is so general, you do it naturally all the time and we are stuck with the 'its inescapable' problem. If something is so natural and second nature to communication that you do it anyways, there is no need to draw distinctions around things like wordcraft, because it will happen naturally on its own. I do think there is value in wordcraft, it has uses in many areas. I just don't see it as part of what I an doing when I talk with my friends at the gaming table. There my interest is holding an engaging conversation. I don't have to worry about whether I am overusing a particular adjective, thrown ums and ahs in my sentences or speaking in the passive voice. I am just talking however I am naturally inclined to talk. I may be picking my words as I do so, but I am not concerned with these aspects of style that would concern me when I am writing a humor piece or a vivid description in a short story. The use of wordcraft, if it even exists in this conversational approach, seems so minimal to not be worth mentioning.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Umbran said:


> That may be a false dichotomy.
> 
> Remember that Call of Cthulhu is a *horror* game.  Can we agree that achieving some sensation of horror is one (possibly among many) implicit goal of play?
> 
> Things that achieve the goals of play are the _substance_, are they not?




It's a dichotomy in that I think most games have both, sure. But I think that there are examples in other media we could point to where how the story is told is more important than the story itself. Something like Mulholland Drive, let's say....or most of Lynch's work, to be honest. 

Do you think this exists in RPGs? 



Umbran said:


> Well, of course you can play Call of Cthulhu without these things.  But I counter the question with a question - How likely are you to achieve horror without these things?
> 
> Same things goes with humor, for games like Paranoia, or Toon.  Being *funny* is a significant part of the point of playing.  Do you want to try to be funny without putting consideration to how you present the material?




I think that horror is tough, honestly.....I don't know if trying to establish a spooky mood through language often works in RPGs. I think it can, for sure. I think it tends to help when there's already some kind of content that's unsettling in some way. 

As for humor, while I've never played Toon or Paranoia, there are always lots of laughs in my group's RPG sessions, and most of them are due to spontaneous comments more than any kind of craft. 

But I think this also kind of raises a good point.....what about a player in such a game who just isn't that funny? Maybe they love humor, and enjoy comedy, but just aren't that great at being funny themselves. Or aren't that comfortable with it? What about a player who doesn't have a strong sense of theme or mood in fiction? Do these players not enjoy the game as much as other players? Are they not playing as well? 

Are these skills essential in some way to RPGing? 




Umbran said:


> I don't see a particular need to make the generalization, to be honest.  We could speak about particular moments during play, when we could say that one perhaps should take precedence over the other.  But, I don't at this point see much value to be found in proclaiming that, over play in general, one is (or should be) predominant.  But, I'm game to hear some ideas.
> 
> What do we gain, in our consideration of our hobby, from proclaiming one over the other?




I think that some of the comments in this thread have been enlightening, when it's not been sidetracked by argument. Some of the questions you and I are discussing now are very interesting to me. I feel like I get a better understanding of games and gamers. As someone who has primarily played with some iteration of the same dozen or so people over the years, I like to get views beyond my own. I think my group is pretty typical in many ways, but sometimes I learn that we may not be all that typical. 

Ultimately, what's to be gained with any analysis? Those who accept the OP's premise may be able to focus their efforts on what they think is essential to RPGing. Those who don't accept the premise, perhaps can see an area they usually don't focus upon.


----------



## Sadras

Lanefan said:


> My assumption - silly me - was that the underlying content would be the same in both examples and thus the comparison is merely one of how that content is presented and which presentation is more engaging.




XP for this.

However on the issue of _wordcraft_, I do not think it is useful in this debate to include such a liberal interpretation of the word.


----------



## Umbran

darkbard said:


> Uncritical advocacy may not add anything at all. But critical analysis and discussion can help sharpen the focus of what separates the activity of RPGing from other endeavors.




So, we'd get to more clearly divide Them from Us?

I've generally held that RPGs are a genre of games.  Genres *don't have* sharp definitions.  They have very fuzzy edges, defined by inclusion rather than exclusion.  This does not impede critical analysis - it merely means that analysis requires a bit of subtlety and consideration.


----------



## Sadras

hawkeyefan said:


> Ultimately, what's to be gained with any analysis? Those who accept the OP's premise may be able to focus their efforts on what they think is essential to RPGing. Those who don't accept the premise, perhaps can see an area they usually don't focus upon.




And the author of the OP?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## hawkeyefan

lowkey13 said:


> TBH, I stopped seriously commenting ages ago on this thread as I made my points that were necessary- but saw the last comment by the OP (after being mentioned by a few people) that I emphasized; that is to say, when someone is asserting (making the argument) that there TTRPGs have a certain point, or that a certain mode (framing, say) is prioritized for emotion engagement over other modes (narration, for example), that does carry a negative implication about other ways of playing. There's a distinction between the following:
> 
> A. My group plays like this, and it works for us because ...
> 
> B. My view is that TTRPGs should be played like this, because the point of TTRPGs is ...
> 
> Both of these are opinions, but one is an opinion that is descriptive (this is how we play, and it works), and one is descriptive (this is how TTRPGs should work). And I think people tend to pick up on the latter- but, then again, on the internet people argue over everything anyway.




Sure, one is a more polite to make the statement, but they pretty much say the same thing. I attribute the choice made to the desire to spark a conversation, which it did, but it also sparked another, which became the bigger one of the two. 



lowkey13 said:


> Personally, I think that Paranoia (and other humor-based RPGs) is the best example, because humor is the type of thing that can't really be done well just be framing, and, instead, really requires certain techniques, tone, and narration.
> 
> But in terms of CoC, I don't think it would be impossible, but I think it would be lacking. In other words, there are numerous RPGs out there to play. IMO, choosing to play CoC presupposes that the group playing it wants to play a certain way; which will involve mood.
> 
> It's not impossible to have a good session without leaning heavily on narrative elements (by the DM and the players), but I would say it is very hard to have a good CoC game without leaning heavily, and perhaps there are better games to play.
> 
> In essence, it is hard to generate horror without these elements, and it is even harder with certain types of horror (gothic, cosmic). IME, those who choose to play those genres are playing because of the narrative elements.




Sure, I think that the game you choose to play has a huge impact on the experience you'll have, and that most groups are going to try and choose a game that matches what they're going for. 

I've played a good amount of Call of Cthulhu (and its iterations) over the years. I've enjoyed quite a bit of it. I don't know if I've felt fear or horror more than a few times. 



lowkey13 said:


> It's a shorthand crutch, but I can certainly understand why people use it; after all, I make the same jokes other people do about Scottish Dwarves.
> 
> But ... just because everyone isn't Mercer et al., doesn't mean that there aren't techniques people are using (to a greater or lesser extent) even when using more plain-spoken, conversation elements. There are so many different ways of expressing yourself; I think that people are unfairly tarring "performance" or "narrative techniques" with baggage it doesn't deserve.




Sure, I agree. I use such elements in my game. I would expect most games do, although some may play more of a focus on it than others. 



lowkey13 said:


> I don't think that's a correct question. It's like asking, "Are the visuals more important than the movie?"
> 
> No, of course not. But visuals are a PART of the movie. A major part. Sometimes, the visuals are intense and stylized. Sometimes, they are drab. Sometimes, they are so mundane to barely even qualify for the term "visuals," and yet, they are still a part of the movie.




See I think it's an utterly interesting question. See my comments to Umbran about David Lynch, and similar filmmakers. His use of the medium seems to take precedence over any traditional sense of story, I'd say.  



lowkey13 said:


> Different groups will emphasize different parts of RPGs at different times. A group that plays an optimization-heavy, grid-combat focused D&D in a conversational style is unlikely to emphasize the same aspects of the game as does a group that is playing a ToTM one-shot of Paranoia. And yet, both of these are equally valid, and equally fun, for the participants.
> 
> The narrative elements from the players and the DM are part of the game; sometimes the most important part, sometimes a lesser part, but always a part.  And to go back to the original point (re: evoking emotion), I would continue to say that these narrative elements and techniques from both the players and the DM are often crucial for the evoking those emotions.




Sure, I think they can be powerful tools. I just think that more often, what engages me about a game is the decision point that's put forth rather than how it's put forth, and the mood that's been established for it.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> In its writing?  Not often.  Maybe some WotC 4e modules such as Keep on the Shadowfell - the presentation in some of those make them seem like they'll play better than they actually do. (no I don't run 4e but I have converted several of its modules for my own game).  B-10 Night's Dark Terror is another such - it reads much better than it plays, as I've twice now learned.




So the narrative quality of those seems a detriment in this case. Like a junker with a fresh coat of paint.



Lanefan said:


> But I have seen the reverse: good content made bland (or much harder to use) by poor presentation.  Some DCCRPG modules are like this for me - great ideas but the presentation (usually involving their terrible arthouse style of mapping) ruins it.
> 
> As presented at the table?  Hells yeah.  As a player I've been through many adventures where, in hindsight, an analyst would look back and think "You know, that was a fairly bland-and-boring adventure based only on what was in it" but in fact it was roaring fun to play through due in very large part to how it was presented by the DM and in much smaller part to what the players did with - or to - it.




But is this a question of clarity? Like the information isn't clear? Or is it more that the information is presented in a dry nd straightforward manner? Because I think clarity of information is a bit beside the point of narrative quality. 



Lanefan said:


> My assumption - silly me - was that the underlying content would be the same in both examples and thus the comparison is merely one of how that content is presented and which presentation is more engaging.




Well since the OP was making a comparison between the narrative quality of information presented versus the relevance of information presented, I used an example of each of those.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Sadras said:


> And the author of the OP?




You would have to ask him, but I would expect it's the same reason.....to hear ideas other than one's own.


----------



## hawkeyefan

lowkey13 said:


> But let's think about this statement for a second. This assumes that there is a universal type of RPGing ... which is the (IMO) category error that the OP falls into.
> 
> That's why I thought it was helpful to break out other, specific, types of RPGs. Like CoC, and Paranoia (to cite just two of countless examples). Or, heck, LARPing.
> 
> I mean, let's talk about LARPing for a second. For me, that's a bridge too far. I have my own hangups about that in the same way that some people on this thread keep talking about how they play in a conversational way because they refuse to do "funny voices."
> 
> But I wouldn't deny that there are those who really enjoy LARPing. And that it is roleplaying. With like, rules and stuff. And performance and narrative.
> 
> 
> But what does it all mean, Basil?
> 
> The following:
> 
> 1. There is no universal RPGing. Different approaches work at different times for different people; just as, for example, there are different styles of writing, or to use a more germane example, different types of movies ... and they all have different points of emphasis.
> 
> 2. People can improve and change. I wasn't as socially aware or had the same strong sense of theme or mood when I started as I do now; this is something that I acquired and cultivated. It's akin to saying (to use an example), "What do you do if you have someone sign up for an acting class that can't act?" Well, maybe they can get better!* Because repetition does amazing things ... or ...
> 
> 3. Maybe they will gravitate toward games that don't have as much narrative and theme that is required. That's fine! If you are innumerate, you can play Amber, right?
> 
> It's odd, to me, to see a qualitative statement (that someone isn't playing "well") when people have disparate goals for playing. As I always remark- the games that I run with grognards are not the same as the ones I run for kids and teens; but they are both fun.
> 
> 
> *Again, this is why TTRPGs are great for people on the autism spectrum, and are also really helpful for kids and teens that lack self-confidence and social awareness.




1. Yes, I agree. But I also think people can and will try games beyond those that seem to offer what they are interested in.....players who want a creepy setting playing CoC, for example. 

2. Yes, they can improve. Which means get better....which means at some point they aren't playing as well as they could be. So I think in that sense, you're saying that these skills are essential, even if the skills may vary a bit from game to game. 

3. Must....have.....dice!!!

Maybe another way of looking at it is that all these different types of RPGs and styles and so on....they seem to have a short list of traits common to them all. Is there some skill or technique that would benefit all of them, from Fate to GURPS to LARPing?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Riley37

lowkey13 said:


> Role playing games are what role players play; sometimes when rolling.




I see you rollin'.



lowkey13 said:


> nothing more than structured forms of collaborative storytelling




I hope you're open to friendly amendments. RPGs are structured forms of collaborative storytelling which *can* include other elements. Sometimes they are structured forms of collaborative storytelling *and* also a miniatures war game. (Can they be a floor wax AND a dessert topping? I have not yet seen an RPG which works well in both those roles.)

At a gaming convention last weekend, I played "Fall of Magic", which is essentially a forking path of storytelling prompts. It's a bit like Fiasco, if you wanted to produce something more like "Never-ending Story" rather than "Fargo". It eschews many of the elements of mainstream RPGs, which works well for its purpose, but which also reminded me of how significant those elements can be, for other purposes.

Words I learned today: "diegetic". That's quite a useful word for discussion of the IC/OOC distinction. There's a scene in "High Anxiety" in which ominous music plays, and the main characters (all in a car, on a coastal highway) tense up and look around. A bus comes the other way; the bus passengers are all musicians, an orchestra, playing the ominous music.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> I've seen you engage in it.   You once gave an example of the angel feather being a potential object for the PC to rescue his brother from the balrog.  You didn't describe it a widget.  You didn't describe it as object #1.  You didn't describe it as a thing.  You made it an angel feather, because an angel feather will evoke an emotional response that object #1 or widget won't.  You engaged in wordcraft to make the situation more interesting and compelling. It may not have been wordcraft to the level of Shakespeare, but it was still wordcraft.



With respect, this is silly. Describing things isn't *wordcraft* in the relevant sense. Four year old children have the vocabulary to describe the things that matter to them, and use it. But they're not engaged in literary activity. They're just speaking.

If you think that _there is no difference_ between describing things per se, and describing things in ways that evince quality of form and aesthetic merit in and of themselves, then run that argument. I think it's a hard argument to run, because it runs rougshod over some common-sense understandings and practices around composition (of fictional writing, of poetry, even of some non-fiction), but not impossible. But you have to actually run it!


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> However, unlike @_*pemerton*_ I do think _literary endeavour_ exists within RPGs. Certainly when one looks at CR, the word usage by Mercer is important in order to immerse the players (and viewers) into the fictional world and the unravelling story.
> Many of us attempt to do same in our own games.
> 
> All you have to do is look at Stephen Colbert's eyes as Mercer was wordsmithing away.
> It is important, whether you're writing a book for the enjoyment of millions or whether you're forming a tale together at the table for the enjoyment of a handful. They're both _literary endeavours_.



This engages directly with the OP. Thank you.



Aldarc said:


> It seems like they are narrative endeavors or storytelling endeavors. I don't necessarily think that the word "literary" applies when we are talking more about story-craft or fiction-craft than the crafting of literature, even if we apply the technical sense of pertaining to written words.





Hussar said:


> See, this?  This right here?  This is the goalposts on roller skates I'm talking about.



But [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] is not me. I've already posted that some of the things Aldarc is distinguishing from literature I would, for my purposes as per the OP, characterise as _literary endeavours_.

The world has room for multiple conversations!

(And having just written this reply, I notice that Aldarc says something similar in the next post in the thread.)


----------



## pemerton

lowkey13 said:


> Some of us have a different view about the point of RPGing, and, for that matter, the "aesthetic merit and aesthetic power of RPGing[.]" Perhaps that is why there isn't one, universal, system that all people equally enjoy (or one style, for that matter).



You say this as if its controversial, or something I'm unaware of. But to quote from the OP, with some empahsis added:



pemerton said:


> *My answer* to the question in the thread title is a firm _No_.
> 
> 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 - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction. That is, that the situation _engage and motivate_ the players _as players_, not as an audience to a performance. And player narration should, *in my view*, engage with and build on this fiction in ways that display the player's view of the fiction, perhaps challenge other players (and even the GM), that make the other pariticpants go "I didn't see that coming!"
> 
> *This is how I see RPGs*, with their emphasis on _participation_ in the creation of a fiction that is structured through _distinct_ player an d GM roles, working. And it's how I see them differening from more directly narrative mediums such as books and films.



This is why I XPed [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION]'s post about Matt Mercer and Steve Colbert. Not because I agree with what Sadras said - he is putting forward a conception of RPGing that differs from the one I put forward, and that places an importance on the literary quality of the narration that I am denying.

But Sadras's post engages fully and unequivocally with my OP. It puts forward a conception of RPGing that includes entertainment and audience, and hence a role for literary endeavour. And it does so without any needless detour through word meanings and attempts to prove that someone or other is engaged in self-contradiction.


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> He does not even make that concession that someone could engage in a literary endeavour for their RPGing.





darkbard said:


> you are both wrong in your characterization of  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s position. Many times now he has articulated that _all things being equal_, literary presentation can improve the quality of a game, but that caveat requires that the core activity of TRPGing be not in the presentation itself but in the invitation to meaningful engagement of the situation on the part of the PCs, that at its heart the issue is not performance but framing situations that invite protagonism.



What darkbard says is correct, with one caveat that perhaps gets closer to the heart of Sadras's concern: I think that _the invitation to action_ often requires spontaneity or real-time judgement in tthe back-and-forth; whereas wordcraft tends to benefit from reflection and editing. So I think there can be a degree of tension between the two.

So there is a second claim, on top of the claim that literary quality is not core to RPGing. It is that, while everything else being equal literary quality (and the resulting entertainment) can be a good thing, everything else may often not be equal.



lowkey13 said:


> I have tried to highlight the history of why this thread was created.



And as I've already pointed out, you're wrong about this. As the OP says, it was prompted by multiple threads. Not just the boxed text thread; also the action declaration thread, in which [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] was criticising some other posters for insisting on "talky talky" as key to action declaration, and they were trying to articulate a contrast between _effective description for RPGing purposes_ and what I would call _descriptions having literary merit_. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] was sceptical of that distinction being drawn in that thread, so it doesn't surprise me too much that he's sceptical of such distinctions being drawin in this thread.

What has surprised me, though, is that in that thread Hussar was against such descriptions and in favour of "I roll a climb check: 16", whereas in this thread he wants the players to bring the evocative descriptions. I'm not saying that Hussar is inconsistent, just that he's drawing his boundaries of desirability in a different place from what I had anticipated.


----------



## pemerton

Sadras said:


> And the author of the OP?



What about me? Do you mean, what did I hope to get out of the thread?

One's never sure in advance beyond "interesting conversation". But the discussion about storytelling and various modes, driven mostly by [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION], has been interesting.

 [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] have helped refine my framing of my point. That's helpful. And also led it in the direction of "advice to GMs", which led to some fruitful discussions with [MENTION=8495]uzirath[/MENTION] whom I've not engaged with very much before as a poster.

And [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] has pushed with some challenging posts about pacing that I haven't replied to yet.

Ultimately, the reason I post on a discussion board is to have discussions.


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> I think most people can agree that economy of language is a large component of pacing.  If a scene is in the midst of the precipice of its Rising Action to where its transitioning to Climax (because the mechanical state of affairs says it should be there), I think we can agree that its poor GMing for a GM deploying 100 words where 10 will more impactfully convey the information.  Quantity, economy of language, matters.
> 
> So after quantity, we have type/kind.  When you're evolving a scene from one (lets call it) "arc-state" to the next, can one descriptor (of the same quantity) more aptly convey the urgency, gravity, or tempo of a situation vs another?





Manbearcat said:


> Is there a collection of, say, 15 words that can impel the gravity (say, better depict the steep angle of descent down the Falling Action roller coaster) better than any other collection of 15 words, where both collections of words conveys the situation _appropriately_ (appropriately here meaning, inform players sufficiently that they can make intuitive action declarations for their PCs).



OK, so in my earlier reply to you I had located "pacing" as something happening at the scene/scene transition level, but here you are bringing it back to the _word choice in the moment_ level.

If your two questions (at the end of the first quote, and in the second quote) are accepted as purely rhetorical, then I think you're putting a _lot_ of pressure on the form/content distinction: because the best way to present the _invitation to action_ is via _this_ rather than _that_ choice of words.

I think my feeling is that, while there may be some word choices that are clearly better than others in this respect, (i) there is no optimum, and (ii) crossing the bar to _satisfactory_ is generally straightforward enough that it's not a significant challenge of composition. But I need to think more. And I'll try and see what happens the next time I GM a game!


----------



## Umbran

hawkeyefan said:


> It's a dichotomy in that I think most games have both, sure.




I'm saying it may not be much of a dichotomy in may cases because the *how* is not cleanly separable from the what.  Or, the how _is part of_ the what.  

To take an example that will probably mean something to most of us here.  John Williams' score for the Star Wars movies.  Those pieces generally stand on their own, and communicate things without the movie.  I dare folks to claim that those musical pieces are not content, in and of themselves.  The presentation of Star Wars _would not be the same story_ if it had, instead, music by... Abba, say.  



> But I think that there are examples in other media we could point to where how the story is told is more important than the story itself. Something like Mulholland Drive, let's say....or most of Lynch's work, to be honest.
> 
> Do you think this exists in RPGs?




I certainly think sometimes, yes.  

Lowkey may be averse to LARP, but I am not.  In one game for which I was a routine NPC, the resurrection of dead PCs went through an afterlife.  Within the afterlife, the "what" was incredibly simple - interact cogently with one of the NPCs for long enough, and we'd give you a card that would allow you to leave.  The *how*, was everything.  The large, open, darkened space that echoed conveniently.  The masks we wore.  That we spoke cryptically in ways the PCs thought meant things (they didn't).  No PC ever failed to get resurrected, but they didn't know that failure was nigh impossible to do.  People actively avoided death in combat in large part because we made the afterlife anxiety-inducing.  Our "how" influenced the "what" of PC choices.



> I think that horror is tough, honestly.....I don't know if trying to establish a spooky mood through language often works in RPGs. I think it can, for sure. I think it tends to help when there's already some kind of content that's unsettling in some way.
> 
> As for humor, while I've never played Toon or Paranoia, there are always lots of laughs in my group's RPG sessions, and most of them are due to spontaneous comments more than any kind of craft.




So, at the cross section of horror and humor... I used to help run a very large, very long session of Paranoia each year.

We could have said, "The Production, Logistics, & Commissary citizens feed you some gross food."  Instead, when dinnertime for the players came around, we tossed them baggies filled with shredded bologna in mustard with red food coloring, cooked spaghetti with chocolate sauce, and other foods that were actually entirely wholesome, but just looked nasty, or had weird textures.  

Which do you figure would drive players to actually take action against each other to get choice bits - the words, "some gross food" or the *actuality* of gross food that they're expected to actually eat?



> But I think this also kind of raises a good point.....what about a player in such a game who just isn't that funny?  Maybe they love humor, and enjoy comedy, but just aren't that great at being funny themselves.




Well, that sounds like "willing, but without skills".  In D&D, there are classes that are mechanically more simple than others (like, say, a typical fighter) that can be used until such time as the player learns somethings.  Analogously, comedy has a role of the "straight man", who is kind of essential, but doesn't need to be quite so high-speed creative.  



> Or aren't that comfortable with it?




Well, then we find another game they are comfortable with.  Not all games are for all people, and that's okay. 



> What about a player who doesn't have a strong sense of theme or mood in fiction? Do these players not enjoy the game as much as other players? Are they not playing as well?
> 
> Are these skills essential in some way to RPGing?




Change it from RPGs, to soccer - a game without all this presentation nonsense, right?  What about the player who's a middle-aged guy, who's gone a bit round in the middle, can't run very fast or far.  Are they not playing as well?  Are they not enjoying the game as much?

Within RPGs - take the person who really doesn't have a flare for mechanics, and can't optimize their way out of a paper bag.  Are they not playing as well?  Are they not enjoying the game as much?

Whether or not they enjoy it as much probably mostly depends on whether they are in with people with the same general skills and desires out of play.  The middle aged guy, playing in a pro game, probably won't enjoy it much.  Playing with the other dads and moms in a neighborhood league, however, may be loads of fun.

But, let us be honest - most of us as GMs are not Tolkien or George RR Martin.  Most of us are not professional writers or actors.  We are not the soccer equivalent of Beckham.  The learning curve isn't all that steep.


----------



## Hussar

hawkeyefan said:


> No one is saying what THE REAL POINT of RPGing is. Someone has offered A VIEW about what the real point is.
> 
> Seriously.....it's his opinion. Feel free to discuss it, agree or disagree or make a new point, but everyone needs to relax with this cry of one true wayism anytime someone puts forth their opinion without a giant disclaimer that it's their own view.
> 
> As much disagreement as there seems to have been with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s point, I don't think I've seen much in the way of an actual counter-argument so much as challenging the way he's worded his argument.
> 
> Does anyone have some compelling argument about how the literary quality of narration can be more engaging to players than content? Does anyone have an example of an incredibly well written module or game book that they think displays this?
> 
> It'd be nice to see what people have in mind in that regard rather than the continuing discussion on the meaning of literary and so forth.




I’d argue that most classic dnd modules fall in this category. Most are straightforward dungeon crawls with little or no interesting content beyond kill and loot. 

Yet, how they are presented have made them classics. Bree yark and various Gygaxisms. Otis artwork. All that sensawunda stuff that folks go on about.


----------



## Maxperson

Sadras said:


> Max, you have a tendency to be rather liberal in your definitions and technically you are not wrong but by broadening the use of wordcraft to such a degree you make its value in this debate somewhat meaningless. You applied the same thought to _literary endeavour_ and came up with your grocery list example.
> 
> In this very post I had to technically wordcraft, that does not mean I consider my post to be some sort of literary endeavour.
> 
> You can afford to be a little more conservative and fair in the terminology used. Don't go full progressive on us.




LOL  My wife would break a rib laughing to hear me called liberal or progressive.  Not that I'm very conservative, but I fall more often to that side of the center.  

Anyway, back on topic.  I broaden things the way I do, because as you note, they are technically correct, and I am trying to get people on one page so that we can discuss the topic easier.  When we have people defining something 5 different ways, it's almost impossible to have a meaningful discussion.  If I can get people to understand the broader definition, then we can start refining in a way that will be more productive.  The problem is that people here are allergic to anything that might resemble changing an opinion, so we have people fighting tooth and nail to avoid admitting the moon orbits the earth, the sun is a star, and this thing off of the coast of California is the Pacific Ocean.


----------



## Hussar

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure, one is a more polite to make the statement, but they pretty much say the same thing. I attribute the choice made to the desire to spark a conversation, which it did, but it also sparked another, which became the bigger one of the two.
> 
> 
> 
> /snip




So iow the wordcraft is more important than the content.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> No one is saying what THE REAL POINT of RPGing is. Someone has offered A VIEW about what the real point is.
> 
> Seriously.....it's his opinion. Feel free to discuss it, agree or disagree or make a new point, but everyone needs to relax with this cry of one true wayism anytime someone puts forth their opinion without a giant disclaimer that it's their own view.




There is no "real point" to RPGing.  If your view is that there is One True Way to play the game, you are wrong.  It's that simple.  It doesn't matter if that it's an opinion.  It's still an opinion about the One True Way to play the game.



> Does anyone have some compelling argument about how the literary quality of narration can be more engaging to players than content? Does anyone have an example of an incredibly well written module or game book that they think displays this?




Has anyone even argued that it's more important?  I've seen people argue that it's present in all RPGs.  I've seen people argue that it's equal to content.  I've seen people argue that it's important, but less important than content.  I don't recall anyone saying it's more important, though.


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> /snip.
> 
> What has surprised me, though, is that in that thread Hussar was against such descriptions and in favour of "I roll a climb check: 16", whereas in this thread he wants the players to bring the evocative descriptions. I'm not saying that Hussar is inconsistent, just that he's drawing his boundaries of desirability in a different place from what I had anticipated.




Meh. I’m far too laid back. But that being said, while I have no problems with I roll climb, 16, that’s simply engaging mechanics. There’s typically no need for much narration there. And my criticism was based on the fact that either dcs would change because of the narration, tasks could automatically succeed because of the narration, or the dm might obviate the need for the skill at all because of the narration. 

IOW the issue lies with how gmail might bypass mechanics based on the narration. 

OTOH, the main sticking point here is because I still have no idea what you or Aldarc mean by these terms you are using. 

As far as I can see, literary does not include the following:

Theme
Genre 
Description 
Exposition 
Presentation 
Use of literary techniques like foreshadowing or whatnot
Bacon

So you’ll pardon me for totally agreeing with you that the literary has nothing to do with RPGing. Because all of the above are essential to running a good game and if literary includes none of that, then of course RPGing isn’t literary.


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> OK, so in my earlier reply to you I had located "pacing" as something happening at the scene/scene transition level, but here you are bringing it back to the _word choice in the moment_ level.
> 
> If your two questions (at the end of the first quote, and in the second quote) are accepted as purely rhetorical, then I think you're putting a _lot_ of pressure on the form/content distinction: because the best way to present the _invitation to action_ is via _this_ rather than _that_ choice of words.
> 
> I think my feeling is that, while there may be some word choices that are clearly better than others in this respect, (i) there is no optimum, and (ii) crossing the bar to _satisfactory_ is generally straightforward enough that it's not a significant challenge of composition. But I need to think more. And I'll try and see what happens the next time I GM a game!




Couple thoughts.  One related to the above, a third unrelated to the above.

1)  I agree with both "there is no optimum" and "crossing the bar to satisfactory is generally straightforward enough that its not a significant challenge of composition."

The only daylight remaining is "assuming satisfactory word choice deployed to coherently (with respect to theme, mechanics, pacing) frame situation and invite to action, is it plausible that one arrangement of words (or noises made from mouth, put another way) can move beyond the realm of satisfactory (in terms of provocation)...even if just subtly so?"

I'm going to move a bit sideways here and think about monsters, on the axes of both economy and provocation.  

Remember the 4e Night Hag standing between (figuratively at first) Thurgon and the safety of his King in our game?

It has the awesome Dream Haunting (psychic) ability that attacks stunned or unconscious creatures (vs Will), removes the Hag from play and delivers continuous psychic damage until the target is dead or no longer stunned or unconscious.  

Then, the Night Hag has Wave of Sleep (Recharge 5, 6) that dazes and renders unconscious on a failed save.  

We don't need a giant page of text to tell us about "Night Hag Ecology" to let us know about its place in our games (ripped straight from nightmarish folklore).  The way the mechanics work together, what it attacks, what it does...those collection of words (mechanics in this place) and their brevity let us put the puzzle pieces together.  And when we do, its visceral (because they're constructed so beautifully).  

Then look at Dungeon World's Monster entries.  Economic, provocative prose that compels your (the GMs) decision-points in how to integrate the creature as a looming or immediate threat when a danger needs introduced or a player move go awry.  Take the Gnoll Tracker (without Tags, Qualities, HP, etc) entry from Ravenous Hordes (that subtype alone doing a good bit of work):



> Once they scent your blood, you can’t escape. Not without intervention from the gods, or the duke’s rangers at least. The desert scrub is a dangerous place to go exploring on your own and if you fall and break your leg or eat the wrong cactus, well, you’ll be lucky if you die of thirst before the gnolls find you. They prefer their prey alive, see—cracking bones and the screams of the dying lend a sort of succulence to a meal. Sickening creatures, no? They’ll hunt you, slow and steady, as you die. If you hear laughter in the desert wind, well, best pray Death comes to take you before they do. Instinct: To prey on weakness
> 
> Doggedly track prey
> Strike at a moment of weakness




2)  What do you think about the hierarchy I listed above?

My (1) in the hierarchy would be the deft deployment of the Night Hag or Gnoll Trackers as newly framed antagonism, a looming threat, or an immediate reprisal.


----------



## Manbearcat

Lanefan said:


> Probably, but my immediate question is why the word limit?  Some GMs might convey it wonderfully in 10 words (or even simply a raised eyebrow!) while others might do it equally wonderfully using 50 words or more.
> 
> It's table- and person-dependent, I think.
> 
> Lan-"Assuming the scene and situation had already been described to death, I'd probably use just six words here: make this roll or you're effed"-efan




While I heavily lean toward pithy, provocative framing, the number chosen in the post was arbitrary.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> So iow the wordcraft is more important than the content.




Very true, but this ain’t a RPG.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> With respect, this is silly. Describing things isn't *wordcraft* in the relevant sense.




But choosing this word over that is.



> Four year old children have the vocabulary to describe the things that matter to them, and use it. But they're not engaged in literary activity. They're just speaking.




They have a much more limited vocabulary, but if they are picking words to use over other words, and they do, they are engaging in wordcraft.  It's rudimentary at that age, but they put a lot of concentration on finding the right word, and often due to their limited vocabulary, they need help from adults.



> If you think that _there is no difference_ between describing things per se, and describing things in ways that evince quality of form and aesthetic merit in and of themselves, then run that argument. I think it's a hard argument to run, because it runs rougshod over some common-sense understandings and practices around composition (of fictional writing, of poetry, even of some non-fiction), but not impossible. But you have to actually run it!




Quality of form is a sliding scale.  You don't have to achieve mastery in order for it to be present.  So yes, there is a big difference between normal levels of wordcraft and mastery at wordcraft.  Wordcraft is happening whenever you are choosing which words you want to use in order to get your point across, though.


----------



## Maxperson

Riley37 said:


> Words I learned today: "diegetic". That's quite a useful word for discussion of the IC/OOC distinction. There's a scene in "High Anxiety" in which ominous music plays, and the main characters (all in a car, on a coastal highway) tense up and look around. A bus comes the other way; the bus passengers are all musicians, an orchestra, playing the ominous music.




Hmm.  I would have used diuretic.  [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] clearly has better wordcraft than I do.


----------



## Umbran

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure, I think they can be powerful tools. I just think that more often, what engages me about a game is the decision point that's put forth rather than how it's put forth, *and the mood that's been established for it*.




(Bold emphasis mine)

Right.  So, the mood is something that engages you.  So... what tools are used to establish the mood?  When you play, does someone *just tell you*?  "This scene with the Senechal is jocular, with an undertone of imminent threat, so please play accordingly,"?


----------



## Riley37

Maxperson said:


> Hmm.  I would have used diuretic.  [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] clearly has better wordcraft than I do.




The ominous music, from the orchestra on the bus, might have caused enough anxiety to cause involuntary urination; in which case it was both diegetic AND diuretic.


----------



## Aldarc

Umbran said:


> Right.  So, the mood is something that engages you.  So... what tools are used to establish the mood?  When you play, does someone *just tell you*?  "This scene with the Senechal is jocular, with an undertone of imminent threat, so please play accordingly,"?



IME, sometimes yes. 

Not to speak for    [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION], but one of the points that I raised in this thread has been about how different storytelling mediums have different tools at their disposal. Films can create mood in ways that books can't. Likewise TTRPGs have more tools than any sense of literary wordcraft available to utilize for establishing the mood: music, terrain and minis, pictures, scene/grid layout, countdown timers, rules, DM presence, etc. 

Many TTRPGs also draw on the personalized experience and collective memory of their table. You may have a group of characters who have never encountered an aboleth before, _but the players have_. And when a DM pulls out an aboleth, it can trigger a sense of collective memory in the players. "Remember that time where we nearly wiped to the aboleth and had to flee?" So often I have seen mood created simply through this manipulation of play experience, memories, and stock monsters. 



Hussar said:


> OTOH, the main sticking point here is because I still have no idea what you or Aldarc mean by these terms you are using.



And I still have no idea why you haven't bothered to read my posts where I explain my position quite explicitly. Maybe you have, but you certainly show little to no actual evidence that you have sincerely engaged my posts, apart from making vacuous claims that I have moved my goal posts. 



Hussar said:


> As far as I can see, literary does not include the following:



Assuming that you are not intentionally trolling, then at this point it is clear that you do need to be drawn a picture and possibly a basic tutorial on Venn diagrams. Otherwise I don't know how to be clear enough about an argument that everyone but you seems to be following. I'm sorry, but my patience for your repeated errors is not infinite. 




This is a Venn diagram, which has interconnected circles on it. This one has three interconnected circles on it. Let us imagine that Circle A = Literature; Circle B = Film; and Circle C = Tabletop RPGs. Things that are in A but not in either A-B, A-C, or A-B-C represent features and elements that are entirely unique to A (i.e., literature) as a storytelling medium. In segment A-B-C we may have broader storytelling techniques and features that most stories utilize: e.g., foreshadowing, pacing, characters, mood, language, etc. 

If we identify something that exists in quadrant A-B-C, then we can say that it is a feature of A, a feature of B, and a feature of C. But this also means that it is inaccurate to refer to it simply as a feature of A because it is not unique to A but is instead shared by other storytelling modes in media. It is more accurate to call A-B-C a representation of storytelling techniques than literary ones (A) because its inclusion as part of A is not entirely distinct from category B and C. Sure, we can call things located in A-B-C a literary technique when we are talking about features of A, but we are not talking about A; we are talking about C. For example, if we were talking about "foreshadowing" in film, we probably should not call foreshadowing a literary technique. It is a literary technique in literature, but Herr Doktor Kinoprofessor in your Film Studies class would probably get frustrated if you refer to it as such, since they likely want to hear about foreshadowing as a _cinematic technique_ as expressed in film. Foreshadowing is more broadly a narrative device. It's a narrative device that we can use in TTRPGs. But calling it a literary technique is not entirely accurate outside of that context. (TTRPGs are outside of that context.)

But let us take something perhaps easier for you to understand: animals. Dogs have four legs. Cats have four legs. But if someone pointed to a cat and said it was a dog because it also had four legs like a dog, then we would probably correct them. Both cats and dogs have four legs because they are tetrapod animals, albeit tetrapods who also have a number of other common features due to their overlapping lineages: e.g., synapsids, mammals, carnivores, etc. 

If we were talking about literature,* then we would be talking about foreshadowing as a literary technique in literature. If we were talking about film, then we would be talking about foreshadowing as a cinematic technique in film. If we were talking about TTRPGs, then we should be talking about foreshadowing as a roleplaying technique in TTRPGs. 

Now some people in this thread think that TTRPGs _are literature_ and so it is applicable when discussing TTRPGs to refer to these features and techniques in TTRPGs as literary techniques. I don't think that TTRPGs qualify as literature.* They have different forms of associated literature (e.g., rulebooks, character sheets, GM notes, etc.), but I don't think that we can speak of them in any general sense as literature. Cinemas, video games, radio, theater, and television have already recognized that their storytelling is distinct from conventional literature due to the unique pecularirities of their respective media. Video games are younger than TTRPGs but even 12-year-old boys on the internet have likely heard that video games engender unique storytelling experiences distinct from other forms of media. The video game industry (including scholarship and consumers) is having a conversation about its storytelling as medium that TTRPGs should be having. 

* Pick whatever definition you want for "literature" here. I don't care. There are three prominent definitions: wordcraft, high art, and anything written. My point would still be applicable to each. Just don't accuse me of shifting the goal posts for engaging other people's definitions that they have provided. 

If you want to reference my position or respond to my post in this thread, then I request the basic courtesy of showing evidence that you have bothered to engage it beyond with some depth and fullness.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Theme
> Genre
> Description
> Exposition
> Presentation
> Use of literary techniques like foreshadowing or whatnot
> Bacon
> .




This is a much better way of discussing this. If we put arguments about words like literary away and just break down concepts like this in gaming, I think I can easily spot where you and I may differ form one another (assuming you are being sarcastic and this list represents things you value in RPGs). On that list, Theme, Literary Techniques, and Exposition, leap out at me as things I would probably not want that much of (or want none of) in my games. Some of these terms are flexible of course. If by theme you just mean "a world of horror" or something, then fine I may use these themes. But if you mean theme more comprehensively to include things like the campaign has a literary theme to it that the GM strives to make relevant and repeat, then I don't think I use theme. With literary techniques, there may be some things I do as GM that could be filed under that. But the example you give, foreshadowing, I definitely don't use. With exposition, again I suppose it depends on how you are handling it, but generally I don't worry about inserting exposition into the prep or game. Obviously background can become important and the players can learn about it. But it doesn't occur in the literary sense of the term I believe. 

Genre is more complicated because I do like games that emulate genre. But games don't have to. Games can also emulate real life, history (which I wouldn't file under genre, because I think of it as real history, not as historical fiction), etc. So I don't think genre or genre tropes are essential. I do think they are very common in RPGs. Description again is one where I think it is a matter of degree. Obviously description occurs. But is it description in the literary sense? For your games it might be. Mine I think would not satisfy the literary standards of description that you and Maxperson have expressed interest in having. Presentation is very broad and I don't know that I would say it is an aspect of literature (at least I am having trouble understanding what you mean by it in a literary sense). But while presentation occurs, I am still a bit hung up on our previous debate over presentation/performance. I feel there may be a lot attached to that term, I wouldn't buy into in a game. That said, some amount of presentation, in the general sense of the word is going to occur. But this is an area where I think if we examined each of our GMing styles, we would find extreme differences. 

Bacon is something I think is overrated and honestly I've never agreed with the notion that adding it to food makes anything better. There are times when I like bacon. On its own it is fine. But not a superfan of bacon.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Bacon is something I think is overrated and honestly I've never agreed with the notion that adding it to food makes anything better. There are times when I like bacon. On its own it is fine. But not a superfan of bacon.




Never have I been more tempted to block someone here.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Never have I been more tempted to block someone here.




I am sorry Max. If you must block me, feel free. But bacon ice cream and bacon infused cocktails are not a stable foundation for a functioning society. These can only lead to lunacy, or are a product of it. I cannot remain silent.


----------



## Bedrockgames

darkbard said:


> I also do think [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] is on to something when he says, ultimately, this discussion now has become a mask for playstyle arguments. Of course it has. This is inevitable, for aesthetic judgments are inseperable from "our deeper structures of belief," as literary critic Terry Eagleton calls them:
> 
> 
> 
> For any interested in Eagleton's deep examination of the struggles professional literary critics have gone through in engaging a definition of the term, leading to the above conclusion, I refer you to the excellent prefatory chapter to his _Literary Theory: An Introduction_, "What Is Literature?" linked here for your convenience.




Glad I was able to say something someone found sensible. 

On this though I feel when it comes to RPGs we lean much too heavily on these kind of subjective judgement calls (to an extent inevitable). I think there needs to be more room for descriptive approaches. Don't get me wrong, I think we also need punditry. We need GMs who advance ideas like "here is why I think my approach is the best one", because that is how people honestly feel and because there is value in promoting different styles of play. But there also needs to be more space in these discussions for not trying to make that the basis for how we define, categorize, etc. Because in my view that is the sort of thing that poisons discussion and leads to very sharp divisions in the hobby around things like playstyle (where specific RPGs, styles of playing, etc become more like team jerseys).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Umbran said:


> To take an example that will probably mean something to most of us here.  John Williams' score for the Star Wars movies.  Those pieces generally stand on their own, and communicate things without the movie.  I dare folks to claim that those musical pieces are not content, in and of themselves.  The presentation of Star Wars _would not be the same story_ if it had, instead, music by... Abba, say.




This is a very good example. There is no denying that half the movie is the music. Same with Conan. It is as much a part of the film as the script or the special effects. But one thing worth pointing out here, and I know this is somewhat besides your point, music like that can't just be ported into an RPG to the same effect (it can't even be ported into a video game---which is a much closer medium to a film---and have the same effect). I am sure many of us have experimented with music at the table. I used to use music in the background when I played. It can add mood, but in a totally different way from in film. It works well as ambient background, but try matching your game to the melody, the rhythm or the tempo (okay folks, it is the allegro section, lets pick things up!). It is a case where in film the music, the story and the visuals can be perfectly married. And I think there are few examples out there as well known as Star Wars in this respect. In a game, I've noticed there can be tension and conflict between what is going on at the table and the music. I've also found a lot of players simply don't respond well to music (some love it, some are indifferent, but some truly despise it and find it distracting). That said, you can experiment. I know a GM who designed around music, and planned out things like NPC themes, etc. That is very interesting but it has the effect of the music radically altering what you do, and it is probably only going to appeal to a narrow slice of players and GMs. 

So again, for me one of the key things we have to ask ourselves in discussions like this is how the mediums are different and if the lessons of one medium apply in the same way to another. Just blindly accepting something like the descriptive stylings of novels for example, is, I think, not necessary for the RPG medium (and might run counter to certain styles of GMing and play).


----------



## hawkeyefan

lowkey13 said:


> Well .... I mean, I think that having a sense of imagination is really helpful!
> 
> IMO, RPGs are nothing more than structured forms of collaborative storytelling.




Sure, imagination is key. So is willingness or buy-in. Collaboration. 

Are these things more essential to RPGing than mastery of rules or improvisation ability or other elements that can enhance play? 



lowkey13 said:


> Is there a referee or DM in the game, and if so, how much control does that individual have over the collaboration (and/or rules for collaboration)?
> 
> How much of the collaboration is determined by chance (must have dice! lol) and how much by narrative concerns?




This is interesting and to me it brings up a question....how much do the existing mechanics matter in relation to narration being a vital component to the game? If there are mechanics that try to emulate these things, is narration less needed?


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> ...I think, not necessary for the RPG medium (and might run counter to certain styles of GMing and play).




Cant this be claimed for almost anything .. case in point... I dont think character relevant/specific content (mainly the type [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] puts forth earlier in the thread) is necessary for the rpg medium (andmight run counter to certain styles of GMing and play, such as beer & pretzels or games where exploration of the world is the focus).

Edit: in other words rpg's are so varied, playstyles are so varied and DM styles are so varied is there anything specific that can be applied to all??


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## hawkeyefan

Umbran said:


> I'm saying it may not be much of a dichotomy in may cases because the *how* is not cleanly separable from the what.  Or, the how _is part of_ the what.
> 
> To take an example that will probably mean something to most of us here.  John Williams' score for the Star Wars movies.  Those pieces generally stand on their own, and communicate things without the movie.  I dare folks to claim that those musical pieces are not content, in and of themselves.  The presentation of Star Wars _would not be the same story_ if it had, instead, music by... Abba, say.




 That's interesting. The score does indeed stand on its own. I don't know if it communicates much without the connotations of the film.....certainly the Imperial March makes us all think of Vader and Stormtroopers. By itself, it certainly has a foreboding element to it, though. 

Your phrasing next seems a bit odd to me....."the presentation of Star Wars would not be the same story"....I don't think I agree. The story would be exactly the same. The presentation would indeed change. How much of an impact that has would depend on what Williams's score was replaced with. 

If it was the Benny Hill song or Abba, as you suggest, then yeah, that would not be good. But what if there was no score? Or what if the music that replaced the score was just fine, or even better? 

Regardless, the story itself would remain the same. 




Umbran said:


> I certainly think sometimes, yes.
> 
> Lowkey may be averse to LARP, but I am not.  In one game for which I was a routine NPC, the resurrection of dead PCs went through an afterlife.  Within the afterlife, the "what" was incredibly simple - interact cogently with one of the NPCs for long enough, and we'd give you a card that would allow you to leave.  The *how*, was everything.  The large, open, darkened space that echoed conveniently.  The masks we wore.  That we spoke cryptically in ways the PCs thought meant things (they didn't).  No PC ever failed to get resurrected, but they didn't know that failure was nigh impossible to do.  People actively avoided death in combat in large part because we made the afterlife anxiety-inducing.  Our "how" influenced the "what" of PC choices.




I also admit to having little to no experience with LARP. I feel like it's almost the exception that proves the rule, in a way....as if LARP is the idea of RPG as performance taken to its furthest. 

That's not in any way a criticism....just an observation. 





Umbran said:


> So, at the cross section of horror and humor... I used to help run a very large, very long session of Paranoia each year.
> 
> We could have said, "The Production, Logistics, & Commissary citizens feed you some gross food."  Instead, when dinnertime for the players came around, we tossed them baggies filled with shredded bologna in mustard with red food coloring, cooked spaghetti with chocolate sauce, and other foods that were actually entirely wholesome, but just looked nasty, or had weird textures.
> 
> Which do you figure would drive players to actually take action against each other to get choice bits - the words, "some gross food" or the *actuality* of gross food that they're expected to actually eat?




I don't know, honestly. It certainly sounds gross. I probably wouldn't eat it to be honest....but then that's probably why I don't LARP. For those who've bought in, yes, being presented with an actual physical element versus imaginary would likely be more meaningful. 



Umbran said:


> Well, that sounds like "willing, but without skills".  In D&D, there are classes that are mechanically more simple than others (like, say, a typical fighter) that can be used until such time as the player learns somethings.  Analogously, comedy has a role of the "straight man", who is kind of essential, but doesn't need to be quite so high-speed creative.
> 
> Well, then we find another game they are comfortable with.  Not all games are for all people, and that's okay.




I would try and adjust to make allowances for different kinds of players. I have a friend who is terrible at Cards Against Humanity. Her answers are always tame, and we always know which are hers. But she loves the game. She gets a kick out of other people's responses and she loves to guess who said what. 

I don't think she needs to find another game. I don't expect you'd say so, either. 




Umbran said:


> Change it from RPGs, to soccer - a game without all this presentation nonsense, right?  What about the player who's a middle-aged guy, who's gone a bit round in the middle, can't run very fast or far.  Are they not playing as well?  Are they not enjoying the game as much?
> 
> Within RPGs - take the person who really doesn't have a flare for mechanics, and can't optimize their way out of a paper bag.  Are they not playing as well?  Are they not enjoying the game as much?




Well, soccer is a competition, so that does make it different. A person may enjoy the game and be horrible at it, for whatever reason. Depending on the circumstances and how seriously others take the game, that may or may not matter. 

There are many people on these boards that have indeed taken the stance that those who don't optimize, especially those who intentionally sub-optimize, are actively bringing their team down. Now, I think this is nonsense.....but some of your comments seem to be leaning more toward that way of thinking than I would have expected. 



Umbran said:


> Whether or not they enjoy it as much probably mostly depends on whether they are in with people with the same general skills and desires out of play.  The middle aged guy, playing in a pro game, probably won't enjoy it much.  Playing with the other dads and moms in a neighborhood league, however, may be loads of fun.
> 
> But, let us be honest - most of us as GMs are not Tolkien or George RR Martin.  Most of us are not professional writers or actors.  We are not the soccer equivalent of Beckham.  The learning curve isn't all that steep.




Yes, I agree....obviously expectations and shared goals are the big factor here. 

And about not everyone being Tolkien or Martin....absolutely. Which is why I think the focus on the narrative quality of the game is maybe not as essential as many are saying. We can all mostly achieve what is acceptable without needing to be very performance oriented.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> I’d argue that most classic dnd modules fall in this category. Most are straightforward dungeon crawls with little or no interesting content beyond kill and loot.
> 
> Yet, how they are presented have made them classics. Bree yark and various Gygaxisms. Otis artwork. All that sensawunda stuff that folks go on about.




That's interesting because I'd say they are almost the exact opposite. They're pretty bare bones in their presentation.....little pamphlets with minimal production value. Their content though....that's basically what sparked the whole hobby.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> There is no "real point" to RPGing.  If your view is that there is One True Way to play the game, you are wrong.  It's that simple.  It doesn't matter if that it's an opinion.  It's still an opinion about the One True Way to play the game.




Not really. The fact is that there can be an answer, it's just that it will very likely be different for each of us. It's not about one true way so much as "this is what I enjoy most out of this hobby" or "this is the part of the game that I love the most". 




Maxperson said:


> Has anyone even argued that it's more important?  I've seen people argue that it's present in all RPGs.  I've seen people argue that it's equal to content.  I've seen people argue that it's important, but less important than content.  I don't recall anyone saying it's more important, though.




That's what I'm asking. Is there anyone who would place the presentation or performance above the content? If so, why?


----------



## Umbran

hawkeyefan said:


> Your phrasing next seems a bit odd to me....."the presentation of Star Wars would not be the same story"....I don't think I agree. The story would be exactly the same. The presentation would indeed change. How much of an impact that has would depend on what Williams's score was replaced with.




Ah.  Let me ask a question.  Do you differentiate between "story" and "plot"?  

I do.  In this context a plot is a series of events.  You can take one plot, put emphasis or de-emphasis on elements by way of different genre conventions, and get two different stories.  One plot can be rendered as, say, both an action-adventure story, or a noir mystery - different stories.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> Cant this be claimed for almost anything .. case in point... I dont think character relevant/specific content (mainly the type [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] puts forth earlier in the thread) is necessary for the rpg medium (andmight run counter to certain styles of GMing and play, such as beer & pretzels or games where exploration of the world is the focus).
> 
> Edit: in other words rpg's are so varied, playstyles are so varied and DM styles are so varied is there anything specific that can be applied to all??



I'm not sure if I could answer, but your question,  [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], is definitely a question worth asking. But we can also find tremendous diversity in video games, film/television, and other media as well. Presumably it's the experience of participatory roleplay conjoined with mechanical processes to create shared fiction that binds everything together. Everything else are probably bells and whistles. What are your thoughts?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> Cant this be claimed for almost anything .. case in point... I dont think character relevant/specific content (mainly the type [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] puts forth earlier in the thread) is necessary for the rpg medium (andmight run counter to certain styles of GMing and play, such as beer & pretzels or games where exploration of the world is the focus).
> 
> Edit: in other words rpg's are so varied, playstyles are so varied and DM styles are so varied is there anything specific that can be applied to all??




I think it can be applied to many things people put at the center. I do think there are a handful of key features worth debating as 'central' to gaming. But I do think those things would need to be shared over an honest & descriptive, rather than prescriptive, definition of RPGs. That isn't easy to do. I would much rather we talk about RPGs as people actually play them, than as we would want them to be, or as an ideal on a page. And once reason I am so skeptical of the boxed text and 'example of play' approach is because those tend to be so idealized.


----------



## GrahamWills

hawkeyefan said:


> Is there anyone who would place the presentation or performance above the content? If so, why




I'm going to take the example of BLUEBEARD'S BRIDE, which is a roleplaying game that I purchased and has been run for me twice. For both the actual run games and the material itself, I find the presentation/performance a more enjoyable component than the content. here is my reasoning:

First, the quality of the materials is beautiful. The physical artifacts feel wonderful, are made of interesting materials, paper and cloth bindings. The font is refreshing and clear and the page layout and overall graphic design is a joy. The illustrations are fantastic. I know this is not the "vocal" presentation, but it's not that different a propositions -- there are some games (both roleplaying and board) where the presentation is a huge draw. Conversely, some systems are presented in so ugly a fashion that I cannot enjoy them. I -- and I am sure I am not alone here -- have several game books that I never intend to run and don't really care about the mechanics, but I bought because their presentation is phenomenal.

I understand this thread is about literary presentation, and I'll get to that, but I think it's important to acknowledge that as a general rule, people may like games more for their presentation than for the content. It's true for board games, it's true for video games, and it's try for roleplaying games.

If we put aside the physical presentation and look just at the content, here is an example of the text (from the BOOK OF ROOMS):

_When you run your hand over the strange box, it emits a soft wail. The closer your hand wanders to the antenna, the higher the pitch. As the instrument’s wail grows louder, crying out like a woman in pain, it contorts into the shape of a woman’s torso. Her breasts are mutilated, intestines strung up and tied around her neck, and crimson blood pours onto the floor and mats her flaming red hair. The musical notes laid into the marble floor take on an eerie glow. The screams inten­sify and a dark power surges through your veins. Insects fly from the instruments with a cacophony of sound, forming a swirling mass around you—the eye of the storm_

I strongly assert that the literary quality of the presentation is far more important than the actual content. Paraphrasing it as follows is simply a far lesser experience:

_The box makes a crying sound when you touch it. The pitch gets higher the closer your hand is to the antenna. When the crying becomes loud, the box changes shape into a woman’s torso with mutilated breasts and intestines strung up and tied around her neck. At that time, blood comes from the box and flows through her red hair. The musical notes in marble floor glow strangely. Then the crying becomes a scream and you feel dark power surging in you. Insects fly loudly from the instruments , swirling around you but not actually touching you_

If the book was like that (and that's not actually BAD -- just not GOOD) I would never read it. If the content were different, but the style the same, I would enjoy it. Presentation is more important than content.

Now, moving on to the at-table experience, where I was run through a session and we didn't actually use any material except character sheets. The actual content of the game was trivial. Nearly every scene has the same content and the same resolution. The only thing that differs is the presentation. Further, the mechanical content to resolve actions is based on a system I actively dislike for its content. So the content itself is trivial; the mechanics I dislike. The only thing that I enjoy is the presentation. So when I say that I thoroughly enjoyed it, it's not just that the presentation helped, but that it was by far the most enjoyable part -- 90% or more was the sheer ability of the GM to present descriptions and perform as the inhabitants of the story.


In summary then, visual presentation is clearly highly important and often more important than content to many people in roleplaying games as in video and board games. The literary quality of the content is, at least for me, a deciding factor in whether I enjoy a roleplaying artifact. And for some types of games, the performance of the GM and players is the single reason to play a game -- a weak presentation will make the game meaningless.

------------------------------

An aligned thought:
It occurs to me that the games where I most value presentation over content are games focused on personal drama (as opposed to resolving procedural action). It may be that people who only play procedural games don't feel the need for presentation as much. Certainly when I play D&D it's nowhere near as big a draw for me as when I play Fiasco, DramaSystem, Indie one-shots, Bluebeard's Bride or the like.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Umbran said:


> Ah.  Let me ask a question.  Do you differentiate between "story" and "plot"?
> 
> I do.  In this context a plot is a series of events.  You can take one plot, put emphasis or de-emphasis on elements by way of different genre conventions, and get two different stories.  One plot can be rendered as, say, both an action-adventure story, or a noir mystery - different stories.




For a work in progress, sure, I would agree. For a completed work, I think it would be much more difficult to achieve. Replacing the score in Star Wars with Abba would indeed undermine the tone that it's going for. But would it make the movie a comedy? We may laugh at the result, but I don't think that makes it a comedy. 

I suppose that's really beside the point, though, since what we really want to talk about is RPGing....and in that sense, yes, I would agree that the decisions of what to emphasize and what not to emphasize would influence the game.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> So the narrative quality of those seems a detriment in this case. Like a junker with a fresh coat of paint.



And, again, occasional lack of clarity...see below...



> But is this a question of clarity? Like the information isn't clear? Or is it more that the information is presented in a dry nd straightforward manner? Because I think clarity of information is a bit beside the point of narrative quality.



Clarity is one part of what makes a good presentation good.  Narrative quality is another.  Good underlying material to present is a third, but it's the least necessary of the three. There's some old Judges' Guild modules that signally fail at both clarity and NQ (and even when the achieve clarity, they often present the most evocative material in a dry - even wry - manner).



> Well since the OP was making a comparison between the narrative quality of information presented versus the relevance of information presented, I used an example of each of those.



Ah.

I still think the better comparison would be between two presentations that include the same content.  Having either version leave out relevant content is clearly going to skew perception in favour of the other: we've all (I think) noted and agreed that content is important*, so once we reach that baseline the question then becomes how to present said content in order to make it engaging, evocative, emotional, or whatever else you're going for in that particular situation.

* - saying that content is important by no means says or implies that content is everything, more that it can't be ignored completely.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> This is interesting and to me it brings up a question....how much do the existing mechanics matter in relation to narration being a vital component to the game? If there are mechanics that try to emulate these things, is narration less needed?



Short answer: narration is still needed just as much, but here its work is more to translate those table mechanics into fictional events that the imagination can then work with and the players/characters can then react to and-or interact with.


----------



## Lanefan

Umbran said:


> Ah.  Let me ask a question.  Do you differentiate between "story" and "plot"?



Somewhat, yes.  Plot is what's in place ahead of time, and-or is the framework.  Story is what results from building on this framework (said 'building' in a typical RPG would be the simple act of playing the game).

Plot-ahead-of-time isn't always necessary for a story to result, but once it has it'll still look in hindsight like the plot was there all along even if it wasn't.


----------



## hawkeyefan

lowkey13 said:


> Once you have the very basics, every things else is optional.




I hate to snip so much of your interesting post....but I think I agree with most of it, and it can be boiled down to this bit above. What are the basics? Are there any that would apply to all of the myriad games you cited? Or most? Most is probably the best that can be hoped for. I think this is what [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] and [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] have touched on. 

You had mentioned imagination, and I'd agree. I added buy in or willingness. What else can we list as core to the RPG experience?


----------



## hawkeyefan

GrahamWills said:


> I'm going to take the example of BLUEBEARD'S BRIDE, which is a roleplaying game that I purchased and has been run for me twice. For both the actual run games and the material itself, I find the presentation/performance a more enjoyable component than the content. here is my reasoning:




That's a great example, and I can understand why it was so compelling for you. 

Would you say that it was the prose itself that made it so deep for you? You say that the content and the mechanics of the game itself were not to your taste, so that's how I read it....but I don't want to assume that I get all the nuance. 

Would you say that this was a compelling experience as a game? Or more like experiencing a work of art? Were you invested in the play? 



GrahamWills said:


> An aligned thought:
> It occurs to me that the games where I most value presentation over content are games focused on personal drama (as opposed to resolving procedural action). It may be that people who only play procedural games don't feel the need for presentation as much. Certainly when I play D&D it's nowhere near as big a draw for me as when I play Fiasco, DramaSystem, Indie one-shots, Bluebeard's Bride or the like.




Yeah, I think this has a huge impact on the discussion for sure. [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] mentioned LARP, and that obviously has some significant differences from most other RPGs, despite also having similarities. I've played Microscope on a few occasions, and I've found that to be fun, and I think that the effort the group put forth was interesting and evocative....a literary endeavor....but I didn't really feel like I was playing a game as much as I do with most other RPGs.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> Short answer: narration is still needed just as much, but here its work is more to translate those table mechanics into fictional events that the imagination can then work with and the players/characters can then react to and-or interact with.




Yeah, narration is always needed, I agree....I'm just kind of sidetracking here....if a game has a mechanic that somehow represents the character is angry, or scared, or confused....does the GM need to try and convey those ideas as strongly through narration? Especially if they're clearly defined terms with mechanical implications, such as the results of failing a save versus dragon fear or being subject to a confusion spell in D&D.


----------



## Umbran

hawkeyefan said:


> Yeah, narration is always needed, I agree....I'm just kind of sidetracking here....if a game has a mechanic that somehow represents the character is angry, or scared, or confused....does the GM need to try and convey those ideas as strongly through narration?




Picyune thing - "need to" is strong.  Absolutes probably don't serve us very well.  We don't "need" to do anything.  We don't "need" to use d20s to play D&D.  

But, most of us would *recommend* it, right?  We'd say using a die is better than pulling numbered chits form cups, for example.  

So, if a game has a mechanic that somehow represents the character is angry, or scared... *should* the GM try and convey those ideas as strongly through narration?

My answer to that is Yes, the GM should try.  Why?  In this particular instance, while you do have the mechanic that enforces it... those mechanics are ones that reduce player agency.  The narrative helps the player buy in to that for the moment, by giving them a plausible in-character reason to play along.  If, for example, in narration, I make it abundantly clear that the character's perceptions are of the room spinning to the point of nausea, the player might accept the confusion more deeply, and play along with it more in action choice - especially if they are not "a numbers person" who easily sees the impact of mechanical issues outright.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Hussar

Aldarc said:


> snip
> 
> If we were talking about literature,* then we would be talking about foreshadowing as a literary technique in literature. If we were talking about film, then we would be talking about foreshadowing as a cinematic technique in film. If we were talking about TTRPGs, then we should be talking about foreshadowing as a roleplaying technique in TTRPGs.
> 
> Now some people in this thread think that TTRPGs _are literature_ and so it is applicable when discussing TTRPGs to refer to these features and techniques in TTRPGs as literary techniques. I don't think that TTRPGs qualify as literature.* They have different forms of associated literature (e.g., rulebooks, character sheets, GM notes, etc.), but I don't think that we can speak of them in any general sense as literature. Cinemas, video games, radio, theater, and television have already recognized that their storytelling is distinct from conventional literature due to the unique pecularirities of their respective media. Video games are younger than TTRPGs but even 12-year-old boys on the internet have likely heard that video games engender unique storytelling experiences distinct from other forms of media. The video game industry (including scholarship and consumers) is having a conversation about its storytelling as medium that TTRPGs should be having.
> 
> * Pick whatever definition you want for "literature" here. I don't care. There are three prominent definitions: wordcraft, high art, and anything written. My point would still be applicable to each. Just don't accuse me of shifting the goal posts for engaging other people's definitions that they have provided.
> 
> If you want to reference my position or respond to my post in this thread, then I request the basic courtesy of showing evidence that you have bothered to engage it beyond with some depth and fullness.




But, isn't this tautological?  It's only a "literary technique" if we are talking about literature.  Doing the exact same thing in film makes it a cinimatic technique?  

Then fair enough.  I totally agree with you, based on that definition.  RPG's share nothing with literature, since, as you say, creating literature and playing an RPG are different.  Since they are different activity, and nothing from one activity can be compared to another activity since doing the same thing in another activity automatically (somehow) changes that activity to something completely different, then, sure, of course, RPG's aren't literary.

I'm not exactly sure how, say, foreshadowing in cinema is particularly different from foreshadowing in literature, but, ok.  Cool.  We agree.  As soon as you change from one medium to any other medium, it is impossible for there to be any similarities.  They are totally different activities based on whatever medium you are using.  

See, once you actually define your terms, I'm pretty agreeable.  I totally see your point and 100% agree with you.


----------



## Hussar

hawkeyefan said:


> That's interesting because I'd say they are almost the exact opposite. They're pretty bare bones in their presentation.....little pamphlets with minimal production value. Their content though....that's basically what sparked the whole hobby.




Um, I do disagree here.  Most early modules were pretty bare bones as far as content.  Go to this place, kill everything there, take the treasure, go home.  Not a whole lot of other stuff going on really.  Whether it's Against the Giants, or Slave Lords or Isle of Dread, there just isn't much content at all.  Mostly dungeon crawls filled with static encounters (yes, yes, there's more, but, I'm painting with a broad brush here).  

But, it was the presentation that really drove these things.  Whether it was the art packets in modules like Tomb of Horrors, or fantastic cover art, or some pretty interesting descriptions of different situations - bree yark and all that.  

I mean, heck, we've got sites like Canonfire for Greyhawk and Candlekeep for Forgotten Realms for a pretty good reason - all that flavor stuff.  We've got thousands of pages of setting guides that give virtually no actual adventure situations, just descriptions of an area.  Inspirational for adventures, sure, but, not adventures themselves.

Pathfinder has built an entire line with Golarian based on the notion that presentation matters.  Half of the material they put out for each adventure path is setting background.  I'd say that the literary is pretty darn important to the hobby.  

But, since we're apparently not allowed to talk about RPG elements using literary criticisms, we are then forced to create entirely new ways of discussing how we play RPG's.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> Yeah, narration is always needed, I agree....I'm just kind of sidetracking here....if a game has a mechanic that somehow represents the character is angry, or scared, or confused....does the GM need to try and convey those ideas as strongly through narration? Especially if they're clearly defined terms with mechanical implications, such as the results of failing a save versus dragon fear or being subject to a confusion spell in D&D.



If it's an NPC or an opponent, by and large yes.  If it's a PC I'd say it's on the DM to narrate the basic effect ("You prove unable to resist the dragonfear this time") and then it's on the player to somehow convey how that looks to the others present e.g. does the character cower down into a little ball, or stand there shaking and babbling, or back away more or less quickly, or flee screaming, etc.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> You had mentioned imagination, and I'd agree. I added buy in or willingness. What else can we list as core to the RPG experience?



Beer.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> Yeah, narration is always needed, I agree....I'm just kind of sidetracking here....if a game has a mechanic that somehow represents the character is angry, or scared, or confused....does the GM need to try and convey those ideas as strongly through narration? Especially if they're clearly defined terms with mechanical implications, such as the results of failing a save versus dragon fear or being subject to a confusion spell in D&D.




Yes, narration is still needed.  Take the attack system in D&D.  The DM just saying, "You hit and it took 12 damage." is really boring.  Narration of the combat and attacks makes it much more interesting.  Even a simple, "You bring your sword down and slice the goblin in half." is much better.


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> Beer.




I think you meant bacon.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Yes, narration is still needed.  Take the attack system in D&D.  The DM just saying, "You hit and it took 12 damage." is really boring.  Narration of the combat and attacks makes it much more interesting.  Even a simple, "You bring your sword down and slice the goblin in half." is much better.




I certainly wouldn't usually say "You hit and it took 12 damage", but people can and do play the game that way. I've been in great campaigns in fact where people played that way, and it was just very focused on the mechanical details. It is still an RPG if the GM is doing that. And any honest definition of roleplaying games needs to account for the that this is how some people engage the game. A bit of flavor and color is also good, but if it has no mechanical heft (either through a ruling or through an existing mechanic) is is just kind of fluff the GM is putting on as a veneer. At the end of the day, many players can imagine 'you hit and it took 12 damage' just fine. Some can imagine it better than if the GM is trying to paint an image. 

One issue I would take with your example, is I wouldn't want the GM to narrate that to me just because it is cool, if my attack was unexceptional. I would hope the cutting it in half was at least the product of a critical hit. Do like it when you get that sort of thing. I just want a description like that to be earned and reflect something substantive in the game that is going on.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I certainly wouldn't usually say "You hit and it took 12 damage", but people can and do play the game that way. I've been in great campaigns in fact where people played that way, and it was just very focused on the mechanical details. It is still an RPG if the GM is doing that. And any honest definition of roleplaying games needs to account for the that this is how some people engage the game. A bit of flavor and color is also good, but if it has no mechanical heft (either through a ruling or through an existing mechanic) is is just kind of fluff the GM is putting on as a veneer. At the end of the day, many players can imagine 'you hit and it took 12 damage' just fine. Some can imagine it better than if the GM is trying to paint an image.
> 
> One issue I would take with your example, is I wouldn't want the GM to narrate that to me just because it is cool, if my attack was unexceptional. I would hope the cutting it in half was at least the product of a critical hit. Do like it when you get that sort of thing. I just want a description like that to be earned and reflect something substantive in the game that is going on.




If a goblin has like 3 max hit points(say a 1e-3e goblin) and you just did 4 times it's entire hit points in one swing, I can see cutting it in half without a crit.  Overwhelming damage should be able to take the place of a critical in my opinion.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## hawkeyefan

lowkey13 said:


> Well, the issue is generally that of exceptional diversity within what can be considered RPGs. So when you list what is "core" to the RPG experience, you either end up with a descriptive definition that will cover all of what we consider RPGs, but could likely cover things that many people would consider "not RPGs," or more restrictive (and, perhaps, prescriptive) definitions that are under-inclusive, and would leave things out.
> 
> With that aside, there is some "core" there; when people say they are playing a Role Playing Game, that has a generally understood definition that separates it from, say, Monopoly or Darts. So what is that? Better people than me have tried to answer this, and explain why LARPing and D&D and Fiasco are recognizable as RPGs, yet we instinctively know that other things aren't.
> 
> Part of it is in the term itself- RPGs require two things to begin with.
> 
> 1. Role playing.
> 
> 2. A game.
> 
> A game without role playing (however defined) isn't an RPG; it can be, _inter alia_, monopoly, but it's just a a game.
> 
> And role playing without some "game" aspect can be fun, or therapeutic, or a great Theater 101, but it's not an RPG either.
> 
> So, there has be some type of interaction between players, and/or between players and an adjudicator (referee, GM, whatever).
> 
> There are rules, formal, informal, or both.
> 
> There is a divide between the players and the game world (the diegetic framework - the difference between what is true in the game and real life).
> 
> ...within those parameters, often more particularly described, you can find the "role playing" (players and diegetic framework) and the "game" (adjudicator, rules).
> 
> 
> ....all of which is hopelessly vague. But it is the only way I can think of to encompass what we are discussing. From there, you can more to describe things with more particularity. Does this make sense?




It does make sense, yes. 

So, to summarize, so far it seems we have 4 required elements that may apply to all RPGs. 

1. Imagination
2. Willingness/buy in 
3. Role play
4. A game (some agreed upon set of rules)

Are there any others? Would premise or situation fit on the list? Or setting? 

Do all 4 of the above actually pertain to each example of RPG that we can think of?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> Um, I do disagree here.  Most early modules were pretty bare bones as far as content.  Go to this place, kill everything there, take the treasure, go home.  Not a whole lot of other stuff going on really.  Whether it's Against the Giants, or Slave Lords or Isle of Dread, there just isn't much content at all.  Mostly dungeon crawls filled with static encounters (yes, yes, there's more, but, I'm painting with a broad brush here).
> 
> But, it was the presentation that really drove these things.  Whether it was the art packets in modules like Tomb of Horrors, or fantastic cover art, or some pretty interesting descriptions of different situations - bree yark and all that.
> 
> I mean, heck, we've got sites like Canonfire for Greyhawk and Candlekeep for Forgotten Realms for a pretty good reason - all that flavor stuff.  We've got thousands of pages of setting guides that give virtually no actual adventure situations, just descriptions of an area.  Inspirational for adventures, sure, but, not adventures themselves.
> 
> Pathfinder has built an entire line with Golarian based on the notion that presentation matters.  Half of the material they put out for each adventure path is setting background.  I'd say that the literary is pretty darn important to the hobby.
> 
> But, since we're apparently not allowed to talk about RPG elements using literary criticisms, we are then forced to create entirely new ways of discussing how we play RPG's.




There isn't much content but there isn't a lot of presentation, either. They're pretty spare all around. They're basically 8 to 12 pages of often poorly written details about an adventure location, with some artwork of varying quality. And while I agree that some of the art is great, and really helped the product overall, the reason why I'd give content the edge is because in those early modules, it was the game and the experience itself which was engaging people. It was an entirely new hobby. 

Setting guides and wiki-type sites are something else than the modules you were talking about, though. They essentially encompass those modules and more. And I don't know if I'd say that they offer no actual adventure situations.....I'd say that's a big part of what they're for. 

The back half of PF adventures is mostly flavor meant to enhance the adventure, sure.....but which do you expect is ignored more often? If those two parts were split into separate products, which would you expect to sell more? In my experience with those products, the backmatter is largely forgettable.


----------



## hawkeyefan

lowkey13 said:


> So, I think that the "role play" and the "game" come from the word itself. You are engaging in a "Role Playing" "Game."
> 
> And while I used some fancy language (the diegetic framework, to distinguish the game world from the real world), that's really what it's getting at.
> 
> It's how we know that everything from D&D to Amber to Fiasco to BiTD are RPGs, while Monopoly (no role playing) and Community Theater (no game) are not RPGs.
> 
> ....to a certain extent, however, we begin to get into trouble when we start to think about the different categories of RPGs that we have now.
> 
> For the most part, we've been considering the traditional RPGs- TTRPGS and live action RPGs.
> 
> What about CRPGs (computer)? Do we concern ourselves with the difference between single-player and MMORPGs?
> 
> Then there are systemless examples of RPGs that I have read about (but never played). Amber, while diceless, is not systemless, but there are variations of systemless RPGs that are played (both TTRPGs and LARPs); to the extent you would say that they have rules, they tend to be informal rules and/or heuristics of the adjudicators.
> 
> That's why I often think it's more helpful to discuss what can be used in a specific RPG, than in all RPGs in general (or, at least, break it down to a category like, "TTRPGs with formal rules").




I figured to start as broad as possible and then narrow it down as we go.

I do think there's a difference in CRPGs in that the role you play is largely chosen for you, or consists primarily of mechanical and cosmetic combinations, and not a whole lot in the way of role. Obviously, there's nothing to stop people from adopting a more in character approach to an MMO, let's say, and remaining in character throughout play, and with using the game solely as a vehicle for social interaction.....but I think that tends to be the exception more than the rule. I could be wrong, of course, and there could be MMOs that are entirely social. 

So, yes, I was thinking mostly of tabletop games, although I was trying to keep LARP and similar iterations in mind as well.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Satyrn

lowkey13 said:


> But Umbran .... someone on the internet .... IS WRONG.




Oh hey! It's me from two weeks ago!

I don't know if anybody noticed, but I've been away for nearly a fortnight. Recovering from injuries sustained.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Satyrn

lowkey13 said:


> You need to level up ... get more hit points.
> 
> I mean, do you even lift, brah?




I lift potato chips to my mouth. Does that count?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> 1. Imagination
> 2. Willingness/buy in
> 3. Role play
> 4. A game (some agreed upon set of rules)
> 
> Are there any others?



5. A key person who co-ordinates/organizes/runs things and-or keeps things going (e.g. a DM or GM; or the person who books the LARP or public-game venue; or the host of a referee-less RPG, etc.)


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> 5. A key person who co-ordinates/organizes/runs things and-or keeps things going (e.g. a DM or GM; or the person who books the LARP or public-game venue; or the host of a referee-less RPG, etc.)




A facilitator of some sort? Certainly seems necessary, but the specific role also seems to vary depending on the game.


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> 5. A key person who co-ordinates/organizes/runs things and-or keeps things going (e.g. a DM or GM; or the person who books the LARP or public-game venue; or the host of a referee-less RPG, etc.)



So a producer?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Satyrn

lowkey13 said:


> Pro-tip: You can do curls with cans of Pringles.




Oh, there's my problem, why I'm so weak. I don't like Pringles. Doritos bags just don't cut it, I guess.


----------



## Lanefan

lowkey13 said:


> But .... the difference between a DM/GM/referee/adjudicator and a host of a referee-less RPG is ... what?
> 
> And let's take Fiasco, for example. Would the key person in that instance, if you were to play it with friends in a public space, just be the owner of the RPG? And if so, what does that mean?
> 
> I think that while the concept (a "key person") is both useful and common to most RPGs, it is not a necessary condition for an RPG, if that makes sense?



Try it without one sometime...if you can.

Someone has to take the initiative and get the game together one way or another; and though in different games/systems this can involve different duties and responsibilities as [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] says, the end result is the same: without this person there is no game.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> It does make sense, yes.
> 
> So, to summarize, so far it seems we have 4 required elements that may apply to all RPGs.
> 
> 1. Imagination
> 2. Willingness/buy in
> 3. Role play
> 4. A game (some agreed upon set of rules)
> 
> Are there any others? Would premise or situation fit on the list? Or setting?
> 
> Do all 4 of the above actually pertain to each example of RPG that we can think of?




I would add "at least 2 people."


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> Try it without one sometime...if you can.



Done. Next quest? 



> Someone has to take the initiative and get the game together one way or another; and though in different games/systems this can involve different duties and responsibilities as [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] says, the end result is the same: without this person there is no game.



I don't think that it's necessary for us to build up the importance of this "someone" for RPGs as if it were something unique and particular to them.


----------



## Hussar

Aldarc said:


> Done. Next quest?
> 
> I don't think that it's necessary for us to build up the importance of this "someone" for RPGs as if it were something unique and particular to them.




Yeah, I have to agree with this.  Without "that person organizing things", pretty much any group activity never gets off the ground.  And, really, while it's often the DM/GM who does this, it isn't always.  I've played in groups where we played at someone's house, but, that someone wasn't running the game.


----------



## Aldarc

Hussar said:


> Yeah, I have to agree with this.  Without "that person organizing things", pretty much any group activity never gets off the ground.  And, really, while it's often the DM/GM who does this, it isn't always.  I've played in groups where we played at someone's house, but, that someone wasn't running the game.



Yeah, since that person is often the DM in TTRPGs, I suspect that the desire to include this as integral stems from a desire to find another way to privilege and aggrandize the DM.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Done. Next quest?




How'd you pull it off?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> How'd you pull it off?



I did it  by playing Fiasco.  There's a number of other ways.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Yeah, since that person is often the DM in TTRPGs, I suspect that the desire to include this as integral stems from a desire to find another way to privilege and aggrandize the DM.




It doesn't have to be a dedicated DM, though.  You could create a game where you only have players, but each player in turn steps into the role of "DM" when something needs to be adjudicated or decided from the other side of things.  What does need to happen is for there to be someone who does that organization, even if that role is shared by all of the players.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> I did it  by playing Fiasco.  There's a number of other ways.




That's not a truly GMless game like it bills itself to be.  It's one of those systems I just described where the players take the role of GM when needed, with players setting up the scene, etc.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> That's not a truly GMless game like it bills itself to be.  It's one of those systems I just described where the players take the role of GM when needed, with players setting up the scene, etc.



It still qualifies unless either Lanefan or you plans on arbitrarily moving the goalposts.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> It still qualifies unless either Lanefan or you plans on arbitrarily moving the goalposts.




No goalposts have been moved.  It fails to qualify as GMless at all, as it simply shares the GM role.  If you make a claim and then do the opposite of that claim, you are a liar.  The creators of that game are liars.  For a game to be GMless, there can be no one that acts in that role at any time.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> No goalposts have been moved.



So you're not moving goalposts: you're just not listening then? Gotcha.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> No goalposts have been moved.  It fails to qualify as GMless at all, as it simply shares the GM role.  If you make a claim and then do the opposite of that claim, you are a liar.  The creators of that game are liars.  For a game to be GMless, there can be no one that acts in that role at any time.




Confused, if the "GM's role" is shared, then there's no GM -- the game is GM-less.  Here'e the reference to the GM that's been proposed for this line of discussion:

"A key person who co-ordinates/organizes/runs things and-or keeps things going"

You're now contending that if the game is co-ordinated, organized, and keeps running but these tasks are not assigned to any person specifically, then there's still a GM's role involved because the tasks still exist but are shared amongst the players?  Okay, in that case, every game everywhere, not just RPGs, have a GM, so this isn't a valid unique criteria for RPGs.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Yeah, I think GM or host or facilitator kind of fluctuates depending on the game and media. Number of players may as well...I’ve heard of solo TTRPGs...are they significant enough to acknowledge? A physical place to play, or an internet connection are also necessary, but those kinds of requirements aren’t really related to RPGing, so I don’t know how much we need to include them.


----------



## Satyrn

Maxperson said:


> That's not a truly GMless game like it bills itself to be.  It's one of those systems I just described where the players take the role of GM when needed, with players setting up the scene, etc.



That sounds a lot like how players of old school poker (as seen on Star Trek: TNG) take turns being Dealer and inventing their own wacky rules for the hand.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> Yeah, I think GM or host or facilitator kind of fluctuates depending on the game and media. Number of players may as well...I’ve heard of solo TTRPGs...are they significant enough to acknowledge? A physical place to play, or an internet connection are also necessary, but those kinds of requirements aren’t really related to RPGing, so I don’t know how much we need to include them.




Solo RPGs have to simulate the GM though. And I think we can all largely agree, solo play feels quite different from regular play. I have think having a human referee (or referees in some cases) is the crucial thing that makes RPGs so different from say video games. A human mind can consider any possible course of action the player wants to try.


----------



## Lanefan

lowkey13 said:


> ?
> 
> But that’s the thing. I have. Certain RPGs don’t have referees or facilitators or hosts: so if multiple people (all of whom might DM other games) play, then ....
> 
> What?
> 
> That’s why most generic definition have some variation that discusses interactions between players, not just with a referee.



Doesn't have to be a 'referee', though it could be.

But there's always one person at the core; one person who - even if not the referee or whatever - at the very least initiates things by saying "let's play [game x]"...and who usually then provides the rules and who often ends up being a facilitator to some extent (convincing others to play, scheduling and co-ordinating, etc.).

And yes, this 'one person' could be different each time if your group is rotating through different systems or different DMs - but for each game or session there's still one key person that makes it go.  And without that one person that game doesn't get played.



			
				Aldarc said:
			
		

> I don't think that it's necessary for us to build up the importance of this "someone" for RPGs as if it were something unique and particular to them.



The question is not one of what's unique to RPGs, though; it's one of what elements are required for all of them.  That the same thing(s) may also be required for other types of games doesn't matter here.


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> It still qualifies unless either Lanefan or you plans on arbitrarily moving the goalposts.



My goalposts remain firmly planted.  Step back from the table and look at the overall process:

Who suggested Fiasco?  Who provided the rules?  Who schedules and-or hosts the games?  Who ends up getting the calls from players who can't make a session?

Almost invariably the answers to at least any three of those questions end up being the same person...and that's the 'one key person' I'm referring to.  That in many TTRPGs this person is also the DM/GM is not the point I'm getting at here.


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> Confused, if the "GM's role" is shared, then there's no GM -- the game is GM-less.  Here'e the reference to the GM that's been proposed for this line of discussion:
> 
> "A key person who co-ordinates/organizes/runs things and-or keeps things going"
> 
> You're now contending that if the game is co-ordinated, organized, and keeps running but these tasks are not assigned to any person specifically, then there's still a GM's role involved because the tasks still exist but are shared amongst the players?  Okay, in that case, every game everywhere, not just RPGs, have a GM, so this isn't a valid unique criteria for RPGs.



Again, the original question was along the lines of what is required for an RPG, not what is unique to them.

Also, even a completely GM-less game is still going to end up with one person who does the social co-ordination required to get people together on an ongoing basis...which falls exactly under the definition you quoted above: "A key person who co-ordinates/organizes/runs things and-or keeps things going"


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Confused, if the "GM's role" is shared, then there's no GM -- the game is GM-less.  Here'e the reference to the GM that's been proposed for this line of discussion:




The game is not GM-less.  It's GM-more.  Every player also acts as the GM at appropriate times.  5 players = 5 GMs, which is more than the 1 for a typical game.



> "A key person who co-ordinates/organizes/runs things and-or keeps things going"




All 5 do that in that game.



> You're now contending that if the game is co-ordinated, organized, and keeps running but these tasks are not assigned to any person specifically, then there's still a GM's role involved because the tasks still exist but are shared amongst the players?  Okay, in that case, every game everywhere, not just RPGs, have a GM, so this isn't a valid unique criteria for RPGs.




It does not apply to every game.  Chess for example does not have such a person.  Nor does checkers, and so on.  GMing in RPGs involves more than just set up or handing out money and deeds.


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> My goalposts remain firmly planted.  Step back from the table and look at the overall process:
> 
> Who suggested Fiasco?  Who provided the rules?  Who schedules and-or hosts the games?  Who ends up getting the calls from players who can't make a session?




I don't view that stuff as GMing.  However, in Fiasco, the players take turns setting up scenes(GMing) and the other players then resolve the scene or conflict for the player who set up the scene(GMing).


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> The question is not one of what's unique to RPGs, though; it's one of what elements are required for all of them.  That the same thing(s) may also be required for other types of games doesn't matter here.



But it's kinda meaningless. It's like every boardgame is initiated by someone indicating a desire to play it. In academia, as we often ask, "so what?" I am missing the "so what" of this statement. Sure, RPGs involve one or more people organizing the event, but that is true for nearly every group activity, including ordering a pizza. 



Lanefan said:


> My goalposts remain firmly planted.  Step back from the table and look at the overall process:
> 
> Who suggested Fiasco?  Who provided the rules?  Who schedules and-or hosts the games?  Who ends up getting the calls from players who can't make a session?



Step back from the internet web forum and look at the overall process. Who suggested ordering pizza? Who picked the pizzeria? Who picked the pizza? Who decided when it would be ordered? Who gathers the money for pizza? 



> Almost invariably the answers to at least any three of those questions end up being the same person...and that's the 'one key person' I'm referring to.  That in many TTRPGs this person is also the DM/GM is not the point I'm getting at here.



Not always the case in my experience.



Bedrockgames said:


> I have think having a human referee (or referees in some cases) is the crucial thing that makes RPGs so different from say video games. A human mind can consider any possible course of action the player wants to try.



Sure, but that is also something that is shared by wargaming and sports.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> The game is not GM-less.  It's GM-more.  Every player also acts as the GM at appropriate times.  5 players = 5 GMs, which is more than the 1 for a typical game.




All 5 do that in that game.

It does not apply to every game.  Chess for example does not have such a person.  Nor does checkers, and so on.  GMing in RPGs involves more than just set up or handing out money and deeds.[/QUOTE]
Again, the criteria is "[a] key person who co-ordinates/organizes/runs things and-or keeps things going...."  This is a tasked shared by both players in chess, who both must organize, coordinate, and run things or keep things going for the game to progress.  Same with checkers.  Monopoly is actually a stronger case for you because someone is assigned the task of Banker, who does a good bit of organizing and keeping things running.

The upshot here is that you're engaged in special pleading after you've smeared the definition of GM into one that perforce must apply to all games that involve people.  Heck, Klondike solitaire requires someone to "co-ordinate/organize/runs thing and-or keep things going" and it's a solo game.


----------



## GrahamWills

Example of playing BLUEBEARD'S BRIDE




hawkeyefan said:


> That's a great example, and I can understand why it was so compelling for you.
> 
> Would you say that it was the prose itself that made it so deep for you? You say that the content and the mechanics of the game itself were not to your taste, so that's how I read it....but I don't want to assume that I get all the nuance.
> 
> Would you say that this was a compelling experience as a game? Or more like experiencing a work of art? Were you invested in the play?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I think this has a huge impact on the discussion for sure. [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] mentioned LARP, and that obviously has some significant differences from most other RPGs, despite also having similarities. I've played Microscope on a few occasions, and I've found that to be fun, and I think that the effort the group put forth was interesting and evocative....a literary endeavor....but I didn't really feel like I was playing a game as much as I do with most other RPGs.




The actual content in terms of the story, theme and experience were to my taste -- I was using content really to mean the raw "this is what you need to do roleplaying" which is my understanding of what the OP's position was in the thread. But definitely the mechanics were not to my taste. Thanks for helping me clarify -- I really like the theme of the game and what it does, so "content" was a poor choice on my part as it confuses.

When reading it, it is more like experiencing a work of art. Like when I read recently LOVE IN THE AGE OF CHOLERA. I thoroughly loved reading it, although the main characters I disliked quite strongly, and the plot is minimal. It was all about the wonderful, wonderful language!

When I played BLUEBEARD'S BRIDE it was as strongly compelling experience. The experience was like cooperating to make art (although that sounds way more fancy than it actually was!) -- no-one was trying to test the mechanics, winning, or improve characters; we were trying to make a compelling story. Your statement on Microscope "I didn't really feel like I was playing a game as much as I do" is very apt. I'm not a fan of classic GNS theory, but I do think that roleplaying is a wide spectrum. I love playing D&D4E and it's game, game, game and more game; it is rare that I feel it's a literary endeavor -- at least in the tactical combat game part! Other RPGs such as BB and Microscope are more narrative and so I think lend themselves to a more literary experience. 

-----------------------

As a final piece of evidence I'm attaching at least an attempted literary exercise in roleplaying. This is a preview I created for my *Dracula Dossier* players as they headed to a final confrontation with Bathóry -- it details all the major players and gives a sort of cut-scene as to what's going on. I'm not going to claim it's *good* literature, but to me it feels like this was a literary endeavor. 

http://willsfamily.org/files/rpg/dd/DD_glimpses.pdf


----------



## Bedrockgames

Aldarc said:


> Sure, but that is also something that is shared by wargaming and sports.




Sure but the role is different in an RPG from sports and even war games (though it shares many traits with the later for obvious reasons).


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Again, the criteria is "[a] key person who co-ordinates/organizes/runs things and-or keeps things going...."  This is a tasked shared by both players in chess, who both must organize, coordinate, and run things or keep things going for the game to progress.  Same with checkers.  Monopoly is actually a stronger case for you because someone is assigned the task of Banker, who does a good bit of organizing and keeping things running.
> 
> The upshot here is that you're engaged in special pleading after you've smeared the definition of GM into one that perforce must apply to all games that involve people.  Heck, Klondike solitaire requires someone to "co-ordinate/organize/runs thing and-or keep things going" and it's a solo game.




You can keep pretending that moving pieces is the same as creating a scene, controlling NPCs and deciding consequences, but it won't ever be true.  False Equivalences are false.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> You can keep pretending that moving pieces is the same as creating a scene, controlling NPCs and deciding consequences, but it won't ever be true.  False Equivalences are false.




The GM can go beyond the game in a way a sports referee or even a referee in a war game can't. Again, obviously it comes from war-games. But it was arrived at by putting players into the heads of individual characters and letting players go beyond the scenario of the war-game. The human mind as game master here is what allows for that opening up of creative possibilities that just are not present in other mediums in the same way.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> You can keep pretending that moving pieces is the same as creating a scene, controlling NPCs and deciding consequences, but it won't ever be true.  False Equivalences are false.




And strawmen are strawmen.  Never once said moving pieces is the same as creating a scene, I said the role of "A key person who co-ordinates/organizes/runs things and-or keeps things going" is common to all games if you're insisting that if it's not assigned to a single person it still exists in a shared format.  I mean, if you're going to try argument by informal fallacy, it really helps if you can do it without committing them yourself.  Do yourself a favor, stop using the titles of the fallacies, instead, if you think you see one, argue why it's fallacious instead of just throwing out the title.  For one, you'll realize you have only a loose grasp on the fallacies. For two, you'll be less likely to do the above.

Now, if you want to shift your argument to be that an element of RPGs involves the creation of fictional scenes where the play will take place, then that's very interesting and, I think, and excellent observation.  But, it's not currently tied to either the working definition of a GM (A key person who co-ordinates/organizes/runs things and-or keeps things going) nor do I think it needs to be.  It's a good point standing by itself, and allows for games where this task is shared and where it is consolidated to a single role.  Tying it to the GM's role and then having to modify the definition of GM to be something that can be shared evenly yet still be distinct is a path towards arguing for special exceptions.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> I said the role of "A key person who co-ordinates/organizes/runs things and-or keeps things going" is common to all games if you're insisting that if it's not assigned to a single person it still exists in a shared format.




Yeeeaaah, that's not the definition of DM/GM, though.

"game·mast·er
/ˈɡā(m)ˌmastər/
noun
noun: game master

a person who organizes and oversees a role-playing game, in particular by narrating the details of the story that are not controlled by the players."

When those players in Fiasco create scenes, decide results, and play NPCs for the scene of the active player, they are stepping out of the role of player and into the GM role.


----------



## hawkeyefan

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] I feel like you care more about the technical definition than about if a GM or other adjudicator/facilitator is actually required.

The way Fiasco works, no one would ever say there are 5 GMs. Also, there are other games that we can list besides Fiasco that don’t require a GM. I mentioned Microscope just a while ago, and that doesn’t require a GM. Nor does Kingdom, another RPG by the same author, Ben Robbins.

Let’s not get hung up on semantics and start quoting definitions at people. There are enough games that don’t require a GM that we shouldn’t include it in the list of essential things for a RPG.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Fiasco seems like an outlier though. Even lots of my friends who play games with more innovative approaches to GMing, would tend to classify it as on the periphery or outside RPGs, and getting into different territory. I am happy to include it, since it is an unusual game that is clearly spawned from RPG soil. But I think this is a case of exceptions not breaking rules. I just don't think you can have a viable definition of RPG without the gamemaster role being addressed (even if that is something like "...especially games with a human referee."


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> Fiasco seems like an outlier though. Even lots of my friends who play games with more innovative approaches to GMing, would tend to classify it as on the periphery or outside RPGs, and getting into different territory. I am happy to include it, since it is an unusual game that is clearly spawned from RPG soil. But I think this is a case of exceptions not breaking rules. I just don't think you can have a viable definition of RPG without the gamemaster role being addressed (even if that is something like "...especially games with a human referee."




Okay....why not? What would a viable definition sound like to you? 

I think the role is going to be vital to most games, but looking online there are dozens and dozens of games that eschew the role. I don’t know how we can consider it essential when that’s the case. 

Not unless we narrow the definition down accordingly, which doesn’t seem right to me.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> Okay....why not? What would a viable definition sound like to you?
> 
> I think the role is going to be vital to most games, but looking online there are dozens and dozens of games that eschew the role. I don’t know how we can consider it essential when that’s the case.
> 
> Not unless we narrow the definition down accordingly, which doesn’t seem right to me.




I will use a music analogy. Heavy Metal as a genre of music features a lot of essential elements. I would include obvious things like distorted guitar. But also I would include a tendency toward minor keys (and most people do include this in any definition of the genre). But there are subgenres of metal that break the minor key thing. A lot of power metal leans of major keys. There is nothing stopping you from writing a heavy metal album in all major keys. People would probably still regard you as metal (though you could be trodding onto pop territory for sure). The existence of exceptions like that don't break the general rule that minor keys are an essential aspect of heavy metal. A band can have 6 of the 7 essential elements and still be regarded as heavy metal. I would put games like fiasco into that category. It has many of the other essential elements, maybe it lacks a GM, but I don't think its existence now somehow makes GMs less essential.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Also just to comment on the use of the word essential. I think generally we don't want to think in terms of essential qualities if the aim is a descriptive definition (which I think it should be). This is why I'd favor a definition that honestly tries to describe the RPG landscape. Clearly most RPGs have a gamemaster, and most RPGs do feature players playing a single character. So "A game where players typically assume the role of a single character in a world, setting or story, especially with a game master acting as referee or storyteller".


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] I feel like you care more about the technical definition than about if a GM or other adjudicator/facilitator is actually required.
> 
> The way Fiasco works, no one would ever say there are 5 GMs. Also, there are other games that we can list besides Fiasco that don’t require a GM. I mentioned Microscope just a while ago, and that doesn’t require a GM. Nor does Kingdom, another RPG by the same author, Ben Robbins.
> 
> *Let’s not get hung up on semantics and start quoting definitions at people*. There are enough games that don’t require a GM that we shouldn’t include it in the list of essential things for a RPG.




I didn't.  I corrected someone quoting a wrong definition at me.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> @_*Maxperson*_ I feel like you care more about the technical definition than about if a GM or other adjudicator/facilitator is actually required.
> 
> The way Fiasco works, no one would ever say there are 5 GMs. Also, there are other games that we can list besides Fiasco that don’t require a GM. I mentioned Microscope just a while ago, and that doesn’t require a GM. Nor does Kingdom, another RPG by the same author, Ben Robbins.
> 
> Let’s not get hung up on semantics and start quoting definitions at people. There are enough games that don’t require a GM that we shouldn’t include it in the list of essential things for a RPG.




This is from a short article by the creator of Microscope in describing his game, "In a way the entire process of playing Microscope brings the fun of being a GM and building a world to the table and makes it part of play."

https://rpggeek.com/thread/716449/share-game-microscope

Everybody gets to be a GM in that game, just like in other similar shared games like Fiasco.  Since Kingdom is by the same author who described Microscope as bringing the fun of being a GM to the table, I'm going to bet it's just like the other two.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> This is from a short article by the creator of Microscope in describing his game, "In a way the entire process of playing Microscope brings the fun of being a GM and building a world to the table and makes it part of play."
> 
> https://rpggeek.com/thread/716449/share-game-microscope
> 
> Everybody gets to be a GM in that game, just like in other similar shared games like Fiasco.  Since Kingdom is by the same author who described Microscope as bringing the fun of being a GM to the table, I'm going to bet it's just like the other two.




So what’s your point? That Microscope is not an RPG? Or that GMless RPGs don’t exist because players in Microscope share some responsibilities that would fall to the GM in other games? 

I think one of the essential requirements of the role of GM is that it performs different functions from the rest of the participants; wouldn’t you agree?


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> So what’s your point? That Microscope is not an RPG? Or that GMless RPGs don’t exist because players in Microscope share some responsibilities that would fall to the GM in other games?
> 
> I think one of the essential requirements of the role of GM is that it performs different functions from the rest of the participants; wouldn’t you agree?




I think his point is it still requires a human mind to adjudicate, even if that mind is being distributed across many players. It definitely creates a different feel, and I think at the very least, this is a subgenre of RPG that might strike a player of a more standard RPG is hard to grasp. But based on that description it still does seem to rely on human referees. I think most people would assume that role is separate from the other players. But it is certainly possible to do it in different ways. Even beyond system, going back to the 90s I've seen games with co-GMs, I've had a player take on the role of my villain NPC, and there are plenty of ways you could cut it up. These approaches are certainly not the norm. They definitely rely on a human to help expand the creative possibilities.

And again, exceptions don't break the rule. You can have games that are like RPGs in all kinds of ways, but deviate from a core feature. That doesn't make the core elements vanish. There are some basic things that leap to mind when you talk about an RPG and one of the biggest things is 'there is a GM of some kind'.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> I will use a music analogy. Heavy Metal as a genre of music features a lot of essential elements. I would include obvious things like distorted guitar. But also I would include a tendency toward minor keys (and most people do include this in any definition of the genre). But there are subgenres of metal that break the minor key thing. A lot of power metal leans of major keys. There is nothing stopping you from writing a heavy metal album in all major keys. People would probably still regard you as metal (though you could be trodding onto pop territory for sure). The existence of exceptions like that don't break the general rule that minor keys are an essential aspect of heavy metal. A band can have 6 of the 7 essential elements and still be regarded as heavy metal. I would put games like fiasco into that category. It has many of the other essential elements, maybe it lacks a GM, but I don't think its existence now somehow makes GMs less essential.




Well we’re trying to boil things down to the most base elements. 

I admittedly know next to nothing about heavy metal. But what I do know is that it does have all types of sub-genres within it, and that it is itself a genre of music. 

So I don’t think the analogy is all that useful because we’re at the music level of the topic. 



Bedrockgames said:


> Also just to comment on the use of the word essential. I think generally we don't want to think in terms of essential qualities if the aim is a descriptive definition (which I think it should be). This is why I'd favor a definition that honestly tries to describe the RPG landscape. Clearly most RPGs have a gamemaster, and most RPGs do feature players playing a single character. So "A game where players typically assume the role of a single character in a world, setting or story, especially with a game master acting as referee or storyteller".




You don’t think that this is a description of a certain type of RPG? I think it’s the most prevalent type, but I don’t think it’s all encompassing.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> Well we’re trying to boil things down to the most base elements.
> 
> I admittedly know next to nothing about heavy metal. But what I do know is that it does have all types of sub-genres within it, and that it is itself a genre of music.
> 
> So I don’t think the analogy is all that useful because we’re at the music level of the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t think that this is a description of a certain type of RPG? I think it’s the most prevalent type, but I don’t think it’s all encompassing.




That is why the definition includes 'typically' and 'especially'. I think you have to account for the most prevalent in the core of a descriptive definition. Then you can elaborate with variations and exceptions. But I think if we write the definition using the exceptions as guideposts, you'll have a definition that fails to convey the most standard experience of playing RPGs.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> That is why the definition includes 'typically' and 'especially'. I think you have to account for the most prevalent in the core of a descriptive definition. Then you can elaborate with variations and exceptions. But I think if we write the definition using the exceptions as guideposts, you'll have a definition that fails to convey the most standard experience of playing RPGs.




But how do you determine what are the “exceptions”? 

Everyone here knows what the most prevalent form of RPGs is....so that’s why I’m going broad in focus....at least it’ll potentially be a different discussion. 

So rather that start with D&D (and all the many similar games), I think it’s interesting to try and look at all RPGs, without exception.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> But how do you determine what are the “exceptions”?
> 
> Everyone here knows what the most prevalent form of RPGs is....so that’s why I’m going broad in focus....at least it’ll potentially be a different discussion.
> 
> So rather that start with D&D (and all the many similar games), I think it’s interesting to try and look at all RPGs, without exception.




Well, even the exceptions we've discussed so far, include some kind of GM-like ability being wielded by players at the table. But again, the problem with defining around exceptions is you produce a picture that doesn't connect well to the typical example of the thing itself. I am not saying the definition should be limited to D&D, but I do think that has to be your starting point. Any definition that fails to cover the key elements you are going to experience in D&D and games like it, which are the ones the vast majority of people are going to encounter, will not produce a definition that accurately reflects what most people mean when they talk about RPGs. After all, D&D is so ubiquitous, it is a synonym for RPGs (and I say this being someone who doesn't really play D&D anymore). That is the nature of descriptive definitions, they just attempt to accurately reflect current use. I think any such definition would need to be heavily D&D centric, but also account for games that are outside that bubble. But you don't have to account for the subgenres of RPGs by knocking the pillars of the core experience out of the definition.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> Well, even the exceptions we've discussed so far, include some kind of GM-like ability being wielded by players at the table. But again, the problem with defining around exceptions is you produce a picture that doesn't connect well to the typical example of the thing itself. I am not saying the definition should be limited to D&D, but I do think that has to be your starting point. Any definition that fails to cover the key elements you are going to experience in D&D and games like it, which are the ones the vast majority of people are going to encounter, will not produce a definition that accurately reflects what most people mean when they talk about RPGs. After all, D&D is so ubiquitous, it is a synonym for RPGs (and I say this being someone who doesn't really play D&D anymore). That is the nature of descriptive definitions, they just attempt to accurately reflect current use. I think any such definition would need to be heavily D&D centric, but also account for games that are outside that bubble. But you don't have to account for the subgenres of RPGs by knocking the pillars of the core experience out of the definition.




This is precisely why I’d like to approach the topic from a different angle.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> This is precisely why I’d like to approach the topic from a different angle.




Why? This approach accounts for the standard D&D experience while also acknowledging other experiences. That seems like the ideal approach to me. Anything else might create a skewed definition of the word. 

To me there is just no escaping the fact that the bulk of the hobby is centered on D&D. I don't see how you can't account for that in a definition of RPG. The definition needs to be an honest reflection of what RPG means when people use the word.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> So what’s your point? That Microscope is not an RPG? Or that GMless RPGs don’t exist because players in Microscope share some responsibilities that would fall to the GM in other games?
> 
> I think one of the essential requirements of the role of GM is that it performs different functions from the rest of the participants; wouldn’t you agree?




Yes and no.  The requirements of the role of GM is that it performs duties that are different than the duties of a player.  That means that if a player is performing the duties of a GM, that player is a GM for that period of time, even if there are also other GMs performing GM duties.  There is no requirement for a single dedicated person to be a GM.  Players can step into and out of that role when required for games like Microscope and Fiasco.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> Why? This approach accounts for the standard D&D experience while also acknowledging other experiences. That seems like the ideal approach to me. Anything else might create a skewed definition of the word.
> 
> To me there is just no escaping the fact that the bulk of the hobby is centered on D&D. I don't see how you can't account for that in a definition of RPG. The definition needs to be an honest reflection of what RPG means when people use the word.




I think you’re right in that D&D looms large and is inescapable in such a discussion. So I see no need to cater to it. 

Network television had long been synonymous with television. Someone in the mid-70s or early 80s would likely make a statement like yours that any discussion of television must revolve around the networks.

I don’t think we need to be afraid of D&D somehow getting lost in the discussion simply if we try to look at RPGs as a whole.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> Yes and no.  The requirements of the role of GM is that it performs duties that are different than the duties of a player.  That means that if a player is performing the duties of a GM, that player is a GM for that period of time, even if there are also other GMs performing GM duties.  There is no requirement for a single dedicated person to be a GM.  Players can step into and out of that role when required for games like Microscope and Fiasco.




I’ve only played Fiasco a couple of times, but I don’t think that what you’re describing is very accurate. In any scene, you can either set up the scene or you can resolve it, and those aspects will change from scene to scene. But it’s not really a case of a rotating GM like you are suggesting.

And I know for a certainty that’s not how it works in Microscope. No one steps into GM mode and then back out of it. All the players have the same level of authorship and the same role in the game.

There are no GMs in these games. Your quest to somehow win the discussion has you making odd claims about games you’ve said you’ve never played.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> I’ve only played Fiasco a couple of times, but I don’t think that what you’re describing is very accurate. In any scene, you can either set up the scene or you can resolve it, and those aspects will change from scene to scene. But it’s not really a case of a rotating GM like you are suggesting.




I didn't suggest rotating GMs.  I said that when you step into the duties that are part of being a GM, you are a GM while engaging in those duties.  This is backed up by the designer of Microscope and by the way Fiasco is played.  



> And I know for a certainty that’s not how it works in Microscope.




The designer of Microscope himself said it was. I quoted him saying it gives players the chance be GMs.



> No one steps into GM mode and then back out of it.




I've made my claimed and backed it up.  "Nuh uh!" isn't a counter to it.



> All the players have the same level of authorship and the same role in the game.




Yes, they all step into and out of the roles of player and GM equally.  I agree.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> I didn't suggest rotating GMs.  I said that when you step into the duties that are part of being a GM, you are a GM while engaging in those duties.  This is backed up by the designer of Microscope and by the way Fiasco is played.




How is that not rotating GMs? No one steps into a role. The role of participant is the same throughout. 

Unless you think that all four players are actually GMs? As if we’d see a table of people and say “Oh look,  those four are GMing Microscope!”

Your assertion seems bizarre, no? 



Maxperson said:


> The designer of Microscope himself said it was. I quoted him saying it gives players the chance be GMs.




No, you quoted him saying that playing Microscope brings some of the fun of GMing to play. There’s a distinction there.



Maxperson said:


> I've made my claimed and backed it up.  "Nuh uh!" isn't a counter to it.




What is your claim? I asked....is it that Fiasco and Microscope aren’t RPGs? Or is it that GMless RPGs don’t exist because of your definition of GM? 

I mean, I’ve had people who’ve never played D&D make claims to me about what it is....and from my perspective as a person who played, they were obviously incorrect...but they couldn’t see how incorrect they were because, you know, they never actually played. 



Maxperson said:


> Yes, they all step into and out of the roles of player and GM equally.  I agree.




No, we don’t agree. Here you’re describing some kind of rotation of player to GM back to player. This is not how the games work. They simply work differently than games with a GM/player dynamic. There’s no such distinction.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> How is that not rotating GMs? No one steps into a role. The role of participant is the same throughout.
> 
> Unless you think that all four players are actually GMs? As if we’d see a table of people and say “Oh look,  those four are GMing Microscope!”
> 
> Your assertion seems bizarre, no?




No. Rotation is a circle and I'm not saying they become GMs in a circular manner.  It does go player 1 is GM, then player 2 is GM, then player 3 is GM, etc.  The players are stepping into the GM role in a non-circular manner.



> No, you quoted him saying that playing Microscope brings some of the fun of GMing to play. There’s a distinction there.




As a player you can only experience fun of being a player.  As a GM you can only experience fun as a GM.  In a game where you step into and out of the role of GM for some aspects of the game, you are experiencing "some of the fun of GMing."



> Or is it that GMless RPGs don’t exist because of your definition of GM?




It's not my definition.  The existing definition of GM fits.


----------



## Bedrockgames

hawkeyefan said:


> I think you’re right in that D&D looms large and is inescapable in such a discussion. So I see no need to cater to it.




How can you ignore the biggest RPG and the one most associated with RPGs in a discussion about defining RPG and its key elements? That doesn't make any sense at all. 



> Network television had long been synonymous with television. Someone in the mid-70s or early 80s would likely make a statement like yours that any discussion of television must revolve around the networks.




Yes, any working definition of what television is, would have to include Network TV at that time. Obviously TV can change, and obviously you can still speak of outliers in the definition. You just can't put outliers at the center of a descriptive definition. 



> I don’t think we need to be afraid of D&D somehow getting lost in the discussion simply if we try to look at RPGs as a whole.




I don't even know why you say this. This isn't about being afraid of D&D. This is about any honest assessment of what RPGs are has to account for D&D and how it is played.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> Yeeeaaah, that's not the definition of DM/GM, though.
> 
> "game·mast·er
> /ˈɡā(m)ˌmastər/
> noun
> noun: game master
> 
> a person who organizes and oversees a role-playing game, in particular by narrating the details of the story that are not controlled by the players."
> 
> When those players in Fiasco create scenes, decide results, and play NPCs for the scene of the active player, they are stepping out of the role of player and into the GM role.




Then this is true of all games, which still aligns with my argument, even though you've decided to ignore the definition that was provided and spurred this side discussion and substituted your own.  It doesn't change my point -- after you've shared this role out to everyone, then it's now part of all games, including solo games.  And, it also completely skips over your last argument that a GM sets up scenes.  Can you pick a point to settle on, please?



Maxperson said:


> I didn't.  I corrected someone quoting a wrong definition at me.




No, you didn't, Max.  I was using the definition that sparked this discussion, given by [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION].  You switched to a different (although not really) definition, and are now trying to make not reading your mind the fault of others.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Then this is true of all games, which still aligns with my argument, even though you've decided to ignore the definition that was provided and spurred this side discussion and substituted your own.




You're seriously arguing that all games are roleplaying games?  Because that's the only way that "a person who organizes and oversees a* role-playing game*..." can be true of all games.



> It doesn't change my point -- after you've shared this role out to everyone, then it's now part of all games, including solo games.  And, it also completely skips over your last argument that a GM sets up scenes.  Can you pick a point to settle on, please?




Then your point was that every game is a roleplaying game and I'm discounting it entirely.



> No, you didn't, Max.  I was using the definition that sparked this discussion, given by [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION].  You switched to a different (although not really) definition, and are now trying to make not reading your mind the fault of others.




Then his definition was wrong and you still quoted a wrong definition to me.  You just didn't originate it.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> You're seriously arguing that all games are roleplaying games?  Because that's the only way that "a person who organizes and oversees a* role-playing game*..." can be true of all games.



Sorry, I didn't actually expect you to argue in a circle.  I mean, your saying role playing games have a GM, but a GM is defined as a role in a role playing game.  So, which comes first, the GM or the RPG?

Talk about begging the question.




> Then your point was that every game is a roleplaying game and I'm discounting it entirely.



No, that would be silly, especially since my argument for this spur is that the role of a GM as you've shared it out is part of every game.  It's only this recent circular requirement that the GM role only exist in RPGs that's propping up your side.  And by oropping up I mean collapsing into circular argumentation. 



> Then his definition was wrong and you still quoted a wrong definition to me.  You just didn't originate it.




It's not wrong, Max.  It's different from ehat you are using.  Superior, even, as it lacks the circular argument.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Sorry, I didn't actually expect you to argue in a circle.  I mean, your saying role playing games have a GM, but a GM is defined as a role in a role playing game.  So, which comes first, the GM or the RPG?




It's the definition.  If you don't like the fact that GMs are part of roleplaying games only, get everyone else on board to change it.



> It's not wrong, Max.  It's different from ehat you are using.  Superior, even, as it lacks the circular argument.




Okay.  From now on the definition is "gross manure."  I mean, as long as we're altering definitions, why stop where you've gone?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> It's the definition.  If you don't like the fact that GMs are part of roleplaying games only, get everyone else on board to change it.



No, Max, it's /a/ definition.  There really are no "the" definitions.  Words are like that.  Given that it was essentially the same are your quote with the notable exception that it was an attempt to define traits of RPGs so it didn't include the circular reasoning, it was a perfectly fine definition.  Fine enough that only you are arguing against it, and then only because you want to win internet points.  You rush to win those points, though, has led you to engage in circular argumentation.





> Okay.  From now on the definition is "gross manure."  I mean, as long as we're altering definitions, why stop where you've gone?



You're welcome to use this definition, Max, but you'll have trouble getting anyone else to agree.  It's good to know that this is the definition you're using, though.  Suitable for your argument, I think.

I mean, here, look back.  I agreed with you and thought it was a good addition to have the creation of a fictional scene for the action to take place in.  This is a great point.  But, you want to continue arguing the definition of words so that you can win the point that RPGs have a role for the GM because GMs are a role in RPGs.  You haven't said anything on this past insisting that your definition that GMs are a role in RPGs means that you can define RPGs in part because they have GMs.  This isn't useful, though, because you've just presented a circular argument.  Contribute to the _discussion_, Max.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> No, Max, it's /a/ definition.  There really are no "the" definitions.  Words are like that.  Given that it was essentially the same are your quote with the notable exception that it was an attempt to define traits of RPGs so it didn't include the circular reasoning, it was a perfectly fine definition.  Fine enough that only you are arguing against it, and then only because you want to win internet points.  You rush to win those points, though, has led you to engage in circular argumentation.




You don't get to just invent definitions in order to win the internet.  At the very least, I have no obligation to humor you and your fictional definition.



> You haven't said anything on this past insisting that your definition that GMs are a role in RPGs means that you can define RPGs in part because they have GMs.




I don't believe for one second that you forgot the second part of the definition.  ", in particular by narrating the details of the story that are not controlled by the players."

Stop your disingenuous arguments.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Bedrockgames said:


> How can you ignore the biggest RPG and the one most associated with RPGs in a discussion about defining RPG and its key elements? That doesn't make any sense at all.




I’m not ignoring D&D. I’m just approaching from another point. D&D will undoubtedly enter the discussion (I mean, it already has, no?). 




Bedrockgames said:


> Yes, any working definition of what television is, would have to include Network TV at that time. Obviously TV can change, and obviously you can still speak of outliers in the definition. You just can't put outliers at the center of a descriptive definition.




What I hoped for was a starting point that didn’t exclude any game classified as a RPG (with the notable and aforementioned exception of computer/video games). The definition I want...or more specifically the list of attributes...would certainly not exclude D&D. 



Bedrockgames said:


> I don't even know why you say this. This isn't about being afraid of D&D. This is about any honest assessment of what RPGs are has to account for D&D and how it is played.




You’ve misunderstood. I didn’t say “be afraid of D&D”. I simply meant we shouldn’t worry about D&D not getting focus simply if we don’t begin with it as our starting point. As you said, it’s inescapable.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Ovinomancer said:


> .  So, which comes first, the GM or the RPG?



 Obviously, the wargaming role of 'judge' came first.

Then Chainmail presumably had judges, too, leading to D&D calling them 'DMs,' and fairly quickly being recognized as the first in a new sort of wargames, the Role Playing Game. Additional RPGs followed.

Later, GM was adopted as a generic, system-independent analog of DM.

We still deal with expectations that GMs should act like judges.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> No. Rotation is a circle and I'm not saying they become GMs in a circular manner.  It does go player 1 is GM, then player 2 is GM, then player 3 is GM, etc.  The players are stepping into the GM role in a non-circular manner.




I fail to understand how that’s not a rotation. But perhaps that’s not the best word for it, so I’ll rephrase.

There’s no change in role during the game among the participants. There’s no shift from player role to GM role and back. I’m sure such games exist, but that’s not how these particular games function.



Maxperson said:


> As a player you can only experience fun of being a player.  As a GM you can only experience fun as a GM.  In a game where you step into and out of the role of GM for some aspects of the game, you are experiencing "some of the fun of GMing."




This isn’t a correct understanding of the way the games function. I’ll stick with Microscope as it’s the one I’m more familiar with. What you can do as a player in Microscope has no such division. It’s not a matter of “for this part of the game you’re like a player, and for this part of the game you’re like a GM”. 

What Ben Robbins meant in his quote was that players of Microscope get to enjoy elements of an RPG that are typically held only by the GM. 



Maxperson said:


> It's not my definition.  The existing definition of GM fits.




Way to not address the question. And although I think it’s arguable, I’m tired of semantics, so I’ll reword the question for you. It’d be cool if you don’t dodge it again. 

What is your claim? Is it that Fiasco and Microscope aren’t RPGs? Or is it that GMless RPGs don’t exist because of the definition of GM?


----------



## Hussar

Heh, I think I'll drop this in the pond and see where it ripples.  

I've been cogitating the whole "literary" thing and I think I had a bit of an epiphany.  It goes back to my example of the Vengaurak, many pages ago.  Basically, I posted a couple of descriptions, one in modern jargon, and one in more "gamey" sort of speak to describe a monster from the Scarred Lands setting.  It was [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s reaction that led me to my current feeling of epiphany.  He replied, and I'm paraphrasing here, "so what?  Why should I care about this monster?"

And, really, he's right.  Without context, that monster is just a stat block and a picture.  It's no different or more engaging than any of a thousand other monsters that have graced the pages of D&D over the years when it's removed from context.  But, see, that's where the literary aspect comes in - building context.  World building, while certainly not limited to the literary, is a primarily story telling element.  We don't do world building in a conversation.  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] talked about how getting a letter from a relative has a viceral element and it's true, it does.  But, that's because it's part of the real world and all the context is built right in.  In a second world, you need to create that context for the reader, or, in the case of an RPG, the player.  And, you create that context through literary conceits like world building.

A Vengaurak matters to a Scarred Lands player because Vengaurak are the spawn of the terrible titan Gaurak and we care about that because the setting posits that the Titans were these terrible beings that destroyed and remade the world multiple times before the gods rose up and destroyed the Titans.  The current setting is a sort of post-apocalyptic place where the Titans war is only a century or so in the past and everyone is trying to rebuild.  But, and this is a key element of the setting, the titans and the gods both created different races and different races sided with either the titans or the gods in the Titans war and finding a way to reconcile differences is a major part of the setting.  Now, a Vengaurak is a mostly mindless eating machine as befits something spawned from the blood and effluents of the Glutton Titan, Gaurak.  

So, right there, that's where the context comes.  We care when we see ten kobolds on the hill because we've gamed so long that we KNOW what that is.  We don't need it spelled out because it's been spelled out to us many times before.  But, when you take away that familiarity that comes with gaming for far too long, suddenly the literary becomes a lot more important.  It's the literary - world building, setting construction, theme, trope - (and yes, that's not limited to the literary, but, just because other story telling media use the same conceits doesn't make it any less literary) - that builds that context.  

Imagine sitting down to play a Call of Cthulu game if you knew nothing about the Mythos and had never seen a horror movie or read a horror story.  Or a game about chivalric knights if you knew nothing about King Arthur or European court mythology.  Imagine you were to sit down to play an RPG where you were Ainu living in Yayoi era Japan (something I presume most reading this know little to nothing about) and the DM refused to set the scene because the DM refuses to use any literary techniques.  All just pop culture references and modern language.  How engaging would that game be?

Just like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] said, why should the player care about a Vengaurak without any context?


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> I fail to understand how that’s not a rotation. But perhaps that’s not the best word for it, so I’ll rephrase.
> 
> There’s no change in role during the game among the participants. There’s no shift from player role to GM role and back. I’m sure such games exist, but that’s not how these particular games function.




Yes it is.  There are player functions and GM functions, and the players do both, which makes them GMs part of the time.



> This isn’t a correct understanding of the way the games function. I’ll stick with Microscope as it’s the one I’m more familiar with. What you can do as a player in Microscope has no such division. It’s not a matter of “for this part of the game you’re like a player, and for this part of the game you’re like a GM”.




It may not spell it out as such, but the players do engage in functions that are GM functions, not player functions.  That makes them GMs for that period of time, which is how they can, to quote the game designer, "experience fun as a GM."



> What is your claim? Is it that Fiasco and Microscope aren’t RPGs? Or is it that GMless RPGs don’t exist because of the definition of GM?




Well, I thought that was obvious from like pages ago when I said that GMs are required to play RPGs, even if the duty is shared by the players at the table.  I said it multiple times, so I figured I didn't need to repeat myself.  There's no need for a dedicated GM in a game, but there must be people acting as GM at points during the game in order for the RPG to function.


----------



## uzirath

Hussar said:


> Heh, I think I'll drop this in the pond and see where it ripples.




I'm glad you did. It rippled over to my canoe where I have been pondering some related ideas. 



> Imagine you were to sit down to play an RPG where you were Ainu living in Yayoi era Japan (something I presume most reading this know little to nothing about) and the DM refused to set the scene because the DM refuses to use any literary techniques.  All just pop culture references and modern language.  How engaging would that game be?
> 
> Just like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] said, why should the player care about a Vengaurak without any context?




I'm largely with you here. Context is important if you want fictional elements to have emotional resonance. If you're departing from well-known genre territory, you need to build that context into the game so that it becomes familiar. This can be all the GM's job or it can be shared by everyone (collaborative world building). 

I'm not sure it is necessarily _literary_ or not, but despite the title of the thread, that's not what's been most interesting to me about the conversation. Whatever we call it, though, I do think that it is fairly important. Maybe it's not strictly necessary for some playstyles? Not sure about that.

As for my own pebble, I've been thinking about some comments that appeared some pages back (around page 90, I think) regarding the importance of evocative descriptions in the game. Instead of just calling out die rolls and watching the hit points go down, it's helpful to describe the action from the perspective of the characters. I tend to agree with this. As I've mentioned in this thread and others, I play a lot with new players. I've found that the descriptions are usually what hook new people, especially in combat. Missing your attacks repeatedly can be pretty frustrating, so I make a point of describing what happens with each miss. Subsequently, I encourage players to come up with these descriptions. This makes combat much more engaging and seems to help keep people focused. Indeed, some of those descriptions have been memorable enough to become part of the character's lore, talked and laughed about for many sessions afterward.

I am going to preemptively point out, though, that I am not suggesting that this must be a universal requirement of RPGs. Even for me, when I'm playtesting an adventure, I dispense with all of that. I'm just interested in seeing the mechanics at play. I could see that mode (what I consider "playtest mode") being a fun game itself, without the added texture. (Which I would deem more cinematic than literary.) 

I don't know how this all fits in with where we're at in the thread, but it was one of those pebbles that just wanted to be tossed.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> Yes it is.  There are player functions and GM functions, and the players do both, which makes them GMs part of the time.




There’s no GM.....so all functions in this game are player functions. 

Something typically being a GM function doesn’t make it always so. Different games assign these functions to different roles. 

For instance, in Blades in the Dark, the player decides what relevant action to use when he wants his character to try something. In D&D, the DM would listen to the player’s stated goal, and then come up with a relevant action, like “okay make a Perception roll to see if you notice anything”. But in Blades in the Dark, the player decides which action is relevant. 

By your stance, the players in Blades are sometimes the GM. Seems odd to me. 

I’d think that it’s a given game that determines what the role of the GM is rather than the term itself. 



Maxperson said:


> It may not spell it out as such, but the players do engage in functions that are GM functions, not player functions.  That makes them GMs for that period of time, which is how they can, to quote the game designer, "experience fun as a GM."




That’s not what he said, though. He said “In a way the entire process of playing Microscope brings the fun of being a GM and building a world to the table and makes it part of play.”

He’s describing an element of RPGing (worldbuilding) that’s traditionally reserved for the GM and how Microscope makes that element the focus of the game. 



Maxperson said:


> Well, I thought that was obvious from like pages ago when I said that GMs are required to play RPGs, even if the duty is shared by the players at the table.  I said it multiple times, so I figured I didn't need to repeat myself.  There's no need for a dedicated GM in a game, but there must be people acting as GM at points during the game in order for the RPG to function.




If it was obvious, I wouldn’t have asked. So you’re saying GMless RPGs don’t exist. Gotcha.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> There’s no GM.....so all functions in this game are player functions.




Were that true, they could not enjoy the game like a GM.  They could only enjoy it like a player.  And it's not even true.  The DM in 5e is also a player, so if your logic were correct, there would be no GM for D&D, either.  He's just a player with some different player functions.



> Something typically being a GM function doesn’t make it always so. Different games assign these functions to different roles.




If that's true, then there's no such thing as a GM function in any RPG.  Just different player functions, with one guy getting player functions the other players don't get.


----------



## aramis erak

Hussar said:


> ROTFLMAO.
> 
> Oh, goodie, we're right back to swirling around the rabbit hole of what does "literary" mean.  Yay.  See, folks, this is why this thread is 50 pages long, and you can talk about [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] being clear with what he meant all you like, but, this is about as clear as mud.
> 
> REH is "literary"?  Seriously?  A minor genre author who wasn't good enough to actually publish a novel and is virtually unheard of outside of genre circles is "literary"?  CONAN qualifies as literature?




For a man who you seem to think sucked, he spawned an IP that's 8 decades old, still selling the original stories, plus additional stories written with the originator's permission, and then, after his death, by even more authors, crossed into all other media, created a cultural icon, and the stories of his and his friends L. Sprague DeCamp and Lin Carter building on his foundation, all of which are still available...

Howard may not have published a novel, but he's had more success as literature than my grandmother (whom I'm fairly certain you've never read her 1 publish novel  from the 1930's), who rightfully should be forgotten... her biggest claim to real fame was working as a hollywood society reporter in the 1940's.  The majority of her work as a writer is credited to others, as she ghost wrote for many veterans in _Veterans Voices_. 

REH has spawned further literature. My grandmother wrote more, got a lot of it published, even published a novel.... but was not imitated, was no inspiration. 

(And my grandmother's novel? Drivel. one of three books from the decade with the same title... Well worded, erudite drivel. Technically well done, but unmemorable.)

And let's not forget: Conan is one of the key inspirations of D&D. Not as strongly as Vance's Dying Earth, but still, Conan actually has underground adventures to go in and kill badguys.

Howard is mentioned in some college survey courses... if nothing else, for his being a correspondent with HPL, but often for his own contributions to the pulp fantasy fiction.


----------



## Hussar

aramis erak said:


> For a man who you seem to think sucked, he spawned an IP that's 8 decades old, still selling the original stories, plus additional stories written with the originator's permission, and then, after his death, by even more authors, crossed into all other media, created a cultural icon, and the stories of his and his friends L. Sprague DeCamp and Lin Carter building on his foundation, all of which are still available...
> 
> Howard may not have published a novel, but he's had more success as literature than my grandmother (whom I'm fairly certain you've never read her 1 publish novel  from the 1930's), who rightfully should be forgotten... her biggest claim to real fame was working as a hollywood society reporter in the 1940's.  The majority of her work as a writer is credited to others, as she ghost wrote for many veterans in _Veterans Voices_.
> 
> REH has spawned further literature. My grandmother wrote more, got a lot of it published, even published a novel.... but was not imitated, was no inspiration.
> 
> (And my grandmother's novel? Drivel. one of three books from the decade with the same title... Well worded, erudite drivel. Technically well done, but unmemorable.)
> 
> And let's not forget: Conan is one of the key inspirations of D&D. Not as strongly as Vance's Dying Earth, but still, Conan actually has underground adventures to go in and kill badguys.
> 
> Howard is mentioned in some college survey courses... if nothing else, for his being a correspondent with HPL, but often for his own contributions to the pulp fantasy fiction.




Heh, thing is, I love Howard.  Read it a bunch of times.  But, literature, as in the sense that  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is meaning it?  Not even close.  Sorry, but, Conan is not literature.  Note, that Star Wars novels have been widely read, but, again, not going to call that literature either.  If "literary" includes pulp adventure stories, then, yeah, it's a pretty wide open definition of "literary".  

See, I can ask my Japanese students if they've ever heard of Moby Dick, and quite a few of them have.  I can ask them if they've heard of Shakespear, and, yup, they'll be familiar with it.  I mention Conan and the only response I will ever get is a 10 year old boy that solves crimes.

This, in Japan, is Conan:







So, if the definition of "literary" is "stuff I like" then, well, let's talk about that.  If it's literary as in "high art" then let's talk about that.  But, this endless circling around the rabbit hole and shifting the goalposts isn't getting anywhere.  Of course, as this quote is digging pretty far upstream in the thread, I think we've move past this.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> You don't get to just invent definitions in order to win the internet.  At the very least, I have no obligation to humor you and your fictional definition.



It was  [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s definition, and it was the impetus fir this spur of the discussion.  I neither invented it, nor particularly cared for it because there are examples of RPGs without Lanefan's defined role.  Just like there are RPGs without your preferred role. 




> I don't believe for one second that you forgot the second part of the definition.  ", in particular by narrating the details of the story that are not controlled by the players."
> 
> Stop your disingenuous arguments.



Oh, Max.  Didn't you just say the GM is also a player in your special pleading against  [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]?  Yet, here you are backing off of that so you can special plead against me.  And, I'm disingenuous?  It's not like I've tried to agree with you twice, now, on a good point but you're still arguing the infallability of internet dictionaries.

Hete's a clearer example of the circle in your argument:

Q: What are the properties of a field?
A: They have cows in them.
Q: What's a cow?
A: Cows are things in fields, particularly things different from other things.

That's the heft of your current argument, with a good bit of appealing to.the authority of internet dictionaries thrown in.


----------



## Aldarc

Hussar said:


> And, really, he's right.  Without context, that monster is just a stat block and a picture.  It's no different or more engaging than any of a thousand other monsters that have graced the pages of D&D over the years when it's removed from context.  But, see, that's where the literary aspect comes in - building context.  World building, while certainly not limited to the literary, is a primarily story telling element.  We don't do world building in a conversation.  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] talked about how getting a letter from a relative has a viceral element and it's true, it does.  But, that's because it's part of the real world and all the context is built right in.  In a second world, you need to create that context for the reader, or, in the case of an RPG, the player.  And, you create that context through literary conceits like world building.



I agree with you that "there is no outside text," or in other words, there is no text outside of context. However, I don't understand why you concede that worldbuilding is a storytelling/narrative element that is not limited to the literary and yet then refer to it as a "literary conceit" when speaking of creating narrative contexts in TTRPGs. That seems like some duplicitous double-speak, Hussar.  



> It's the literary - world building, setting construction, theme, trope - (and yes, that's not limited to the literary, but, just because other story telling media use the same conceits doesn't make it any less literary) - that builds that context.



"Yes, four legs are not limited to cats, but because this dog has four legs too, I will keep calling the four-legged dog a 'four-legged cat'?" 

You have been repeatedly corrected on your terminology, and yet you still decide to double-down on it so that you can win an argument about this being literary? I wish you would stop backtracking. (NARRATIVE =! LITERARY.) It's not entirely helpful for the discussion. 

If a student submitted a second paper to me that kept repeating the same error as the first paper even after I had returned the first paper with corrections, I would definitely be inclined to think that the student failed to learn anything and adjudicate grading accordingly, likely with me grading more harshly with even redder ink pen. 



> Just like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] said, why should the player care about a Vengaurak without any context?



Several flaws with your epiphany is that (1) you are equating the creation of context with the creation of literary text, and as part of that (2) you are repeating your categorical error that this narratological aspect of worldbuilding for RPGs represents a literary conceit. I'm not even sure if it constitutes a "conceit." A ltierary conceit is typically an extended rhetorical device. In contrast, worldbuilding is a process for creating or establishing the narrative context through an imagined world of fiction. (FICTION =! LITERARY.)


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> Were that true, they could not enjoy the game like a GM.  They could only enjoy it like a player.  And it's not even true.  The DM in 5e is also a player, so if your logic were correct, there would be no GM for D&D, either.  He's just a player with some different player functions.




You have an odd definition of the word “like” that doesn’t allow for comparison or metaphor. You also keep misquoting Robbins, or mis-paraphrasing him. 

And while I wouldn’t say there’s no GM in D&D, I think that describing the DM’s role as “a player with different functions” is an accurate, if broad, description. 



Maxperson said:


> If that's true, then there's no such thing as a GM function in any RPG.  Just different player functions, with one guy getting player functions the other players don't get.




Sounds about right. GM is just a label we use. What that label means will vary a bit from game to game, or the responsibilities of that role will vary a bit. 

But I think that one of the essential elements of the GM is that they are somehow functionally different from players. So in a game where there is no functional difference among the participants, there’s no such distinction as GM and Player. There are just players.


----------



## Sadras

Given our inability, throughout a multitude of threads, to agree on any definitions, causing many a pericombobulation, I hope no one objects if I offer Dr. Samuel Johnson my enthusiastic contrafibularities for his book, A Dictionary of the English Language. 

You may now return to your scheduled posting interfrastically.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> You have an odd definition of the word “like” that doesn’t allow for comparison or metaphor. You also keep misquoting Robbins, or mis-paraphrasing him.
> 
> And while I wouldn’t say there’s no GM in D&D, I think that describing the DM’s role as “a player with different functions” is an accurate, if broad, description.
> 
> Sounds about right. GM is just a label we use. What that label means will vary a bit from game to game, or the responsibilities of that role will vary a bit.
> 
> But I think that one of the essential elements of the GM is that they are somehow functionally different from players. So in a game where there is no functional difference among the participants, there’s no such distinction as GM and Player. There are just players.




It's a label that is used for those functions which differ from those functions that are on the "player" side of things.  Those same functional differences exist in Fiasco and Microscope, which is why the players in those games are both player and GM, depending on what function they are performing.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> It's a label that is used for those functions which differ from those functions that are on the "player" side of things.  Those same functional differences exist in Fiasco and Microscope, *which is why the players in those games are both player and GM, depending on what function they are performing.*



Your circular reasoning remains circular.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Your circular reasoning remains circular.




I'm not reasoning in a circle, which you'd realize if you cared to actually try to understand my argument.


----------



## Hussar

Aldarc said:


> I agree with you that "there is no outside text," or in other words, there is no text outside of context. However, I don't understand why you concede that worldbuilding is a storytelling/narrative element that is not limited to the literary and yet then refer to it as a "literary conceit" when speaking of creating narrative contexts in TTRPGs. That seems like some duplicitous double-speak, Hussar.
> 
> "Yes, four legs are not limited to cats, but because this dog has four legs too, I will keep calling the four-legged dog a 'four-legged cat'?"
> 
> You have been repeatedly corrected on your terminology, and yet you still decide to double-down on it so that you can win an argument about this being literary? I wish you would stop backtracking. (NARRATIVE =! LITERARY.) It's not entirely helpful for the discussion.
> 
> If a student submitted a second paper to me that kept repeating the same error as the first paper even after I had returned the first paper with corrections, I would definitely be inclined to think that the student failed to learn anything and adjudicate grading accordingly, likely with me grading more harshly with even redder ink pen.
> 
> Several flaws with your epiphany is that (1) you are equating the creation of context with the creation of literary text, and as part of that (2) you are repeating your categorical error that this narratological aspect of worldbuilding for RPGs represents a literary conceit. I'm not even sure if it constitutes a "conceit." A ltierary conceit is typically an extended rhetorical device. In contrast, worldbuilding is a process for creating or establishing the narrative context through an imagined world of fiction. (FICTION =! LITERARY.)




I would say that world building is very much part of the literary creation process.  In that you cannot really have literature without world building, or at the very least, setting creation.  Yes, it's also done in movies and, well, any narrative form, true, but, remember, the contrast here ISN'T between literary and narrative.  The contrast here is between literary and CONVERSATION.  That's always been the problem [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION].  You are arguing against something that has never been the point.  The contrast, right from the opening of this whole thread has been between the "literary" and the "conversational" where it is the content of the situation that drives emotional connection, NOT anything to do with the literary.  That these literary elements also appear in other media is beside the point because we're not contrasting different forms of media.  

Now, would you say that world building has any place in conversation?


----------



## Aldarc

Hussar said:


> I would say that world building is very much part of the literary creation process.  In that you cannot really have literature without world building, or at the very least, setting creation.  Yes, it's also done in movies and, well, any narrative form, true, but, remember, the contrast here ISN'T between literary and narrative.  The contrast here is between literary and CONVERSATION.  That's always been the problem [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION].  You are arguing against something that has never been the point.  The contrast, right from the opening of this whole thread has been between the "literary" and the "conversational" where it is the content of the situation that drives emotional connection, NOT anything to do with the literary.  That these literary elements also appear in other media is beside the point because we're not contrasting different forms of media.
> 
> Now, would you say that world building has any place in conversation?



Now it is my turn to ask how you are defining your terms, because you appear to be doing some heavy equivocation of terms here, especially around what you mean by "literary," keeping in mind how [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has defined his sense with how you are using it here almost interchangeably with other meanings. 



> That's always been the problem [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION].  You are arguing against something that has never been the point.



However, it has been my point ever since you misused your terms and repeated the categorical error.


----------



## Bedrockgames

I think genre fiction can still rise to the literary level. Depending on your measures of what makes something literature, you can probably make a good argument that Conan has had the impact, is lasting, and strikes enough of a chord that it is literature. I think he wrote better than love craft actually in terms of Prose. Been a few years since I read R E Howard though. These things are always debatable. The point is just not all books you like are literature. Most books I have read, particularly genre fiction, are definitely not what I would teen literature


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> I think genre fiction can still rise to the literary level. Depending on your measures of what makes something literature, you can probably make a good argument that Conan has had the impact, is lasting, and strikes enough of a chord that it is literature. I think he wrote better than love craft actually in terms of Prose. Been a few years since I read R E Howard though. These things are always debatable. The point is just not all books you like are literature. Most books I have read, particularly genre fiction, are definitely not what I would teen literature




Now there's something we agree on.  



Aldarc said:


> Now it is my turn to ask how you are defining your terms, because you appear to be doing some heavy equivocation of terms here, especially around what you mean by "literary," keeping in mind how  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has defined his sense with how you are using it here almost interchangeably with other meanings.
> 
> However, it has been my point ever since you misused your terms and repeated the categorical error.




The problem is, while you are having this discussion about using different terms from different media, that's never actually been the point.  Who cares if these things appear in cinema or whatever?  It doesn't matter.  The point is, none of these elements EVER appear in conversation.  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s basic point has been that it's the conversation of an RPG - the back and forth, plain language conversation during the game that drives the action and it's the situations and the content of the conversations that drives the emotional connection.  

Thing is, I've just shown that to be pretty much wrong.  All the context of an RPG comes from the "not content" side of the equation.  That's the side that Pemerton labeled "Literary".  As in wordcraft, which, well, includes things like world building and whatnot.  Like I said, [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION], I couldn't give a fetid dingo's kidney what you want to call it.  It's really NOT the point.  The point is, that it's NOT THE CONTENT side that drives the emotional connection of the game alone.  It's the content IN CONJUNCTION WITH the literary (stuff that's not just content) that drives an RPG.  

That the stuff that's Not Content also appears in other media doesn't matter.  IOW, I do not care that you can apply these same terms to other media.  It doesn't matter because that's never been what I'm talking about with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION].  You've gone off on your own little side thing here, and all you've done is cloud the issue.


----------



## Sadras

Perhaps this will help (probably not), but at least it will provide a baseline of where we each stand.
I might have missed a few steps - feel free to add (except Grocery Lists )  

a) Literary Endeavour = Conversation
b) Literary Endeavour = LARPing
c) Literary Endeavour = RPG monster stat
d) Literary Endeavour = RPG monster stat + write-up (i.e. not mechanics)
e) Literary Endeavour = World Building (more than just a monster write-up)
f) Literary Endeavour = Module/Adventure/Campaign Storyline (published or otherwise)
g) Literary Endeavour = RPGing (Matt Mercer) style, impromptu dialogue
h) Literary Endeavour = at minimum requires written dialogue (thereby wordcrafting is reflective)
i) Literary Endeavour = Any literature from Conan to Shakespeare
j) Literary Endeavour = Shakespeare


----------



## Aldarc

Hussar said:


> The problem is, while you are having this discussion about using different terms from different media, that's never actually been the point.  Who cares if these things appear in cinema or whatever?  It doesn't matter.



The point is and has been that it is inaccurate to refer to 'narrative devices' as a "literary" when discussing TTRPGs as a medium/genre. If you believe and/or demonstrate that TTRPGs are literature, as Maxperson attempted to argue in this thread, then it would be applicable. Even if we summarize pemerton's meaning of "literary" to mean "wordcraft," that does not make your (mis)use of "literary" acceptable because your use of "literary" in this thread also involves equivocating its meaning between pemerton's use, literature, and making categorical mistakes when you are discussing narratology. And that has basically been a part of your discussion of various elements as "literary devices" when you are actually referring to "narrative devices" when discussed in the context of TTRPGs. If context matters, as per what you suggest in your worldbuilding "epiphany," then it would likely be appropriate if you applied an understanding of context when discussing narrative devices in TTRPGs. 



> The point is, none of these elements EVER appear in conversation.   [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s basic point has been that it's the conversation of an RPG - the back and forth, plain language conversation during the game that drives the action and it's the situations and the content of the conversations that drives the emotional connection.
> 
> Thing is, I've just shown that to be pretty much wrong.  All the context of an RPG comes from the "not content" side of the equation.  That's the side that Pemerton labeled "Literary".  As in wordcraft, which, well, includes things like world building and whatnot. Like I said, [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION], I couldn't give a fetid dingo's kidney what you want to call it.  It's really NOT the point.  The point is, that it's NOT THE CONTENT side that drives the emotional connection of the game alone.  It's the content IN CONJUNCTION WITH the literary (stuff that's not just content) that drives an RPG.



Thing is, I don't think that you have shown  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] to be wrong. In his very first post, he says: 


> What matters to me is that the players feel the significance of the situations the GM describes - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction. That is, that the situation engage and motivate the players as players, not as an audience to a performance. And player narration should, in my view, engage with and build on this fiction in ways that display the player's view of the fiction, perhaps challenge other players (and even the GM), that make the other pariticpants go "I didn't see that coming!"



It seems like to me that pemerton believes that player engagement with the fiction/narrative drives the action but that "[he doesn't] think that the literary quality of that narration is important." So does the wordcraft of that particular worldbuilding of the monster in Scarred Lands matter for the action? Or does it matter more that the players understand the stakes of the fiction when presented with that monster? I am inclined to believe that it is the latter, and I don't think that you demonstrated in your epiphany that "the literary quality of that narration" of that monster matters. 



> That the stuff that's Not Content also appears in other media doesn't matter. IOW, I do not care that you can apply these same terms to other media.  It doesn't matter because that's never been what I'm talking about with  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION].  You've gone off on your own little side thing here, and all you've done is cloud the issue.



What you perhaps don't realize is that this "little side thing here" had already transpired as part of the thread when you misused the term "literary device" when describing TTRPGs and equivocated on that term. When you speak, for example, in your epiphany that "It's the literary - world building, setting construction, theme, trope" that matters, you are clearly delving outside of pemerton's sense of "literary as wordcraft" and expanding to the "literary as literature." And it is in this latter sense that you misuse "literary" to refer to narrative. 

Now, if you don't care what it's called and you concede that you are really speaking of narrative/storytelling devices, then would you mind using your terms correctly for once instead of falling back on misuing the terms and describing this as a "literary device"?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> It's a label that is used for those functions which differ from those functions that are on the "player" side of things.  Those same functional differences exist in Fiasco and Microscope, which is why the players in those games are both player and GM, depending on what function they are performing.




So the term "Gamemaster" is a label we use for functions performed by a specific participant of a game rather than the participant themselves? 

By this reasoning, when someone climbs a ladder, they're a Firefighter. Or is it that they're only performing Firefighting functions? 

I don't think that's very solid reasoning, nor a good definition for the term, but I realize we're not going to agree, and I don't want to debate semantics with you anymore, so we'll have to just agree to disagree.


----------



## Satyrn

Sadras said:


> Given our inability, throughout a multitude of threads, to agree on any definitions, causing many a pericombobulation, I hope no one objects if I offer Dr. Samuel Johnson my enthusiastic contrafibularities for his book, A Dictionary of the English Language.
> 
> You may now return to your scheduled posting interfrastically.




You say Dictionary, but I think you mean Thesaurus.


----------



## Satyrn

Sadras said:


> Perhaps this will help (probably not), but at least it will provide a baseline of where we each stand.
> I might have missed a few steps - feel free to add (except Grocery Lists )




What about a song about a grocery list?



			
				Milk said:
			
		

> I found your shopping list upon the kitchen table
> It read milk, tea and oranges
> It read bullets for the pistol
> Between the ashtray flowing over
> And your lucky No. 7's
> DO I take this with a grain of salt
> Tequila and a lemon?
> 
> You think I'm breaking. Am I breaking? Breaking up inside
> Worrying myself sick over what your note implies


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> Q: What are the properties of a field?
> A: They have cows in them.
> Q: What's a cow?
> A: Cows are things in fields, particularly things different from other things.



All of which becomes utterly irrelevant without the answer to this one single most important question: are they GM cows or player cows? (and, if both, how do you tell them apart?)


----------



## Ovinomancer

Lanefan said:


> All of which becomes utterly irrelevant without the answer to this one single most important question: are they GM cows or player cows? (and, if both, how do you tell them apart?)



Yup, you've  cut it to the quick.  Still hoping for Max to answer that.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> Yeah, narration is always needed, I agree....I'm just kind of sidetracking here....if a game has a mechanic that somehow represents the character is angry, or scared, or confused....does the GM need to try and convey those ideas as strongly through narration? Especially if they're clearly defined terms with mechanical implications, such as the results of failing a save versus dragon fear or being subject to a confusion spell in D&D.



I would put the contrast slightly differently. I think if the game - its mechanics and resoultion, in the context of its fiction - _produces the emotion_ of fear, or anger, or whaever, in the player, then there is less need to try and produce this by way of evocative narration.

For me, this is connected with the idea of _inhabitation_ of the character by the player.



Umbran said:


> In this particular instance, while you do have the mechanic that enforces it... those mechanics are ones that reduce player agency.  The narrative helps the player buy in to that for the moment, by giving them a plausible in-character reason to play along.



I think this depends very heavily on system. I don't think mechanics that relate to PC mental states have to reduce player agency.

Three examples I've got in mind at the moment are the Steel mechanics in Burning Wheel, the emotional and mental stress mechanics in Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic, and the psychic chains power of the Chained Cambion in the 4e MM3.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> So the term "Gamemaster" is a label we use for functions performed by a specific participant of a game rather than the participant themselves?
> 
> By this reasoning, when someone climbs a ladder, they're a Firefighter. Or is it that they're only performing Firefighting functions?




Wow!  A False Equivalence and a Strawman at the same time.

First the False Equivalence.  Climbing a ladder is not a firefighter function.  Their function is to fight fires.  It's in the freaking name, so I don't know how you missed it.  Climbing ladders is not specific to the profession.  Painters use ladders, house owners use ladders, cleaning people use ladders, and so on.  Creating scenes in RPGs, playing NPCs in RPGs and resolving scenes in RPGs are some functions specific to GMs, and at least two of those are present in Fiasco and Microscope.

Now the Strawman.  It wasn't my reasoning that you used.  I said GMs, participants of the games, are labeled GMs because they engage in GM specific activities, not a label for the functions themselves.  You applied an incorrect argument to me and then responded to your own fictional argument.



> I don't think that's very solid reasoning, nor a good definition for the term, but I realize we're not going to agree, and I don't want to debate semantics with you anymore, so we'll have to just agree to disagree.




We can agree to disagree, but I was hoping to see if you would succeed in a fallacy hat trick with your next response.


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> All of which becomes utterly irrelevant without the answer to this one single most important question: are they GM cows or player cows? (and, if both, how do you tell them apart?)




GM cows are genetically modified of course.  Duh!


----------



## Bagpuss

pemerton said:


> Some recent threads have discussed aspects of GM and player narration in RPGing. Which hase prompted me to start this thread.
> 
> My answer to the question in the thread title is a firm _No_.






> RPGing requires narration: GMs describe situations, and players declare actions for their PCs that respond to those situations.




Considering the number of solo or two player RPGs where the player(s) creates a written document by the end of it, I think your view of what constitutes an RPG is limited, and your answer in my opinion is wrong, but not for that reason alone.



> But I don't think the literary quality of that narration is important.




The narration is rarely written down in most games so never becomes literary, no mater the quality or nature of it. However some players keep detailed in character campaign diaries, or GM's produce great texts of campaign lore, all of which has literary quality and value, and is part of an RPG even if not necessary for one.

So my answer to the question *"Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?"*

It can be, and often involves literary endeavours, but doesn't need to be.



> This is how I see RPGs, with their emphasis on _participation_ in the creation of a fiction that is structured through _distinct_ player and GM roles, working. And it's how I see them differening from more directly narrative mediums such as books and films.




There are so many RPGs now that don't have *distinct *player and GM roles, that I can't agree with that. I agree with the participation in the creation of fiction. I don't think the distinction of roles is what makes RPGs different from other narrative mediums such as books and films. Films have script writers, actors, and directors and other crew with distinct rolls.

I think the main distinction between RPGs and other narrative mediums is the improvisational aspect of it. Even if you have the same scenario and rules system you can run it several different times with different people and get different stories. You could even run it again with the same people and characters (not that you would want to) and you would get a different result.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> Wow!  A False Equivalence and a Strawman at the same time.
> 
> First the False Equivalence.  Climbing a ladder is not a firefighter function.  Their function is to fight fires.  It's in the freaking name, so I don't know how you missed it.  Climbing ladders is not specific to the profession.  Painters use ladders, house owners use ladders, cleaning people use ladders, and so on.  Creating scenes in RPGs, playing NPCs in RPGs and resolving scenes in RPGs are some functions specific to GMs, and at least two of those are present in Fiasco and Microscope.
> 
> Now the Strawman.  It wasn't my reasoning that you used.  I said GMs, participants of the games, are labeled GMs because they engage in GM specific activities, not a label for the functions themselves.  You applied an incorrect argument to me and then responded to your own fictional argument.
> 
> 
> 
> We can agree to disagree, but I was hoping to see if you would succeed in a fallacy hat trick with your next response.




I take it back, Max -- do not explain fallacies, just keep using the titles.  While that's a habit that indicates a lack of argumentative ability, better that than to remove doubt.  I mean, while building your cases for the fallacies here, you completely missed the thrust of [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]'s argument and actually helped him land it more solidly.  That main thrust was at the gooey, shifting center of your argument where you keep saying the are GM specific functions but are very careful to not list them.  You've mistaken sarcasm for fallacy.  

At least when you were just tossing fallacy names out one may have imagined you'd followed along.  Now, we know you didn't.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> I take it back, Max -- do not explain fallacies, just keep using the titles.  While that's a habit that indicates a lack of argumentative ability, better that than to remove doubt.  I mean, while building your cases for the fallacies here, you completely missed the thrust of [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]'s argument and actually helped him land it more solidly.  That main thrust was at the gooey, shifting center of your argument where you keep saying the are GM specific functions but are very careful to not list them.  You've mistaken sarcasm for fallacy.
> 
> At least when you were just tossing fallacy names out one may have imagined you'd followed along.  Now, we know you didn't.




Go troll someone else dude.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> Go troll someone else dude.



Ah, the Ad Hominem.  That /is/ a good one.

Let's try more directly, then:  what are the specific GM functions?


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> World building, while certainly not limited to the literary, is a primarily story telling element. We don't do world building in a conversation. @pemerton talked about how getting a letter from a relative has a viceral element and it's true, it does. But, that's because it's part of the real world and all the context is built right in. In a second world, you need to create that context for the reader, or, in the case of an RPG, the player. And, you create that context through literary conceits like world building.





uzirath said:


> Context is important if you want fictional elements to have emotional resonance. If you're departing from well-known genre territory, you need to build that context into the game so that it becomes familiar. This can be all the GM's job or it can be shared by everyone (collaborative world building).



Well this certainly gets to the heart of it, or to the heart of something at least.

I see two related questions.

(1) Is worldbuilding done, and context established, _for_ the players? That depends on the system and the table. My experience, going back over 30 years to my early years as a GM, is that players are more invested when the context is something that they have a hand in. This can be as simple as PC backstory that establishes a mentor/master.

And this is something that can be done conversationally. For a somewhat formalised/proceduralised version see eg Fate Core, or PtbA games. But informal approaches have been used for a lot longer than those games have been around.

(2) Does establishing context, and the resulting "pull to action", depend on evocative language/wordcraft? Like [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] not too far upthread, I tend to think that it doesn't.

If the context is something that the GM delivers _to_ the players, then maybe evocative language is required to get them to buy in. As I posted early in this thread, I think this makes the success of the enterprise rest on the weaker rather than stronger aspect of the game form (ie it depends on one participant's literary capcity, rather than on the shared generation of fiction which, as I see it, is at the heart of post-dungeoncrawling RPGing).

But when the players help supply the context then I think the emotional investment comes from inside rather than outside (to return to a metaphor I used a while ago upthread).



uzirath said:


> I've been thinking about some comments that appeared some pages back (around page 90, I think) regarding the importance of evocative descriptions in the game. Instead of just calling out die rolls and watching the hit points go down, it's helpful to describe the action from the perspective of the characters. I tend to agree with this. As I've mentioned in this thread and others, I play a lot with new players. I've found that the descriptions are usually what hook new people, especially in combat. Missing your attacks repeatedly can be pretty frustrating, so I make a point of describing what happens with each miss. Subsequently, I encourage players to come up with these descriptions. This makes combat much more engaging and seems to help keep people focused. Indeed, some of those descriptions have been memorable enough to become part of the character's lore, talked and laughed about for many sessions afterward.



I tend to prefer a system that helps generate those sorts of descriptions and the resulting memorable events as part-and-parcel of the adjudication and resolution.

In the session of Prince Valiant I GMed on Sunday one of the knight PCs was trying to ride down a fleeing bandit. The player rolled Brawn + Horse + Gear + Riding (about 8 dice, I think) vs the NPC's Brawn + Agility (7 dice?). I got more successes than the player, and narrated the bandit as leaping onto the back of tjhe PC's steed.

This description changed the fictional situation, so that now the contest was the two wrestling for control of the horse. The new dice pools were put together, and another success for the NPC resulted in the PC being pushed from his horse.

One thing I find frustrating about classic D&D combat (ie hit pont depletion) is that it generally doesn't generate descriptions that actually matter to resolution. That's one reason why I took up Rolemaster as my main game for many years - it's quite different from Prince Valiant (!), but also generates desciptions that matter to resolution. I also found 4e D&D to be a departure from classic D&D in this respect, with combat generating fiction that matters to resolution.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> Since you just laughed at my post, we can all take that to mean that you have no good response to the well reasoned argument I put forth.




This is from another thread, but I think I'll leave it here.  For posterity.  


[I edited out the mention to a poster not involved in this thread.]


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> This is from another thread, but I think I'll leave it here.  For posterity.




Your response wasn't an argument.  It was either a trollish attack against me or it was a joke.  I chose to laugh at it and respond the way I did in order to cover both bases.  Which was it?


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> Well this certainly gets to the heart of it, or to the heart of something at least.
> 
> I see two related questions.
> 
> (1) Is worldbuilding done, and context established, _for_ the players? That depends on the system and the table. My experience, going back over 30 years to my early years as a GM, is that players are more invested when the context is something that they have a hand in. This can be as simple as PC backstory that establishes a mentor/master.
> 
> And this is something that can be done conversationally. For a somewhat formalised/proceduralised version see eg Fate Core, or PtbA games. But informal approaches have been used for a lot longer than those games have been around.
> 
> (2) Does establishing context, and the resulting "pull to action", depend on evocative language/wordcraft? Like [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] not too far upthread, I tend to think that it doesn't.
> 
> If the context is something that the GM delivers _to_ the players, then maybe evocative language is required to get them to buy in. As I posted early in this thread, I think this makes the success of the enterprise rest on the weaker rather than stronger aspect of the game form (ie it depends on one participant's literary capcity, rather than on the shared generation of fiction which, as I see it, is at the heart of post-dungeoncrawling RPGing).
> 
> But when the players help supply the context then I think the emotional investment comes from inside rather than outside (to return to a metaphor I used a while ago upthread).
> /snip




But, you say it right there - even in games like Fate, you aren't creating context through conversation.  Your Aspects aren't simply general conversational points, at least, not if you're doing it right.  You tyically create Aspects that are evocative.  You aren't just "a butler".  You're "an English Butler", to use your example.  After all, it's not really the butler part that's driving the character, it's the whole package, which has been boiled down to a trope of "English Butler".  And, the reason we can boil it down that far is because, well, all the contextual work has been done for you through literature and various other sources.  

Imagine it this way.  You are talking about Prince Valiant.  Now, try playing that game with someone who has ZERO context for the genre.  Has no idea what a knight is, what chivalry is, has virtually no background in European medieval history.  And has never even heard of the comic book.  How are you going to engage that player?  "He wants to steal your horse", "Uh, ok, he takes my horse, what do I care, it's a horse."

You are not going to engage that player internally.  You can't because that player has zero context with which to even begin to understand what's going on.  The literary is totally required for an RPG simply to get to the point where you can actually play the game.  "Um, it's about guys on horses riding around with swords" isn't really going to get the job done.

The problem, I think, is that you, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], are presuming that the player at the table already has all the context he or she needs to play.  That is certainly not guaranteed, which is what I showed with the Vengaurak example.


----------



## Aldarc

Hussar said:


> And, the reason we can boil it down that far is because, well, all the contextual work has been done for you through literature and various other sources.



Is this not you equivocating again on the meaning of "literature" and "literary"? If we take "literary" to mean "wordcraft" (as per pemerton) then why are you using it to mean "written literature" here? What do you mean by your terms, Hussar? Or is defining terms only a standard you expect from others? 



> Imagine it this way.  You are talking about Prince Valiant.  Now, try playing that game with someone who has ZERO context for the genre.  Has no idea what a knight is, what chivalry is, has virtually no background in European medieval history.  And has never even heard of the comic book.  How are you going to engage that player?  "He wants to steal your horse", "Uh, ok, he takes my horse, what do I care, it's a horse."



Conversational: "Horses are expensive and one of your status symbols of wealth as a knight. It's as if he stole your Lamborghini that also doubles as a tank in combat." 



> The problem, I think, is that you, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], are presuming that the player at the table already has all the context he or she needs to play.  That is certainly not guaranteed, which is what I showed with the Vengaurak example.



So context can only be intermediated to players through literature?


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> The problem, I think, is that you,  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], are presuming that the player at the table already has all the context he or she needs to play.  That is certainly not guaranteed, which is what I showed with the Vengaurak example.




I think there are quite a few presumptions outside of assuming relevant context that are problematic in [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s argument.  One that immediately springs to mind is the presumption that players will be more invested when the context is something they have a hand in.  This assumes the players will be more invested in character connections vs discovery or exploration of the unknown...and for some players this just isn't true.  I wouldn't argue that players participating in a West Marches campaign are any less invested or engaged around discovery and exploration of the world than a player who has had a hand in creating some part of the world and is engaged... it really again boils down to preferred playstyle, game type, etc... Yet [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] seems to only be considering those with his preferred style and type of game as opposed to the hobby as a whole.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> I think there are quite a few presumptions outside of assuming relevant context that are problematic in [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s argument.  *One that immediately springs to mind is the presumption that players will be more invested when the context is something they have a hand in. * This assumes the players will be more invested in character connections vs discovery or exploration of the unknown...and for some players this just isn't true.  I wouldn't argue that players participating in a West Marches campaign are any less invested or engaged around discovery and exploration of the world than a player who has had a hand in creating some part of the world and is engaged... it really again boils down to preferred playstyle, game type, etc... Yet [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] seems to only be considering those with his preferred style and type of game as opposed to the hobby as a whole.



I do agree with your point quite readily that players have different preferences in terms of engagement. 

Though pemerton may indeed have the presumption in the bold, I'm not sure if his argument in this thread hinges on it. Pemerton's initial thesis in the OP, for example, is silent about whether the fiction that the players engage through play is something that they have an _a priori_ hand in creating. When pemerton speaks on the emphasis in RPGs "on participation in the creation of a fiction that is structured through distinct player and GM roles," this seems more about the general process of creating fiction through play: i.e., when you play a TTRPG, the process of play creates new fiction. A West Marches style game would likewise create new fiction as the players decide which piece of fiction to engage and in the process generate new fiction through their collective choices. IMHO, a West Marches style game is predicated on the idea that players will "engage with and build on this fiction in ways that display the player's view of the fiction" since WM games require that players pro-actively engage the fiction, even if that only entails peeling back the fog-of-war on the map. 

In my reading of the OP, pemerton does not believe that the "literary quality" (i.e. wordcraft) for the narration of situations performed by GMs (to which players respond) matters, or at least should be regarded as a secondary nature. Instead, pemerton appears to be arguing that what matters most is that the stakes of the fiction are understood such that players can properly perform their duties as players who participate in the fiction. And implicit in this argument is the idea that attempting a high literary quality of GM narration can risk relegating the players to function more as an "audience to a performance" by the GM rather than themselves being the primary participants of the fiction. I'm not necessarily sure if pemerton would word it in this way, but it's possible that his point here could be understood as a fear of when GM narration happens _at the players_ for the sake of wordcraft itself rather than _for the players_ to contextualize their participation in the fiction. 

In sum: the contextualization of player choice within the fiction of TTRPG play - presuming (not so radically at all) that TTRPG gameplay is driven primarily by player-character choices - matters more than the quality of the narrated wordcraft of the fiction that a GM may supply to players.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> In sum: the contextualization of player choice within the fiction of TTRPG play - presuming (not so radically at all) that TTRPG gameplay is driven primarily by player-character choices - matters more than the quality of the narrated wordcraft of the fiction that a GM may supply to players.




Not if that narrated wordcraft of the fiction is their first/only exposure to and main basis for the choices being made.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> Not if that narrated wordcraft of the fiction is their first/only exposure to and main basis for the choices being made.



Is this really the only point that you want to engage? That said, I'm not sure if I agree with that either, Imaro.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> Is this really the only point that you want to engage? That said, I'm not sure if I agree with that either, Imaro.




 It's driving the choices which are in turn driving gameplay. As an example... an evocative description vs a bland (conversational) description can very much influence which of two sites said players want to explore in something like a West Marches game... how is this not just as important as the content? It's why billions are spent on researching and crafting the right advertising for a product vs just putting the product out and letting the "content" be the deciding factor.

I thought I was engaging with the main point of your post... if not what is it you are trying to discuss?


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> *It's driving the choices which are in turn driving gameplay.* As an example... an evocative description vs a bland (conversational) description can very much influence which of two sites said players want to explore in something like a West Marches game... how is this not just as important as the content? It's why billions are spent on researching and crafting the right advertising for a product vs just putting the product out and letting the "content" be the deciding factor.



It can (for some people) but I don't think that the quality of narrated wordcraft is fundamentally necessary to initiate a campaign. Companies hire advertisers to get people to buy the product. If people are already sitting down to play your TTRPG campaign, then they have already "bought the product" (i.e., playing the game). Whether or not they will continue playing is something else entirely, but reasons for why they may disengage will vary from person to person and table to table.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> It can (for some people) but I don't think that the quality of narrated wordcraft is fundamentally necessary to initiate a campaign. Companies hire advertisers to get people to buy the product. If people are already sitting down to play your TTRPG campaign, then they have already "bought the product" (i.e., playing the game). Whether or not they will continue playing is something else entirely, but reasons for why they may disengage will vary from person to person and table to table.




So again we are discussing a subset of players... we are excluding those "some people".

 I also disagree that just because someone is sitting down to play your TTRPG campaign (which in and of itself implies more than one session) that they have already "bought the product" they are free to quit 2 mins into the session if it's not interesting to them.  My whole point is your last sentence...reasons (including lack of interesting wordcraft for some people) for why people disengage will vary... so declaring one part of the game as unimportant automatically disregards players for whom that thing is important enough to make or break the game.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Ovinomancer said:


> I take it back, Max -- do not explain fallacies, just keep using the titles.  While that's a habit that indicates a lack of argumentative ability, better that than to remove doubt.  I mean, while building your cases for the fallacies here, you completely missed the thrust of [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]'s argument and actually helped him land it more solidly.  That main thrust was at the gooey, shifting center of your argument where you keep saying the are GM specific functions but are very careful to not list them.  You've mistaken sarcasm for fallacy.
> 
> At least when you were just tossing fallacy names out one may have imagined you'd followed along.  Now, we know you didn't.




Sometimes I wonder if there's like a Sacha Baron Cohen kind of thing going on. At times, it seems the only explanation.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> So again we are discussing a subset of players... we are excluding those "some people".
> 
> My whole point is your last sentence...reasons (including lack of interesting wordcraft for some people) for why people disengage will vary... so declaring one part of the game as unimportant automatically disregards players for whom that thing is important enough to make or break the game.



You may be seeing this differently than I am, but it seems to me at least that claiming that high quality wordcraft for GM narration is highly important for TTRPG gameplay is far more exclusionary of a statement than saying that it's not fundamentally necessary. And honestly there are many things that may break the game for people - especially recalling our past conversations on Fate points - that I am not sure if we should be bothered by the fact that some people will find the lack of high quality narration by the GM "game-breaking," which certainly seems more like an extreme case rather than the norm.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> You may be seeing this differently than I am, but it seems to me at least that claiming that high quality wordcraft for GM narration is highly important for TTRPG gameplay is far more exclusionary of a statement than saying that it's not fundamentally necessary. And honestly there are many things that may break the game for people - especially recalling our past conversations on Fate points - that I am not sure if we should be bothered by the fact that some people will find the lack of high quality narration by the GM "game-breaking," which certainly seems more like an extreme case rather than the norm.




How would attention to developing and using good or even exceptional wordcraft in a game be exclusionary??  No one said perfection has to be achieved, it's a scale, but totally disregarding it (in other words claiming even when performed at it's lowest bar or disregarded in full doesn't affect the game) is another matter all together that I just don't agree with.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> How would attention to developing and using good or even exceptional wordcraft in a game be exclusionary??  No one said perfection has to be achieved, it's a scale, but totally disregarding it (in other words claiming even when performed at it's lowest bar or disregarded in full doesn't affect the game) is another matter all together that I just don't agree with.



If chefs were to expect that people must use high end ingredients in their cooking (or top quality kitchenware), then it tends to exclude the cooking efforts of those who can't afford, find, or even regards those high end ingredients (or kitchenware) as essential. (Not to mention potential diet restrictions.) I also don't think that these people should necessarily be aspiring to possess those better ingredients either simply for the sake of possessing them. It seems like the fundamentals of cooking the dish are more important to learn and perform. I don't think the conversation is about disregarding the quality of the ingredients (or the wordcraft), but in recognizing that buying quality ingredients is not essential for cooking the dish. It's a luxury, and I don't think we should shame those who either can't afford or choose not to cook with those high quality ingredients.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> If chefs were to expect that people must use high end ingredients in their cooking (or top quality kitchenware), then it tends to exclude the cooking efforts of those who can't afford, find, or even regards those high end ingredients (or kitchenware) as essential. (Not to mention potential diet restrictions.) I also don't think that these people should necessarily be aspiring to possess those better ingredients either simply for the sake of possessing them. It seems like the fundamentals of cooking the dish are more important to learn and perform. I don't think the conversation is about disregarding the quality of the ingredients (or the wordcraft), but in recognizing that buying quality ingredients is not essential for cooking the dish. It's a luxury, and I don't think we should shame those who either can't afford or choose not to cook with those high quality ingredients.




Whose shaming anyone about anything?  Why even frame the discussion like that?

EDIT: Let me put it this way... there is a point where wilted, browning spinach, week old meat and stale rolls can't be overcome by good cooking and are going to make it so I don't eat a meal because it's unappealing (especially if there's an alternative with quality ingredients)... If I'm starving and have no other options, sure I'll swallow it down but since playing TTRPG's isn't a necessity I don't think it should be viewed in the same way.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> Whose shaming anyone about anything?  Why even frame the discussion like that?
> 
> EDIT: Let me put it this way... there is a point where wilted, browning spinach, week old meat and stale rolls can't be overcome by good cooking and are going to make it so I don't eat a meal because it's unappealing (especially if there's an alternative with quality ingredients)... If I'm starving and have no other options, sure I'll swallow it down but since playing TTRPG's isn't a necessity I don't think it should be viewed in the same way.



You are going to an opposing extreme to argue your case. 

Let me put it this way... 

(1) More Requirements for Game Expectations (with Wordcraft) > (2) Less Requirements for Game Expectations (having or not having Wordcraft doesn't matter) 

Not everyone will necessarily run their games with (1) so expecting or demanding (1) excludes those who run their games as (2).


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> You are going to an opposing extreme to argue your case.
> 
> Let me put it this way...
> 
> (1) More Requirements for Game Expectations (with Wordcraft) > (2) Less Requirements for Game Expectations (having or not having Wordcraft doesn't matter)
> 
> Not everyone will necessarily run their games with (1) so expecting or demanding (1) excludes those who run their games as (2).




Yes and vice versa... those who find a game with the bare minimum devoted to it's narrative not interesting or not fun will not participate iun the hobby so claiming it's unnecessary or something that can be discarded excludes those whose enjoyment comes from it.  In other words it's all preferences and playstyles and while it's cool to state what your particular ones are trying to extrapolate that to roleplaying as a whole will always leave some excluded.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> Yes and vice versa... those who find a game with the bare minimum devoted to it's narrative not interesting or not fun will not participate iun the hobby so claiming it's unnecessary or something that can be discarded excludes those whose enjoyment comes from it. In other words it's all preferences and playstyles and while it's cool to state what your particular ones are trying to extrapolate that to roleplaying as a whole will always leave some excluded.



(1) This is something of a false equivalence though. It's about like saying that ordering a cheese pizza for those who don't like pepperoni salami or who have vegetarian, halal, or kosher diets then we are being exclusionary for those who want pepperoni salami on their pizza. Sure, they may like or prefer the taste of salami, but the ordering of one pizza over another are not equal positions. And I don't think that quality wordcraft narration of the GM should be deemed an essential requirement for running TTRPGs. 

(2) You are also falsely equating a position of "not regarding the quality of GM narration as important" with "bare minimum devoted to it's narrative." That's just silly and false, if not flat-out insulting.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> (1) This is something of a false equivalence though. It's about like saying that ordering a cheese pizza for those who don't like pepperoni salami or who have vegetarian, halal, or kosher diets then we are being exclusionary for those who want pepperoni salami on their pizza. Sure, they may like or prefer the taste of salami, but the ordering of one pizza over another are not equal positions. And I don't think that quality wordcraft narration of the GM should be deemed an essential requirement for running TTRPGs.
> 
> (2) You are also falsely equating a position of "not regarding the quality of GM narration as important" with "bare minimum devoted to it's narrative." That's just silly and false, if not flat-out insulting.




1. No since this is a leisure activity it is all about whether enjoyment is garnered from it... if you enjoy rpg'ing  for reason X and X is no longer a part of rpg'ing you have no reason to partake in it... or in other words if I don't eat pizza without meat and you only order pizza with cheese... yeah you are purposefully excluding me.

2. It's not insulting so please calm the hyperbole down... we've already went there with the shaming statement earlier.  If you say Y isn't a necessary component of X well then you should be able to remove Y and X should still perform it's main function perfectly well for all people... right?  I don't believe that's the case here.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> 1. No since this is a leisure activity it is all about whether enjoyment is garnered from it... if you enjoy rpg'ing  for reason X and X is no longer a part of rpg'ing you have no reason to partake in it... or in other words if I don't eat pizza without meat and you only order pizza with cheese... yeah you are purposefully excluding me.



Your false equivalence remains false. Try again next time. 



> 2. It's not insulting so please calm the hyperbole down... we've already went there with the shaming statement earlier.  If you say Y isn't a necessary component of X well then you should be able to remove Y and X should still perform it's main function perfectly well for all people... right?  I don't believe that's the case here.



How is accusing the other position of a position they don't hold - i.e., not caring about the narrative - not insulting? That's , Imaro. That is utter .


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> Your false equivalence remains false. Try again next time.




Lol... Nice rebuttal... "cause I don't agree".



Aldarc said:


> How is accusing the other position of a position they don't hold - i.e., not caring about the narrative - not insulting? That's , Imaro. That is utter .




Dude it's pretty simple, either it's important and thus it's inclusion (to whatever degree) matters or it's not important and it's absence would be fine.  Quit waffling.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> Lol... Nice rebuttal... "cause I don't agree".



No. It's because I already explained how it is a false equivalence. 



> Dude it's pretty simple, either it's important and thus it's inclusion (to whatever degree) matters or it's not important and it's absence would be fine.  Quit waffling.



It's not waffling to say that we should not equate "not regarding the wordcraft of GM narration as important" with "not caring about the narrative." It is insulting to claim that that these positions are equivalent. If you can't figure out how these two distinct positions are not the same or don't have the courtesy to bother, whichever it may be, then our conversation is irreconcilable.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> No. It's because I already explained how it is a false equivalence.




Yeah where somehow you dictating cheese pizza for everyone is more inclusive of those who only eat pepperoni pizza because... reasons??  Still not convinced. 



Aldarc said:


> It's not waffling to say that we should not equate "not regarding the wordcraft of GM narration as important" with "not caring about the narrative." It is insulting to claim that that these positions are equivalent. If you can't figure out how these two distinct positions are not the same or don't have the courtesy to bother, whichever it may be, then our conversation is irreconcilable.




Can yo have a narrative without any type of wordcraft?  If not wordcraft is at some level necessary.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> Yeah where somehow you dictating cheese pizza for everyone is more inclusive of those who only eat pepperoni pizza because... reasons??  Still not convinced.



I said who preferred eating pepperoni. That said, I am certain that if anyone who preferred pepperoni salami pizza genuinely believed that they were being unfairly excluded from a group ordering a cheese pizza when there are people with vegetarian, halal, or kosher diets present, then that person is probably a rude, self-centered dick who should be excluded though for reasons other than their pizza preferences. 

Here is what you said: 


> Can yo have a narrative without any type of wordcraft?  If not wordcraft is at some level necessary.



Now, here is what pemerton _actually_ wrote: 


pemerton said:


> But I don't think the literary quality of that narration is important.



His position was NOT that you can have narrative without wordcraft or that wordcraft isn't necessary, but that "the literary quality of that narration is [not] important." And I said as much when I summarized his OP.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> I said who preferred eating pepperoni. That said, I am certain that if anyone who preferred pepperoni salami pizza genuinely believed that they were being unfairly excluded from a group ordering a cheese pizza when there are people with vegetarian, halal, or kosher diets present, then that person is probably a rude, self-centered dick who should be excluded though for reasons other than their pizza preferences.




LMAO... you're really equating preference of little to no wordcraft with having life threatening allergies, religious belief systems and so on... this is really getting absurd... and I'm the one creating fallacies??



Aldarc said:


> Here is what you said:
> Now, here is what pemerton _actually_ wrote:
> His position was NOT that you can have narrative without wordcraft or that wordcraft isn't necessary, but that "the literary quality of that narration is [not] important." And I said as much when I summarized his OP.




See and this is where it gets silly because "quality" as used here is never defined.  Again as @_*Hussar*_ said earlier if we are talking Shakespearean prose then we're all in agreement... but then it begs the question why start a thread about something so obvious and well uninteresting?  What's the point if this is what you meant and why not just state it as such without all the back and forth.

EDIT: On another note can anyone link a definition of literary quality that is objectively measurable, from a reputable source and widely accepted?


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> See and this is where it gets silly because "quality" as used here is never defined.  Again as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] said earlier if we are talking Shakespearean prose then we're all in agreement... but then it begs the question why start a thread about something so obvious and well uninteresting?



I don't think that we necessarily have to go to a high end of prose quality to say that the wordcraft quality of GM and PC narration is not of primary importance. But again, I think that pemerton wanted to emphasize what he regarded as more important for the "participation in the creation of fiction": 


> What matters to me is that the players _feel the significance_ of the situations the GM describes - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction. That is, that the situation _engage and motivate_ the players _as players_, not as an audience to a performance. And player narration should, in my view, engage with and build on this fiction in ways that display the player's view of the fiction



This it say that GM narration should not treat players as passive recipients of their narration, but instead inform the player of the stakes. 



> What's the point if this is what you meant and why not just state it as such without all the back and forth.



This is why I have been frustrated by the back and forth - and my question about why you chose to engage that one point in my summary - because it was stated in the summary of the argumentation in pemerton's OP. It was even the first sentence of my summary: 


> In my reading of the OP, pemerton does not believe that the "literary quality" (i.e. wordcraft) for the narration of situations performed by GMs (to which players respond) matters, or at least should be regarded as a secondary nature. Instead, pemerton appears to be arguing that what matters most is that the stakes of the fiction are understood such that players can properly perform their duties as players who participate in the fiction.



You are welcome to go back and read my summary. I can assure you that it is all there.


----------



## darkbard

Imaro said:


> EDIT: On another note can anyone link a definition of literary quality that is objectively measurable, from a reputable source and widely accepted?




I did you one better. Earlier I linked to an examination by Terry Eagleton, a leading literary theorist, on why the discipline of literary studies itself wrestles with the impossibility of an acceptable universal definition of literature/literary. Did you read it?


----------



## dco

No unless talking is now a literary endeavour.


----------



## Campbell

Attitudes and expectations matter. I am fine with role playing that aims higher in the literary sense or is more casual. What is fundamental to me is that we are all involved in the process as creative peers and everyone's contributions are valued equally. Also that everyone is expected to contribute. Also that contributions move play forward and demand action from other players (GM included).


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> It can (for some people) but I don't think that the quality of narrated wordcraft is fundamentally necessary to initiate a campaign. Companies hire advertisers to get people to buy the product. If people are already sitting down to play your TTRPG campaign, then they have already "bought the product" (i.e., playing the game).



Well, not yet they haven't.  All they've done at this point is shown interest and, in effect, said "show me more".

That said, if they keep coming back to subsequent sessions of the same game then yes, they've bought it. 



> Whether or not they will continue playing is something else entirely, but reasons for why they may disengage will vary from person to person and table to table.



True; and one of those reasons could well be the quality of the DM's narration.  Is it flowery or is it dumbed-down? (too much of either could send players packing)  Is it understandable? (at a con game once I had a DM who, either through his accent or a mild speech impediment - not sure which - I found nearly impossible to understand)  Is it informative and-or relevant to what's going on in the fiction?


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> (1) This is something of a false equivalence though. It's about like saying that ordering a cheese pizza for those who don't like pepperoni salami or who have vegetarian, halal, or kosher diets then we are being exclusionary for those who want pepperoni salami on their pizza. Sure, they may like or prefer the taste of salami, but the ordering of one pizza over another are not equal positions. And I don't think that quality wordcraft narration of the GM should be deemed an essential requirement for running TTRPGs.




You are excluding people who want pepperoni, though.  As for equality, that's subjective.  What makes what a vegetarian wants more important than what I want?

As for your example, it's not a false equivalence at all.  The below set-up works equally well with the one you went with.

(1) Less Requirements for Game Expectations (having or not having Wordcraft doesn't matter) > (2) More Requirements for Game Expectations (with Wordcraft)

Not everyone will necessarily run their games with (1) so expecting or demanding (1) *excludes those who run their games as* (2).

The reality, though, is that nobody is excluded with either set-up.  Since group 2 is running their game with their preferred method, it doesn't matter what group 1 expects or demands.  Group 2 is still running their game with their preferred method.


----------



## Hussar

Does anyone really think that comparing a horse to a sports car is going to evoke emotions or buy in to the situation?


----------



## Campbell

You talk about excluding people as if it is a fundamentally bad thing. It's part of basic human socialization to have expectations and boundaries.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> You are excluding people who want pepperoni, though.  As for equality, that's subjective.  What makes what a vegetarian wants more important than what I want



Please see what I wrote later: 


Aldarc said:


> That said, I am certain that if anyone who preferred pepperoni salami pizza genuinely believed that they were being unfairly excluded from a group ordering a cheese pizza when there are people with vegetarian, halal, or kosher diets present, then that person is probably a rude, self-centered dick who should be excluded though for reasons other than their pizza preferences.


----------



## Hussar

Hussar said:


> Does anyone really think that comparing a horse to a sports car is going to evoke emotions or buy in to the situation?




I know that it's a bit gauche to quote myself, but, I did want to expand on this thought and didn't have time at the time.  

For me, sure, I get the idea if you compare a horse to a Lamborghini.  OTOH, my wife, who knows nothing about cars, would just as likely be picturing Italian pasta if you said that.    It's not like it would clarify anything for her.

And, that's kinda the point I was getting at.  Wordcraft, if we want to use that word, is all about using the right word or phrase to evoke reaction from the audience.  But, in order to ignore wordcraft, we need to have an audience that is already steeped in the literary context of the RPG.  And, yes, I do say literary context since many RPG's are based very strongly on written works.  Whether you want to look at something like D&D with it's Appendix N, or Vampire and its ties to all sorts of vampire stories, or Fate with its strong ties to pulps, or Savage Worlds, again tied to pulps, or Prince Valiant which is directly based off of a comic book series.  For those of us genre nerds who have read these works, it's easy to shorthand lots of things.  We already have the context built in because we've read the literature which drew our attention through wordcraft.  

No one has ever accused Tolkien of using a conversational tone.   

 [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] mentioned my participation in the skills threads.  But, I realized something out of those threads.  What I do and what a lot of the method:goal folks do is virtually the same.  I just skip a few steps simply because of familiarity with my group and the rules.  It doesn't bother me if a player calls for a skill check because, well, we've all played together for a very long time and we pretty much know when skill checks are going to be called anyway.  But, if we got a new player or two at the table, I imagine we'd, for a while at least, fall back into a more formal style.  

Same goes here.  I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and others brush off the "word craft" aspect of running a game simply because they have groups where they are familiar enough with each other and the source material that you can skip over things because you don't need to set the context.  It's already been set through hours and hours of play.


----------



## Sadras

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s post reminded me of another thread many of us engaged in, I'm a little lazy now to go searching for a link but it was the thread about the blocked texts in published modules. It would be interesting to see which of us valued the blocked texts (even as a starting point) with those of us which strongly lean on wordcrafting being of significant importance in RPGing.


----------



## Hussar

Sadras said:


> [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s post reminded me of another thread many of us engaged in, I'm a little lazy now to go searching for a link but it was the thread about the blocked texts in published modules. It would be interesting to see which of us valued the blocked texts (even as a starting point) with those of us which strongly lean on wordcrafting being of significant importance in RPGing.




Heh, I'm pretty sure that that thread was a primary genesis for this one.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Sadras said:


> [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s post reminded me of another thread many of us engaged in, I'm a little lazy now to go searching for a link but it was the thread about the blocked texts in published modules. It would be interesting to see which of us valued the blocked texts (even as a starting point) with those of us which strongly lean on wordcrafting being of significant importance in RPGing.




I don't find boxed text especially important. I don't mind if it is included in a module, but I don't like reading it aloud, and don't like having it read aloud to me. At the same time, not terribly interested in word crafting when I am GMing or playing.


----------



## Aldarc

Hussar said:


> I know that it's a bit gauche to quote myself, but, I did want to expand on this thought and didn't have time at the time.
> 
> For me, sure, I get the idea if you compare a horse to a Lamborghini.  OTOH, my wife, who knows nothing about cars, would just as likely be picturing Italian pasta if you said that.    It's not like it would clarify anything for her.



Yes, it is just like pemerton said in the OP: 


> What matters to me is that the players feel the significance of the situations the GM describes - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction. That is, that the situation engage and motivate the players as players, not as an audience to a performance.



 

But the literary quality of a description that compares a horse to a Lamborghini would be wasted on someone who lacks the appropriate cognitive context to contextualize the utterance. The literary quality of the narration is unimportant in comparison with the GM's ability to describe a situation that engages the players' ability to motivate the players as players. I'm glad that you agree with pemerton. 



> And, that's kinda the point I was getting at.  Wordcraft, if we want to use that word, is all about using the right word or phrase to evoke reaction from the audience.  But, *in order to ignore wordcraft,*



Which is not being argued. Instead, I will suggest that pemerton would argue that "the GM's wordcraft was made for the player and not the player for the GM's wordcraft." The wordcraft is kinda immaterial (i.e., unimportant) if it fails to engage player participation and the creation of new fiction through play. I think that is his underyling point: what function does this wordcraft serve for the primary principles of gameplay? In other words, the wordcraft should not exist for its own sake - a manner that makes the players "an audience to a performance" rather than players - but for the sake of contextualizing the ability of players to act as players. 



> we need to have an audience that is already steeped in the literary context of the RPG.  And, yes, I do say literary context since many RPG's are based very strongly on written works.  Whether you want to look at something like D&D with it's Appendix N, or Vampire and its ties to all sorts of vampire stories, or Fate with its strong ties to pulps, or Savage Worlds, again tied to pulps, or Prince Valiant which is directly based off of a comic book series.  For those of us genre nerds who have read these works, it's easy to shorthand lots of things.  We already have the context built in because we've read the literature which drew our attention through wordcraft.



I again think that you are confusing a component with the whole. I don't think that it's necessarily the literary context that we need, but, rather, it's the cognitive context. Our sense for "vampire" is not purely literary by any means. It's cultural. It's oral folk stories. It's transmitted to us through play. It's imaginative. It's visual. It can even be audial. Our cognitive context with RPGs extends far beyond its literature but extends to a wide variety of cultural clues that can become mentally triggered through the play experience. 



> Same goes here.  I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and others brush off the "word craft" aspect of running a game simply because they have groups where they are familiar enough with each other and the source material that you can skip over things because you don't need to set the context.  It's already been set through hours and hours of play.



I don't think that it is necessarily about skipping over the source material but providing narration that serves the participitory functions of the GM and player in creating the fiction through play. Pemerton, for example, says that the player should not be treated as a passive audience member to the GM's narration.


----------



## Sadras

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't find boxed text especially important. I don't mind if it is included in a module, but I don't like reading it aloud, and don't like having it read aloud to me. At the same time, not terribly interested in word crafting when I am GMing or playing.




LOL. Well that is exactly my point! 
I enjoy the boxed texts, even if they just provide a base or inspiration, and I lean heavier on the side that values wordcrafting. I'm no great wordsmith and as such find myself marveling at DMs who are able to string beautifully crafted sentences together with ease and without prep. 

I'm not saying everyone is like you and me, polar opposites on this agenda, but I do think there is a connection between the two topics. I very much agree with Hussar that that thread was a precursor to this thread.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Please see what I wrote later:




I did.  You are arbitrarily deciding that some peoples preferences(religion, diet, etc.) are more valuable than other peoples preferences, calling one side names if they don't cave in to your arbitrary decision.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> I don't think that it is necessarily about skipping over the source material but providing narration that serves the participitory functions of the GM and player in creating the fiction through play. Pemerton, for example, says that the player should not be treated as a passive audience member to the GM's narration.




What does this even mean?  Anytime I'm relaying information (regardless of it's literary quality), unless you are constantly interrupting me, you are (at least until I am finished speaking) a passive audience member to whatever I am narrating.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> What does this even mean?  Anytime I'm relaying information (regardless of it's literary quality), unless you are constantly interrupting me, you are (at least until I am finished speaking) a passive audience member to whatever I am narrating.




I could be wrong but I believe Pemerton is talking about players actually having input into content. This would definitely make them not passive. Further even if the player input is just through their questions to the GM and their actions as characters, I think there is a huge difference between a game where players recognize the GM has a space allotted for narration, versus ones where the players can freely interject, challenge or declare actions at any point. Obviously that doesn't mean people are rude. Everyone usually gets a chance to say what they have to say. But the GM's narration isn't treated very differently from other elements of the conversation.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> I did.  You are arbitrarily deciding that some peoples preferences(religion, diet, etc.) are more valuable than other peoples preferences, calling one side names if they don't cave in to your arbitrary decision.



So if you were ordering a single pizza for the entire group to share, and you knew that one of your friends had dietary restrictions that precluded those toppings, that you would still order the pizza that disregarded those dietary restrictions of your friends? I'm sorry, but how are you even a functioning human being? How is that not being selfish and callous to others? How is that person not being a massive wang-rod? 



Imaro said:


> What does this even mean?  Anytime I'm relaying information (regardless of it's literary quality), unless you are constantly interrupting me, you are (at least until I am finished speaking) a passive audience member to whatever I am narrating.



I'm fairly certain that this has been explained by pemerton earlier in the thread.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> So if you were ordering a single pizza for the entire group to share, and you knew that one of your friends had dietary restrictions that precluded those toppings, that you would still order the pizza that disregarded those dietary restrictions of your friends?




It depends.  If 7 of us want pepperoni and one person is vegetarian, we're getting pepperoni.  1 person's personal choices do not trump 7.  It's about the number of people, not who prefers what.  Religion is a preference.  Vegetarian is a preference.  Liking pepperoni is a preference.  They are all equal.  About the only thing I can think of that would be unequal is if someone had an allergy to a topping type.  Then it would not be a preference and people would be jerks if they got that topping on the pizza, assuming they knew in advance about the allergy.



> I'm sorry, but how are you even a functioning human being? How is that not being selfish and callous to others? How is that person not being a massive wang-rod?




Judgmental much?  LOL


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> I could be wrong but I believe Pemerton is talking about players actually having input into content. This would definitely make them not passive. Further even if the player input is just through their questions to the GM and their actions as characters, I think there is a huge difference between a game where players recognize the GM has a space allotted for narration, versus ones where the players can freely interject, challenge or declare actions at any point. Obviously that doesn't mean people are rude. Everyone usually gets a chance to say what they have to say. But the GM's narration isn't treated very differently from other elements of the conversation.




Ok I'm more confused... If "Everyone gets a chance to say what they have to say..." then at some point narration is occurring and there is a passive audience listening to it.  I'm failing to see the difference here since characters are free to ask questions, act or do whatever they want once the boxed text (or sometimes when the boxed text) of say a module is being relayed.  Now if we are speaking to players creating content during play whenever they want...well then we are back to a small subset of specific games and a specific/narrow playstyle.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> I'm fairly certain that this has been explained by pemerton earlier in the thread.




Link?  And if not why bother posting this the thread is enormous at this point...


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> Link?  And if not why bother posting this the thread is enormous at this point...



It's not my job to do your work for you.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> It's not my job to do your work for you.




So then why make a useless reply?  Thanks...


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> So then why make a useless post?  Thanks...



To remind you that this has probably been answered before in the thread if you bother to read the thread. I took the effort to go back to the OP and some of the early posts to read through because it was my resonsbililty to do so in order to contextualize the thread. I think that you can manage.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> To remind you that this has probably been answered before in the thread if you bother to read the thread. I took the effort to go back to the OP and some of the early posts to read through because it was my resonsbililty to do so in order to contextualize the thread. I think that you can manage.




So it *probably* has been answered... right, I'll get on searching over 100 pages of a thread for what might be answered....

Oh and for the record this isn't school or a job I don't have work,  and I don't have a responsibility related to this.  Chill dude.  You don't want to help fine then just don't reply... it's way easier than the wasted word count you're adding to.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Anytime I'm relaying information (regardless of it's literary quality), unless you are constantly interrupting me, you are (at least until I am finished speaking) a passive audience member to whatever I am narrating.



I don't think this is true. I don't intend what follows to be triggering for anyone, and apologise if it is - I couldn't come up with a completely safe example. But, that said, and continuing on:

If I relate to you the information that a bomb is about to go off in your building, I don't think you would be a passive audience. I think you would engage with what I'm saying in many quite active ways. Including, perhaps, certain sorts of interruptions, but not limited to those.

EDIT: I think this post from Campbell, not far upthread, presents an idea of players as something different from a passive audience:



Campbell said:


> What is fundamental to me is that we are all involved in the process as creative peers and everyone's contributions are valued equally. Also that everyone is expected to contribute. Also that contributions move play forward and demand action from other players (GM included).



Conversely, a way upthread [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] talked about a GM "rolling up the plot wagon". To me at least, that suggests a situation in which the players are something of a passive audience.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I don't think this is true. I don't intend what follows to be triggering for anyone, and apologise if it is - I couldn't come up with a completely safe example. But, that said, and continuing on:
> 
> If I relate to you the information that a bomb is about to go off in your building, I don't think you would be a passive audience. I think you would engage with what I'm saying in many quite active ways. Including, perhaps, certain sorts of interruptions, but not limited to those.




So is this what you mean in an rpg situation... not regulated to but including active interruption of what you are saying?  Besides active interruption what would be other ways of interacting beyond that of a passive audience that using narration disallows?  Though I think I would still contend I'm passive until you've communicated the situation (a bomb about to go off in the buiding) to me and I require further clarification, information, etc.  The thing is I'd probably gain more/better information/clarity if I waited until you finished telling me wat you know before interrupting...


----------



## hawkeyefan

Aldarc said:


> Instead, I will suggest that pemerton would argue that "the GM's wordcraft was made for the player and not the player for the GM's wordcraft." .




I think that's a really good way of summarizing it...well put. 



Imaro said:


> So is this what you mean in an rpg situation... not regulated to but including active interruption of what you are saying?  Besides active interruption what would be other ways of interacting beyond that of a passive audience that using narration disallows?  Though I think I would still contend I'm passive until you've communicated the situation (a bomb about to go off in the buiding) to me and I require further clarification, information, etc.  The thing is I'd probably gain more/better information/clarity if I waited until you finished telling me wat you know before interrupting...




I think the idea is that the narration is a call to action on the players' part. Passive not meaning that they stop to listen....that's essential.....but passive meaning when the GM is done, the players don't feel the need to have their characters take action. They are not active in that sense. 

The bomb scenario will most likely serve as a call to action, and the players will begin asking questions, or declaring actions for their characters. They will be actively engaged with the fiction rather than simply listening to the narration and then waiting for the GM to tell them the next thing they need to know.

 @_*pemerton*_ is placing more importance on the call to action than on the quality of the narration.


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> I think that's a really good way of summarizing it...well put.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the idea is that the narration is a call to action on the players' part. Passive not meaning that they stop to listen....that's essential.....but passive meaning when the GM is done, the players don't feel the need to have their characters take action. They are not active in that sense.
> 
> The bomb scenario will most likely serve as a call to action, and the players will begin asking questions, or declaring actions for their characters. They will be actively engaged with the fiction rather than simply listening to the narration and then waiting for the GM to tell them the next thing they need to know.
> 
> @_*pemerton*_ is placing more importance on the call to action than on the quality of the narration.




But, and yes this is a simplified example, I can just as easily narrate 4 snarling goblins that have weapons drawn as part of a room's description (and there are plenty of examples of this type of thing in published modules) so how is this different from a call to action... if at all?  

Edit: Narration can in effect  assist that call to action by keeping the momentum of action going (since description and clarity have been provided) vs. It becoming a game of 20 questions before the action actually starts.


----------



## Umbran

A few you you all seem to be getting a little testy.  Please take it down a couple notches, please and thanks.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> Ok I'm more confused... If "Everyone gets a chance to say what they have to say..." then at some point narration is occurring and there is a passive audience listening to it.  I'm failing to see the difference here since characters are free to ask questions, act or do whatever they want once the boxed text (or sometimes when the boxed text) of say a module is being relayed.  Now if we are speaking to players creating content during play whenever they want...well then we are back to a small subset of specific games and a specific/narrow playstyle.




You are not listening passively if you can interject, respond, and add in action you want to take. I am saying there is a big difference between a group where the GM is given the space to read a full block of boxed text, or to finish his or her narration, and a group where the players might throw in a question before the GM finishes the first sentence. Are you seriously arguing that all players are passive audience members, simply by virtue of the GM speaking? If you are then, it seems a really low bar for 'passive audience'.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> Ok I'm more confused... If "Everyone gets a chance to say what they have to say..." then at some point narration is occurring and there is a passive audience listening to it.




All I meant by this is people are not rude and deliberately preventing one another from communicating. There is a conversational exchange. It is not passive


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> You are not listening passively if you can interject, respond, and add in action you want to take. I am saying there is a big difference between a group where the GM is given the space to read a full block of boxed text, or to finish his or her narration, and a group where the players might throw in a question before the GM finishes the first sentence. Are you seriously arguing that all players are passive audience members, simply by virtue of the GM speaking? If you are then, it seems a really low bar for 'passive audience'.




I'd wonder why a player wouldn't wait (at least until the 1st sentence is finished) to see if their question would be answered...

Edit: I'm not understanding passive then because in all rpg's the players will eventually interact/respond with/to the narrative being presented by the GM... is amount of time the determining factor??  If not what determines a group as passive vs. not??? Can the GM also cut off a player to ask a question or declare an action?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> I'd wonder why a player wouldn't wait (at least until the 1st sentence is finished) to see if their question would be answered...
> 
> Edit: I'm not understanding passive then because in all rpg's the players will eventually interact/respond with/to the narrative being presented by the GM... is amount of time the determining factor??  If not what determines a group as passive vs. not??? Can the GM also cut off a player to ask a question or declare an action?




Your definition of passive seems quite unusual. What is more, your argument for it is...odd as well. You are trying to characterize otherwise active players as passive by finding a moment they are not seemingly active. This would be like describing a serial killer as non-violent because when they are sleeping, they peaceful.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> I'd wonder why a player wouldn't wait (at least until the 1st sentence is finished) to see if their question would be answered...




They might. It depends. The point is they can interject—-and that interjection might lead to a different description because the GM is reacting to the player’s curiosity. The bigger point is: players don’t expect long moments of narration by the GM, they expect to be active participants in what is going on. This isn’t a story the GM is unfurling for passive players.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> But, and yes this is a simplified example, I can just as easily narrate 4 snarling goblins that have weapons drawn as part of a room's description (and there are plenty of examples of this type of thing in published modules) so how is this different from a call to action... if at all?
> 
> Edit: Narration can in effect  assist that call to action by keeping the momentum of action going (since description and clarity have been provided) vs. It becoming a game of 20 questions before the action actually starts.




I think it's a question of the amount of narration. Sure, you can have a lot of descriptive language around a call to action.....they need not be mutually exclusive. And for me personally, I think how I would present the call to action would really depend on the specific situation in the fiction. Do I want to set a mood by really painting a detailed picture of the situation and their surroundings, what they see and hear and smell, and then give the players a choice? Or do I want to hit them with the choice like a punch to the gut?

I think both options have their place, ultimately. But I think I would rely on one more than the other to try and make the game compelling and keep it moving. 



Imaro said:


> I'd wonder why a player wouldn't wait (at least until the 1st sentence is finished) to see if their question would be answered...
> 
> Edit: I'm not understanding passive then because in all rpg's the players will eventually interact/respond with/to the narrative being presented by the GM... is amount of time the determining factor??  If not what determines a group as passive vs. not??? Can the GM also cut off a player to ask a question or declare an action?




I think that it's a case of the GM's narration leading to a point of decision. I don't think all boxed text does this by any means. I've read plenty of boxed text and then my players stare at me without any sense of what to do. 

I also think that boxed text is A THING.....like it's a trigger that the GM is talking and the players should shut up and listen. And while I think this is good in some ways (attention, etc.), I think it is bad in other ways. I often think it's good to break it up with questions and answers rather than to expect everyone to retain all of it in one infodrop. 

My two most recent GMing experiences have been running Tomb Of Annihilation for 5E, which consists of a hexcrawl followed by a classic dungeon delve, and with running Blades in the Dark, which has almost no prepared material other than the setting. In Tomb, I had to read boxed text and adhere to it because the procedures that the players had their characters perform mattered very much....the actions, they took and where and how and when....all of that could matter quite a lot due to traps or monsters or secret doors and so on. You had to know when someone entered the room and touched the statue, and where everyone else was and so on. I had to read nearly all boxed text multiple times. Now, this is largely because of the play style of the adventure, but I think it's also the nature of boxed text.....it usually tries to cram as much information in as possible. So afterward, the players always have questions.....and because the boxed text is there, you reread it, or part of it to them. 

It's kind of an awkward way of presenting information, and I would rarely think of it as literary. Sure, there is some flavor that is included to help set mood and so forth, but the way it winds up working at the table is just awkward. 

Blades in the Dark summarizes a RPG as being a conversation. There's meant to be back and forth. There are meant to be questions and response and building on what others ask or say. There's no point where you are reading prepared material (although you could pre-write some bits if you really wanted, but they'd be limited to the start of a session). 

For me, the natural flow of Blades in the Dark is much more preferable, and actually engages the players more, in my opinion. That could of course be entirely unique to my group, but I expect others would agree. 

Again, I agree that evocative narration and the call to action are not mutually exclusive....but I think that there's a strong case for one being more central to many RPGs.


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> Your definition of passive seems quite unusual. What is more, your argument for it is...odd as well. You are trying to characterize otherwise active players as passive by finding a moment they are not seemingly active. This would be like describing a serial killer as non-violent because when they are sleeping, they peaceful.




No in my mind playing an rpg isn't passive entertainment... so claiming any players are passive (not acting or making choices but just being read to) means they aren't actually playing an rpg.


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> They might. It depends. The point is they can interject—-and that interjection might lead to a different description because the GM is reacting to the player’s curiosity. The bigger point is: players don’t expect long moments of narration by the GM, they expect to be active participants in what is going on. This isn’t a story the GM is unfurling for passive players.




So the difference boils down to whether players interrupt each other or not and/or the length of description a group prefers. Seems a silly distinction to me but whatever.


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> I think it's a question of the amount of narration. Sure, you can have a lot of descriptive language around a call to action.....they need not be mutually exclusive. And for me personally, I think how I would present the call to action would really depend on the specific situation in the fiction. Do I want to set a mood by really painting a detailed picture of the situation and their surroundings, what they see and hear and smell, and then give the players a choice? Or do I want to hit them with the choice like a punch to the gut?
> 
> I think both options have their place, ultimately. But I think I would rely on one more than the other to try and make the game compelling and keep it moving.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that it's a case of the GM's narration leading to a point of decision. I don't think all boxed text does this by any means. I've read plenty of boxed text and then my players stare at me without any sense of what to do.
> 
> I also think that boxed text is A THING.....like it's a trigger that the GM is talking and the players should shut up and listen. And while I think this is good in some ways (attention, etc.), I think it is bad in other ways. I often think it's good to break it up with questions and answers rather than to expect everyone to retain all of it in one infodrop.
> 
> My two most recent GMing experiences have been running Tomb Of Annihilation for 5E, which consists of a hexcrawl followed by a classic dungeon delve, and with running Blades in the Dark, which has almost no prepared material other than the setting. In Tomb, I had to read boxed text and adhere to it because the procedures that the players had their characters perform mattered very much....the actions, they took and where and how and when....all of that could matter quite a lot due to traps or monsters or secret doors and so on. You had to know when someone entered the room and touched the statue, and where everyone else was and so on. I had to read nearly all boxed text multiple times. Now, this is largely because of the play style of the adventure, but I think it's also the nature of boxed text.....it usually tries to cram as much information in as possible. So afterward, the players always have questions.....and because the boxed text is there, you reread it, or part of it to them.
> 
> It's kind of an awkward way of presenting information, and I would rarely think of it as literary. Sure, there is some flavor that is included to help set mood and so forth, but the way it winds up working at the table is just awkward.
> 
> Blades in the Dark summarizes a RPG as being a conversation. There's meant to be back and forth. There are meant to be questions and response and building on what others ask or say. There's no point where you are reading prepared material (although you could pre-write some bits if you really wanted, but they'd be limited to the start of a session).
> 
> For me, the natural flow of Blades in the Dark is much more preferable, and actually engages the players more, in my opinion. That could of course be entirely unique to my group, but I expect others would agree.
> 
> Again, I agree that evocative narration and the call to action are not mutually exclusive....but I think that there's a strong case for one being more central to many RPGs.




I think your issue is predicated on the length of the boxed text as opposed to its literary quality though. The two keep being confused in this thread.

Side A: We like/enjoy/get emotionally invested  in/whatever a *well written* description...

Side B: Yeah I dont like long boring narrative by the GM before action in my rpg's

Side A: Who said they did?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> I think your issue is predicated on the length of the boxed text as opposed to its literary quality though. The two keep being confused in this thread.
> 
> Side A: We like/enjoy/get emotionally invested  in/whatever a *well written* description...
> 
> Side B: Yeah I dont like long boring narrative by the GM before action in my rpg's
> 
> Side A: Who said they did?




Again, I think you make a good point and I don't know if any of these things need to be mutually exclusive. A longer boxed text may or may not be of better literary quality than any other. I'm all for Strunk and White's rule of "omit unnecessary words". 

But then it's due to the muddy waters of the term literary quality and how it can be viewed in broad or narrow terms. I don't know if I'd say that a well constructed sentence is necessarily an effort toward literary quality. Technical writing needs to be clear and understandable.....qualities that, although they can be present in writing that aspires to literary quality are not essential to it.....metaphorical language would be an example of literary minded language that may not be immediately understood or clear. 

So for me, I'm looking at it as a question or what works at the table. Sometimes....especially at the start of a session, or a new scene or new location and similar situations.....evocative language and description can serve a strong purpose. But I think once we get to the back and forth nature of GM giving info to player declaring an action and then to mechanical resolution and then further narration.....at that point, I think literary quality takes a back seat to clear and concise description. 

Obviously, it's a scale and everyone is going to have a different sweet spot on that scale. For me, a natural discussion with the GM offering info, the players asking questions, the back and forth....all of that is preferable....and more engaging, I'd argue....than the GM trying to evoke a response through evocative word choice.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> No in my mind playing an rpg isn't passive entertainment... so claiming any players are passive (not acting or making choices but just being read to) means they aren't actually playing an rpg.




Okay, then not sure why you made the comment about players being passive while the GM talks


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> So the difference boils down to whether players interrupt each other or not and/or the length of description a group prefers. Seems a silly distinction to me but whatever.




I think we may be talking past each other. I am talking about what players expect from the GM in terms of description, what the GM expects of the players, and how that interaction is quite fluid in a lot of games (versus others where the GM is afforded a 'narration platform'. It isn't about length. It is about how the players see these moments when the GM speaks and how they expect to speak, as well as whether or not the players are free to interact in those moments. I don't really prioritize description or narration. I keep things very simple, and down to natural conversational style english. I've been in other games where the GM is expected to assume a more narrator like role. So I am drawing a distinction between those things. At some point you mentioned players being passive audience members during GM description, and I objected to this as always being the case. I wasn't trying to establish a duality here, I was just trying to respond to your statement about player passivity


----------



## Maxperson

Imaro said:


> So it *probably* has been answered... right, I'll get on searching over 100 pages of a thread for what might be answered....
> 
> Oh and for the record this isn't school or a job I don't have work,  and I don't have a responsibility related to this.  Chill dude.  You don't want to help fine then just don't reply... it's way easier than the wasted word count you're adding to.




It's sort of like their buzzword, "equivocate" that they like to falsely accuse others of so often.  If you don't have much to go on, you have to be as unhelpful as possible.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> It's sort of like their buzzword, "equivocate" that they like to falsely accuse others of so often.  If you don't have much to go on, you have to be as unhelpful as possible.




Equivocate is a very real thing, and was occurring frequently on this thread


----------



## Maxperson

Imaro said:


> Though I think I would still contend I'm passive until you've communicated the situation (a bomb about to go off in the buiding) to me and I require further clarification, information, etc.  The thing is I'd probably gain more/better information/clarity if I waited until you finished telling me wat you know before interrupting...




I've been through it.  A year after we moved into our house, I came home from work like any other day.  I saw nothing unusual when I got home.  Once inside I began to talk about the day with my wife and about 5 minutes later the phone rang.  It was my neighbor who asked if I had looked outside recently.  When I told her no, she said, "Well, the bomb squad is on your lawn."  I immediately got up and walked outside and sure enough, there were 4 cops on my lawn crouched behind the bomb squad truck.  I walked up to them and asked them if there was something I should be aware of.  One turned around and..........finished speaking. I didn't interrupt.  He told me that the mailman had noticed a suspicious package in the mail box that was about 50 yards from my house.  After my third of fourth check-in, I was told that it was in fact an explosive device.  I live in a very quiet neighborhood so it was a fairly substantial shock.  I also got to find out that the robot that blows up bombs with its water gun sounds like a bomb going off.  It's loud as hell.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Equivocate is a very real thing, and was occurring frequently on this thread




Not once by me, though.


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> I don't think this is true. I don't intend what follows to be triggering for anyone, and apologise if it is - I couldn't come up with a completely safe example. But, that said, and continuing on:
> 
> If I relate to you the information that a bomb is about to go off in your building, I don't think you would be a passive audience. I think you would engage with what I'm saying in many quite active ways. Including, perhaps, certain sorts of interruptions, but not limited to those.
> 
> EDIT: I think this post from Campbell, not far upthread, presents an idea of players as something different from a passive audience:
> 
> ​
> Conversely, a way upthread [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] talked about a GM "rolling up the plot wagon". To me at least, that suggests a situation in which the players are something of a passive audience.




But this only works because I know what a bomb is. The contextual work is already done. 

Now there is a zifnarb in your building. What do you do?


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> But this only works because I know what a bomb is. The contextual work is already done.
> 
> Now there is a zifnarb in your building. What do you do?




Not me.  I learned my lesson last time.  Nice Zifnarb.  Niiiiiice Zifnarb.  Here's some loot for you.


----------



## Hussar

Maxperson said:


> Not me.  I learned my lesson last time.  Nice Zifnarb.  Niiiiiice Zifnarb.  Here's some loot for you.




Heh, you joke, but, the point is still there.

 [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] relied on comparisons - a warhorse to a Lamborghini to make the point.  Or comparing the monster to the monster at the end of Men in Black.  Only problem is, that presumes that the listener actually knows what you're talking about.  If someone hasn't seen Men in Black or isn't a car person, then these comparisons fall flat.  You wind up with a Darmok and Jelad in Tenagra situation.

At some point in time, you have to drop the analogies and actually describe what's going on, directly.  And, if you want to have any hope of hooking the players, you need to use at least some evocative language.  Unless your game consists of nothing but retreaded material, where the context is already set, you need to actually paint that picture for the player.  Sure, "There's a bomb" is going to get a reaction.  We all know what a bomb is.  "There's a bakudan" isn't really telling anyone anything, unless they happen to speak the language.  At which time, you have to break out your wordsmithing anvil and hammer and paint a bit of a word picture to engage the player.  (To badly mangle a metaphor )

Thousands and thousands of pages of setting guides, genre fiction and whatnot shows just how important painting that word picture is to gaming.  Think about it.  We know what a githyanki is and if the DM tells us we see three githyanki, we've got a pretty good idea what's going on.  To anyone else, that's just gibberish.  Meaningless words.  Without a certain degree of the literary (as in quality of language), you just aren't going to have any impact on the players.


----------



## Aldarc

Or, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], you can just tell players what the monster or thing is. It's not like evocative language is required for saying "Oh, Thor? You know that he is the god of storms in this land." Or "a githyanki is a race that lives in the astral sea that looks like this [shows picture]." If players want more detail, they can ask and initiate a conversation. I don't know why you present this as either evocative language or nothing.


----------



## Hussar

Aldarc said:


> Or, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], you can just tell players what the monster or thing is. It's not like evocative language is required for saying "Oh, Thor? You know that he is the god of storms in this land." Or "a githyanki is a race that lives in the astral sea that looks like this [shows picture]." If players want more detail, they can ask and initiate a conversation. I don't know why you present this as either evocative language or nothing.




Hang on.  "Astral Sea"?  What's that?  Where did you get that picture?  And, again, just showing me a picture of some green alien isn't exactly telling me anything.  And are you honestly saying that that's as evocative as "The warlike Githyanki and the contemplative githzerai are a sundered poeple - two cultures that utterly despise one another.  ... The githyanki plunder countless worlds from the decks of their astral vessels and thebacks of red dragons.  Feathers, beads, gems and precious metals decorate their armor and weapons - the legendary silver swords with which they cut through their foes.  Since winning their freedom from the mind flayers, the githyanki have become ruthless conquerors under the rulership of their dread lich-queen, Vlaakith."  ((Sorry, typos are all mine))

Remember, we're talking about introducing something where the players have NO context.  Flashing a picture and saying they are "a race that lives on the astral sea" works for us.  Sure.  We're D&D geeks.  We've been doing this for decades.  But for someone without that experience?  You're not exactly setting anyone's heart aflutter with that.


----------



## Aldarc

Hussar said:


> Hang on.  "Astral Sea"?  What's that?



"It's a part of the universe that is about like combining outer space with heaven." 

"Oh, cool. Okay. Got it." 



> Remember, we're talking about introducing something where the players have NO context.  Flashing a picture and saying they are "a race that lives on the astral sea" works for us.  Sure.  We're D&D geeks.  We've been doing this for decades.  But for someone without that experience?  You're not exactly setting anyone's heart aflutter with that.



Did you miss the part - which would not surprise me at all at this point - where I said that the GM and player can engage in a conversation through their questions? I'm not sure why, nor have you done a good job, in explaining how evocative language is required for communicating this sort of information. And when people don't know a term or thing, then you attempt to find a frame of reference that would potentially be more familiar for the person. Which is what normal people do in normal conversations about everything. I don't necessarily think the point is to get "anyone's heart aflutter" but to communicate the context and stakes in which their actions take place. 

Hussar, my D&D group for the past few years was with four other people who had never played D&D before. I think that you underestimate, if not vastly exaggerate, the problem of communicating the basic ideas of the game. And we usually have a basic awareness of some cognitive contexts that our gaming group will likely have experienced.


----------



## Imaro

Yeah I'm going to go ahead and state that if the extent of your description for a climactic battle with an ancient dragon is... Big red lizard with wings that breathes fire... I'm not playing in your game (and if this is the way you've described everything up to this point we wont even get this far...). Doesnt matter what's at stake you'd be boring me and my players so much we wont care... so for me and those I play with some level of evocative description is necessary for rpg's.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Or "a githyanki is a race that lives in the astral sea that looks like this [shows picture]." If players want more detail, they can ask and initiate a conversation. I don't know why you present this as either evocative language or nothing.




There is a reason why they say that a picture says a thousand words.  Showing the picture is the equivalent of using that evocative language.  It's just a shortcut.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> There is a reason why they say that a picture says a thousand words.  Showing the picture is the equivalent of using that evocative language.  It's just a shortcut.



And?


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> And?




And what?


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> And what?



That's what I am asking you.


----------



## Sadras

Aldarc said:


> I think that you underestimate, if not vastly exaggerate, the problem of communicating the basic ideas of the game. And we usually have a basic awareness of some cognitive contexts that our gaming group will likely have experienced.




I could perhaps agree with you that there is some exaggeration from the other side, but I also feel you vastly reduce the importance of the language used within RPGs. @_*Hussar*_ touched on this upthread, but I feel it requires to be reiterated - we have literally volumes of D&D supplements, magazines, books and fan-created material on settings, monsters, characters and the like. All that literal endeavour is not just _to communicate the context and stakes in which their actions take place_. Fluff is important for many gamers.

I also agree with @_*Imaro*_ in that if the DM is using conversational language to the point you seem to indicate in these posts (which I'm pretty sure you do not), I would quickly excuse myself from that table.

As an aside, I have even used/stolen lines from fantasy novels, whether it be cool dialogue or an evocative description of something/someone, for my RP games. Words matter. I keep my 2e-4e MM not just for the mechanics, but also for the fluff.

EDIT: Evocative words help fuel the players' imagination / immersive experience.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> That's what I am asking you.




My response included the "and" as far as I can tell.  You're need to be clearer with your question if you want an answer.


----------



## Hussar

Aldarc said:


> "It's a part of the universe that is about like combining outer space with heaven."
> 
> "Oh, cool. Okay. Got it."
> 
> Did you miss the part - which would not surprise me at all at this point - where I said that the GM and player can engage in a conversation through their questions? I'm not sure why, nor have you done a good job, in explaining how evocative language is required for communicating this sort of information. And when people don't know a term or thing, then you attempt to find a frame of reference that would potentially be more familiar for the person. Which is what normal people do in normal conversations about everything. I don't necessarily think the point is to get "anyone's heart aflutter" but to communicate the context and stakes in which their actions take place.
> 
> Hussar, my D&D group for the past few years was with four other people who had never played D&D before. I think that you underestimate, if not vastly exaggerate, the problem of communicating the basic ideas of the game. And we usually have a basic awareness of some cognitive contexts that our gaming group will likely have experienced.




So, your putative conversation is going to be nothing but modern references and not a single bit of "flowery language"?  Githyanki are green space aliens, like Romulans only with swords?  

I'm pretty sure that the four poeple, while they've never played D&D before, have been exposed to enough genre fiction and other media that they have a fair bit of context.

But, I've seen a lot of cases where, because the descriptions and language from the DM is so poor that everyone at the table has a different idea of what's going on and are working cross purposes because everyone's coming from completely different directions.  I mean, the Astral Sea is outer space and heaven?  So, it's filled with angels?  Githyanki are good then right?  After all, there's no evil in Heaven.  Why are they attacking me?  You said they were from heaven.  I'm a good aligned character, they should be welcoming me with open arms and helping me.  

I really don't think I'm underestimating anything.  I've spent far, far too long dealing with non-native English speakers who do not share our culture to take any description for granted.  Every single reference you've made presumes a native English speaker (or near native anyway) with a deep grounding in western Judeo-Christian culture.  As soon as you lose that background, none of your allegorical explanations are going to work.  Imagine teaching D&D to ten year olds and you're trying to reference Men In Black - a 20 year old movie they've likely never seen.  

Look, I get that you don't feel the need to do this.  I think it's very bad advice to tell DM's that no, they shouldn't pay attention to word craft.  That the only thing that matters is the situation.  This leads to very bland games, IMO, where it doesn't really matter what game you're actually playing.  You could be playing a fantasy game or a supers game or a spy game or a horror game.  Since none of the actual descriptions matter, and only the situation does, it's going to get really repetitive.  "He's stealing your horse/car/hovercar/spaceship (circle the one that's appropriate for this game).  What do you do?"  

Without the language to back it up, what's the difference between a Call of Cthulu game and a D&D game?  Situationally, there's virtually no difference - some evil baddy wants to eat your brains.


----------



## Maxperson

Sadras said:


> I also agree with [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] in that if the DM is using conversational language to the point you seem to indicate in these posts (which I'm pretty sure you do not), I would quickly excuse myself from that table.




The thing is, even with a Q&A session, evocative language is still being used.

DM: A githyanki is a *race* that lives in the *astral sea*.  The bolded evokes imagery of a humanoid and an ocean.

Player: "Hang on. "Astral Sea"? What's that?"

DM: "It's a part of the universe that is about like combining *outer space* with *heaven*."  The bolded evokes imagery of space and the afterlife.

Player: "Cool.  What does it look like?"

DM: "Well, it's a *silvery liquid* with *stars *at the bottom of it."  The bolded evokes imagery of space at the bottom of a sea of silver.


Showing a picture is using a short cut to evocative language in the form of a picture being a thousand words, and conversational Q&A uses evocative language in a long cut.  Both methods use evocative language, though.


----------



## Sadras

Maxperson said:


> The thing is, even with a Q&A session, evocative language is still being used.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> Showing a picture is using a short cut to evocative language in the form of a picture being a thousand words, and conversational Q&A uses evocative language in a long cut.  Both methods use evocative language, though.




Sure, if one digs into it, (and I realise this was not the thrust of your post) but all that Q&A could have been avoided if one front-loaded the necessary evocative language in the setup. The problem with giving bite-size evocative information is the start-stop immersive experience. If one describes the githyanki and their place of origin at the outset, one is immediately immersed in the shared imagination.


----------



## Maxperson

Sadras said:


> Sure, if one digs into it, (and I realise this was not the thrust of your post) but all that Q&A could have been avoided if one front-loaded the necessary evocative language in the setup.




It actually was the point.  That's why I called it a long cut. 

I find having to get all the information via a Q&A session like having to pull teeth.  It tells me that the DM is stingy with information, and that's just not fun for me.  Further, it also yanks me out of any sort of immersion I could possibly have in his game.  I'll have to Q&A constantly, which is done out of character, in order to just find out what could have been told to me in a few seconds.



> The problem with giving bite-size evocative information is the start-stop immersive experience. If one describes the githyanki and their place of origin at the outset, one is immediately immersed in the shared imagination.




Yep.


----------



## Aldarc

Sadras said:


> Sure, if one digs into it, (and I realise this was not the thrust of your post) but all that Q&A could have been avoided if one front-loaded the necessary evocative language in the setup. The problem with giving bite-size evocative information is the start-stop immersive experience. If one describes the githyanki and their place of origin at the outset, one is immediately immersed in the shared imagination.



I will address your earlier post, but I will shortly say here that this entire conversation has never been predicated on the presumption that constant immersion was required for TTRPGs or should be required. So it feels like you are moving the goalposts by requiring extra standards to be met.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> Showing a picture is using a short cut to evocative language in the form of a picture being a thousand words, and conversational Q&A uses evocative language in a long cut.  Both methods use evocative language, though.



This seems like some major BS that relies on a trite cliche to make a truth statement. The ontology or nature of a picture as a picture does not change into literature or evocative language just because "a picture is worth a thousand words." 

I would also add that the argument that pemerton put forth is that RPGs are devoid of evocative language, but (1) they are not a primary concern, and (2) its presence does not make TTRPGs literary endeavor.


----------



## Sadras

Aldarc said:


> I would also add that the argument that pemerton put forth is that RPGs are devoid of evocative language, but (1) they are not a primary concern, and (2) its presence does not make TTRPGs literary endeavor.




This is not a great argument to engage in mostly due to the clash of definitions and clarifications which generally us squabblers fail to agree on, everytime. 
_Literary endeavour_, _wordcrafting_, and now probably _primary_, if it has not been already battled over.

Furthermore I fail to see what can really be gained from such a debate (and I know I have somewhat asked this before), besides XPs from one's usual supporters.


----------



## hawkeyefan

So an example that lacked context was provided....the zifnarb....and then the argument that any attempt to provide context is an attempt at literary quality? 

I don’t get it. Quality is of course a range. Aspiring to literary quality seems to me that you’re placing a focus on trying to achieve a certain artistic level that's higher than simple communication. I don’t think that establishing context needs to be an attempt at literary quality. It can be, yes, bit I don’t think it must be.

So....if the players have encountered a red dragon, chances are they have a good idea of the context, so I think it’s likely a waste of time for the GM to spend a whole lot of time trying to describe the dragon beyond what’s necessary. I mean, as a player, I want to do something about the dragon, I don’t want to listen to the GM give a soliloquy.

That’s not to say that he should say “it’s a big red lizard that spits fire” but is a whole lot more needed? 

Now something like the githyanki...something that many folks won’t already have an idea about...sure, maybe more of an effort is needed. But again, it just needs to be enough to establish context for the specific scene. If some action is about to happen, why go into the whole history of the gith and the lore about the lich-queen and all that? I just want the relevant context for that moment of play, and save the other stuff for another time. 

So maybe it’s a question of the level of immersion in the sense of the fictional level....immersion in the specific scene that’s happening now versus immersion in the larger fictional world. If there’s a scene going on...the githyanki are doing something and the characters have to decide what to do about it, then I’d think keeping the narration focused on that would be the best approach, no?


----------



## Aldarc

Sadras said:


> This is not a great argument to engage in mostly due to the clash of definitions and clarifications which generally us squabblers fail to agree on, everytime.
> _Literary endeavour_, _wordcrafting_, and now probably _primary_, if it has not been already battled over.
> 
> Furthermore I fail to see what can really be gained from such a debate (and I know I have somewhat asked this before), besides XPs from one's usual supporters.



I attempted to summarize and steer the conversation back to pemerton's premise in his OP. But it seems like people are arguing not about what he said, but misconstruing what he said so they can argue imaginary point. And, yes, equivocating on the meaning of "literary" has been a part of the frustration that people like Bedrockgames and I have had with people criticizing pemerton's argument. Even now, you can see this in Hussar's argumentation, much as Maxperson's before him, an attempt to essentially argue that everything is literary (or define it in an overly broad way) and use that to claim ergo that TTRPGs are a literary endeavor. I don't think that people are fairly representing pemerton's argument.


----------



## Sadras

Aldarc said:


> I will address your earlier post, but I will shortly say here that this entire conversation has never been predicated on the presumption that constant immersion was required for TTRPGs or should be required. So it feels like you are moving the goalposts by requiring extra standards to be met.




Sure I'm not pushing for additional standards, was just stating a preference to Max.

In a game where the players provide much content I imagine evocative language by the DM is not of primary concern, so the OP is correct about his style of roleplaying, hence we find ourselves engaged in another debate about content generation but this time the angle is _literary endeavours_ in RPGs.

The goalposts are the same, but now we are on a clay court.    
Grass, astro turf, cement and a few others have already been covered.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Aldarc

Hussar said:


> So, your putative conversation is going to be nothing but modern references and not a single bit of "flowery language"?  Githyanki are green space aliens, like Romulans only with swords?



Is this another new goalpost? 



> I'm pretty sure that the four poeple, while they've never played D&D before, have been exposed to enough genre fiction and other media that they have a fair bit of context.



But not necessarily the literary text of D&D. The point being is that the cognitive context for this TTRPG is informed by the entirety of a person's experiences within a culture. This does not make TTRPGs a literary endeavor simply because D&D has literature. If you want to claim that D&D's associated literature is literary because it is literature, then you have only successfully argued a truism. 



> I really don't think I'm underestimating anything.  I've spent far, far too long dealing with non-native English speakers who do not share our culture to take any description for granted.  Every single reference you've made presumes a native English speaker (or near native anyway) with a deep grounding in western Judeo-Christian culture.  As soon as you lose that background, none of your allegorical explanations are going to work.



I believe that you are underestimating many things. I'm not a novice to literary discussions or living abroad. I work in ancient literature, with multiple dead languages, and applying some cognitive linguistics for my research. I live in Austria and surrounded by non-native English speakers. Sure, they have a deep grounding in western Judeo-Christian culture. However, our conversation has NEVER been contingent on whether participants have a shared grounding or not. You are also speaking of a huge corner case. I suspect that most people who sit together to play TTRPGs will share a sufficient cognitive background that will enable the contextualization of game play through a shared cultural vocabulary. It has NEVER been contingent on whether or not evocative language is ever used or not. It has been about whether TTRPGs are a literary endeavor, the function and nature of GM/player narration, and how this ties into the TTRPG play experience. Suggesting otherwise is most definitely moving the goalposts of pemerton's argument.


----------



## Imaro

I'll ask again, since I was pointed to an article about how hard "literary" is to define (and yet here we are discussing the poorly chosen word in relation to rpg's)... is there an agreed upon definition of literary for this thread... otherwise how can anyone discuss something without agreeing upon its meaning?

Edit: so far all I've seen is various things being disqualified as "literary" oh and for some reason extraneous length seems to be popular with one side as one of its characteristics...  but can someone post *exactly* what literary in this discussion means???


----------



## Sadras

Aldarc said:


> I attempted to summarize and steer the conversation back to pemerton's premise in his OP. But it seems like people are arguing not about what he said, but misconstruing what he said so they can argue imaginary point. And, yes, equivocating on the meaning of "literary" has been a part of the frustration that people like Bedrockgames and I have had with people criticizing pemerton's argument. Even now, you can see this in Hussar's argumentation, much as Maxperson's before him, an attempt to essentially argue that everything is literary (or define it in an overly broad way) and use that to claim ergo that TTRPGs are a literary endeavor. I don't think that people are fairly representing pemerton's argument.




I agree it does not help to use the word literary in such a broad manner, despite technicalities, I already addressed same with Max.

My only engagement in this thread has been about the the use of wordplay for the immersive experience as well as the backstory I might create for a campaign which I might view the latter as an literary endeavour. 


 @_*hawkeyefan*_, he can correct me where I misrepresent him, does not see such exercise as a literary endeavour.
I'm not entirely convinced of this but I'm not opposed to this either, mostly because, I have not yet clearly defined what a literary endeavour is in my mind. The high art definition is easy, but is it anything more AND IF YES, where does it stop?
Conan? The Three Investigators? Gamebooks? Comics?
Because at some point I'd inject my backstory into that mix. There are characters with motives. Internal Consistency exists. There is a setting, a theme. There is no dialogue though and that is probably where I could agree then, it fails as a literary endeavour if literary endeavour requires at the very minimum, dialogue.

 @_*pemerton*_ viewed wordcraft to be more reflective, so as not in the spur of the moment (during roleplay).
That is a tricky position to take but understandable. At minimum then my backstory has wordcraft. But the question is what if I write my NPC dialogue prior game time? I would then argue it is not a requirement and I would agree it is not a primary concern in RPGs (for me and at least for the RPG I know). Then I would agree with Pemerton on this.

BUT wordcraft, even if generated on the spur of the moment, is important for many gamers for that immersive experience. And that IS a primary concern for me as a player and DM.

And then we get to content generation, but I have already covered that in a previous post.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Sadras said:


> I agree it does not help to use the word literary in such a broad manner, despite technicalities, I already addressed same with Max.
> 
> My only engagement in this thread has been about the the use of wordplay for the immersive experience as well as the backstory I might create for a campaign which I might view the latter as an literary endeavour.
> 
> @_*hawkeyefan*_, he can correct me where I misrepresent him, does not see such exercise as a literary endeavour.
> I'm not entirely convinced of this but I'm not opposed to this either, mostly because, I have not yet clearly defined what a literary endeavour is in my mind. The high art definition is easy, but is it anything more AND IF YES, where does it stop?
> Conan? The Three Investigators? Gamebooks? Comics?
> Because at some point I'd inject my backstory into that mix. There are characters with motives. Internal Consistency exists. There is a setting, a theme. There is no dialogue though and that is probably where I could agree then, it fails as a literary endeavour if literary endeavour requires at the very minimum, dialogue.




Honestly, I probably have a pretty liberal view on what would constitute a literary endeavor. I think world building and backstory for characters and all those things fall into that category. Sure, those are more preparatory to creating a story, but still a part of it. And I think that RPGs are sufficiently creative to qualify. If something captures the imagination, then I'd likely consider it literary. The quality of its literary merit may be another discussion entirely....but not everything is meant to be or is trying to be _Finnegan's Wake._ 

I think that my stance in this discussion is more in line with @_*pemerton*_'s stance described in the OP. In that, he specifically talks about the literary quality of the narration provided by GMs and players, and how important that is to play when compared to motivating players through the content of the fiction. I think because of the straightforward title of the thread, many disagree, but looking at the more specific point in the OP, I absolutely understand it. 

I think the real question is if such literary ambition has a place in RPGing, and if so what that place may be. And by ambition I mean as it relates to the original point; *the attempt by a GM or player for their narration to have artistic merit beyond simple communication*. That they are not simply attempting to convey information, but that they are doing so with an attempt to convey that information in a creative manner. I think reducing "literary quality" to basic clear communication or establishing context ignores the attempt at craft which is key to the original point, and renders the discussion meaningless. 

So, does literary ambition...or the strive for literary quality in narration, belong in RPGing? I would say it has a place, certainly. For me, the answer to the question in the title of the thread is "yes". But....is that place more important than the role of engaging players through the content? That to me is the more interesting element of the conversation.

Is it more important that a bit of narration offered by the GM makes the players feel compelled to act, or that it makes them smile because of its cleverness or creativity? 

And as I've said before, I know that these things are not always mutually exclusive, but I think it's an interesting question to examine and to answer. For me, I think the compelled to act element is generally more important because we are playing a game, even though it is a game that is also a creative endeavor. Will I from time to time try to narrate something in a clever or creative way? Absolutely. 

But of the two approaches, I think one is generally more meaningful to the activity at hand.


----------



## Satyrn

lowkey13 said:


> This thread is still a thing?




I think this picture more accurately reflects your thoughts on this thread.  Our participation.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## hawkeyefan

So go make a poll, dude. Those are great!!!


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Now there is a zifnarb in your building. What do you do?



Whow know? Tell me what it is.

If you think telling me what it is necessarily requires _literary _effort, then what's your conception of teaching children the language?



Hussar said:


> At some point in time, you have to drop the analogies and actually describe what's going on, directly.  And, if you want to have any hope of hooking the players, you need to use at least some evocative language.  Unless your game consists of nothing but retreaded material, where the context is already set, you need to actually paint that picture for the player.



I think it's possible to describe a situation without "painting a picture" in the literary sense. If I can't engage the players _unless_ I "paint a picture" in the literary sense, then I worry that it's probably not a very good situation.

EDIT: Having read on, I see that [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] has made much the same points upthread.

Also,



Hussar said:


> I've spent far, far too long dealing with non-native English speakers who do not share our culture to take any description for granted.  Every single reference you've made presumes a native English speaker (or near native anyway) with a deep grounding in western Judeo-Christian culture.  As soon as you lose that background, none of your allegorical explanations are going to work.  Imagine teaching D&D to ten year olds and you're trying to reference Men In Black - a 20 year old movie they've likely never seen.



As [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] has said, what does this have to do with _literary quality_?


----------



## Hussar

hawkeyefan said:


> /snip
> 
> That’s not to say that he should say “it’s a big red lizard that spits fire” but is a whole lot more needed?
> 
> Now something like the githyanki...something that many folks won’t already have an idea about...sure, maybe more of an effort is needed. But again, it just needs to be enough to establish context for the specific scene. If some action is about to happen, why go into the whole history of the gith and the lore about the lich-queen and all that? I just want the relevant context for that moment of play, and save the other stuff for another time.
> 
> So maybe it’s a question of the level of immersion in the sense of the fictional level....immersion in the specific scene that’s happening now versus immersion in the larger fictional world. If there’s a scene going on...the githyanki are doing something and the characters have to decide what to do about it, then I’d think keeping the narration focused on that would be the best approach, no?




Ok, so, you agree that "more of an effort" is needed.  Isn't that where the literary starts?  If the situation is that the Githyanki are stealing something, well, without any literary effort, it doesn't matter if they are githyanki or orcs or Zifnarb because, lacking any literary effort on the part of the DM, all these things are are bags of game stats.  There's nothing distinguishing them.

Or, to put it another way, what's the difference between a 5 hp orc and a 5 hp goblin?



Aldarc said:


> Is this another new goalpost?
> 
> But not necessarily the literary text of D&D. The point being is that the cognitive context for this TTRPG is informed by the entirety of a person's experiences within a culture. This does not make TTRPGs a literary endeavor simply because D&D has literature. If you want to claim that D&D's associated literature is literary because it is literature, then you have only successfully argued a truism.
> 
> I believe that you are underestimating many things. I'm not a novice to literary discussions or living abroad. I work in ancient literature, with multiple dead languages, and applying some cognitive linguistics for my research. I live in Austria and surrounded by non-native English speakers. Sure, they have a deep grounding in western Judeo-Christian culture. However, our conversation has NEVER been contingent on whether participants have a shared grounding or not. You are also speaking of a huge corner case. I suspect that most people who sit together to play TTRPGs will share a sufficient cognitive background that will enable the contextualization of game play through a shared cultural vocabulary. It has NEVER been contingent on whether or not evocative language is ever used or not. It has been about whether TTRPGs are a literary endeavor, the function and nature of GM/player narration, and how this ties into the TTRPG play experience. Suggesting otherwise is most definitely moving the goalposts of pemerton's argument.




I'd argue that it's not a huge corner case.  Any new gamer, particularly young ones like myself when I started, have little to no context to base things off of.  While something like D&D is broad enough that it generally isn't too hard to find context, something like, say Call of Cthulu certainly isn't.  I've played far, far too many RPG's where the players treat it like D&D to not think that context matters a HUGE amount.  Imagine if your only RPG context is D&D, and you start playing Call of Cthulu with a DM who refuses to give any description that is more evocative than bare bones, plain English.  That experience would suck.  A lot.



pemerton said:


> Whow know? Tell me what it is.
> 
> If you think telling me what it is necessarily requires _literary _effort, then what's your conception of teaching children the language?




Holy crap [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION].  That's blindingly ludicrous.  Teaching language to an ESL student shares virtually nothing with playing in an RPG.  But, funnily enough, it doesn't actually take too long before an ESL student is advanced enough to go beyond simple, basic conversation and into higher level communication.  And one of the primary sources for teaching that is literature.  Even at the most basic level, See Dick Run style phonics readers are a staple of any language class.  And, then we graduate to See Dick run quickly.   Then to I see Dick run quickly.  Then to I carefully watch Dick running.  Then to I observe Dick running.

IOW, we progress beyond basic conversation into more "wordcraft" in fairly short order.

So, according to you, we should never teach a child words like "quickly" or "observe" or higher band vocabulary, since, all conversation obviously rests within the first 2000 band of common words.  

I really hope that's not true because if it is, that's just a really sad view of language.  Should we never teach poetry to an ESL student?  No Shakespeare?  How exactly do you propose to understand Western Culture without even a basic grounding in Shakespeare?  Students should never be allowed to touch a Thesaurus?  After all, one word is all they need right?  Never need synonyms for anything because, well, all we're doing is directly feeding information in the most basic, simplistic way possible.

Gimme a break.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> is there an agreed upon definition of literary for this thread... otherwise how can anyone discuss something without agreeing upon its meaning?



Here's the way that I'm used to discussion working:

Person A makes an assertion, explaining what s/he has in mind as best s/he can, ready to elaborate and defend if necessary.

Person B makes a reply - perhaps agreeing, perhaps disagreeing, perhaps distinguishing some point, etc. If person B is unsure about what was said by A, s/he asks for clarification.

Etc.​
I'm not used to the idea that Person B can try and rebut Person A by picking up some term used by A, interpreting it differently, and on that basis disagreeing with something that A never said. (That is the _equivocation_ that has been mentioned upthread.)

As Person A in this particular thread, here are the key claims that I made, in the OP and then not much later downthread:



pemerton said:


> 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 - that they feel the pull to action, and the threats of inaction. That is, that the situation _engage and motivate_ the players _as players_, not as an audience to a performance. And player narration should, in my view, engage with and build on this fiction in ways that display the player's view of the fiction, perhaps challenge other players (and even the GM), that make the other pariticpants go "I didn't see that coming!"
> 
> This is how I see RPGs, with their emphasis on _participation_ in the creation of a fiction that is structured through _distinct_ player an d GM roles, working. And it's how I see them differening from more directly narrative mediums such as books and films.





pemerton said:


> I don't see RPGing as primarily _performance_ (in the artistic sense). Not for the GM - of course a melifluous GM can provide entertainment, but I don't see that as core. And likewise on the player side - thespianism is (in my view) secondary, whereas engaging the fiction from the position/perspective of the character is absolutely central.



This is a conception of RPGing that, I believe, you disagree with - eg when you suggest that you would quit a game, on the grounds that it's boring, if the GM didn't deploy evocative language.


----------



## Riley37

lowkey13 said:


> ....but .... wait .... maybe if they really understood what literary means .....




I raised a question on the first page, about parameters of the term for purposes of the thread.

AFAIK, no one has even tried to answer that question as asked.

How many paladins can dance on the head of a needle?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> Here's the way that I'm used to discussion working:
> 
> Person A makes an assertion, explaining what s/he has in mind as best s/he can, ready to elaborate and defend if necessary.
> 
> Person B makes a reply - perhaps agreeing, perhaps disagreeing, perhaps distinguishing some point, etc. If person B is unsure about what was said by A, s/he asks for clarification.
> 
> Etc.​
> I'm not used to the idea that Person B can try and rebut Person A by picking up some term used by A, interpreting it differently, and on that basis disagreeing with something that A never said. (That is the _equivocation_ that has been mentioned upthread.)
> 
> As Person A in this particular thread, here are the key claims that I made, in the OP and then not much later downthread:
> 
> ​
> This is a conception of RPGing that, I believe, you disagree with - eg when you suggest that you would quit a game, on the grounds that it's boring, if the GM didn't deploy evocative language.




Which would be fine.  However, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], your points got buried under fifteen tons of extraneous text that I think most people skipped over.

And, despite REPEATED requests that you clarify what "literary", "literary quality" and "wordcraft" and various other words you've tried to toss into the mix, you've never actually sat down and defined what you mean by these terms in a way that folks in the thread understand what you're on about.  I mean, what does "literary quality of that narration" actually mean?  Since, apparently, it's a pretty nebulous thing.  It might be using certain words, or not, it might be the length of the description, or not, it might be how the speaker speaks, or not.  No one actually knows because, again, despite NUMEROUS calls for you to clearly define what you mean, you absolutely refuse to do so.

And, so, this thread circles around and around and around, with accusations of "equivocation" and "moving goalposts" and whatnot and unfortunate referrals to dictionary definitions because, AGAIN, *you* will not actually define your terms.

You agree that the DM has to narrate the situation, but, claim that the quality of that narration doesn't matter, but, at it's root, that's demonstrably false.  A narration that is confusing, for example, matters.  So, the quality DOES matter.  You claim that performance doesn't matter, but, again, that's demonstrably false.  Someone who speaks too quietly to be heard, as an extreme example, is obviously going to make the session not enjoyable.

So, where do *you* draw the line?  Can you give a clear example of what you mean?  An example where you can describe a sitatuation using no "meliflous" language, no analogies, or metaphor or any literary technique whatsoever?  We've had a few examples proposed before, but, you've been strangely reticent to show examples despite being very forthcoming with actual play examples in the past.  So, how do you hook the players into a situation in a game where they have zero context for what your talking about, by only describing the situation using nothing but plain, conversational English and no references to any in-game elements.  The reason no in-game elements is because those elements have been described to the players by the game itself using literary techniques.

Again, how do you distinguish that 5 hp orc from that 5 hp goblin?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> Ok, so, you agree that "more of an effort" is needed.  Isn't that where the literary starts?  If the situation is that the Githyanki are stealing something, well, without any literary effort, it doesn't matter if they are githyanki or orcs or Zifnarb because, lacking any literary effort on the part of the DM, all these things are are bags of game stats.  There's nothing distinguishing them.
> 
> Or, to put it another way, what's the difference between a 5 hp orc and a 5 hp goblin?




You describe them differently. 

You snipped my post, but I’m assuming you read the whole thing. I bolded the part that I felt was most relevant; namely the distinction between simple communication and an attempt at literary quality. 

I don’t think that simply describing an orc or a githyanki constitutes the kind of attempt at literary quality that’s being discussed. 

Is it more important that a bit of narration offered by the GM makes the players feel compelled to act, or that it makes them smile because of its cleverness or creativity?


----------



## Hussar

hawkeyefan said:


> You describe them differently.
> 
> You snipped my post, but I’m assuming you read the whole thing. I bolded the part that I felt was most relevant; namely the distinction between simple communication and an attempt at literary quality.
> 
> I don’t think that simply describing an orc or a githyanki constitutes the kind of attempt at literary quality that’s being discussed.
> 
> Is it more important that a bit of narration offered by the GM makes the players feel compelled to act, or that it makes them smile because of its cleverness or creativity?




Here's the part you bolded:



> the attempt by a GM or player for their narration to have artistic merit beyond simple communication




Ok, now, show me.  How do you describe an orc or a githyanki without any attempt at literary quality.  

I'd say that it's equally important that not only does the narration offered by the GM make the players feel compelled to act AND it immerses them in the setting, allowing them to have clear, compelling mental images of what's going on.

So, again, without ANY of what you are calling literary quality, describe an orc or a goblin in such a way that the players feel compelled to act AND differentiate between the two encounters.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> Here's the way that I'm used to discussion working:
> 
> Person A makes an assertion, explaining what s/he has in mind as best s/he can, ready to elaborate and defend if necessary.
> 
> Person B makes a reply - perhaps agreeing, perhaps disagreeing, perhaps distinguishing some point, etc. If person B is unsure about what was said by A, s/he asks for clarification.
> 
> Etc.​
> I'm not used to the idea that Person B can try and rebut Person A by picking up some term used by A, interpreting it differently, and on that basis disagreeing with something that A never said. (That is the _equivocation_ that has been mentioned upthread.)
> 
> As Person A in this particular thread, here are the key claims that I made, in the OP and then not much later downthread:
> 
> ​
> This is a conception of RPGing that, I believe, you disagree with - eg when you suggest that you would quit a game, on the grounds that it's boring, if the GM didn't deploy evocative language.




Honestly this is as clear as mud... you use literary quality...then interchange it with performance and then admit description is required again without clearly showing where the line between what you consider just description vs. Evocative language actually sits...


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> Is it more important that a bit of narration offered by the GM makes the players feel compelled to act, or that it makes them smile because of its cleverness or creativity?




Depends on the purpose of the scene/situation/setting/etc. I've never played in a game where everything is a call to action.

 More importantly why cant I use my evocative words to incite a call for action.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> I think it's possible to describe a situation without "painting a picture" in the literary sense. If I can't engage the players _unless_ I "paint a picture" in the literary sense, then I worry that it's probably not a very good situation.



You still need to paint the picture and make it all clear somehow, even if the players are already fully engaged.

Why?

Because if you don't you'll end up with players imagining or "seeing" the same situation in completely different ways both from each other and (worse) from you the DM, and reacting to it based on their own interpretation of what you-as-DM said.  I've had this happen numerous times both as DM and player, where I (or the DM) wasn't clear enough and a player (or I) had a character react in a way that made perfect sense to the player but none at all to the DM: the DM - be it me or someone else - simply wasn't painting a clear enough picture and the player had the character act based on wrong info.


----------



## Aldarc

I don't think that we should equate clarity of the situation with evocative language. Sometimes evocative, literary language can also confuse the players and create different interpretations of the situation. We should probably back away from that fallacy.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Depends on the purpose of the scene/situation/setting/etc. I've never played in a game where everything is a call to action.



That's why you disagree with me about what is "core" or "primary" or "central" to RPGing as an activity. Because I assert - in the OP, and since - that the call to action is what's central.

I didn't, and don't, think that that is uncontentious. That's why I started a discussion about it!



Imaro said:


> why cant I use my evocative words to incite a call for action.



No one said you can't. I asserted (i) that they're not essential, and (ii) that working on your prose - because of the pressure it creates for prep, editing, etc - can be an obstacle to generating calls to action in the context of the back-and-forth of play.

My argument here obviously rests on a premise, namely, that play is a back-and-forth. Given your earlier remarks about players as "passive audience", you might disagree with me about that also. That certainly wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> You agree that the DM has to narrate the situation, but, claim that the quality of that narration doesn't matter, but, at it's root, that's demonstrably false.  A narration that is confusing, for example, matters.  So, the quality DOES matter.  You claim that performance doesn't matter, but, again, that's demonstrably false.  Someone who speaks too quietly to be heard, as an extreme example, is obviously going to make the session not enjoyable.



Clarity is not an element of _literary_ quality. Adequate volume to be audible is not something that goes to the _artistic_ quality of a performance.

I don't read as much criticism as I probably should, but when I read a review of a novel or a film or a performance of a play I learn (among other things) what the reviewer thought of the cleverness of the composition, the emotions conveyed, the feelings induced in the audience, etc. I don't read much about whether the narration was sufficiently _clear_. Clarity isn't even a particularly literary virtue - imagery, symbolism, multiple meanings, etc are the stuff of clever composition, especially poetic composition. When I read reviews of theatre and cinema, the issue of *whispering* does not seem to come up. The only exception in the neighbourhood that I can think of is the prominent Australian critic David Stratton, who is well-known for his dislike of films that have shaky hand-held camera work. But even he recognises that this is somewhat idiosyncratic to him, and hence expressly calls it out when it informs his commentary on a film. Whereas eg he doesn't see any need to call out the roles played by (say) the composition of frames, or editing, or visual contrasts, in his critical judgements.

Frankly I'm surprised that this notion of "literary quality" is found so contentious or so puzzling. Have you never looked through reviews in the New Yorker or Times Literary Supplement or the Village Voice or other literary/critical journal of your choice? Assuming that you have, then the stuff that they talk about, that they focus on: that's what _literary quality_ consists in. A literary endeavour is one which aims at producing that sort of quality in virtue of caring about that stuff as part of the process of composition.

Clearly one can narrate and describe without caring about that stuff, and therefore without aiming at literary quality. People do it all the time, when they talk about what happened in their day, or a person they met; or when they speculate about how they would like to spend tomorrow, or what sort of person they would like to meet. It's not just that looking at an everyday conversation, or an IKEA instruction manual, through the lens of a New Yorker critic would lead to an unflattering review - it would be a category error, because those things aren't intended to be works of art, not even amateur or kitsch ones.

RPGing of course differs from those things in that it has crucial aesthetic and creative dimensions, but I assert that it resemble them in that _the literary quality of the words used_ is not where the action is. The aesthetic is about _situation_ and _creative participation_, not about beauty in composition.



Hussar said:


> Teaching language to an ESL student shares virtually nothing with playing in an RPG.  But, funnily enough, it doesn't actually take too long before an ESL student is advanced enough to go beyond simple, basic conversation and into higher level communication.  And one of the primary sources for teaching that is literature.



But _teaching literature_ to ESL students is typically not, itself, a literary endeavour. I've read plenty of English and ESL texts. They're generally not works of literature. They're instructional and academic texts.

Of course some literary criticism is itself literature. (Consider eg TS Eliot as a famous example.) But those are hardly typical teaching texts, and my guess is that the number of ESL classes that use this sort of literary criticism to try and teach English is pretty small.



Hussar said:


> lacking any literary effort on the part of the DM, all these things are are bags of game stats.  There's nothing distinguishing them.
> 
> Or, to put it another way, what's the difference between a 5 hp orc and a 5 hp goblin?



If I'm using the AD&D MM, one is brown and one is yellow. If I'm using DDG, one worships Gruumsh and one worships Maglubiyet.

A person can describe and explain things without aiming at literary beauty.



Hussar said:


> despite REPEATED requests that you clarify what "literary", "literary quality" and "wordcraft" and various other words you've tried to toss into the mix, you've never actually sat down and defined what you mean by these terms in a way that folks in the thread understand what you're on about.



Clearly plenty of folks do - everyone but you, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] as far as I can tell. And frankly even Imaro seems to understand the point, despite protesting that it's unclear. He just disagrees with it - that is, he thinks that RPGing _is_ a literary endeavour, and would find a game boring in which the GM didn't aim at literary quality in his/her narration.

It seems worth mentioning at this point that not all disagreement is a result of unclear usage or uncertainty over definitions. Aesthetic debates aren't much like mathematics, in that respect at least.

Anyway, to aim at _literary quality_ is to try and produce pleasing, beautiful, evocative writing. Most poets do this. Most novelists do this. Fewer instructional writers do this - I've read recipe books that seem to aspire to literary quality, but never stereo or furniture assembly instructions. I've read a lot of academic papers over the years - these tend to aim at clarity, but many clearly do not aim at literary quality. Statutes, regulations, contracts and other legal instruments - of which I've also read many - haven't aimed at literary quality since (I would say) the 18th century (eg the US Constitution clearly does aim at literary quality, in places at least; so does the preamble to the Statute of Elizabeth that is the foundation of modern charities law in common law countries; but no modern constitution or statute that I'm familiar with does so).

I think it's obvious that not all writing is _literary_ writing; that not every composition or act of human communication is undertaken keeping in mind the stuff that would earn it a good review in the pages of the New Yorker.

Some people - [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], for example, and as best I can tell you - think that RPGing _should_ be undertaken in this sort of fashion (while obviously keeping in mind that, in practice, few tables will probably actually achieve literary greatness). That participants who produce mundane or unevocative prose aren't doing the best that they should.

It's not the case that I agree with you about this and am adopting some obscure meaning of "literary quality" to say that what you're advocating doesn't go to the issue of literary quality. _I disagree with you about what is at the heart of RPGing/_ It's not an issue about word meaning. It's a difference, perhaps a deep difference, of aesthetic judgement in relation to RPGing.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> That's why you disagree with me about what is "core" or "primary" or "central" to RPGing as an activity. Because I assert - in the OP, and since - that the call to action is what's central.I didn't, and don't, think that that is uncontentious. That's why I started a discussion about it!



I think that is contentious... unless you are claiming that you can have a complete and satisfying rpg session that is just one big or numerous calls to action... that isn't the only "core" (here's that word again) element. A boardgame like Descent or the 4e based boardgames are based around calls to action... videogames are based around a call to action... this seems so broadly applicable to almost any game that I fail to see how it is a defining aspect or core to rpg's...EDIT: If anything I would liken this to one of the major pillars of an rpg...


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> I will address your earlier post, but I will shortly say here that this entire conversation has never been predicated on the presumption that constant immersion was required for TTRPGs or should be required. So it feels like you are moving the goalposts by requiring extra standards to be met.




I would be unable to get a single drop of immersion if I had to Q&A every or almost every description than comes along.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> I would also add that the argument that pemerton put forth is that RPGs are devoid of evocative language, but (1) they are not a primary concern, and (2) its presence does not make TTRPGs literary endeavor.




So, conversations evolve and at 1100+ posts in, it has shifted a bit.  Trying to pin every response back to the OP to avoid giving a real response is the equivocation you have been falsely accusing me of.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Anyway, to aim at _literary quality_ is to try and produce pleasing, beautiful, evocative writing. Most poets do this. Most novelists do this. Fewer instructional writers do this - I've read recipe books that seem to aspire to literary quality, but never stereo or furniture assembly instructions. I've read a lot of academic papers over the years - these tend to aim at clarity, but many clearly do not aim at literary quality. Statutes, regulations, contracts and other legal instruments - of which I've also read many - haven't aimed at literary quality since (I would say) the 18th century (eg the US Constitution clearly does aim at literary quality, in places at least; so does the preamble to the Statute of Elizabeth that is the foundation of modern charities law in common law countries; but no modern constitution or statute that I'm familiar with does so).




So where is the line you can point to and say, "This is literary quality, but that isn't?"  As far as I can tell, there isn't one, which makes "literary quality" something that exists in the eye of the beholder, which could include just about anything written.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> I would be unable to get a single drop of immersion if I had to Q&A every or almost every description than comes along.



Okay. But the point has been that "evocative language" is not required to convey game information to players. Hussar's original question was how it could be done, and I provided an answer. Then it was raised that it would break immersion if it was done in this manner completely, which definitely shifts the goal posts of the conversation. 



Maxperson said:


> So, conversations evolve and at 1100+ posts in, it has shifted a bit.



I'm glad that you an admit that critics to the OP have shifted the goalposts. 



> Trying to pin every response back to the OP to avoid giving a real response is the equivocation you have been falsely accusing me of.



"Equivocation" does not mean whatever you think that it means here, nor have I avoided answering anything, nor would any (potential) equivocation by me erase your equivocation with the term "literary" that transpired in this thread.

And one post later,... 


Maxperson said:


> So where is the line you can point to and say, "This is literary quality, but that isn't?"  As far as I can tell, there isn't one, which makes "literary quality" something that exists in the eye of the beholder, which could include just about anything written.



...your equivocation rears its head again. Ironic.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Okay. But the point has been that "evocative language" is not required to convey game information to players. Hussar's original question was how it could be done, and I provided an answer. Then it was raised that it would break immersion if it was done in this manner completely, which definitely shifts the goal posts of the conversation.




Soooo, the ebb and flow of conversation isn't "moving the goalposts."   



> "Equivocation" does not mean whatever you think that it means here, nor have I avoided answering anything, nor would any (potential) equivocation by me erase your equivocation with the term "literary" that transpired in this thread.




I haven't, either, but that doesn't prevent you and others here of falsely accusing me of equivocation.  



> And one post later,...
> ...your equivocation rears its head again. Ironic.




Aaaaaand, not.  I also have not used ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing.  Keep up the talking point, though.  If you use it enough, you might just get someone to believe your false accusations.


----------



## pemerton

Somewhat contra  [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], it often doesn't matter at all if the players think different things about the fiction.

Last Sunday I GMed a session of Prince Valiant. One of the PCs is a bard/entertainer who wears "colourful clothes". What colour(s) are they? We've never specified. If I think about it I guess I think red, orange, yellow, maybe blue also. What does the player of that character have in mind? Or any of the other players?

Another PC has a jewelled sword that grants a bonus in certain social situations. What sorts of jewels? Colour? Size? Monetary value? Again, it's never come up. What colour are the horses? Ditto.

When the PCs boarded a ship to France, how long was it? How broad of beam? When it foundered on a rock shelf, and I described the water between the ship and the beach as "shallow", how shallow? As per the scenario I was using, I called for Difficulty 3 Brawn tests to get to shore unharmed. The rules describe that as a Normal difficulty, sitting between Easy and Difficult, but in this particular context it was fairly hard - Brawn 4 is above average (perhaps comparable to a 13 STR and/or CON in D&D), and the chance of getting 3+ successes on 4 coin tosses is 5/16, so we coud compare Difficulty 3 to DC 16.

Was that difficulty due primarily to the depth of the water, the wildness of the storm, the dark of the night, the slippery and harsh nature of the rocks, or - more likely - all of them in combination? The rules don't require us to specify, and different players may have been envisaging the ficiton differently in the details though no doubt the broad brushstrokes were pretty similar (eg water mostly less than head height, but big waves breaking, and hence a real danger of being dashed on the rocks).

I'm reminded of this discussion of GMing techniques from the Maelstrom Storytelling rulebook, under the heading "Literal vs Conceptual"; I first learned about this RPG from Ron Edwards's essays before picking up a copy second-hand, and while I've never played it it's certainly influenced my approach to GMing and narration:

A good way to run the Hubris Engine is to use "scene ideas" to convey the scene, instead of literalisms. . . . focus on the intent behind the scene and not on how big or how far things might be. If the difficulty of the task at hand (such as jumping across a chasm in a cave) is explained in terms of difficulty, it doesn't matter how far across the actual chasm spans. In a movie, for instance, the camera zooms or pans to emphasize the danger or emotional reaction to the scene, and in so doing it manipulates the real distance of a chasm to suit the mood or "feel" of the moment. It is then no longer about how far across the character has to jump, but how hard the feat is for the character. . . . If the players enjoy the challenge of figuring out how high and far someone can jump, they should be allowed the pleasure of doing so - as long as it doesn't interfere with the narrative flow and enjoyment of the game.

The scene should be presented therefore in terms relative to the character's abilities . . . Players who want to climb onto your coffee table and jump across your living room to prove that their character could jump over the chasm have probably missed the whole point of the story.​
Commenting on this, Ron Edwards says that "I can think of no better text to explain the vast difference between playing the games _RuneQuest_ and _HeroQuest_." Which is to say, there are some systems which make enginnering or cartographical precision central to resolution, but there are others that don't. Certainly establishing a call to action doesn't depend upon any general uniformity or specificity of imagination. I think it does require estagblishing the situation by reference to the resolution mechanics - the plaeyrs can't answer the call if they don't know, in general terms, how their characters might fare.

Which goes back to  [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s point some way upthread: RPGs have ways of establishing the emotinal "heft" of situations that are quite different from the sort of evocative composition or performances that other creative endeavours rely upon In my 4e game, for instance, if the players are committed to confronting Orcus, and I - as I did, following a successful knowledge check by the Sage of Ages - tell them his stats, then the players respond with the apposite awe, fear, etc. I don't need to evoke, by deft narration, a sense of how terrible Orcus is. The stats do that work.

Of course different systems open up and close down different sorts of possibiities in this respect. For instance, in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic it is the state of the Doom Pool, as much as the stats of any individual antagonist, that conveys the significance of the present situation. And in Dungeon World or Apocalypse World antagonists don't quite have "stats" in the way they do in D&D or Cortex+, and so system conveys heft in different ways, sch as the plauers' perceptions of possible interactions between the moves they want to make with their PCs and the current state of the fiction that might feed into GM moves if those player-side moves fail.

This is also one reason why, in RPGing, system matters.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Contra [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], it often doesn't matter at all if the players think different things about the fiction.Last Sunday I GMed a session of Prince Valiant. One of the PCs is a bard/entertainer who wears "colourful clothes". What colour(s) are they? We've never specified. If I think about it I guess I think red, orange, yellow, maybe blue also. What does the player of that character have in mind? Or any of the other players?Another PC has a jewelled sword that grants a bonus in certain social situations. What sorts of jewels? Colour? Size? Monetary value? Again, it's never come up. What colour are the horses? Ditto.



And very often it does matter.  There was a time when playing 2e theater of the mind that we had a combat on a bridge.  The DM described the scene and our positions.  I thought I was farther away from the creatures than I was, and they were engaged with some party members.  I started to cast a long spell, figuring that at the distance I was at I was okay.  The DM had a different picture in mind and I got attacked and my spell was disrupted.  Another time the DM described a field covered in large rocks.  I pictured rocks large enough to hide behind if crouched over and told the DM that I crouch low and begin moving across the field.  He pictured rocks that were about a foot or so high and told me that I was spotted by the enemy on the other side.So yes it often doesn't matter, but then again it often does.  The thing is, those times where it doesn't matter.......don't matter.  It's the times when it does matter that need to be minimized, so game play should aim for that goal.


----------



## Aldarc

Sadras said:


> My only engagement in this thread has been about the the use of wordplay for the immersive experience as well as the backstory I might create for a campaign which I might view the latter as an literary endeavour.



I am not inclined to view the latter as a literary endeavor. 



> I'm not entirely convinced of this but I'm not opposed to this either, mostly because, I have not yet clearly defined what a literary endeavour is in my mind. The high art definition is easy, but is it anything more AND IF YES, where does it stop?
> Conan? The Three Investigators? Gamebooks? Comics?
> 
> Because at some point I'd inject my backstory into that mix. There are characters with motives. Internal Consistency exists. There is a setting, a theme. There is no dialogue though and that is probably where I could agree then, it fails as a literary endeavour if literary endeavour requires at the very minimum, dialogue.



This again delves into a conversation piece that I have repeatedly brought up in this thread between NARRATIVE and LITERATURE. Not all narratives are literature and not all literature are narratives. If we look at what you wrote starting with this second paragraph, we are talking about narrative (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative) as opposed to literature. Narratology is the study of narratives/stories. Regardless of medium, stories will often feature things like characters with motives, internal consistency, themes, and dialogue. I definitely think that TTRPGs are most definitely a narrative/storytelling endeavor. We get together to participate in story creation through roleplaying. But where I take opposition is the idea that TTRPGs are literary endeavors. Several definitions have been proposed for "literary" in this thread; I have challenged whether TTRPGs would qualify as "literary" with each of these user-proposed definitions. And I did not find much of a compelling case that TTRPGs qualify as literature. 

TTRPGs definitely have associated literature, but that does not make TTRPGs a form of literature. That constitutes a composition fallacy. What is true for a part is not necessarily true for the whole. The composition fallacy is one reason why I raised the analogy of cooking, cookbooks, and recipes. We can cook using recipes as a form of reference material. The recipe will often include ingredients and instructions. Though nowadays when you are looking FOR ONE DAMN RECIPE FOR MAKING AN APPLE PIE, YOU HAVE TO SCROLL THROUGH AN ENTIRE MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR'S DULL LIFE STORY ABOUT HOW HER GREAT GRANDFATHER'S SINGULAR THOUGHT THROUGH THE BATTLE OF VERDUN WAS HIS MOTHER'S APPLE PIE RECIPE AND HOW THIS RECIPE WAS PASSED DOWN FROM ONE ENTITLED LOSER CHILD TO THE NEXT BEFORE THIS MIDDLE-AGED WHITE WOMAN GETS TO THE PART THAT ACTUALLY TEACHES YOU HOW TO MAKE IT. NO ONE CARES, KAREN! Sorry. Where was I? 

But despite the presence of associated written texts, we don't conventionally think of cooking as literature. We think of it as the act and process of food preparation. There is literature involved. But remembering the composition fallacy, what's true for a part is not necessarily true for the whole. 

Likewise, we have reference books for TTRPGs that often include flavor text and such, but the _modus operandi_ of TTRPGs is not the books, but the fiction that emerges through play. We can use these reference books to inspire our fiction-making, much like how cookbooks and recipes can inspire our cooking. These books can provide a common frame of reference and a guide for play. But it's the process of roleplaying characters in the context of a game that the game's fiction is framed, negotiated, and developed. The fiction of the setting or reference book can be used to inspire gameplay but it does not necessarily predetermine the fiction. 

I could take that unique monster from Scarred Lands and re-imagine it in a non-Scarred Lands game. I could also take that unique monster from Scarred Lands and re-imagine it in a Scarred Lands game that lacks the particular context referenced in the source materials. 

What ultimately matters is the fiction that transpires through the gameplay at the table. The nature of this gameplay requires that participants understand what's happening in the fiction at the table (not necessarily the fiction in any book) in a given moment so they can declare actions that engage with that fiction. What develops through this gameplay is not literature, but story/narrative. 



> @_*pemerton*_ viewed wordcraft to be more reflective, so as not in the spur of the moment (during roleplay).
> That is a tricky position to take but understandable. At minimum then my backstory has wordcraft. But the question is what if I write my NPC dialogue prior game time? I would then argue it is not a requirement and I would agree it is not a primary concern in RPGs (for me and at least for the RPG I know). Then I would agree with Pemerton on this.



From this thread I gather that  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s sense of literary/wordcraft involves an intersection of art/performance and an authorial attention to purposeful form, style, diction, and quality. In some regards, pemerton's sense of "literary" could almost be reduced to "an elevated performative speech that intentionally deviates from colloquial speech patterns." Keeping in mind that he is primarily applying this meaning as it's expressed in TTRPGs, which is the discussion at hand. 

Though I do not doubt that some in this thread will not put forth the question "what isn't elevated performative speech?", I don't think that we need to engage this continuum fallacy (i.e., "where do we draw the line?") to understand pemerton's basic sense, at least if we bother to put in the effort to approach his argument with good faith that seeks to understand and not simply knee-jerk reactions.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> And very often it does matter.
> 
> There was a time when playing 2e theater of the mind that we had a combat on a bridge.  The DM described the scene and our positions.  I thought I was farther away from the creatures than I was, and they were engaged with some party members.  I started to cast a long spell, figuring that at the distance I was at I was okay.  The DM had a different picture in mind and I got attacked and my spell was disrupted.
> 
> Another time the DM described a covered in large rocks.  I pictured rocks large enough to hide behind if crouched over and told the DM that I crouch low and begin moving across the field.  He pictured rocks that were about a foot or so high and told me that I was spotted by the enemy on the other side.
> 
> So yes it often doesn't matter, but then again it often does.  The thing is, those times where it doesn't matter.......don't matter.  It's the times when it does matter that need to be minimized, so game play should aim for that goal.




Your examples are not one that require specificity of detail but are, in fact, errors by the GM to present the information in terms of your character's interests.  I'd say that your second example is one where inappropriate specificity caused the problem  (if the rocks were too small to matter, why introduce them?).  In both of your examples, your GM was at fault both in not providing neccessary information and in not cirrecting this oversight before punishing your character for them.

Further, your first example could have been solved with general information, like, "the monsters are close enough to close and attack you," and don't require specific distances in feet to clear up the issue.  The latter will work, being sufficient, but is not necessary.  Necessity is providing information relevant to character actions, which can be provided in general terms.

Now, if your table is using conventions that enclose specificity, then, yeah, things change.  I use a grid for 5e, for example, so the precise width of a chasm is important because the convention hinges challenges on specificity.  This is, however, a choice to use these conventions and not a requirement.  And, I often find it chafing against what I want to do.  It is much easier to present a more generalized challenge because you can dial in its narrative weight much more easily than considering all of a character's abilities and then assigning specific features on the grid to do the same.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> Soooo, the ebb and flow of conversation isn't "moving the goalposts."



Why would it be? What particular post would it be moving? 



> I haven't, either, but that doesn't prevent you and others here of falsely accusing me of equivocation.
> 
> Aaaaaand, not.  I also have not used ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing.  Keep up the talking point, though.  If you use it enough, you might just get someone to believe your false accusations.



  [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] already demonstrated quite convincingly how you were equivocating with your terms at least 50 pages back. You're just upset because you got caught doing it and others in this thread likewise haven't been fooled by the word games you like to use to win arguments. There have even been a number of people who are arguing in favor of TTRPGs as a literary endeavor who have likewise called you out on it. Take the "L" and move on.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Your examples are not one that require specificity of detail but are, in fact, errors by the GM to present the information in terms of your character's interests.  I'd say that your second example is one where inappropriate specificity caused the problem  (if the rocks were too small to matter, why introduce them?).  In both of your examples, your GM was at fault both in not providing neccessary information and in not cirrecting this oversight before punishing your character for them.




The errors were from lack of sufficient detail. As for the rocks, the could very well have mattered.  They would be a hazard to move quickly over or fight in.



> Further, your first example could have been solved with general information, like, "the monsters are close enough to close and attack you," and don't require specific distances in feet to clear up the issue.  The latter will work, being sufficient, but is not necessary.  Necessity is providing information relevant to character actions, which can be provided in general terms.




It was a fairly involved battle scene.  He thought I understood that they were close enough to attack me.  I didn't.  These things happen in theater of the mind.  



> Now, if your table is using conventions that enclose specificity, then, yeah, things change.  I use a grid for 5e, for example, so the precise width of a chasm is important because the convention hinges challenges on specificity.  This is, however, a choice to use these conventions and not a requirement.  And, I often find it chafing against what I want to do.  It is much easier to present a more generalized challenge because you can dial in its narrative weight much more easily than considering all of a character's abilities and then assigning specific features on the grid to do the same.




The group I play with now uses minis and dry erase maps to avoid that sort of thing.  It's one of those things I mentioned that minimizes the issues that crops up with people imagining different things.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Why would it be? What particular post would it be moving?




Um.  That makes no sense as a response to what I said.  Perhaps you should re-read my post, your response, or both.  



> [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] already demonstrated quite convincingly how you were equivocating with your terms at least 50 pages back.




Given that equivocation relies purely on intent and he cannot determine my intent, he cannot have demonstrated any such thing.  I know my intent, and it's a 100% certain fact that no equivocation has been done by me in this thread.  All such accusations are objectively false.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Given that equivocation relies purely on intent and he cannot determine my intent, he cannot have demonstrated any such thing.  I know my intent, and it's a 100% certain fact that no equivocation has been done by me in this thread.  All such accusations are objectively false.



As a fallacy intent isn't really as much a factor as the result. People often don't know they are equivocating and convince themselves of a false conclusion by doing so. It is about the structure of an argument, and how it uses multiple meanings present in a term to create wrong conclusions.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> As a fallacy intent isn't really as much a factor as the result. People often don't know they are equivocating and convince themselves of a false conclusion by doing so. It is about the structure of an argument, and how it uses multiple meanings present in a term to create wrong conclusions.




Equivocation requires intent.  It's an attempt to conceal the truth, which requires the intent to conceal the truth, or to avoid committing, which requires the intent to avoid committing.  There's no way around it.  A wrong conclusion is just a wrong conclusion without other intent to change things.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Equivocation requires intent.  It's an attempt to conceal the truth, which requires the intent to conceal the truth, or to avoid committing, which requires the intent to avoid committing.  There's no way around it.  A wrong conclusion is just a wrong conclusion without other intent to change things.



Now you are just asserting things. Admittedly, it has been some years since I took a formal logic course. But my understanding of it as a fallacy it is about when a word's ambiguity is used to reach a false conclusion. That more often than not probably involves intent, but it doesn't have to. Even if you remove intent, you still have the equivocation around the different meanings the word has. If anyone with professional background in philosophy, wants to weigh in here, I am all ears. I could certainly be wrong. But just grabbing some philosophical definitions this is what I find: (From Texas State U): The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.(From Lucid Philosophy dot Com): Equivocation is when a word shifts meaning in an argument.(Philosophy pages): The informal fallacy that can result when an ambiguous word or phrase is used in different senses within a single argument.Example: "Odd things arouse human suspicion. But seventeen is an odd number. Therefore, seventeen arouses human suspicion."


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> Um.  That makes no sense as a response to what I said.  Perhaps you should re-read my post, your response, or both.



You're correct. I read a question mark there. But the issue is not the ebb-and-flow of conversation but how the goalposts for what was being asked for was moved after an answer was supplied. That is more than simply the conversation changing.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Now you are just asserting things. Admittedly, it has been some years since I took a formal logic course. But my understanding of it as a fallacy it is about when a word's ambiguity is used to reach a false conclusion. That more often than not probably involves intent, but it doesn't have to. Even if you remove intent, you still have the equivocation around the different meanings the word has. If anyone with professional background in philosophy, wants to weigh in here, I am all ears. I could certainly be wrong. But just grabbing some philosophical definitions this is what I find: (From Texas State U): The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.(From Lucid Philosophy dot Com): Equivocation is when a word shifts meaning in an argument.(Philosophy pages): The informal fallacy that can result when an ambiguous word or phrase is used in different senses within a single argument.Example: "Odd things arouse human suspicion. But seventeen is an odd number. Therefore, seventeen arouses human suspicion."




So, fallacies don't automatically lead to false conclusions.  The logic of a statement can be incredibly unsound without the conclusion being false.  I also haven't been using multiple meanings of literary.  You have different meanings for the words that I'm using, not me.  You don't get to apply your personal preferred meanings to me, and then declare that I'm switching things around.  Other times it has been clear from your response that you didn't understand.  Your lack of understand doesn't create an equivocation on my part.

I understand the fallacy, but I haven't use it.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Aldarc said:


> I am not inclined to view the latter as a literary endeavor.
> 
> This again delves into a conversation piece that I have repeatedly brought up in this thread between NARRATIVE and LITERATURE. Not all narratives are literature and not all literature are narratives. If we look at what you wrote starting with this second paragraph, we are talking about narrative (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative) as opposed to literature. Narratology is the study of narratives/stories. Regardless of medium, stories will often feature things like characters with motives, internal consistency, themes, and dialogue. I definitely think that TTRPGs are most definitely a narrative/storytelling endeavor. We get together to participate in story creation through roleplaying. But where I take opposition is the idea that TTRPGs are literary endeavors. Several definitions have been proposed for "literary" in this thread; I have challenged whether TTRPGs would qualify as "literary" with each of these user-proposed definitions. And I did not find much of a compelling case that TTRPGs qualify as literature.
> 
> TTRPGs definitely have associated literature, but that does not make TTRPGs a form of literature. That constitutes a composition fallacy. What is true for a part is not necessarily true for the whole. The composition fallacy is one reason why I raised the analogy of cooking, cookbooks, and recipes. We can cook using recipes as a form of reference material. The recipe will often include ingredients and instructions. Though nowadays when you are looking FOR ONE DAMN RECIPE FOR MAKING AN APPLE PIE, YOU HAVE TO SCROLL THROUGH AN ENTIRE OF THE AUTHOR'S DULL LIFE STORY ABOUT HOW HER GREAT GRANDFATHER'S SINGULAR THOUGHT THROUGH THE BATTLE OF VERDUN WAS HIS MOTHER'S APPLE PIE RECIPE AND HOW THIS RECIPE WAS PASSED DOWN FROM ONE ENTITLED LOSER CHILD TO THE NEXT BEFORE THIS MIDDLE-AGED WHITE WOMAN GETS TO THE PART THAT ACTUALLY TEACHES YOU HOW TO MAKE IT. NO ONE CARES, KAREN! Sorry. Where was I?
> 
> But despite the presence of associated written texts, we don't conventionally think of cooking as literature. We think of it as the act and process of food preparation. There is literature involved. But remembering the composition fallacy, what's true for a part is not necessarily true for the whole.
> 
> Likewise, we have reference books for TTRPGs that often include flavor text and such, but the _modus operandi_ of TTRPGs is not the books, but the fiction that emerges through play. We can use these reference books to inspire our fiction-making, much like how cookbooks and recipes can inspire our cooking. These books can provide a common frame of reference and a guide for play. But it's the process of roleplaying characters in the context of a game that the game's fiction is framed, negotiated, and developed. The fiction of the setting or reference book can be used to inspire gameplay but it does not necessarily predetermine the fiction.
> 
> I could take that unique monster from Scarred Lands and re-imagine it in a non-Scarred Lands game. I could also take that unique monster from Scarred Lands and re-imagine it in a Scarred Lands game that lacks the particular context referenced in the source materials.
> 
> What ultimately matters is the fiction that transpires through the gameplay at the table. The nature of this gameplay requires that participants understand what's happening in the fiction at the table (not necessarily the fiction in any book) in a given moment so they can declare actions that engage with that fiction. What develops through this gameplay is not literature, but story/narrative.
> 
> From this thread I gather that  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s sense of literary/wordcraft involves an intersection of art/performance and an authorial attention to purposeful form, style, diction, and quality. In some regards, pemerton's sense of "literary" could almost be reduced to "an elevated performative speech that intentionally deviates from colloquial speech patterns." Keeping in mind that he is primarily applying this meaning as it's expressed in TTRPGs, which is the discussion at hand.
> 
> Though I do not doubt that some in this thread will not put forth the question "what isn't elevated performative speech?", I don't think that we need to engage this continuum fallacy (i.e., "where do we draw the line?") to understand pemerton's basic sense, at least if we bother to put in the effort to approach his argument with good faith that seeks to understand and not simply knee-jerk reactions.



I don't fully agree with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s argument, but you nailed it that you don't have to precisely define a line on a spectrum to be able to say something is at one end or the other.  I read pemerton to be analyzing at the least literary end of the spectrum and looking at whether RPGs can exist there.  This is valid, but I don't think any existing RPGs do exist there even if they could conceptually.  I think RPGs can exist on both sides of the undefined line.

Personally, I think art requires intent.  So, if you intend your ROG to be literary, it is.  Most likely a terrible example, but I think intent matters over execution with whether something is or isn't art.  Now, critically, execution matters tremendously and I struggle to imagine an RPG experience that would cross into mediocre literary merit much less great.

I think it's useful to look at the core interaction of RPGs as to what the key parts are, and how those work.  I'm not sure if literary quality is a useful metric for this.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> You're correct. I read a question mark there. But the issue is not the ebb-and-flow of conversation but how the goalposts for what was being asked for was moved after an answer was supplied. That is more than simply the conversation changing.




If I ask you to prove something and you do, then I dismiss it and ask you to prove something further instead, I have moved the goalposts.  If you make a statement and I disagree with it, saying, "No, literary is this," no goalposts have been moved.  We don't have to agree with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s assertion and are not forced to limit our discussion to what he presumes to be true.

No goalposts have been moved by us.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> So, fallacies don't automatically lead to false conclusions.  The logic of a statement can be incredibly unsound without the conclusion being false.  I also haven't been using multiple meanings of literary.  You have different meanings for the words that I'm using, not me.  You don't get to apply your personal preferred meanings to me, and then declare that I'm switching things around.  Other times it has been clear from your response that you didn't understand.  Your lack of understand doesn't create an equivocation on my part.I understand the fallacy, but I haven't use it.



We could go back and relitigate. I am not terribly concerned about proving who equivocated or not. But equivocation definitely occurred around this term on the thread. Whether it was you, another poster, or multiple posters, I don't particularly care. But you do have a history in this thread of just declaring things without any support. And this post strikes me as an example of such a declaration. Obviously conclusions can be true even if the arguments behind them are not logically sound. That doesn't mean you should just go around equivocating. I really don't think people understand the degree to which this kind of equivocation is a problem in gaming discussions.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> The errors were from lack of sufficient detail.



I'd say lack of key detail, which is a different thing from specifics.  The post you presented this to as a counter wasn't talking about lack of key detail, but uneccesary specifics.  The example was of a jeweled sword where it being richly appointed is the key and not the specifics of the jewels.  You presented a scenario that had missing key information as a counter to this.  It's not.  As I said, your confusion could have been rectified by unspecific detail such as being you know that the enemies were close enough to close and attack on their turn.  How many feet that is would be the unnecessary specificity.



> As for the rocks, the could very well have mattered.  They would be a hazard to move quickly over or fight in.
> 
> It was a fairly involved battle scene.  He thought I understood that they were close enough to attack me.  I didn't.  These things happen in theater of the mind.



That doesn't change that it was the GM's error in not providing the key details, and also in not clarifying when a misunderstanding was apparent.  The first is not a bad thing -- we all make these mistakes.  The second is less forgivable.



> The group I play with now uses minis and dry erase maps to avoid that sort of thing.  It's one of those things I mentioned that minimizes the issues that crops up with people imagining different things.



It just replaces it with a different set of problems (and doesn't fully remove the one under discussion, either).  In other words, you can't present gridded play as superior to TofM.  It's just different.

What [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was saying with regards to this is also very good advice for avoiding confusion.  Prioritize information presentation as it pertains to character interaction with the intent and theme of the scene and avoid unnecessary details.  Unsurprisingly, this dovetails with his arguments about literary quality.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> If I ask you to prove something and you do, then I dismiss it and ask you to prove something further instead, I have moved the goalposts.  If you make a statement and I disagree with it, saying, "No, literary is this," no goalposts have been moved.  We don't have to agree with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s assertion and are not forced to limit our discussion to what he presumes to be true.
> 
> No goalposts have been moved by us.



What are you talking about? I even explained the specific context in which the goalposts were moved, Max. Did you not even bother to read it or did your eyes just glaze over?


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> I'd say lack of key detail, which is a different thing from specifics.




Key detail.  Insufficient detail. It's the same thing.  Lacking a key detail is insufficient.



> The post you presented this to as a counter wasn't talking about lack of key detail, but uneccesary specifics.  The example was of a jeweled sword where it being richly appointed is the key and not the specifics of the jewels.  You presented a scenario that had missing key information as a counter to this.  It's not.  As I said, your confusion could have been rectified by unspecific detail such as being you know that the enemies were close enough to close and attack on their turn.  How many feet that is would be the unnecessary specificity.




It listed examples of unnecessary specifics, but it made the claim that players imaging different things is often not an issue.  Then it gave limited examples where it wasn't an issue.  I was countering by saying that it often is an issue.  And then I gave limited examples where it was an issue.  My post was a counter to his.  A few examples is not exhaustive of the possibilities and I am not limited to what he gave examples of when presenting a counter argument.



> That doesn't change that it was the GM's error in not providing the key details, and also in not clarifying when a misunderstanding was apparent.  The first is not a bad thing -- we all make these mistakes.  The second is less forgivable.




Maybe I'm more forgiving than you are, but I don't automatically assume it was the DM's fault.  The detail might have been sufficient, but I still misunderstood. When misunderstandings happen, things should be corrected if it turns out that it was DM error, but not when the misunderstanding is player error. 



> It just replaces it with a different set of problems (and doesn't fully remove the one under discussion, either).




Right.  That's why I said it minimizes the issue, not eliminates it. 



> In other words, you can't present gridded play as superior to TofM.  It's just different.




I didn't present it as superior or inferior.  All I said is that it minimizes the issues of where PCs, monsters and things are located in relation to one another.



> What [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was saying with regards to this is also very good advice for avoiding confusion.  Prioritize information presentation as it pertains to character interaction with the intent and theme of the scene and avoid *unnecessary details*.  Unsurprisingly, this dovetails with his arguments about literary quality.




I disagree with the bolded part.  If the PCs are in the kings castle and they find a secret door leading to a room, and when they open the door I describe the dust billowing into the air from the opening of the door, that's not a necessary detail.  I've added it to evoke a sense of how long it has been since anyone has been there.  It's a detail that will, for a great many people, add to the depth and feel of the game.  All that was necessary is to tell them that the door opens.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Somewhat contra  [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], it often doesn't matter at all if the players think different things about the fiction.
> 
> Last Sunday I GMed a session of Prince Valiant. One of the PCs is a bard/entertainer who wears "colourful clothes". What colour(s) are they? We've never specified. If I think about it I guess I think red, orange, yellow, maybe blue also. What does the player of that character have in mind? Or any of the other players?
> 
> Another PC has a jewelled sword that grants a bonus in certain social situations. What sorts of jewels? Colour? Size? Monetary value? Again, it's never come up. What colour are the horses? Ditto.
> 
> When the PCs boarded a ship to France, how long was it? How broad of beam? When it foundered on a rock shelf, and I described the water between the ship and the beach as "shallow", how shallow? As per the scenario I was using, I called for Difficulty 3 Brawn tests to get to shore unharmed.



Which very neatly gets you out of having to describe much detail at all, as the mechanics can cover all sorts of things at once.  Mechanics like this are a cop-out, I think - instead of just calling for Brawn tests (low granularity of detail)  I'd far rather be told the actual situation and then asked what my character specifically does about it (higher granulartity of detail).

'How shallow?' is a very relevant detail - if it's 4' deep then the Humans can likely walk on the bottom but the Hobbits and Gnomes are going to have to swim or be carried.  How long and-or beamy the ship is gives - for those the least bit familiar with anything maritime - a quick idea about how much room there is on board, about how the ship is likely to behave in rough weather, and about how fast it is or isn't likely to go; and simply saying "you're on a solidly-built 70-foot three-master, narrow beam for its length, two decks and a hold, and probably deep draft" takes maybe five seconds.

 [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] lists some examples where differences in imagination between DM and player have caused grief, and that's exactly the sort of thing I don't want to see happen.  When the DM says the field is strewn with large rocks I-as-player shouldn't have to ask how big they are.  I've had characters die due to just this sort of thing - in one instance I remember clearly even though I asked for more clarification several times the DM's description still didn't put his picture of the scene into my mind but instead left me seeing a different one; I based my actions around my-as-player's perception of the scene and my character was dead within the round.

For the colourful Bard, as the colourful part is obviously intended to be significant I'd probably ask the player to note on the character sheet a few details of what pieces of clothing are usually what colours, just so it's locked in in case it ever becomes relevant later. ("we need a distress flag and that bright red tunic will do nicely - give it 'ere!")


----------



## Imaro

Lanefan said:


> For the colourful Bard, as the colourful part is obviously intended to be significant I'd probably ask the player to note on the character sheet a few details of what pieces of clothing are usually what colours, just so it's locked in in case it ever becomes relevant later. ("we need a distress flag and that bright red tunic will do nicely - give it 'ere!")



What I find strange about this is that the clothes are important enough (and I would assume colorful enough) to be noticeable and yet the actual colors have never been commented on by other players, NPC's, etc.  I just find that weird does everyone just comment using the word colorful?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> Key detail.  Insufficient detail. It's the same thing.  Lacking a key detail is insufficient.



Right, but the argument wasn't skipping key details, it was, in fact, about non-key details not being those that can be elided or glossed.  You presented scenarios where key details were left out as if it was countering this claim, when it was part of the claim that the focus should be on those details necessary for the character to engage the challenge.  You argued against an argument not made.



> It listed examples of unnecessary specifics, but it made the claim that players imaging different things is often not an issue.  Then it gave limited examples where it wasn't an issue.  I was countering by saying that it often is an issue.  And then I gave limited examples where it was an issue.  My post was a counter to his.  A few examples is not exhaustive of the possibilities and I am not limited to what he gave examples of when presenting a counter argument.



Yes, you countered a post about how players imagining unnecessary specifics in different ways isn't an issue with presenting how you imagined key, necessary details differently from your GM and how he was a jerk about it.  Totally not the same thing.  The argument that it's okay to imagine necessary, key, sufficient details differently was not made, but you've argued that one down very well.



> Maybe I'm more forgiving than you are, but I don't automatically assume it was the DM's fault.  The detail might have been sufficient, but I still misunderstood. When misunderstandings happen, things should be corrected if it turns out that it was DM error, but not when the misunderstanding is player error.



I'm very forgiving for miscommunications, but not correcting it before leveling consequences on your character for the miscommunication is totally the GM's fault.  The GM's job is to adequately present the scene so the players can make informed decisions.  Failing that, the job is to correct the first error. If the GM instead chooses to punish the character for the misunderstanding, that's poor GMing.

We can split this one off into a different thread, if you like, but I'm not going to move on this one.  The job description of the GM is to present the scene to the players such that the game can happen.  This is fundamental, and no amount of "but I might of misunderstood the great GM so it might be my fault" abused-player syndrome reactions will alter that the GM failed you, then failed you again, then punished you for their compounded failures.




> I disagree with the bolded part.  If the PCs are in the kings castle and they find a secret door leading to a room, and when they open the door I describe the dust billowing into the air from the opening of the door, that's not a necessary detail.  I've added it to evoke a sense of how long it has been since anyone has been there.  It's a detail that will, for a great many people, add to the depth and feel of the game.  All that was necessary is to tell them that the door opens.



Does it matter if your players all imagine the dust billowing in different way?  I mean, if we're going to stay on topic.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:
			
		

> What I find strange about this is that the clothes are important enough (and I would assume colorful enough) to be noticeable and yet the actual colors have never been commented on by other players, NPC's, etc. I just find that weird does everyone just comment using the word colorful?




Well, yes, of course, because any further commentary would be getting away from "conversation" and into "literary" and, well, no one ever wants that level of detail at their table, do they?


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Right, but the argument wasn't skipping key details, it was, in fact, about non-key details not being those that can be elided or glossed.  You presented scenarios where key details were left out as if it was countering this claim, when it was part of the claim that the focus should be on those details necessary for the character to engage the challenge.  You argued against an argument not made.
> 
> 
> Yes, you countered a post about how players imagining unnecessary specifics in different ways isn't an issue with presenting how you imagined key, necessary details differently from your GM and how he was a jerk about it.  Totally not the same thing.  The argument that it's okay to imagine necessary, key, sufficient details differently was not made, but you've argued that one down very well.




This is what he said.

"Somewhat contra [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], it often doesn't matter at all if the players think different things about the fiction."

Where in there does it specify non-key details?  It doesn't.  He was very general with his claim.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> This is what he said.
> 
> "Somewhat contra [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], it often doesn't matter at all if the players think different things about the fiction."
> 
> Where in there does it specify non-key details?  It doesn't.  He was very general with his claim.




Seriously.  :|

Okay, I suppose your point in the last few threads was: "[t]he thing is, those times where it doesn't matter.......don't matter."  This looks like perfect agreement with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], so we're done here?  Or, maybe, is there a lot more than a single line in your posts and the rest might have some context or expansion of the idea?  I wouldn't want to strawman your argument by taking a single line out of of the larger argument you made and treat it as if it stands entirely on it's own.  That would be a bad look.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Seriously.  :|
> 
> Okay, I suppose your point in the last few threads was: "[t]he thing is, those times where it doesn't matter.......don't matter."  This looks like perfect agreement with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], so we're done here?  Or, maybe, is there a lot more than a single line in your posts and the rest might have some context or expansion of the idea?  I wouldn't want to strawman your argument by taking a single line out of of the larger argument you made and treat it as if it stands entirely on it's own.  That would be a bad look.




Way to deliberately ignore the important part of my post.  You know, in your first response to me it actually sounded as if you might debate this one in good faith.  I should have known better.


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> /snip
> 
> Clearly one can narrate and describe without caring about that stuff, and therefore without aiming at literary quality. People do it all the time, when they talk about what happened in their day, or a person they met; or when they speculate about how they would like to spend tomorrow, or what sort of person they would like to meet. It's not just that looking at an everyday conversation, or an IKEA instruction manual, through the lens of a New Yorker critic would lead to an unflattering review - it would be a category error, because those things aren't intended to be works of art, not even amateur or kitsch ones./snip




So, we're right back to literary = high art.  Ok.  Again, I ONE HUNDRED PERCENT agree with you as does everyone else in this thread.

 Why do you keep trying to present it as something else then?

This thread just keeps circling around and around because, when I agree with you, you say, "Nope, that's not what I mean."  So, what do you mean?  "Well, I mean literary=high art".  Ok, then I agree with you, and so does everyone else here, RPG's aren't high art.   "But, that's not what I mean."  So, what do you mean?  "Well, I mean literary=high art" 

ARRGGGHH.


----------



## pemerton

pemerton said:


> I didn't, and don't, think that that is uncontentious. That's why I started a discussion about it!





Imaro said:


> I think that is contentious



I assume you're not meaning that it's contentious that I think it's not uncontentious. Rather, I take it you're agreeing with me that it's not uncontentious.



pemerton said:


> A boardgame like Descent or the 4e based boardgames are based around calls to action... videogames are based around a call to action



Boardgames don't call to action at all! There is no protagonism in a board game.

To put it at its crudest, boardgames are about mathematics, not passion.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> So where is the line you can point to and say, "This is literary quality, but that isn't?"  As far as I can tell, there isn't one, which makes "literary quality" something that exists in the eye of the beholder, which could include just about anything written.



I don't need to point to a line to make the point that "just about anything written" is not the criterion used by any reviewer in deciding what to review.

And one can't point to a line: for instance, before the invention of reliable, reproducable type I don't think that _layout_ was one of the formal qulaities by which literature was judged. But clearly, over the past century or so, it has become one aspect of literary presentation.

More generally, what counts as literary quality is always changing - that's one funciton of the avant garde.

But none of this means that we can't use a conception of literary quality and express a view as to whether or not it is core to RPGing to aim at it. Is it core to RPGing to aim at the sorts of featurs that generate praise in literary or theatrical reviews? My view is no. Other posters in this thread think the answer is yes - that the participants in a RPG should be aiming to entertain one another through performance and narration.

That's a meaningful disagreement, and it doesn't depend on being able to circumscribe literary quality with a bright line.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I don't need to point to a line to make the point that "just about anything written" is not the criterion used by any reviewer in deciding what to review.




No, but "any reviewer" is just giving an opinion on what is quality literary work, not any sort of fact.  One reviewer might not view anything less than the quality of Shakespeare as quality.  Another might view Cat in the Hat as quality literature.  A third might do the same with Mad Magazine.



> And one can't point to a line: for instance, before the invention of reliable, reproducable type I don't think that _layout_ was one of the formal qulaities by which literature was judged. But clearly, over the past century or so, it has become one aspect of literary presentation.
> 
> More generally, what counts as literary quality is always changing - that's one funciton of the avant garde.




It's also subjective.



> But none of this means that we can't use a conception of literary quality and express a view as to whether or not it is core to RPGing to aim at it. Is it core to RPGing to aim at the sorts of featurs that generate praise in literary or theatrical reviews? My view is no. Other posters in this thread think the answer is yes - that the participants in a RPG should be aiming to entertain one another through performance and narration.




Sure, but in the end it's just your opinion on what is quality literature vs. the opinion of someone else.  What is quality to you may not be quality to someone else, and what's quality to a third person may not be quality to you.



> That's a meaningful disagreement, and it doesn't depend on being able to circumscribe literary quality with a bright line.




But without a bright line, literary quality is just about everything written, depending on the person reviewing it.


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> Seriously.  :|
> 
> Okay, I suppose your point in the last few threads was: "[t]he thing is, those times where it doesn't matter.......don't matter."



However, as there's times when it does matter, wouldn't it be best policy to treat these things - clarity of narration, inclusion of all relevant material, and good enough wordsmithery to hold the players' interest - as if they matter all the time and just get them right?


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Equivocation requires intent.  It's an attempt to conceal the truth, which requires the intent to conceal the truth, or to avoid committing, which requires the intent to avoid committing.  There's no way around it.  A wrong conclusion is just a wrong conclusion without other intent to change things.



As I posted upthread, I don't know what your field is. I don't know how many logic or philosophy seminars you have attended.

But the standard word used to describe a fallacious or sophistic argument that superficially appears valid, but in fact is not valid because a key term carries different meanings in different sentences of the argument, is _equivocation_. And the cognate verb is _equivocate_.

That is what [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] and [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] are talking about.

The fact that you don't notice that you're doing it doesn't make your argument any more valid.


----------



## Riley37

"Is it core to RPGing to aim at the sorts of featurs that generate praise in literary or theatrical reviews? My view is no. Other posters in this thread think the answer is yes - that the participants in a RPG should be aiming to entertain one another through performance and narration."

Whoah. "Is X equal to pi? I say no. Is X equal to three? Others say yes. Therefore there is disagreement."

I aim to entertain my fellow players through performance and narration, and by other means (mainly humor). I want us all to enjoy the session. As a GM, I've occasionally scripted a scene description which might rate passably well in an amateur compilation, though not from a mainstream publisher. I've used foreshadowing - that's a literary device, right? (One time, several players wanted to run short start-of-session intro scenes, to introduce characters or other elements for stories which they'd run when it was their turn to DM; so the main DM declared the following session "National Foreshadowing Day", and we spent the evening on those intro scenes, giving the main GM a one-session break from running his story arc.)

I do not aim to earn a four star literary or theatrical review from the New York Times.

I don't even aim for the "Critical Role" goal of producing something of interest and value to others, *beyond those at the table*.

Musical analogy: I used to regularly attend folk music and sea shanty gatherings. Occasionally I would lead a song, soloing the verses with everyone else joining the chorus. I aspired to help the gathering have a good time together. I was not performing studio quality work for recording, nor for review by music critics. My singing voice got better with practice, and my fellows encouraged me, but my singing will never generate praise in a review.


----------



## Riley37

"Boardgames don't call to action at all! There is no protagonism in a board game.
 - 
"I gather that you've never played "Wrath of Ashardalon".
 - 
One time I played "Zombies!" at a game store. The game ends when (a) the helipad tile is played into the board map and (b) one character (one player's figure) boards the helicopter, escaping the scenario. I got my figure adjacent to the helicopter - then stayed adjacent, on the grounds that my character was calling to the other surviving humans: "I'm holding off as long as I can! Hurry to the helicopter before the zombies swarm the helipad!" Because my plastic pawn, dammit, was not a selfish scumbag who would abandon others to the zombie horde, not when there was hope of sharing survival. My plastic pawn was a Mahayanist, determined to use that helicopter as a greater vehicle, carrying more than one person to salvation. (As it happens, the game has an alternate victory condition, destroying 25 zombies, and someone won the game with a grenade killtacular, foiling my plan.)
 - 
If you cannot imagine someone breathing protagonism into a boardgame token, then what are you doing among TRPGers? THAT'S HOW ALL THIS GOT STARTED!


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> If anyone with professional background in philosophy, wants to weigh in here, I am all ears.



That's been done. You're correct.



Bedrockgames said:


> I really don't think people understand the degree to which this kind of equivocation is a problem in gaming discussions.



There seems to be an underlying assumption by some posters that any disagreement must be the result of having confused the definition of our terms, and that if only those could be sorted out then everyone would see that what is being said is true or false.

Or, to put it differently, there seems to be some sort of reluctance to recognise and talk about actual differences of opinion.

Hussar seems to be an example, because he keeps insisting that he agrees with me whereas it seems obvious to me, and must be obvious to anyone else who's read this thread, that he has a very different view from me about what is important in RPGing:



Hussar said:


> So, we're right back to literary = high art.



No.

Not everything the New Yorker reviews is high art.

Not everything that aspires to literary quality achieves it. So even things that aspire to be high art don't always make it.

You have said, quite plainly, that GMs should endeavour to give evocative or literarily pleasing narrations. You have also said that players should be aiming to entertain other participants with their evocative and engaging performances. To put it more genreally, you have said that RPG participants should keep in mind the literary quality of their narration, and aim at it being good. Of course you recognise that _success_ will probably be mixed.

That is what I'm disagreeing with when I say that RPGing is not a literary endeavour, that it doesn't aim at literary virtues, that _situation_ and the call to action, rather than _beauty_ or _wordcraft_, is central.

I can cash this out by reference to rulebooks if you like. The 2nd ed AD&D PHB says that a player should try to bring his/her PC to life by entertaining portrayal and characterisation eg does s/he smell? does s/he belch? does s/he finger her prayer beads in moments of indecision? Unlesss I've badly misunderstood you, you agree with this.

Whereas my claim is that that advice is at best tangential, and at worst actively bad, if we want excellent, exciting, engaging, RPGing.

Or an example that came up in this thread. [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] said that a RPG gets better if the GM narrates the dust from the opening of the secret door, adding to the "depth and feel of the game". A lot of GM advice manuals say simiar things. Whereas, as I posted upthread, my advice to a GM on how to add to the depth and feel of the game would be very different: work on your situations, and your consequences, and let the narrative details take care of themselves.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> What I find strange about this is that the clothes are important enough (and I would assume colorful enough) to be noticeable and yet the actual colors have never been commented on by other players, NPC's, etc.  I just find that weird does everyone just comment using the word colorful?





Hussar said:


> Well, yes, of course, because any further commentary would be getting away from "conversation" and into "literary" and, well, no one ever wants that level of detail at their table, do they?



What do you mean by "everyone just comments"?

The character sheet records "colourful clothes". I don't think any PC or NPC has ever commented on this _as portrayed at the table_. (Maybe they've talked about it off-screen - who knows.) It's not surprising that an entertainer should wear colourful clothes - I rewatched The Seventh Seal the other evening, and the actors/acrobats wore colourful clothes (evident even in black and white) and no other character commented on it.

In our most recent session the player thought about having the character try to do something sneaky, but the fact that she was wearing colourful clothes made that seem like a bad plan, so she did something else instead.

The actual colour of the clothes doesn't seem that important to me. That different participants envisage them differently doesn't seem to matter. (Suppose the player specified _red and orange_. The players might envisage different shades; or differnt patterns on the garment. Do we need a portrait - with front and rear views, etc - of everything that we care about in the game?)


----------



## hawkeyefan

Edited. Corrected post below.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> Way to deliberately ignore the important part of my post.  You know, in your first response to me it actually sounded as if you might debate this one in good faith.  I should have known better.




Which part was the important part?  I figured it was the question, but that question is based on the strawman argument you've shortened [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s points down into.  And the response to that question is literally go re-read [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s post again and try not to strawman it -- he answers your question quite well.

Why is it you feel that you can ignore large parts of people's posts and that this is engaging in good faith but when people engage the lack of your understanding due to this ignoring, we're suddenly arguing in bad faith?  Or are you just tone policing?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> Here's the part you bolded:
> 
> Ok, now, show me.  How do you describe an orc or a githyanki without any attempt at literary quality.
> 
> I'd say that it's equally important that not only does the narration offered by the GM make the players feel compelled to act AND it immerses them in the setting, allowing them to have clear, compelling mental images of what's going on.
> 
> So, again, without ANY of what you are calling literary quality, describe an orc or a goblin in such a way that the players feel compelled to act AND differentiate between the two encounters.




I don’t think description is the basis for a strive for literary quality. Description is essential to the interaction between GM and player....so I think it’s obvious that we’re talking about something more, no? I think that saying something clearly and saying something creatively are two different things (although there will be examples that fit both). 

Let’s say you’re in the lobby of a tall building, and someone asked you where is the elevator. You could say “continue straight down this hallway, make your second left, and the elevators will be on the right.”

Or you could gesture to a crowd of folks arriving and say “Follow this pack of suited lemmings until you detect the pungent smell of despair as the tiny bell of doom tolls, letting them know their carriage of lost hope awaits.”

One of these is simple and clear, but offers nothing beyond that clarity. The other is moody and (at least attempting to be) more creative, and offers something about the speaker and his views. And while the second may work in a novel, film, or show (especially something with a tone like Office Space) and may make the audience smile or help them understand the tone of the work, it does almost nothing for the person asking where the elevators are.

To put this back toward RPGing and description.

“The creature you see is humanoid, taller than the average human, and gaunt. It has leathery yellow skin, sunken eyes, and a rictus grin. Its armor is of a style you’ve never seen before. It wields a great silver sword that shines even in the near darkness. The creature scans about for signs of enemies. It does not appear to have noticed you, but it soon may. What do you do?”

This would be my attempt to describe a githyanki clearly to my players, and to establish some action needed on their part. Obviously, I’d expect there to be a hit more context already established through play. Would you deem this insufficient for immersion? Do you think that my description goes beyond mere clarity in an attempt not to just say something, but to say it in a creative way? 

Also, can you provide an example of a bit of narration that aspires to literary quality and does so while still serving as a call to action?


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> Let’s say you’re in the lobby of a tall building, and someone asked you where is the elevator. You could say “continue straight down this hallway, make your second left, and the elevators will be on the right.”
> 
> Or you could gesture to a crowd of folks arriving and say “Follow this pack of suited lemmings until you detect the pungent smell of despair as the tiny bell of doom tolls, letting them know their carriage of lost hope awaits.”
> 
> One of these is simple and clear, but offers nothing beyond that clarity. The other is moody and (at least attempting to be) more creative, and offers something about the speaker and his views. And while the second may work in a novel, film, or show (especially something with a tone like Office Space) and may make the audience smile or help them understand the tone of the work, it does almost nothing for the person asking where the elevators are.




The second isn't a literary answer to the question, which is probably why it does almost nothing for the person asking where the elevators are.  Perhaps if you come up with an example that has both the increased literary quality AND answers the question, we can figure out which is better, worse, or whatever.  Until then, these examples don't help us with this discussion.



> “The creature you see is humanoid, taller than the average human, and gaunt. It has leathery yellow skin, sunken eyes, and a rictus grin. Its armor is of a style you’ve never seen before. It wields a great silver sword that shines even in the near darkness. The creature scans about for signs of enemies. It does not appear to have noticed you, but it soon may. What do you do?”
> 
> This would be my attempt to describe a githyanki clearly to my players, and to establish some action needed on their part. Obviously, I’d expect there to be a hit more context already established through play. Would you deem this insufficient for immersion? Do you think that my description goes beyond mere clarity in an attempt not to just say something, but to say it in a creative way?




I think it's sufficient for immersion and wouldn't require a Q&A session to figure out what it looks like.  I also think it qualifies as literary in quality.  Your description has more literary quality than mine would.  And yes, it goes beyond mere clarity to say something in a creative way.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> The second isn't a literary answer to the question, which is probably why it does almost nothing for the person asking where the elevators are.  Perhaps if you come up with an example that has both the increased literary quality AND answers the question, we can figure out which is better, worse, or whatever.  Until then, these examples don't help us with this discussion.




It does answer the question. Just not in as direct a manner. “Follow these guys in the suits because that’s where they’re going” is an answer to the question. 




Maxperson said:


> I think it's sufficient for immersion and wouldn't require a Q&A session to figure out what it looks like.  I also think it qualifies as literary in quality.  Your description has more literary quality than mine would.  And yes, it goes beyond mere clarity to say something in a creative way.




How so? It is descriptive, yes, but I don’t think it aspires to be more than that. But if you think so, what is it specifically that you feel is an attempt at craft beyond mere communication?


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> It does answer the question. Just not in as direct a manner. “Follow these guys in the suits because that’s where they’re going” is an answer to the question.




So is Alcatraz, but like your example it doesn't answer the question where they are.  It could be an answer to how do you get to the elevator, though.  For example, if I ask you where Los Angeles is, telling me to join the wagon train going west does not tell me where Los Angeles is.  Telling me to get on that airplane over there does not tell me where Los Angeles is.  I didn't ask you how to get there.



> How so? It is descriptive, yes, but I don’t think it aspires to be more than that. But if you think so, what is it specifically that you feel is an attempt at craft beyond mere communication?




The extras.  Describing the grin as rictus, the sword as shining in the near darkness.  Holding a silvery greasword is enough.  Yellow skin is enough.  Adding in leathery is a nice extra touch.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> So is Alcatraz, but like your example it doesn't answer the question where they are.  It could be an answer to how do you get to the elevator, though.  For example, if I ask you where Los Angeles is, telling me to join the wagon train going west does not tell me where Los Angeles is.  Telling me to get on that airplane over there does not tell me where Los Angeles is.  I didn't ask you how to get there.




I feel perhaps this is a bit pedantic. “Where are the elevators?” - “Follow these guys.” It answers the question.



Maxperson said:


> The extras.  Describing the grin as rictus, the sword as shining in the near darkness.  Holding a silvery greasword is enough.  Yellow skin is enough.  Adding in leathery is a nice extra touch.




To me, this is a very low bar then, and I doubt it’s what was in mind with the OP. I feel like including a few adjectives isn’t what we’re talking about. 

That’s why I asked [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] for an example of what he had in mind after providing my some of my own.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> I feel perhaps this is a bit pedantic. “Where are the elevators?” - “Follow these guys.” It answers the question.




It's neither pedantic, nor does it answer the question, except that ANY answer is technically an answer.  "Where are the elevators?" - "Goonygoogoo!"  It's an answer.



> To me, this is a very low bar then, and I doubt it’s what was in mind with the OP. I feel like including a few adjectives isn’t what we’re talking about.




The problem is that the OP doesn't get to decide what is literary quality for anyone but himself.  Some people will have a low bar, others middle, and yet others high.  That's the problem with using terms like literary quality or using personal definition.  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] often kills his own threads by using contentious terms that get people arguing over what the term means, rather than talking about the OP.  If he just described what he liked without using contentious terms, this sort of thing would happen far less frequently.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> It's neither pedantic, nor does it answer the question, except that ANY answer is technically an answer.  "Where are the elevators?" - "Goonygoogoo!"  It's an answer.




As I said, I feel it’s pedantic because I don’t think the distinction you’re making is all that meaningful. Feel free to disagree, but don’t tell me my opinion is wrong. 



Maxperson said:


> The problem is that the OP doesn't get to decide what is literary quality for anyone but himself.  Some people will have a low bar, others middle, and yet others high.  That's the problem with using terms like literary quality or using personal definition.  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] often kills his own threads by using contentious terms that get people arguing over what the term means, rather than talking about the OP.  If he just described what he liked without using contentious terms, this sort of thing would happen far less frequently.




Yes, it’s all a matter of opinion. And though I would agree that a lot of time is wasted on arguing definitions, I think if people look beyond the term and look at what’s said, perhaps we’d get somewhere. This is true of many discussions, and on all of us involved.

So, instead of arguing with me about what would be an answer about the elevators, why don’t you give an example of your own that somehow displays your point? That would be refreshing compared to the constant arguing and “technically it’s this” stuff that you continue to bring up.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> As I said, I feel it’s pedantic because I don’t think the distinction you’re making is all that meaningful. Feel free to disagree, but don’t tell me my opinion is wrong.




So opinions aren't something sacred.  You can be wrong with one. For example, if you felt that the sun was a cold, dark ball of ice.  You are free to feel that the distinction isn't that meaningful, but that won't make me pedantic 

To the example.  

Me: "Excuse me, but would you please tell me where the elevator is?"

You: "Follow those lemmings."

Me: ::begins following the lemmings, but accidentally drops my cell phone on the way.   Stopping to pick up my phone, I lose sight of the lemmings.::  "Crap!  Now what?"

Had you answered my question, I would still be able to get to the elevator.  Since you didn't answer it, I'm forced to ask someone else where it is.  The difference between being able to find the elevator and not being able to find the elevator is a pretty darn meaningful distinction.



> Yes, it’s all a matter of opinion. And though I would agree that a lot of time is wasted on arguing definitions, I think if people look beyond the term and look at what’s said, perhaps we’d get somewhere. This is true of many discussions, and on all of us involved.
> 
> So, instead of arguing with me about what would be an answer about the elevators, why don’t you give an example of your own that somehow displays your point? That would be refreshing compared to the constant arguing and “technically it’s this” stuff that you continue to bring up.




1. You see a staff on the ground.

2. You see a carved ironwood staff on the ground.

3. You see an ancient ironwood staff on the ground.  From here you can tell that there are carvings of little figures along the length of the staff and that the staff is capped by a blue stone.

4. You see an ancient ironwood lying on the ground as if casually tossed aside.  Along it's dark, lustrous length are carved thousands of tiny figures that are engaged in battle with one another. Here and there the staff has been notched in battle, marring the battle scene.  Atop the ironwood staff is a brilliant blue star sapphire. 

All 4 of those get to the same point.  However, they progressively give more and more information about the staff that is before the PCs.  I typically go back and forth between 2 and 3 for the amount of detail I give, depending on what it is I am describing.  Occasionally, especially for magic items or pieces of artwork or antiques of value, I will go with 4.


----------



## Hussar

pemerton said:


> That's been done. You're correct.
> 
> There seems to be an underlying assumption by some posters that any disagreement must be the result of having confused the definition of our terms, and that if only those could be sorted out then everyone would see that what is being said is true or false.
> 
> Or, to put it differently, there seems to be some sort of reluctance to recognise and talk about actual differences of opinion.
> 
> Hussar seems to be an example, because he keeps insisting that he agrees with me whereas it seems obvious to me, and must be obvious to anyone else who's read this thread, that he has a very different view from me about what is important in RPGing:
> 
> No.
> 
> Not everything the New Yorker reviews is high art.
> 
> Not everything that aspires to literary quality achieves it. So even things that aspire to be high art don't always make it.
> /snip




Oh, FFS, after all the criticisms of "equivocation" we have one of the biggest waffles of all.  Good grief, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION].  "Oh, RPG language doesn't aspire to be good enough to be reviewed in the New Yorker", sure, great, I agree.  "Oh, no, not everything in the New Yorker is literary that gets reviewed."  Round and round and round.  Total and complete baloney.

Yeah, what a freaking waste of time.  You're not even trying to hide that you are no longer arguing in good faith.


----------



## Hussar

hawkeyefan said:


> /snip
> 
> “The creature you see is humanoid, taller than the average human, and gaunt. It has leathery yellow skin, sunken eyes, and a rictus grin. Its armor is of a style you’ve never seen before. It wields a great silver sword that shines even in the near darkness. The creature scans about for signs of enemies. It does not appear to have noticed you, but it soon may. What do you do?”
> 
> This would be my attempt to describe a githyanki clearly to my players, and to establish some action needed on their part. Obviously, I’d expect there to be a hit more context already established through play. Would you deem this insufficient for immersion? Do you think that my description goes beyond mere clarity in an attempt not to just say something, but to say it in a creative way?
> 
> Also, can you provide an example of a bit of narration that aspires to literary quality and does so while still serving as a call to action?




I would call that a literary description.  You are certainly using several words that would almost never appear in conversation - "gaunt" "rictus", "scans about" "wields".  I mean, "rictus", as far as I an tell, doesn't even appear in the top 10000 of most common English words.  Nor does "gaunt".  These are quite obviously words that would only appear in writing (or close enough to only that it can see only on a clear day).  Which, to me, qualifies it as an attempt at "literary" rather than conversation.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> So opinions aren't something sacred.  You can be wrong with one. For example, if you felt that the sun was a cold, dark ball of ice.  You are free to feel that the distinction isn't that meaningful, but that won't make me pedantic
> 
> To the example.
> 
> Me: "Excuse me, but would you please tell me where the elevator is?"
> 
> You: "Follow those lemmings."
> 
> Me: ::begins following the lemmings, but accidentally drops my cell phone on the way.   Stopping to pick up my phone, I lose sight of the lemmings.::  "Crap!  Now what?"
> 
> Had you answered my question, I would still be able to get to the elevator.  Since you didn't answer it, I'm forced to ask someone else where it is.  The difference between being able to find the elevator and not being able to find the elevator is a pretty darn meaningful distinction.




The same thing could happen with the first example if you didn’t know your left from your right. But regardless, this is exactly the kind of discussion I think distracts from the main point. I’m going to assume you understood my point and move on. 



Maxperson said:


> 1. You see a staff on the ground.
> 
> 2. You see a carved ironwood staff on the ground.
> 
> 3. You see an ancient ironwood staff on the ground.  From here you can tell that there are carvings of little figures along the length of the staff and that the staff is capped by a blue stone.
> 
> 4. You see an ancient ironwood lying on the ground as if casually tossed aside.  Along it's dark, lustrous length are carved thousands of tiny figures that are engaged in battle with one another. Here and there the staff has been notched in battle, marring the battle scene.  Atop the ironwood staff is a brilliant blue star sapphire.
> 
> All 4 of those get to the same point.  However, they progressively give more and more information about the staff that is before the PCs.  I typically go back and forth between 2 and 3 for the amount of detail I give, depending on what it is I am describing.  Occasionally, especially for magic items or pieces of artwork or antiques of value, I will go with 4.




So does length equal literary quality? There doesn’t appear to be anything different to me about these other than their length. None seem to be attempting anything other than describing the item.

So again, I’d say that mere description doesn’t quite equal what’s being discussed. Having four details rather than one simply makes a description more detailed rather than more artistic.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> So does length equal literary quality? There doesn’t appear to be anything different to me about these other than their length. None seem to be attempting anything other than describing the item.
> 
> So again, I’d say that mere description doesn’t quite equal what’s being discussed. Having four details rather than one simply makes a description more detailed rather than more artistic.




The description alters interest in many, if not most people.  I've seen a lot of people who will ignore a staff on the ground, fewer who will ignore description #2, and very, very few who will ignore one described with #3 or 4.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> I would call that a literary description.  You are certainly using several words that would almost never appear in conversation - "gaunt" "rictus", "scans about" "wields".  I mean, "rictus", as far as I an tell, doesn't even appear in the top 10000 of most common English words.  Nor does "gaunt".  These are quite obviously words that would only appear in writing (or close enough to only that it can see only on a clear day).  Which, to me, qualifies it as an attempt at "literary" rather than conversation.




So rarity of word use makes something literary? I don’t agree with that at all. 

The description isn’t a bad one by any means. Again, this goes back to “non-literary does not equal bland”. All it attempts to do is describe the creature to the players.

What about the elevator example that you snipped? What did you think of that? 

If the description itself contained attempts at creativity or art, then I think that’s what would be an attempt at literary quality. 

To put it another way, let’s say two kids ride their skateboard to the store, a few blocks from where they live. One kid simply rides there, avoiding hazards and navigating the streets and sidewalks and all the obstacles. Still takes skill, right?

The other kid makes the same trip but includes a bunch of tricks along the way....he ollies from the curb over a pothole and railgrinds along the back of a bench and does a bunch of kickflips and so on. 

Both kids make the same trip, both trips still require skill, but one is straightforward....the destination is all that matters. For the other, how the destination is reached is just as or probably more important than the destination.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> The description alters interest in many, if not most people.  I've seen a lot of people who will ignore a staff on the ground, fewer who will ignore description #2, and very, very few who will ignore one described with #3 or 4.




I’d expect that to be so, bit I don’t think that really has to do with the literary merit of the description. It’s more about the length of the description and the meta aspect of it. “Oh the DM wouldn’t focus on the staff so much if it wasn’t important.”


----------



## Imaro

[MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]...  can you just give an example of what you feel would be literary?? I'm not certain your and   [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 's idea of literary line up since he claimed I seemed to understand it and my understanding was non-conversational, evocative description.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> I’d expect that to be so, bit I don’t think that really has to do with the literary merit of the description. It’s more about the length of the description and the meta aspect of it. “Oh the DM wouldn’t focus on the staff so much if it wasn’t important.”




It's not about the length or the meta.  It's about the language.  The meta COULD come into play, but if it does, it's in addition to the interest generated by the language.

Here.

Description #1.  There's a long, thick, hard, round, six foot, brown wooden staff on the ground.

Description #2.  There's an intricately carved feywood staff on the ground.

#1 is both accurate and longer than #2, but #2 will capture more interest.


----------



## Hussar

hawkeyefan said:


> So rarity of word use makes something literary? I don’t agree with that at all.
> 
> The description isn’t a bad one by any means. Again, this goes back to “non-literary does not equal bland”. All it attempts to do is describe the creature to the players.
> 
> What about the elevator example that you snipped? What did you think of that?
> 
> If the description itself contained attempts at creativity or art, then I think that’s what would be an attempt at literary quality.
> 
> To put it another way, let’s say two kids ride their skateboard to the store, a few blocks from where they live. One kid simply rides there, avoiding hazards and navigating the streets and sidewalks and all the obstacles. Still takes skill, right?
> 
> The other kid makes the same trip but includes a bunch of tricks along the way....he ollies from the curb over a pothole and railgrinds along the back of a bench and does a bunch of kickflips and so on.
> 
> Both kids make the same trip, both trips still require skill, but one is straightforward....the destination is all that matters. For the other, how the destination is reached is just as or probably more important than the destination.




Actually, if you don't mind, I'm going to stick with the Githyanki example because it hits pretty much exactly the point I'm trying to make.  

Remember, the basic point is we're comparing "literary" (for a given value of literary) to conversation . Which, that allows for a more objective comparison because we know, or at least have a pretty good idea, of what is considered conversational English and what isn't.  While it might not be up to New Yorker standards, your Githyanki example is very much outside the realm of conversational English.

By and large, about 95% (or a bit more actually) of conversational English is made up of about 5000 words.  ((It's actually closer to about 98%))  To give a good comparison, the New York Times generally hits about 93% of the first 2000 words and about 99% of the first 5000.  So, if your sentence contains words outside of those first 5000, you are already outside the realm of conversation.

Now, here's the quote again:



> “The creature you see is humanoid, taller than the average human, and gaunt. It has leathery yellow skin, sunken eyes, and a rictus grin. Its armor is of a style you’ve never seen before. It wields a great silver sword that shines even in the near darkness. The creature scans about for signs of enemies. It does not appear to have noticed you, but it soon may. What do you do?”




That's, by my count, 72 words.  Of those 72 words, 6 do not appear in the first 5000 word list (COCA Corpus), "humanoid, gaunt, leathery (although leather does, so, you might count that one), sunken, rictus, wield).  So, 10% of your words would almost never appear in any normal conversation.  That places you at a higher complexity than the New York times.   Also, your choice of words - wield, gaunt, scans for signs - are all geared towards evoking specific responses from the audience.  This isn't conversation English.  We use words like "wield" in fantasy novels.  It's telling that you say "scans for signs" not "looks".  

This is a perfect example of how RPGing is not conversational and stripping the higher language out of the descriptions would result in a flat, boring experience.  "The human shaped person, taller than average, is thin.  It has rough, yellow skin and bags under its eyes and a scary smile.  It's armor is of a style you've never seen before.  I has a great silver sword that is shiny in the low light.  It looks around for enemies.  It does not look like it has noticed you but, it might soon.  What do you do?"

That's a lot less evocative than your first paragraph, but, is far closer to conversational English.


----------



## Bedrockgames

I don’t know, if my GM uttered the words ‘Rictus grin’, I think someone might punch him in the mouth. I get that you want those kinds of description. Personally I find that kind of affected style very off putting in a live game


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> I don’t know, if my GM uttered the words ‘Rictus grin’, I think someone might punch him in the mouth. I get that you want those kinds of description. Personally I find that kind of affected style very off putting in a live game




But, by the same token BRG, would you be surprised to see such a description in a module?  Would it be terribly unusual?  And, would you not at least agree that using a word like "rictus grin" is more evocative than "scary smile"?

Look, I get that you don't want a lot of "flowery" language in your games, but, I imagine that if I were to actually tape your sessions, you would find a lot more non-conversational level language during the session than you might think.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> But, by the same token BRG, would you be surprised to see such a description in a module?  Would it be terribly unusual?




I wouldn't be surprised to see it in boxed text. I don't think it is as useful to GMs or as suited to the medium as a lot of people believe it is, and there are plenty of modules that avoid this kind of language. But yes, it is certainly the kind of thing that crops up in modules (particularly mainstream modules)



> And, would you not at least agree that using a word like "rictus grin" is more evocative than "scary smile"?




No I wouldn't and I will explain why. What passes for evocative in a novel is different from what passes for evocative in conversation. Yes you can be evocative in conversational English, but trying to ape a narrator's voice is probably one of the worst ways to be evocative in conversation. They are different mediums. Novels work well for that kind of description but in conversation, if you talk that way, it just sounds silly and artificial. Some groups do talk in this way. And like I said, some GM's can pull of sounding like Vincent Price, but I think by and large you are better off speaking in your natural voice, with your natural vocabulary. 




> Look, I get that you don't want a lot of "flowery" language in your games, but, I imagine that if I were to actually tape your sessions, you would find a lot more non-conversational level language during the session than you might think.




Well, I don't know. Gamers tend to have a pretty good vocabulary. And my group is from Boston so we talk a certain kind of way here. But at the end of the day, even if evocative language crops up naturally in the conversation, I'd argue there is a big difference between this style and the one you and Maxperson appear to be advocating (which is pretty much modeling GM talk after boxed text). I generally talk in a style that is not affected. I speak modern, Boston colloquial English when I am GMing. I will say things like "This guy is ugly as hell". And over the years I've gotten more comfortable talking this way in play. But again, I am a gamer, and I am from Boston, so higher level vocabulary works its way in. That doesn't mean I am trying to emulate literature. It just means my natural way of talking includes certain words. But if you analyzed my narration, I am pretty sure it wouldn't come off as literary in terms of structure, word selection, efficiency, etc. I am not sculpting words the way an author does.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Description #1.  There's a long, thick, hard, round, six foot, brown wooden staff on the ground.
> 
> Description #2.  There's an intricately carved feywood staff on the ground.
> 
> #1 is both accurate and longer than #2, but #2 will capture more interest.




But that is totally dependent on the player. I keep seeing you assert 'description x is more y'. I know from experience, and from trying to talk in the style of #2 to my players, many players are less interested in 2 than they are in 1. Some players are a little more analytical and they want the kind of details you have in 1 (and they don't particularly care how well crafted your description is of the feywood). Others want something with a lot of flavor. Description 1 arguably contains more useful information. Not saying it is better or worse. But that is at least one reason it might capture the interest of some players more than description 2.


----------



## Hussar

I would argue that it's "many players that I play with" than "players".  

And, frankly, taking you at your word, that you use nothing but bog standard colloquial English, unadorned, sounds really sad and boring.  I'd much rather just play a board game if we're not going to actually make any effort to inject any attempt to use anything other than every day language.  I'm sure it works for you, and that's groovy, but, I'm going to say that it would not work for me or mine, nor would you be able to sell any RPG's using that language.

I mean, good grief, Gygaxian is actually looked on as a good thing.    The 1e DMG is still held up as the epitome of RPG writing.  And that's as far from conversational English as you can get.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> @_*hawkeyefan*_...  can you just give an example of what you feel would be literary?? I'm not certain your and   @_*pemerton*_ 's idea of literary line up since he claimed I seemed to understand it and my understanding was non-conversational, evocative description.




I’m sure mine and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]’s ideas don’t exactly match, no. But that’s fine. I don’t entirely agree with his premise, but I understand it, and I think he has a point. But I’m only speaking for myself. 

I think I’ve given examples at this point. I don’t think describing something is enough....I think that the way its described has to matter. Focus on the how more than the what.

So a description that lists the physical traits of a creature (even a fantastical creature that necessitates some level of fantastic description) isn’t, to me, what’s being cited. Some attempt for the description itself to have meaning of some sort beyond the description. Use if metaphor or symbolism and the like...other literary devices being used or established through the narration.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> It's not about the length or the meta.  It's about the language.  The meta COULD come into play, but if it does, it's in addition to the interest generated by the language.
> 
> Here.
> 
> Description #1.  There's a long, thick, hard, round, six foot, brown wooden staff on the ground.
> 
> Description #2.  There's an intricately carved feywood staff on the ground.
> 
> #1 is both accurate and longer than #2, but #2 will capture more interest.




I honestly don’t see a meaningful difference between the two. Is it “intricately carved” that’s the difference? Or “feywood”? I suppose that could be a bit more meaningful because it’s some kind of fantastic material that hints at some kind of setting element, or at least seems to.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> Actually, if you don't mind, I'm going to stick with the Githyanki example because it hits pretty much exactly the point I'm trying to make.
> 
> Remember, the basic point is we're comparing "literary" (for a given value of literary) to conversation . Which, that allows for a more objective comparison because we know, or at least have a pretty good idea, of what is considered conversational English and what isn't.  While it might not be up to New Yorker standards, your Githyanki example is very much outside the realm of conversational English.
> 
> By and large, about 95% (or a bit more actually) of conversational English is made up of about 5000 words.  ((It's actually closer to about 98%))  To give a good comparison, the New York Times generally hits about 93% of the first 2000 words and about 99% of the first 5000.  So, if your sentence contains words outside of those first 5000, you are already outside the realm of conversation.
> 
> Now, here's the quote again:
> 
> 
> 
> That's, by my count, 72 words.  Of those 72 words, 6 do not appear in the first 5000 word list (COCA Corpus), "humanoid, gaunt, leathery (although leather does, so, you might count that one), sunken, rictus, wield).  So, 10% of your words would almost never appear in any normal conversation.  That places you at a higher complexity than the New York times.   Also, your choice of words - wield, gaunt, scans for signs - are all geared towards evoking specific responses from the audience.  This isn't conversation English.  We use words like "wield" in fantasy novels.  It's telling that you say "scans for signs" not "looks".
> 
> This is a perfect example of how RPGing is not conversational and stripping the higher language out of the descriptions would result in a flat, boring experience.  "The human shaped person, taller than average, is thin.  It has rough, yellow skin and bags under its eyes and a scary smile.  It's armor is of a style you've never seen before.  I has a great silver sword that is shiny in the low light.  It looks around for enemies.  It does not look like it has noticed you but, it might soon.  What do you do?"
> 
> That's a lot less evocative than your first paragraph, but, is far closer to conversational English.




Again, I don’t think how common a word may be really matters. A few uncommon words to describe something totally alien and you consider that a concerted attempt at craft? I just don’t see it.

I do think the game is a conversation...what else would it be? Is it a speech? A recitation? A soliloquy? 

No. It’s a conversation. But it’s not a conversation about everyday things. Most games contain some kind of fantastic element or at the very least some very far from ordinary elements. So the conversation will reflect that. I mean, we’re talking about a thing called a githyanki. 

My description of the githyanki is not devoid of flavor. I’ll go back to the point about there being a range of quality, and that something that’s not of high literary quality isn’t just poop in a bag. But the description is far from an attempt at an artistic endeavor. A couple of adjectives don’t really cut it. That description took no more thought than the time it took me to type it, or that it would have taken to say it. 

But I’m beginning to see why we’re all having a hard time coming to a consensus....it’s because we actually seem to have one, it’s just that what I see as pretty basic communication, you’re viewing as carefully wrought wordplay.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> Yeah, what a freaking waste of time.  You're not even trying to hide that you are no longer arguing in good faith.



Hussar, I feel the shoe is on the other foot.

Why won't you engage with the fact that _you disagree with me_? Go back to your example of the dwarf, or of the Scarred Land Monster. Why do you think that entertaining descriptions are an important part of RPGing?

EDIT: And here is more evidence of disagreement:



Hussar said:


> And, frankly, taking you at your word, that you use nothing but bog standard colloquial English, unadorned, sounds really sad and boring.  I'd much rather just play a board game if we're not going to actually make any effort to inject any attempt to use anything other than every day language.



Here you assert exactly what the OP denies. So instead of quibbling over the way the OP is framed, why don't you elaborate on this.

I'll give you my response: I've sat in game that involved English other than "bog standard colloquial . . . every day language". And they sucked, because (i) I could get better versions of such by reading LotrR or REH Conan or Stan's Soapbox in an old Marvel Comic, and (ii) the actual thing I'd come there to do - play a character in a RPG - wasn't happening because the GM's situations sucked.

You appear to prioritise things differntly. Please say more about that.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> But that is totally dependent on the player. I keep seeing you assert 'description x is more y'. I know from experience, and from trying to talk in the style of #2 to my players, many players are less interested in 2 than they are in 1. Some players are a little more analytical and they want the kind of details you have in 1 (and they don't particularly care how well crafted your description is of the feywood). Others want something with a lot of flavor. Description 1 arguably contains more useful information. Not saying it is better or worse. But that is at least one reason it might capture the interest of some players more than description 2.




I'm not talking in absolutes.  However, in 35+ years of gaming with more than 100 different people, I can't remember anyone who would rather hear, "There's a long, thick, hard, round, six foot, brown wooden staff on the ground." than "There's an intricately carved feywood staff on the ground."   I imagine you aren't the only one, but I'm pretty confident that you are in a small minority of people if you prefer #1 over #1, especially since #2 is conversational English.  Other than feywood, which would be a setting specific wood, there's nothing there that isn't conversational.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> I do think the game is a conversation...what else would it be? Is it a speech? A recitation? A soliloquy?
> 
> No. It’s a conversation. But it’s not a conversation about everyday things. Most games contain some kind of fantastic element or at the very least some very far from ordinary elements. So the conversation will reflect that. I mean, we’re talking about a thing called a githyanki.




Hey, if all it takes to be using conversational English is to use it in a conversation, then even the most high quality literary language used in an RPG counts as conversational.  

It's pretty well understood that when people here have been discussing conversational English, they mean using the simple words and not the ones that fall outside of normal, everyday conversation.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> I’m sure mine and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]’s ideas don’t exactly match, no. But that’s fine. I don’t entirely agree with his premise, but I understand it, and I think he has a point. But I’m only speaking for myself.



I would tend to think of "rictus grin" as falling on the literary side of things, as does  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION].

As I've posted, it does no harm _if_ it doesn't impede (what I regard as) the real point of play.

_It has a face like a skull_ might do just as well. I personally can't remember how I've described githyanki in the past - I suspect I'm more likely to have shown a picture, such as the one on the front of the Fiend Folio.

More generally, and feeding this into the current  [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] -  [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] interaction, I think that the role of description in RPGing is easily overestimated. It prioritises _immersive imagination_ orver _protagonistic inhabitation_. Whereas the latter is the distinctive virtue of RPGs as games that are about producing a shared fiction.

All this said, I think you've fully understood my points in this thread, seem to agree at least to some extent, and have made many helpful posts into it for which I thank you.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> Hey, if all it takes to be using conversational English is to use it in a conversation, then even the most high quality literary language used in an RPG counts as conversational.
> 
> It's pretty well understood that when people here have been discussing conversational English, they mean using the simple words and not the ones that fall outside of normal, everyday conversation.




The description is conversational. It’s how you’d tell someone about this sight. Yes, it contains a couple of uncommon words....but I was asked how I’d describe a githyanki to new players. An alien being from another dimension. And you think using a handful of words that are uncommon means I’m shooting for the Pulitzer. Gotcha.

You know how I’d describe it to a group of long time players? “You see a githyanki. It’s looking for enemies, but it hasn’t noticed you yet. What do you do?”


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> But I’m beginning to see why we’re all having a hard time coming to a consensus....it’s because we actually seem to have one, it’s just that what I see as pretty basic communication, you’re viewing as carefully wrought wordplay.



I don't agree that there's a consensus: I can't really tell what [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] thinks, but [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] have made claims about the need for entertaining/evocative narration that I think clearly contradict the position I asserted in the OP.

But one complicating fact pertains to vocabularly: eg I wouldn't regard _cadaverous_ as a word to describe a Githyanki as especially remarkable or a-conversational, but Hussar probably would, and maybe [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] also. What counts as every day vocabularly among a group of RPGers is pretty highly variable and contingent on a range of factors (social background/status, educational levels, occupation, etc). I'm a humanities/social sciene academic (philosophy and law) and many of the people I talk to on a regular basis (ie the people I work with, my students, etc) are lilkewise, or are aspiring to be. So I think my every day vocaublary is probably richer than the New York Times.

This is why I have brought it back to _what are we aiming for_? _What counts as success_, as _good RPGing_? What should a GM focus on?

And I'm saying _situation_ - framing, action, consequence - not _beauty_ or _evocation_ in narration. Whereas those other posters disagree.


----------



## Hussar

hawkeyefan said:


> Again, I don’t think how common a word may be really matters. A few uncommon words to describe something totally alien and you consider that a concerted attempt at craft? I just don’t see it.
> 
> I do think the game is a conversation...what else would it be? Is it a speech? A recitation? A soliloquy?
> 
> No. It’s a conversation. But it’s not a conversation about everyday things. Most games contain some kind of fantastic element or at the very least some very far from ordinary elements. So the conversation will reflect that. I mean, we’re talking about a thing called a githyanki.
> 
> My description of the githyanki is not devoid of flavor. I’ll go back to the point about there being a range of quality, and that something that’s not of high literary quality isn’t just poop in a bag. But the description is far from an attempt at an artistic endeavor. A couple of adjectives don’t really cut it. That description took no more thought than the time it took me to type it, or that it would have taken to say it.
> 
> But I’m beginning to see why we’re all having a hard time coming to a consensus....it’s because we actually seem to have one, it’s just that what I see as pretty basic communication, you’re viewing as carefully wrought wordplay.




Not really.  If you are using language that is above and beyond every day speech, then it's not really a conversation anymore.  Not when you are specifically CHOOSING those words.  Sure, Githyanki is a neologism and obviously is outside the realm of standard conversation.  But, note, your description doesn't actually use that word.  My point is, the words you used are very far outside the realm of standard conversation.  And, it's not a "few" words.  When 10% of your language is outside that standard 5000 words list, you're actually using a very difficult to understand set of words.

Think about it.  If you didn't understand 10% of what someone is saying, would you be able to carry on a coherent conversation?  One word in 10?  That's REALLY high.  Imagine if, when reading the newspaper, you had to stop every tenth word and look it up in a dictionary.  That's WAY beyond every day language.  Now, I realize that as native speakers, our vocabularies are actually considerably greater than 5000 words.  Fair enough.  But, it's still a measure of difficulty.  

That's why I'd argue that the plain English version of your description of a Githyanki is outside the realm of conversation.  It's certainly using language that would virtually never be used in spoken English.  Think about it, outside of a gaming situation, when have you ever used the words "gaunt" or "wield" in a spoken situation.



pemerton said:


> Hussar, I feel the shoe is on the other foot.
> 
> Why won't you engage with the fact that _you disagree with me_? Go back to your example of the dwarf, or of the Scarred Land Monster. Why do you think that entertaining descriptions are an important part of RPGing?
> 
> EDIT: And here is more evidence of disagreement:
> 
> Here you assert exactly what the OP denies. So instead of quibbling over the way the OP is framed, why don't you elaborate on this.
> 
> I'll give you my response: I've sat in game that involved English other than "bog standard colloquial . . . every day language". And they sucked, because (i) I could get better versions of such by reading LotrR or REH Conan or Stan's Soapbox in an old Marvel Comic, and (ii) the actual thing I'd come there to do - play a character in a RPG - wasn't happening because the GM's situations sucked.
> 
> You appear to prioritise things differntly. Please say more about that.




I don't disagree with you [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION].  I 100% agree with you.  Playing an RPG does not require using high art language.  SO, nope, not disagreeing.

And, you say it yourself, the reason the game sucked is because the GM's situations sucked.  Has NOTHING to do with the language used.  Again, EVERYONE 100% agrees with you that content is important.  No one is disagreeing with you.  The only reason this argument is so ongoing is because you keep obfuscating the issues.  Your issue isn't with the language that was being used, but, with the fact that the GM didn't design interesting scenarios.  

Again, well, duh.  Boring situations=bad game.  News at 11!!  Holy crap, stop the presses.  

But, that's not your arguement.  Your argument is that the game sucked because of the higher language used.  But, that's not true.  You need BOTH for a good game.  Same as has been said all the way since the first freaking page.


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> I would tend to think of "rictus grin" as falling on the literary side of things, as does  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION].
> 
> As I've posted, it does no harm _if_ it doesn't impede (what I regard as) the real point of play.
> 
> _It has a face like a skull_ might do just as well. I personally can't remember how I've described githyanki in the past - I suspect I'm more likely to have shown a picture, such as the one on the front of the Fiend Folio.
> 
> More generally, and feeding this into the current  [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] -  [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] interaction, I think that the role of description in RPGing is easily overestimated. It prioritises _immersive imagination_ orver _protagonistic inhabitation_. Whereas the latter is the distinctive virtue of RPGs as games that are about producing a shared fiction.
> 
> All this said, I think you've fully understood my points in this thread, seem to agree at least to some extent, and have made many helpful posts into it for which I thank you.




Skeletal would certainly be plainer language. It’s definitely what I was trying to convey, but rictus popped into my head so I went with it. 

I think description is important, but that the amount of description needed is often exaggerated. I’d even say that literary effort can be great for a game, but probably has to be used sparingly or minimally. But I think I’d agree with you about the priority you place on such when compared to inhabitation.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I don't agree that there's a consensus: I can't really tell what [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] thinks, but [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] have made claims about the need for entertaining/evocative narration that I think clearly contradict the position I asserted in the OP.




For descriptiveness, I think I probably fall in-between you and Imaro/Hussar.  



> But one complicating fact pertains to vocabularly: eg I wouldn't regard _cadaverous_ as a word to describe a Githyanki as especially remarkable or a-conversational, but Hussar probably would, and maybe [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] also. What counts as every day vocabularly among a group of RPGers is pretty highly variable and contingent on a range of factors (social background/status, educational levels, occupation, etc). I'm a humanities/social sciene academic (philosophy and law) and many of the people I talk to on a regular basis (ie the people I work with, my students, etc) are lilkewise, or are aspiring to be. So I think my every day vocaublary is probably richer than the New York Times.




That just puts you and your colleagues beyond the realm of everyday conversational English, though.  The average American reads at the 7th/8th grade level.  For the most part, they aren't going to speak much better than they can read.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> Not really.  If you are using language that is above and beyond every day speech, then it's not really a conversation anymore.  Not when you are specifically CHOOSING those words.  Sure, Githyanki is a neologism and obviously is outside the realm of standard conversation.  But, note, your description doesn't actually use that word.  My point is, the words you used are very far outside the realm of standard conversation.  And, it's not a "few" words.  When 10% of your language is outside that standard 5000 words list, you're actually using a very difficult to understand set of words.
> 
> Think about it.  If you didn't understand 10% of what someone is saying, would you be able to carry on a coherent conversation?  One word in 10?  That's REALLY high.  Imagine if, when reading the newspaper, you had to stop every tenth word and look it up in a dictionary.  That's WAY beyond every day language.  Now, I realize that as native speakers, our vocabularies are actually considerably greater than 5000 words.  Fair enough.  But, it's still a measure of difficulty.
> 
> That's why I'd argue that the plain English version of your description of a Githyanki is outside the realm of conversation.  It's certainly using language that would virtually never be used in spoken English.  Think about it, outside of a gaming situation, when have you ever used the words "gaunt" or "wield" in a spoken situation.




You didn’t understand 10% of the words I used? Of course not...you understood them all. A few (shall we spend a few pages on the technical definition of “few” or will you simply accept my use?) of the words used are uncommon. That doesn’t make them unknown. 

So I’m not going to accept this “10% of the description was useless” because that’s just silly. Honestly....D&D players are gonna balk at the word “wield”? Or “gaunt”? 

Come on.


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> I don't agree that there's a consensus: I can't really tell what [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] thinks, but [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] have made claims about the need for entertaining/evocative narration that I think clearly contradict the position I asserted in the OP.




Yeah I know....that last bit was sarcasm on my part. I know there’s no consensus.



pemerton said:


> This is why I have brought it back to _what are we aiming for_? _What counts as success_, as _good RPGing_? What should a GM focus on?




“What are we aiming for” is probably the best way to look at it. I’d never say “quality prose” ahead of “an interesting game”. I wouldn’t expect that to be universal, but I’m surprised at the amount of support there seems to be for that view.


----------



## Hussar

hawkeyefan said:


> You didn’t understand 10% of the words I used? Of course not...you understood them all. A few (shall we spend a few pages on the technical definition of “few” or will you simply accept my use?) of the words used are uncommon. That doesn’t make them unknown.
> 
> So I’m not going to accept this “10% of the description was useless” because that’s just silly. Honestly....D&D players are gonna balk at the word “wield”? Or “gaunt”?
> 
> Come on.




Sorry, you're right, they aren't unknown.  But, my point being, they aren't what you'd use in conversation either.  Would you actually use the words "wield" or "gaunt" in a conversation?

"A gaunt man wielding a gun robbed a liquor store" is not something you will ever hear in a conversation.  You certainly might hear "A thin man armed with a gun" or "carrying a gun", but "wielding"?  That's not going to be used.

The way I'm seeing it, we've got a spectrum with high art prose on one end (think Tolkien, high Gygaxian, H. P. Lovecraft - if we want to use genre literature) and what you'd hear in a conversation or in the news on the other.  As far as I can tell, [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] is arguing for a level of prose where "an orc with a sword enters the room" is about as much description as he wants.  You gave a Githyanki description that is much further along the scale, as did I with the description of the Vengaurak.  As far as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] goes, I really have no idea where on the scale he's coming down on since he's playing arpeggios up and down the scale so long as he can keep pretending that there is any real disagreement going on.

So, no, it's not "10% of the description was useless".  Sorry, I never meant that as the take away.  Not at all.  It's that the presence of that 10% slides the description away from the "pure conversation" end of the scale and further (and, really, where it's 10% of the words, pretty far actually) down towards the "high art" end of the scale.


----------



## Riley37

pemerton said:


> Why won't you engage with the fact that _you disagree with me_?




Maybe because you have not made any assertions which are (a) sufficiently concrete for falsification testing (Karl Popper style) and (b) in contrast with any assertions from Hussar.

You said in the OP that TRPG is not a literary endeavor. I asked, on the first page: if it is, then what? if not, then what?

100+ pages later, have you answered my question?

Hussar has said (if I understand correctly) that he prefers TRPG which includes descriptive prose which goes beyond bog-standard conversation in the core 2000 vocabulary.

You have stated that YOU have participated in games with flowery prose and YOU have not enjoyed them. Perhaps you and BRG would be happy at each other's tables.

You haven't yet made a concrete, falsification-testable assertion about anything other than your personal tastes in TRPG.

You have not, AFAIK, asserted "Hussar does not enjoy TRPG with flowery prose." THAT would be a disagreement, THAT would be a contradiction of his assertion.

You could - if you were willing to go out on a limb - assert that "GMs who put any effort into florid narration, are (invariably) GMs who run bad games. Their games are no fun for players - not fun for me, and also not fun for anyone else. We should burn any module which uses Gygaxian boxed text." If you stake out THAT position, then I will disagree with you; and maybe Hussar will too.

But you haven't said that, not yet. Will you?

I only have a problem with florid GM narration when it comes *at the expense of listening to players and resolving action declarations*. A GM who wants players to respond to his narration with a round of applause - as a passive audience - rather than responding with action declarations - THAT is a GM whose table would annoy or bore me, and perhaps many or most other players. I've known a GM who had a tendency in that direction; so I stopped playing at his table. Problem solved.


----------



## Lanefan

Following quote altered slightly by addition of numbers to make my response easier to parse...


pemerton said:


> This is why I have brought it back to _what are we aiming for_? _What counts as success_, as _good RPGing_? What should a GM focus on?
> 
> And I'm saying
> 
> 1. _situation_ - framing, action, consequence - [over]
> 2. _beauty_ or _evocation_ in narration.



Where I say a GM should focus on using 2 to make 1 more interesting and-or immersive and-or exciting whenever she can, because 1 is always going to be there no matter what and at whatever quality it was going to be at anyway.  Why not dress it up a little?


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> “What are we aiming for” is probably the best way to look at it. I’d never say “quality prose” ahead of “an interesting game”.



Ahead of?  No

As a part of?  Certainly!  Quality prose, unless completely overdone, is far more likely to add interest than diminish it.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> Hey, if all it takes to be using conversational English is to use it in a conversation, then even the most high quality literary language used in an RPG counts as conversational.
> 
> It's pretty well understood that when people here have been discussing conversational English, they mean using the simple words and not the ones that fall outside of normal, everyday conversation.



An automechanic will have a range of vocabulary that "falls outside of normal, everyday conversation," but I don't think that we would credibly accuse them for using the technical jargon of their field as part of their conversation as speaking with "literary language." That would be ridiculous. This is because we can recognize that they are not speaking with any sense of sculpted prose or word play, but with prevalent words of their field.


----------



## Aldarc

Lanefan said:


> Ahead of?  No
> 
> As a part of?  Certainly!  Quality prose, unless completely overdone, is far more likely to add interest than diminish it.



Considering your emphasis on interactionism as an integral part of the RPG process, where an important part of the gameplay is PCs interacting with the gameworld, I have been somewhat surprised by your position in this thread. From what I can tell, pemerton, is offering an incredibly pragmatic sense for the purpose of GM narration that is focused on aiding the player agency and decision-making process that is integral for an interactionist approach. Interactionism seems to hinge on players having a practical, informed sense of the scene. 



Riley37 said:


> You said in the OP that TRPG is not a literary endeavor. I asked, on the first page: if it is, then what? if not, then what?
> 
> 100+ pages later, have you answered my question?



I thought that this was fairly apparent early on when he says that they are a conversational endeavor entailing a back-and-forth between the GM and player contributing to the fiction through their relevant roles. I gleaned this fairly easily from actually reading the OP. 



> You haven't yet made a concrete, falsification-testable assertion about other than your personal tastes in TRPG.



The meat of his assertion was that it's more important for the functioning of RPGs that information be communicated to players in a manner that informs and engages player agency in the fiction than for GMs to focus on the prosaic quality of the GM narration. 

We could also rephrase pemerton's assertion in another way. What hurts the functioning of the game more? The loss of performative literary prosaic narration? Or players not having a sense of how to meaningfully react or contribute to the fiction in a scene as agents?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> I'm not talking in absolutes.  However, in 35+ years of gaming with more than 100 different people, I can't remember anyone who would rather hear, "There's a long, thick, hard, round, six foot, brown wooden staff on the ground." than "There's an intricately carved feywood staff on the ground."   I imagine you aren't the only one, but I'm pretty confident that you are in a small minority of people if you prefer #1 over #1, especially since #2 is conversational English.  Other than feywood, which would be a setting specific wood, there's nothing there that isn't conversational.




I think you are just making assumptions now...also I didn't say I preferred 1 over 2. I said 1 has more information, and there are definitely more analytically minded players who don't care about the flavorful description as much as they care about the info. And I don't think they are a small minority in our hobby. 

That said, you are right, these two descriptions are both pretty conversational, not literary. So the example is a bit puzzling anyways. Example two is just a bit vague. 

Again, I don't think this argument makes a whole lot of sense. We are talking about a conversational medium. Literary doesn't really seem like it would apply. you can try to run a game in a literary style. but I don't think it is necessary. Nor do I think it is particularly advisable.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Lanefan said:


> As a part of?  Certainly!  Quality prose, unless completely overdone, is far more likely to add interest than diminish it.




Except we are speaking at the table, not reading prose generally (and even if you are literally reading from boxed text, you are saying it aloud). I don't think the effect is the same when spoken in the context of a dynamic conversation at the table, as it is when you have prose on a page. Prose isn't what is called for. Doesn't mean you won't get interesting dashes or flavor or see nice word choices. But forcing literary considerations into your talking, I think is misguided, because most people simply don't talk the way authors write. And whenever I've encountered a 'boxed text' style of GM narration, it sounds very hokey and odd to me.


----------



## Riley37

I asked, on page 1 and again on page 119: if TRPG is literary, then what? if TRPG isn't literary, then what?



Aldarc said:


> I thought that this was fairly apparent early on when he says that they are a conversational endeavor entailing a back-and-forth between the GM and player contributing to the fiction through their relevant roles.




If this conversational endeavor is also a literary endeavor, *how does that overlap of endeavor differ from non-overlap?*
You still haven't answered my question. (Smugness does not, itself, constitute an answer.)



Aldarc said:


> The meat of his assertion was that it's more important for the functioning of RPGs that information be communicated to players in a manner that informs and engages player agency in the fiction than for GMs to focus on the prosaic quality of the GM narration.




You say that as if the prosaic quality of the GM narration had nothing to do with whether that narration conveys information in a manner which informs and engages player agency in the fiction. GM narration which uses an *appropriate* measure of literary technique will clearly establish the scene in the mind's eye of the players, more reliably than GM narration which does not.

Players sometimes ask GMs for descriptions using literary tropes. For example, I was running a one-shot adventure in a science fiction setting, in which the PCs are the crew of a freighter. A player asked me whether the PCs were wearing bulky space suits with big goldfish-bowl helmets, or jumpsuits with zippers, as a general indication of the imagery and the technology level of the setting. If the player had felt better served by *not* applying literary tropes, then the player would not have asked in those terms.



Aldarc said:


> We could also rephrase pemerton's assertion in another way. What hurts the functioning of the game more? The loss of performative literary prosaic narration? Or players not having a sense of how to meaningfully react or contribute to the fiction in a scene as agents?




Okay, then here's my counter-assertion: how is an assertion still an assertion when you rephrase it as a question, and how is it honest when it frames two factors as a mutually exclusive fork, when in actual practice, one can be a consequence of the other?

GM Alex tells the players: "You enter the room. There's a wooden door on the north side, comfortably sized for Jinbat (the gnome PC) but Yurk (the human PC) would have to squeeze through. There's a jagged crack in the west wall, leading into a dark, damp tunnel. There's a staff leaning against the walls in the northwest corner, made of dark wood, with a spiral pattern of intricately carved symbols."

I enjoy the picture in my mind's eye resulting from the description. I have an immediate idea of what my PC will do: get ye staff and see if I recognize the symbols.

Then, as per your formulation of pemerton's dilemma, let's remove the prosaic quality of the narration, and see whether that removal increases or decreases player agency.

GM Bob tells the players "You enter the room. Exits are north and west. There's a staff."

As a player at Bob's table, I have *less* of an immediate sense of what my PC will do. I will ask Bob several follow-up questions. This may be as easy and fun as pulling teeth. Eventually I'll get some detail on what Bob meant by "exits". There's a chance that during that process, I'll forget that Bob ever mentioned a staff. The removal of literary quality from GM narration does not leave me *better* empowered, as a player, to make appropriate, well-informed action declarations. The result is not an improvement. At Alex's table, my PC now has a cool staff, and may at some point discover whatever awesome things can be done with it. At Bob's table, my PC doesn't even know the staff exists, and walked right past it on the way out of the room.

Some players play their PCs as well-prepared tactical experts AND play their PCs as people with personalities. Some players who do the former and not the latter. The problem isn't that they're doing the former. The problem is that they're not also doing the latter. Stormwind's Fallacy asserts that anyone who does the former is therefore, *necessarily*, not doing the latter. This is false, and creates unhelpful divisions among gamers. 


Some GMs put effort into their narration and/or their role-playing of NPCs, AND put effort into presenting the players with a fictional environment rich with opportunities for PC actions (and interactions). Some GMs do the former and not the latter. The problem isn't that they're doing the former. The problem is that they're not also doing the latter. Pemerton's Fallacy - or is it just Aldarc's Fallacy? - asserts that any GM who does the former, is therefore necessarily NOT doing the latter.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Riley37 said:


> You say that as if the prosaic quality of the GM narration had nothing to do with whether that narration conveys information in a manner which informs and engages player agency in the fiction. GM narration which uses an *appropriate* measure of literary technique will clearly establish the scene in the mind's eye of the players, more reliably than GM narration which does not.
> .




You and others are treating this true before it has even been established it is the case. I don't think there is reason to believe literary techniques will a) Translate smoothly into GM narration and b) establish the scene more clearly in the mind's eye of the player. Just listen to how people talk when they tell a story, and how people engage them by asking clarifying questions. It isn't particularly literary. And to be honest, even if it were, that doesn't mean it is effective. Its effectiveness in GM narration needs to be proven here, and I don't think a strong case has been made for it.

Also this is really important, authorial narration is not about "inform(ing) and engag(ing) [reader] agency in the fiction". As a reader of a novel, you have no agency. That is one of the key differences in an RPG, and something that would hugely impact whether any of these techniques can be ported in without adjusting them to the medium first.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> the reason the game sucked is because the GM's situations sucked.  Has NOTHING to do with the language used.  Again, EVERYONE 100% agrees with you that content is important.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> But, that's not your arguement.  Your argument is that the game sucked because of the higher language used.  But, that's not true.  You need *BOTH *for a good game.  Same as has been said all the way since the first freaking page.



This shows you misunderstand what I'm claiming. And you reiterate your disagreement with me. I've bolded it for you.

I don't think the language makes it suck. I think the language as such is neither here nor there; and that _working_ on the language - which is a common practice when aiming for literary quality - may well be an impediment.

Here's another example to illustrate my point: I've played with players who cannot write, who cannot act, whose literary intuitions are those of 4As and a D graduates (that's an Australian-ism - the D is for compulsry English in Year 12), but who are terrific RPGers, who frankly kick the *rses of "thespian" RPGers I've played with, because they know how to inhabit a charcter and engage a situation.

Which has _nothing_ to do with needing evocative language or caring about wordcraft.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> That just puts you and your colleagues beyond the realm of everyday conversational English, though.  The average American reads at the 7th/8th grade level.  For the most part, they aren't going to speak much better than they can read.



I don't think there are any Americans among me and my colleagues. A couple of Candians.

My play group has a mix of educational levels - Year 12 through to PhDs in literary disciplines - but all can read above a 7th grade level. I have no idea whether the typical American would follow our conversations - it's never come up that I can recall - but that doesn't make them not conversation.


----------



## pemerton

Riley37 said:


> Maybe because you have not made any assertions which are (a) sufficiently concrete for falsification testing (Karl Popper style)



Popper has a (controversial) theory of what makes a claim, or perhaps a collection of claims, scientific.

I'm not making a scientific claim. I'm making an aesthetic claim. So Popperian falsifiability has nothing to do with it.

My claim is about the point of RPGing, what makes it a distinctive and worthwhile creative endeavour. Not far upthread [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] has given a pretty good account of my claim, so I'll add a few glosses to that.

I am saying that _entertainment in virtue of quality narration and performance_ is not what makes RPGing a distinctive and worthwhile creative endeavour. Rather, it's _situation and resulting inhabitation and protagonism_.

I've said why I think this: because _quality narration and performance_ are the weakest elements of the typical RPG experience (given the ready availability to most RPGers of genuinely quality narrations and performances), whereas _protagonism in the context of engaging situation_ is the distinct thing that RPGs offer.

When [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] say that they would quit games with ordinary-language descriptions because they'd find them too boring, my thought in response is that those games must have weak situations, or GMs who don't facilitiate protagonism. After all, both experience and reading lead me to think there's plenty of that going around.

To elaborate on that last point:

 [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has tended to equate _situation_ with _content_ referring eg to boring content. But as I've indicated in and since the OP, good situation isn't about non-boring content. It's about the _call to action_, the _invitation to protagonism_. As far as I can tell those sorts of notions play little or no role in Hussar's conception of RPGing - if they do, he hasn't said anything about them in this thread as best I can recall.

 [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], too, has quite recently posted that a GM should use language to make situation "more interesting", and has said that "situation is always going to be there no matter what". But this second claim isn't true if by _situation_ one means what I've been talking about since the OP. I've played in, and witnessed, and read reports of episodes of RPGing in which there is no call to action, no meaningful framing, no genuine action and consequence. My contention that that is a failure of RPGing regardless of the literary quality of the narration and the evocative nature of the performances.


----------



## Aldarc

I would also like to repudiate the fallacy of equating vocabulary size with conversational or non-literary narration because this seems to be surfacing in various forms over the past few pages. 

This is because we can see literary quality, attention to stylistic features of word composition, and word-sculpting within the framework of a smaller than average English vocabulary, particularly in children's literature. If we look at the written work of Dr. Seuss, for example, people often talk of how it is written in what is referred to as Seussian meter (e.g., anapestic tetrameter). The diction and meter are incredibly important for reading Dr. Seuss, but the vocabulary itself is quite simplistic. But we can also recognize quite readily that despite the smaller vocabulary size that the Seussian canon exhibits that the style of writing deviates from conversational norms. We don't naturally talk in the fashion that Dr. Seuss writes. It has a performative quality. This often also true for a number of other children's literature books, even if we compared them to both adult and children speech patterns. 

That's why it feels like a bit of a discursive distraction to frame this discussion in terms of comparable vocabulary size. Just because someone has a larger-than-average vocabulary style does not mean that they naturally speak in a more literary style just because they may include bigger words outside of that typical vocabulary set. That's not really what is being expressed by discussing literary vs. conversational/natural style. The point is to speak naturally and communicate _as best you can_ the nature of the scene in a way that helps the players understand the scene such that they can engage the scene's fiction as players. IMHO, the compositional quality of GM narration is only as strong as the player's ability to understand what is going on and whether their responses reflect what was communicated. 

I have been watching a lot of Matthew Colville's videos where he talks as a GM about the previous game session of the campaign he runs and hints at future sessions. He likes to do this a lot, so you can find a number of his session retrospectives for various campaigns on YouTube. He likes to have a certain thespian quality to his games. He likes to roleplay the NPCs. He does like to interject a literary feel to some of his dialogue, though he also is incredibly improvisational. But in a number of his session retrospectives, most of his GMing regrets seem to pertain to how well he actually communicate the stakes to the players or what was actually happening in a scene. Because sometimes the GM as actor got in the way of the GM's intent to frame a scene for the players to understand the scenario.


----------



## Aldarc

Riley37 said:


> I asked, on page 1 and again on page 119: if TRPG is literary, then what? if TRPG isn't literary, then what?



Okay. Good for you, I guess. But even if [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] never addressed the question explicitly, it does not seem all that difficult with a modicum of effort to piece together pemerton's answers within the page frame of 1 and 119. 

I also feel that it's important to point out, since you had mentioned it earlier, that Karl Popper's falsification testing (1) is not necessarily applicable outside of scientific testing, where it has been criticized in other fields (e.g., politics, history, literature, mathematics, etc.), and (2) it has also been criticized within scientific testing and science. So I am skeptical whether a Popperian approach is feasible for our present inquiry or whether it is (likely) a misguided attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole. 



> If this conversational endeavor is also a literary endeavor, *how does that overlap of endeavor differ from non-overlap?
> You still haven't answered my question.



I don't think that your question is particularly clear. 



> GM narration which uses an *appropriate* measure of literary technique will clearly establish the scene in the mind's eye of the players, more reliably than GM narration which does not.



But it is not dependent on it, which I suspect relates to pemerton's point. Literary technique is secondary to engaging the player goal of agency within the fiction. 



> Players sometimes ask GMs for descriptions using literary tropes. For example, I was running a one-shot adventure in a science fiction setting, in which the PCs are the crew of a freighter. A player asked me whether the PCs were wearing bulky space suits with big goldfish-bowl helmets, or jumpsuits with zippers, as a general indication of the imagery and the technology level of the setting. If the player had felt better served by *not* applying literary tropes, then the player would not have asked in those terms.



I don't think that pemerton is actually talking about this. 



> Okay, then here's my counter-assertion: how is an assertion still an assertion when you rephrase it as a question,



Because the original assertion still exists in the OP, I'm just trying to rephrase it so that you can hopefully understand what is being said better. 



> and how is it honest when it frames two factors as a mutually exclusive fork, when in actual practice, one can be a consequence of the other?



My question was not framing the two factors as a mutually exclusive fork, so you that's a bit of a reading comprehension fail on your part. It's not a fork. It's about which aspect of the game is more essential for its functioning. 

You can certainly develop a literary style of GM narration or choose not to, but what ultimately matters is that players understand the stakes of the fiction so they can exercise their player agency to engage that fiction accordingly. Now compare this position that pemerton outlines with the position advocated by others that the game will fall apart without the literary narration. Pemerton's position seems more reasonable than the other. 



> GM Alex tells the players: "You enter the room. There's a wooden door on the north side, comfortably sized for Jinbat (the gnome PC) but Yurk (the human PC) would have to squeeze through. There's a jagged crack in the west wall, leading into a dark, damp tunnel. There's a staff leaning against the walls in the northwest corner, made of dark wood, with a spiral pattern of intricately carved symbols."
> 
> I enjoy the picture in my mind's eye resulting from the description. I have an immediate idea of what my PC will do: get ye staff and see if I recognize the symbols.
> 
> Then, as per your formulation of pemerton's dilemma, let's remove the prosaic quality of the narration, and see whether that removal increases or decreases player agency.



Fine, but this GM narration does not strike me as literary. Your description here honestly seems incredibly conversational. The GM lets the players know by name that one player character can fit through the door in the scene but another can't. It feels more like an outline of information for the players. And it delves into pemerton's point quite nicely: enough was conveyed in the GM narration to inform the players about how they could possibly engage the fiction as players. 



> Some GMs put effort into their narration and/or their role-playing of NPCs, AND put effort into presenting the players with a fictional environment rich with opportunities for PC actions (and interactions). Some GMs do the former and not the latter. The problem isn't that they're doing the former. The problem is that they're not also doing the latter. Pemerton's Fallacy - or is it just Aldarc's Fallacy? - asserts that any GM who does the former, is therefore necessarily NOT doing the latter.



I don't think it's appropriate that [MENTION=6786839]Riley37[/MENTION]'s Strawman that you outline here should be referred to as either "Pemerton's Fallacy" or "Aldarc's Fallacy."  I would personally prefer, Riley37, if you were to engage with my actual positions in this thread and not with your knee-jerk reactions.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> An automechanic will have a range of vocabulary that "falls outside of normal, everyday conversation," but I don't think that we would credibly accuse them for using the technical jargon of their field as part of their conversation as speaking with "literary language." That would be ridiculous. This is because we can recognize that they are not speaking with any sense of sculpted prose or word play, but with prevalent words of their field.




But neither are those mechanics speaking conversational English, which is what [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] says he wants.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I think you are just making assumptions now...also I didn't say I preferred 1 over 2. I said 1 has more information, and there are definitely more analytically minded players who don't care about the flavorful description as much as they care about the info. And I don't think they are a small minority in our hobby.
> 
> That said, you are right, these two descriptions are both pretty conversational, not literary. So the example is a bit puzzling anyways. Example two is just a bit vague.
> 
> Again, I don't think this argument makes a whole lot of sense. We are talking about a conversational medium. Literary doesn't really seem like it would apply. you can try to run a game in a literary style. but I don't think it is necessary. Nor do I think it is particularly advisable.




Literary only doesn't apply if you incorrectly believe that only high quality literary works are literary.  If you believe that all things written are literary(the definition), then any time you are choosing these more evocative words to use over those words, you are moving up the literary scale.  Using the named wood and describing briefly the carving, was more evocative than #1.

Even though both of my examples fell into the conversational category, #2 chose words that were more evocative than #1, which made it fall farther up the literary scale than #1.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> But neither are those mechanics speaking conversational English, which is what [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] says he wants.



Except I would say that they are still speaking conversational English, but the conversation will also be contextualized for the various interlocutors.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> ...they are still speaking conversational English, but...




I'm sorry I did that, but...   You look good, but...  You did a great job, but...

When you add in the "but," you are invalidating what came before by carving out an exception to explain why what came before is wrong.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> Sorry, you're right, they aren't unknown.  But, my point being, they aren't what you'd use in conversation either.  Would you actually use the words "wield" or "gaunt" in a conversation?
> 
> "A gaunt man wielding a gun robbed a liquor store" is not something you will ever hear in a conversation.  You certainly might hear "A thin man armed with a gun" or "carrying a gun", but "wielding"?  That's not going to be used.
> 
> The way I'm seeing it, we've got a spectrum with high art prose on one end (think Tolkien, high Gygaxian, H. P. Lovecraft - if we want to use genre literature) and what you'd hear in a conversation or in the news on the other.  As far as I can tell, [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] is arguing for a level of prose where "an orc with a sword enters the room" is about as much description as he wants.  You gave a Githyanki description that is much further along the scale, as did I with the description of the Vengaurak.  As far as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] goes, I really have no idea where on the scale he's coming down on since he's playing arpeggios up and down the scale so long as he can keep pretending that there is any real disagreement going on.
> 
> So, no, it's not "10% of the description was useless".  Sorry, I never meant that as the take away.  Not at all.  It's that the presence of that 10% slides the description away from the "pure conversation" end of the scale and further (and, really, where it's 10% of the words, pretty far actually) down towards the "high art" end of the scale.




Thanks for clarifying your point.

Do you think that word choice used in conversation will vary based on the topic of conversation? Do you think that word choice will vary based on those involved in conversation? 

I don’t believe that all topics and all participants are locked into the same pool of words from which to draw. I doubt you would say so, either, but here we are. 

If you’d asked me to describe a criminal from the real world who was breaking into a home, I’d likely not use the word wield to describe how he was armed. But for D&D? I think it’s pretty firmly established as part of the lexicon. Same with gaunt or sunken eyes when describing inhuman, otherworldly things. 

I would expect that certain words would be more common when playing D&D and others would be more common when playing Call of Cthulhu and still others when playing Marvel Super Heroes. Use of the word “psychic” in an X-Men campaign, for example....it’s not a common word heard in conversation, but it’ll certainly come up when talking about the X-Men. 

Again, use of adjectives isn’t what I’m talking about. They’re descriptive by nature. 

I would agree with you that sometimes one choice of word can be more creative than another. I think this can happen even when it’s not the focus of the speaker/writer. I think such examples are a bit tangential to the idea of craft.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> Ahead of?  No
> 
> As a part of?  Certainly!  Quality prose, unless completely overdone, is far more likely to add interest than diminish it.




That’s fine. I’d even agree in some instances. 

But what do you focus on with your game prep? Do you focus on creating situations or scenarios with which to engage your players? Or do you focus on how the scenarios are presented? 

Let’s say you have minimal prep time for a session....you can only get so much done. What kind of prep would you typically do?


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> But what do you focus on with your game prep? Do you focus on creating situations or scenarios with which to engage your players? Or do you focus on how the scenarios are presented?




Why does it have to be one or the other?  



> Let’s say you have minimal prep time for a session....you can only get so much done. What kind of prep would you typically do?




With highly limited prep time I work on a few general ideas to present, so content.  I can improv the descriptions and encounter details as I go.  If I couldn't improv as well as I do, I'd call off the game for that week so I could prep both and we'd play board games.  Terraforming Mars, Scythe, Clank and Tyrants of the Underdark are our current favorites.


----------



## Riley37

Aldarc said:


> what ultimately matters is that players understand the stakes of the fiction so they can exercise their player agency to engage that fiction accordingly




Yes. Duh. Has anyone said otherwise?

Also, fire is hot. One can just say so, without introducing the complication of whether fire is also literary.

So far as I can tell, pemerton's thread title is misleading; it isn't what he actually cares about. If, in a TRPG session, GMs give only the most conversational (but adequate and functional) descriptions and prompts, and players respond with action declarations *which include literary use of language*, then that TRPG session has a literary aspect; it might even be published for the entertainment of others, alongside "Critical Role". Whether the players' use of language is more literary, or more conversational, is orthogonal to the question of whether the GM neglects the interactive side of her role.



Aldarc said:


> even if [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] never addressed the question explicitly, it does not seem all that difficult with a modicum of effort to piece together pemerton's answers within the page frame of 1 and 119.
> (snip)
> I don't think that your question is particularly clear.




If it's not difficult to piece together pemerton's answers, could you summarize his answer?
I'm baffled at how you can piece together his answers, while simultaneously declaring the question unclear. But if you can, please do!



Aldarc said:


> with the position advocated by others that the game will fall apart without the literary narration




Who has taken that position? Or are you deploying a straw man?

Who has argued that BRG's game *will fall apart* because of its bog-standard language? Hussar has said that he would enjoy that game less. "I would not enjoy that game" and "That game will fall apart" are two different statements.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> I'm sorry I did that, but...   You look good, but...  You did a great job, but...
> 
> When you add in the "but," you are invalidating what came before by carving out an exception to explain why what came before is wrong.



This is hardly a gotcha moment you imagine. And I apologize now that someone had to explain to you how the conjunction "but" can work in your own native language at this late of a stage in your life. Grammar is boring, *but* it's necessary. 

The conjunction "but" does not "[invalidate] what came before by carving out an exception to explain why what came before is wrong." Here's one example. In the statement, "He drinks, but he doesn't smoke," the fact that he drinks is not invalidated by the fact that he doesn't smoke. Or another example, "Jessie loved math, but Candice hated the subject" we may be at a loss to explain how Candice hating math invalidates or makes an exception out of Jessie's love of the subject. Probably another common example would be something along the lines of "You can go, but be careful." You are not creating an exception or invalidating the first independent clause. The speaker is qualifying the condition of the permission for the recipient(s), essentially a caveat. 

The inclusion of "but...also..." in my statement is a caveat rather than an invalidation of the precedent. It's an awareness that although we will engage in conversations as part of our daily life, we will also shift our discourse based upon who we are speaking to or our audience (i.e., the aforementioned interlocutors). Our conversational patterns are typically thus contextualized based upon the interlocutor. 

If I was talking about my research, I will likely explain what I do differently if the person was within my field or outside of my field because this latter person may not have a presumed shared knowledge-base (e.g., terms, methods, assumptions, knowledge, etc.) as the former would have. But if I was speaking with the former, it doesn't stop being a conversational style just because I am speaking to someone within my field either.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> The conjunction "but" does not "[invalidate] what came before by carving out an exception to explain why what came before is wrong."




In the context that you used it, it does.  "They are speaking conversational English, but they aren't" is what it amounted to.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> In the context that you used it, it does.  "They are speaking conversational English, but they aren't" is what it amounted to.



I... what?  Why do you keep hitting youself?!?


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> In the context that you used it, it does.  "They are speaking conversational English, but they aren't" is what it amounted to.



Except that isn't what it amounted to at all, Max. The point is that the discourse of conversations are contextualized based upon the interlocutors. So I would suggest that you learn to read and accept the fact that you goofed.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> Why does it have to be one or the other?




It doesn’t have to be. But of course there could be times when one is sacrificed for the other. 



Maxperson said:


> With highly limited prep time I work on a few general ideas to present, so content.  I can improv the descriptions and encounter details as I go.  If I couldn't improv as well as I do, I'd call off the game for that week so I could prep both and we'd play board games.  Terraforming Mars, Scythe, Clank and Tyrants of the Underdark are our current favorites.




Sounds about right.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> Except that isn't what it amounted to at all, Max. The point is that the discourse of conversations are contextualized based upon the interlocutors. So I would suggest that you learn to read and accept the fact that you goofed.




So now we're back to everything, including high quality literary language, being conversational English.  Most of us gamers know and understand high quality literary language, so it would be conversational to us.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> So now we're back to everything, including high quality literary language, being conversational English.



Nope.


----------



## Riley37

pemerton said:


> I am saying that _entertainment in virtue of quality narration and performance_ is not what makes RPGing a distinctive and worthwhile creative endeavour. Rather, it's _situation and resulting inhabitation and protagonism_.




Yes. There are many human activities which seek quality narration and/or performance. TRPG is unusual, maybe even unique, in its use of situation and resulting inhabitation and protagonism.

Hussar, you agree with that, right? If you've said so before, would you like to re-affirm your agreement?



pemerton said:


> because _quality narration and performance_ are the weakest elements of the typical RPG experience




Apparently your typical RPG experience differs from mine. I've more often seen pacing and focus as the weak links. "Two hours of fun, packed into a four-hour session" is all too often the weak link, whether that's due to the GM performing poorly, players performing poorly (such as not giving the game their primary attention), or a combination of GM failure and player failure.



pemerton said:


> When [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] say that they would quit games with ordinary-language descriptions because they'd find them too boring, my thought in response is that those games must have weak situations, or GMs who don't facilitiate protagonism.




I take Hussar and Imaro at their word. I find it plausible that they've played in games in which the situation was adequate, the facilitation was adequate, and the narration was lackluster; and since they've played in games with strong situation, strong facilitation AND strong narration, they're disinclined to settle for a game which underperforms on any one of those three factors.



pemerton said:


> As far as I can tell those sorts of notions play little or no role in Hussar's conception of RPGing - if they do, he hasn't said anything about them in this thread as best I can recall.




Maybe if you'd given the thread a title which emphasized the importance of situation and facilitation, you would harvest more discussion of those factors.



pemerton said:


> [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], too, has quite recently posted that a GM should use language to make situation "more interesting", and has said that "situation is always going to be there no matter what". But this second claim isn't true if by _situation_ one means what I've been talking about since the OP. I've played in, and witnessed, and read reports of episodes of RPGing in which there is no call to action, no meaningful framing, no genuine action and consequence. My contention that that is a failure of RPGing regardless of the literary quality of the narration and the evocative nature of the performances.




I for one agree with you here. Perhaps Lanefan was assuming *competent* DMing? If so, that was unwise, since there is (alas) such a thing as TRPG in which the GM fails to establish call to action, and/or fails to establish genuine consequence.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> Literary only doesn't apply if you incorrectly believe that only high quality literary works are literary.  If you believe that all things written are literary(the definition), then any time you are choosing these more evocative words to use over those words, you are moving up the literary scale.  Using the named wood and describing briefly the carving, was more evocative than #1.
> 
> Even though both of my examples fell into the conversational category, #2 chose words that were more evocative than #1, which made it fall farther up the literary scale than #1.




We've had this discussion already Max and I don't think you made the case at all. Further, I think any discussion like this where 'literary' means anything written, is kind of pointless because if that is the case, well it doesn't really matter does it? Because no matter what you do, it will be literary. However, the truly important thing here is we are not talking about written information. We are talking about what you say at the table. Unless the GM is always and only reading from a page, rather than putting words together themselves to describe something. Talking isn't literature, even by your very very expansive definition.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> We've had this discussion already Max and I don't think you made the case at all.




I don't have to.  It's literally THE definition. If you have an issue with it, argue the case with those who defined it.



> Further, I think any discussion like this where 'literary' means anything written, is kind of pointless because if that is the case, well it doesn't really matter does it?




It absolutely does have a point.  Once people can accept the facts and understand that anything written is literary, the question stops being, "Is this literary" and becomes, "What level of literary is preferred?" or perhaps, "What is the average level of literary language in RPGs?"  It helps clarify things and direct the conversation to the point where it can progress.  The OP asks the wrong question.



> Talking isn't literature, even by your very very expansive definition.




Oral literature is a thing, which means that oral literary techniques are a thing.


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> That’s fine. I’d even agree in some instances.
> 
> But what do you focus on with your game prep? Do you focus on creating situations or scenarios with which to engage your players? Or do you focus on how the scenarios are presented?
> 
> Let’s say you have minimal prep time for a session....you can only get so much done. What kind of prep would you typically do?




We are telling you we focus on both... without situation or scenario what am I using evocative language for?  Without evocative language my players wont be engaged with the situation or scenario.

If pressed I jot down situation or scenario notes with what I call keywords and improvise description with said keywords.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> I don't have to.  It's literally THE definition. If you have an issue with it, argue the case with those who defined it.




Again Max we have already hashed over this discussion and it isn't this simple, and we clearly are not going to settle it here. But I've made several responses to the rhetorical and definitional arguments you are using. Problem one: you use the first line from the first definition of literature that crops up on a google search. Problem two, you ignore important qualifiers in the definition. You ignore secondary definitions. You ignore other definitions from different dictionaries and from more long form sources. You focus on the first two words of the first sentence and do so in a very expansive way: "written works". Not only is this vague, the word 'works' to me doesn't merely suggest 'all words on a page' it suggests completed projects. A wouldn't describe a handwritten note on lined notebook paper as a 'written work' for example. But most importantly, if anything written ever, for any purpose, of any quality, is literature, there really isn't much point to the term. The fact is literature is a word that shifts meaning depending on how it is used. In this thread, we have mainly been talking about quality of the words. So that sense of the word seems most appropriate. If you want to use a broad meaning of literature, such as 'written works', in order to make arguments related more to quality of the works, then you are equivocating. 





> It absolutely does have a point.  Once people can accept the facts and understand that anything written is literary, the question stops being, "Is this literary" and becomes, "What level of literary is preferred?" or perhaps, "What is the average level of literary language in RPGs?"  It helps clarify things and direct the conversation to the point where it can progress.  The OP asks the wrong question.




I don't think it does, because I think this assumption that it is literary is very much in dispute. And I think if we accept this conclusion, then it begins making literary quality a measure of GM and RPG quality (which I don't think it is at all). I would agree you can have a spectrum of 'literariness', but you wouldn't describe something that is at the far end of not being literary as 'literary'. 




> Oral literature is a thing, which means that oral literary techniques are a thing.




This is a term I am less familiar with, so I don't really have an opinion on it. But I would make the point that in the context of this discussion, this makes for an even more meaningless use of the word. It was expansive and pointless enough to have literature to mean 'written words'. Now you are using it to mean 'any words' (but I see music is on the description of Oral Literature, so perhaps 'any communication' is more apt). Basically if that is your definition, then it is going to happen no matter what, unless we are not communicating during play, so it doesn't matter. If it just automatically becomes literary, what is the point? Are you seriously arguing because you've made a linguistic argument that RPGs must always be literature, that this means anything in terms of porting in literary techniques? Because that argument doesn't get you there. All it does is establish, wrongly I think, that games are always literary. It doesn't tell us anything about what techniques used to make written literature and fictional stories would be effective, necessary or desirable in an RPG. You are literally just playing word games here.


----------



## Imaro

Let me ask a question to  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION],  [MENTION=9200]Hawkeye[/MENTION],  [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] and  [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION].  Would you use the same words/language/etc.  to describe a remote village in the mountains for say a Ravenloft campaign vs a Four color superhero game like Icons?  let's assume good faith in that the Icons village isn't supposed to be haunted or anything tht would make it more Ravenloft-esque.... 

EDIT: Meant [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] ...


----------



## Riley37

Imaro said:


> Without evocative language my players wont be engaged with the situation or scenario.




I am curious what level of evocative language is necessary, that is, the level below which your players stop caring, stop enjoying the session.

Would this level suffice:
"GM Alex tells the players: "You enter the room. There's a wooden door on the north side, comfortably sized for Jinbat (the gnome PC) but Yurk (the human PC) would have to squeeze through. There's a jagged crack in the west wall, leading into a dark, damp tunnel. There's a staff leaning against the walls in the northwest corner, made of dark wood, with a spiral pattern of intricately carved symbols."

How about this level:
GM Bob tells the players "You enter the room. Exits are north and west. There's a staff."

What's the lowest you can go, on that scale, and still keep players engaged?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> Let me ask a question to  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION],  [MENTION=9200]Hawkeye[/MENTION],  [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] and  [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION].  Would you use the same words/language/etc.  to describe a remote village in the mountains for say a Ravenloft campaign vs a Four color superhero game like Icons?  let's assume good faith in that the Icons village isn't supposed to be haunted or anything tht would make it more Ravenloft-esque....
> 
> EDIT: Meant [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] ...




This question has already been asked. I used to run Ravenloft exclusively, and I bought into all the advice in the line that basically made the point you are making here: Use very evocative language to create atmosphere in horror. My answer is a bit involved. First, if your players respond to that, I say go for it. But it is really important to understand not all players respond to this at all and you can't force tone and atmosphere on them they don't want (well you can try but it just creates issues). I was just on the phone with a player who was exactly of this mindset and I asked him about this issue specifically. Basically he just cares about what his character can do and the details that enable him to make choices around that. He doesn't particularly care for setting details (something I've experienced first hand with him at the table, and I am a GM who loves making setting details). He is all about efficiency of information. Doesn't particularly care how it is packaged. 

To the point about Ravenloft and horror. There is no simple answer here. I will say, I think there was tremendous faith placed in the ability of evocatively and dramatically narrated descriptions enhancing horror atmosphere. I think on the GM side, this can feel good to deliver, and I think some players respond to it. i also think many people are not as interested as the writers of these modules and books thought. And I think in practice, what really makes a Ravenloft game work the subtly of the horror. That will rely on some amount of description being well worded. It doesn't mean it needs to read like a novel though. My experience running Ravenloft was moving more and more to natural style of talking, and focusing less on word choice, more on 'the angle of the description'. But that said, I do think horror is one genre where this can be important. 

However, I think horror is fairly exceptional as genres go, and one of the hardest to do well. I don't think you should build general rules about what is good for gaming around that one genre (because while word choice can matter in a session of Ravenloft, it definitely isn't going to be as important in my wuxia or fantasy RPG sessions). 

Also, just a note about those Ravenloft descriptions. While your word selection can matter, many of the examples they used to give in the books were exactly the sort of thing you really have to avoid, even when running a horror game. These were super well crafted, literary prose style examples. They were not the sort of thing that was easy to come up with off the cuff. I struggled to achieve that for many years as a GM, and it was actually counterproductive. I simply don't speak that way, so I was spending all of my energy on description and not enough on other details. And for the most part, the players were getting kind of tired of lengthy prose-like descriptions. Again, word choice mattered, but it is a different medium, and you have to account for that. Also, I don't think the use of literary techniques like foreshadowing or things like applying a three-act structure to the adventure, were particularly suited to the medium. We have to be careful about equivocation for this reason: word choice being important doesn't mean literary techniques should be ported into the game. It just means word choice can matter.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Again Max we have already hashed over this discussion and it isn't this simple, and we clearly are not going to settle it here. But I've made several responses to the rhetorical and definitional arguments you are using. Problem one: you use the first line from the first definition of literature that crops up on a google search.




I am not using the first definition.  I quoted the Oxford definition, which matches the first one.  I also looked at multiple dictionaries.  You shouldn't assume.

The first definition is from the Oxford dictionary.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/literary

There is also, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/literary

"1. pertaining to or of the nature of books and writings, especially those classed as literature."

So same difference.

And...

Webster says it relates to literature.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literature

One of the definitions there is printed matter.

It's in virtually every definition if you care to look, like I did.





> Problem two, you ignore important qualifiers in the definition. You ignore secondary definitions.




I don't ignore secondary definitions at all.  They just don't invalidate the definition I am using.



> You ignore other definitions from different dictionaries and from more long form sources.




Except as I point out above, before I posted the first definition, I looked at the others and almost all of them agreed with the first, so I used it.



> You focus on the first two words of the first sentence and do so in a very expansive way: "written works". Not only is this vague, the word 'works' to me doesn't merely suggest 'all words on a page' it suggests completed projects. A wouldn't describe a handwritten note on lined notebook paper as a 'written work' for example.






> But most importantly, if anything written ever, for any purpose, of any quality, is literature, there really isn't much point to the term.




Hey, you're right.  There's not much point to having the terms "life," "universe," "matter," or any other broad term.  We should get rid of them all immediately!!

Or else we can understand that broad terms do in fact have a point, and that the subgroups within those broad terms help us refine things.



> If you want to use a broad meaning of literature, such as 'written works', in order to make arguments related more to quality of the works, then you are equivocating.




You are wrong.  Using the defined term as it is defined, is not using it in two different ways.  Stop with the false accusations already.



> I don't think it does, because I think this assumption that it is literary is very much in dispute. And I think if we accept this conclusion, then it begins making literary quality a measure of GM and RPG quality (which I don't think it is at all). I would agree you can have a spectrum of 'literariness', but you wouldn't describe something that is at the far end of not being literary as 'literary'.




You might not describe it as literary.  I might not describe it as literary.  But the guy down the block from me might.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Max, I am not going to rehash this with you, because I think the basic arguments have already been made by us and I don't think you are demonstrating any willingness to listen to my points on the topic. But I do want to reiterate a central one: "especially" is a very important word in that definition, and you are completely dismissing it in order to make an argument that all words are literature. Again, context matters with this word. You don't seem to grasp that, or care about acknowledging it


----------



## Riley37

Bedrockgames said:


> I struggled to achieve that for many years as a GM, and it was actually counterproductive. I simply don't speak that way, so I was spending all of my energy on description and not enough on other details. And for the most part, the players were getting kind of tired of lengthy prose-like descriptions.




IMO this passage right here shows BRG turning from what someone else thinks *should* work, to what *does* work in actual practice. I respect that. I have a different personality and different players, so maybe the turning point between "this works" and "this doesn't work" falls differently for me; but BRG was right to recognize that for his purposes, and his players, he had passed that turning point.

When there is a dogma such as "more elaborate narration is ALWAYS and NECESSARILY better", and one pushes back against that dogma, one can end up pushing back so hard that one ends up with an opposite dogma of "less is always better"; which might also be wrong. If the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle (exact balance varying by table) then one can end up pushing back *all the way past the sweet spot*. BRG, I have a concern - from this thread, and from others - that you might fall into such a pattern of over-reaction. But without actually sitting at your table, I cannot fairly and confidently make strong conclusions, or pass judgement, beyond "sounds like BRG's table is not my cup of tea". Instead I must tip my hat to your rejection of overly elaborate narration, when overly elaborate narration got in the way, and you found that you could have more fun at your table by dialing back on narration.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> I think you are just making assumptions now...also I didn't say I preferred 1 over 2. I said 1 has more information, and there are definitely more analytically minded players who don't care about the flavorful description as much as they care about the info. And I don't think they are a small minority in our hobby.
> 
> That said, you are right, these two descriptions are both pretty conversational, not literary. So the example is a bit puzzling anyways. Example two is just a bit vague.
> 
> Again, I don't think this argument makes a whole lot of sense. We are talking about a conversational medium. Literary doesn't really seem like it would apply. you can try to run a game in a literary style. but I don't think it is necessary. Nor do I think it is particularly advisable.




This is why I don't think we're as far apart as it might appear.  I look at words like "intricately" and I think "literary" not "conversation" because the words "intricately carved" would almost never appear in a conversation.

 [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] above talks about a mechanic using technical language.  Thing is, that's not really a conversation either.  That's a mechanic imparting information to the customer, but, it's probably mostly one direction and if the mechanic dives too far into technical jargon, there's no conversation at all as the listener has no idea what's being talked about.

Is it "literary"?  Maybe not.  But, it's certainly not conversation either.  [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] keeps pressing me to prove that the language is literary.  I'm not because the definition of "literary" is so nebulous.  I don't have to.  I only have to show that it isn't conversational to show that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is wrong.  And I CAN show that because the language that's being chosen, often deliberately chosen, is being chosen to evoke specific reactions and is language that would almost never appear in a conversation.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Max, I am not going to rehash this with you, because I think the basic arguments have already been made by us and I don't think you are demonstrating any willingness to listen to my points on the topic. But I do want to reiterate a central one: "especially" is a very important word in that definition, and you are completely dismissing it in order to make an argument that all words are literature. Again, context matters with this word. You don't seem to grasp that, or care about acknowledging it




And I'll reiterate, "especially" just creates a subgroup of literature that is more preferred.  It does not invalidate all other literature, or render it valueless.


----------



## Hussar

hawkeyefan said:


> Thanks for clarifying your point.
> 
> Do you think that word choice used in conversation will vary based on the topic of conversation? Do you think that word choice will vary based on those involved in conversation?
> 
> I don’t believe that all topics and all participants are locked into the same pool of words from which to draw. I doubt you would say so, either, but here we are.
> 
> If you’d asked me to describe a criminal from the real world who was breaking into a home, I’d likely not use the word wield to describe how he was armed. But for D&D? I think it’s pretty firmly established as part of the lexicon. Same with gaunt or sunken eyes when describing inhuman, otherworldly things.
> 
> I would expect that certain words would be more common when playing D&D and others would be more common when playing Call of Cthulhu and still others when playing Marvel Super Heroes. Use of the word “psychic” in an X-Men campaign, for example....it’s not a common word heard in conversation, but it’ll certainly come up when talking about the X-Men.
> 
> Again, use of adjectives isn’t what I’m talking about. They’re descriptive by nature.
> 
> I would agree with you that sometimes one choice of word can be more creative than another. I think this can happen even when it’s not the focus of the speaker/writer. I think such examples are a bit tangential to the idea of craft.




The question I guess would be, "why"?  Psychic in an X-Men game of course would be common, as it would likely be a game defined term.  Like "to-hit" or "githyanki" or "humanoid" really.   But, where [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] gets it wrong, is that we're talking about situational language that makes sense in context.  Obviously there are going to be all sorts of jargon terms in any specialized and stylized conversation.  Listen to two baseball fans going at it and they're not even really speaking English anymore.  

But, we're talking about the other language choices.  "Wield", "intricately", "gaunt" etc.  There are plain conversation versions of these words and phrases, but, they are being left behind in favor of more colorful language.  Why?  As soon as you start injecting things like "eldritch" and whatnot, you're leaving conversation behind and moving along the scale.


----------



## Hussar

Riley37 said:


> I am curious what level of evocative language is necessary, that is, the level below which your players stop caring, stop enjoying the session.
> 
> Would this level suffice:
> "GM Alex tells the players: "You enter the room. There's a wooden door on the north side, comfortably sized for Jinbat (the gnome PC) but Yurk (the human PC) would have to squeeze through. There's a jagged crack in the west wall, leading into a dark, damp tunnel. There's a staff leaning against the walls in the northwest corner, made of dark wood, with a spiral pattern of intricately carved symbols."
> 
> How about this level:
> GM Bob tells the players "You enter the room. Exits are north and west. There's a staff."
> 
> What's the lowest you can go, on that scale, and still keep players engaged?




Having run The World's Largest Dungeon, I would love to say that all my descriptions were there first type, but, frankly, I probably mix it up.  There's times when the second description comes out.  But, generally, that's because there's nothing in the room and I just want the party to move on, or, I'm tired (which happens) or my brain just decides to phone it in.   Which also happens more often than I'd like.  Stupid brain.  

But, if I'm actually prepping the scenario?  Yeah, it's going to be the first one all the way.  The more information I can get into the player's hands the better and the better it will engage the players.

And it works both ways.  I just recently parted ways with a player who absolutely refused to engage in the game at any level higher than basic conversation.  Every interaction was essentially your second example.  It was incredibly frustrating as a DM because it totally sucked any emotion out of every scene.  I talked several pages back about the dice bot with a heart beat.  That's pretty much what it's like when players refuse to engage in the fiction with any language beyond the most bare bones, basic information exchange.  

Heck, one of my most memorable D&D experiences was with a former Forumite [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] who ran the first haunted house scenario of the recent Ravenloft WotC offering.  It was FANTASTIC.  Scenario wise it was pretty much bog standard haunted house.  Fairly bog standard stuff - nastiness in the attic and basement, rising tension, yeah, usual haunted house stuff.  But, he was so able to bring it to life with excellent description and prose that it remains one of my favorite gaming memories.


----------



## Lanefan

Aldarc said:


> Considering your emphasis on interactionism as an integral part of the RPG process, where an important part of the gameplay is PCs interacting with the gameworld, I have been somewhat surprised by your position in this thread. From what I can tell, pemerton, is offering an incredibly pragmatic sense for the purpose of GM narration that is focused on aiding the player agency and decision-making process that is integral for an interactionist approach. Interactionism seems to hinge on players having a practical, informed sense of the scene.



Oh, I'm all about the practical - but I also don't mind if it's dressed up a bit when and where it can be.

I also freely admit to being myself rather poor at doing so when I DM.  I blame beer.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> I don't think there are any Americans among me and my colleagues. A couple of Candians.



Candians - from Candyland, maybe?


----------



## Hussar

Canaydia.  They're from Canaydia.  Get it right.


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] above talks about a mechanic using technical language.  Thing is, that's not really a conversation either.  That's a mechanic imparting information to the customer, but, it's probably mostly one direction and if the mechanic dives too far into technical jargon, there's no conversation at all as the listener has no idea what's being talked about.




The scenario was a conversation between two mechanics, though.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> We are telling you we focus on both... without situation or scenario what am I using evocative language for?  Without evocative language my players wont be engaged with the situation or scenario.
> 
> If pressed I jot down situation or scenario notes with what I call keywords and improvise description with said keywords.




That’s understandable. I’m trying not to assume that there are only two views or that anyone is speaking for anyone else because I think that’s led to a lot of confusion throughout. 




Imaro said:


> Let me ask a question to  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION],  [MENTION=9200]Hawkeye[/MENTION],  [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] and  [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION].  Would you use the same words/language/etc.  to describe a remote village in the mountains for say a Ravenloft campaign vs a Four color superhero game like Icons?  let's assume good faith in that the Icons village isn't supposed to be haunted or anything tht would make it more Ravenloft-esque....
> 
> EDIT: Meant [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] ...




That’s a good question. Honestly, I think it depends on the situation and what you’re trying to do. I think that some variation of word choice is certain, as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I have recently discussed. 

I think with any of those examples, I’d likely try to establish the tone early on. I think the genre or content will do a lot of the heavy lifting in that regard, but I’d likely try to describe things in a way that would reinforce the desired tone. But I think that would be very front-loaded for me. Probably at each level of the game....campaign level, and then again at the session or scene level. 

But I think that my goal as a GM is to convey the ideas as quickly and clearly as possible. I’m not going to spend 25 words to describe the monster approaching the party when “zombie” will do. So I want to get to that place where it all happens quickly and we proceed. I will be descriptive as needed, but I don’t really want to linger on narration once we’re past the scene-setting point.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Would you use the same words/language/etc. to describe a remote village in the mountains for say a Ravenloft campaign vs a Four color superhero game like Icons? let's assume good faith in that the Icons village isn't supposed to be haunted or anything tht would make it more Ravenloft-esque



If the village in the Marvel game is a small, remote, sinister mountain village in (say) Latveria, then probably yes.

I use the words I need to describe the situation. These will depend on mood, whim, what has previously been said, what seems to matter in the current situation, etc, as well as (obviously) upon what I want to describe. That is to say, the words I use will depend on all the normal determinants of spontaneous human communication.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> That’s fine. I’d even agree in some instances.
> 
> But what do you focus on with your game prep? Do you focus on creating situations or scenarios with which to engage your players? Or do you focus on how the scenarios are presented?
> 
> Let’s say you have minimal prep time for a session....you can only get so much done. What kind of prep would you typically do?



Situationally dependent.

As far as possible I try to have enough prep done well ahead of time (as in, even as far back as setting design) that a session can largely run itself if it has to; meaning that if they're either in mid-adventure (meaning the adventure's already as prepped as it's going to be) or in town during downtime I can largely wing it all.  But, if I have to prep something and I'm crunched for time I'll prep content, and trust to my (sometimes limited!) ability to narrate/describe that content in an interesting enough manner to keep people engaged.

That said, wordcraft isn't foreign to me: I'm a (so-so) poet and (reasonably good, or so I've been told) lyricist when I'm outside the RPG realm...so winging the descriptions etc. isn't as hard for me as it might be for some.


----------



## Hussar

Maxperson said:


> The scenario was a conversation between two mechanics, though.




Ah, oops.  Missed that part.  Then fair enough, the jargon would be perfectly understandable.  Like I said, two baseball fans can slide into incomprehensibility pretty quickly.

OTOH, though, those two mechanics are not going to use other language (excluding jargon) to talk about the cars when plain conversation language will do.  It's doubtful that "scintillating" will be used instead of "nice paint job", for example.  The language choice (again, excluding the jargon) will not really shift into lower frequency words.  Really, that 2-5% of language that is outside of the 5000 most frequent words that is typical for most conversation, will likely consist mostly of the jargon words.


----------



## Aldarc

Hussar said:


> *[MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] above talks about a mechanic using technical language. * Thing is, that's not really a conversation either.  That's a mechanic imparting information to the customer, but, it's probably mostly one direction and if the mechanic dives too far into technical jargon, there's no conversation at all as the listener has no idea what's being talked about.



The thing is, Hussar, you're assuming a lot about the nature of the conversation and inserting things into my text that was not necessarily there, aren't you? In literature, we refer to that as "eisegesis," and that is fairly typically frowned upon. Nowhere did I establish, for example, that the automechanic is talking to a customer. The automechanic may be talking to a friend, a family member, or even their barber, but I did not establish that the automechanic was providing a diagnosis or explanation to a customer. I only established that the automechanic's conversational vocabulary will be unique due to their own contextual experiences. 



> Is it "literary"?  Maybe not.  But, it's certainly not conversation either.  [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] keeps pressing me to prove that the language is literary.  I'm not because the definition of "literary" is so nebulous.  I don't have to.  I only have to show that it isn't conversational to show that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is wrong.  And I CAN show that because the language that's being chosen, often deliberately chosen, is being chosen to evoke specific reactions and is language that would almost never appear in a conversation.



So how exactly have you actually shown that the word "wield," for example, would not appear in regular conversation or that it's being purposefully chosen to evoke reactions?  

And I think you are also making (again) the error of equating vocabulary size as a benchmark for what is or isn't considered "conversational vocabulary," which I spoke against earlier.



Maxperson said:


> The scenario was a conversation between two mechanics, though.



I appreciate the defense, Maxperson. As I explain above though, I didn't clarify in my original statement who the mechanic was speaking to. But later I do say that they will likely alter their language based upon who they are talking to, which may include another mechanic, but I like to believe that mechanics will likely speak to people in their lives other than other mechanics and customers.


----------



## pemerton

Riley37 said:


> pemerton's thread title is misleading; it isn't what he actually cares about. If, in a TRPG session, GMs give only the most conversational (but adequate and functional) descriptions and prompts, and players respond with action declarations *which include literary use of language*, then that TRPG session has a literary aspect



The thread doesn't ask _does, or can, RPGing have a literary aspect?_ It asks whether it is a literary endeavour. That is: does RPGing aim at possessing the virtues and exhibitng the qualities of literature? (Note that - because in this thread it seems to need to be repeated - something can have an aim that it does not maximally achieve. For instance, when high school students write stories they often aim at possessing the virtues and exhibiting the qualities of literature, but this doesn't mean that the stories they've written are good literature or "high art".)

Suppose we ask whether _running for a bus_ is a _sporting_ endeavour. Clearly it shares some aspects with sport - exertion, running, sweating - but nevertheless seems to me not to be a sporting endeavour. It is not competitive, it doesn't really have a notion of _personal best_ or excellence, etc. Unlike sport, it is a primiarlliy instrumental actitivy. And it has some virtues that don't look relevant to sport at all, like not colliding with other pedestrians.

Now we can set up borderline cases. Maybe somene asserts that parkour is, or can be, a sport, and that one of the virtues in parkour is not colliding with other people. And then they point to some cinematic depiction of running for a bus - I'm thining of some variant of Matthew Broderick's run home at the end of Ferris Bueller - and argue that it's really parkour. That would be interesting, and might take the conversation in a new direction, but as someone who has run for a lot of buses in his life it wouldn't change my mind that those were not sporting endeavouors!

Now RPGing is not purely or primarily instrumental - like literary endeavours it has an aesthetic purpose (at least outside of its original dungeoncrawling form). The OP asserts that that purpose, and hence the means to realise it, are different from the literary case.



Riley37 said:


> Apparently your typical RPG experience differs from mine. I've more often seen pacing and focus as the weak links. "Two hours of fun, packed into a four-hour session" is all too often the weak link, whether that's due to the GM performing poorly, players performing poorly (such as not giving the game their primary attention), or a combination of GM failure and player failure.



In my own experience, when this occurs it's very often due to weak situation, weak framing, little or no call to action.


----------



## Hussar

hawkeyefan said:


> That’s understandable. I’m trying not to assume that there are only two views or that anyone is speaking for anyone else because I think that’s led to a lot of confusion throughout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That’s a good question. Honestly, I think it depends on the situation and what you’re trying to do. I think that some variation of word choice is certain, as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and I have recently discussed.
> 
> I think with any of those examples, I’d likely try to establish the tone early on. I think the genre or content will do a lot of the heavy lifting in that regard, but I’d likely try to describe things in a way that would reinforce the desired tone. But I think that would be very front-loaded for me. Probably at each level of the game....campaign level, and then again at the session or scene level.
> 
> But I think that my goal as a GM is to convey the ideas as quickly and clearly as possible. I’m not going to spend 25 words to describe the monster approaching the party when “zombie” will do. So I want to get to that place where it all happens quickly and we proceed. I will be descriptive as needed, but I don’t really want to linger on narration once we’re past the scene-setting point.




But, that's the point.  All the "literary" work has already been done for you so you can shorthand "zombie".  But, as soon as you get outside of common genre stuff, you're back to having to describe it.  A qallupilluit is an absolutely terrifying monster from Inuit folklore - a kind of hag that lives under the pack ice.  If you drop that into your horror game for the first time, I don't think "a kind of hag that lives under the pack ice" is going to engage your players, do you?


----------



## Lanefan

One thing that occurred to me via seeing a few posts a couple of pages back is this:

One thing a description or narration should strive for, however else it's delivered or phrased, is to _answer any obvious questions before they need to be asked_.

The example given was, I think, something like "You enter a room.  Passages exit to the north and west.  There's a staff." in its simplified form.  This leaves a boatload of unanswered obvious questions and thus fails as a useful description.  Some of the numeric dimensions can be left out of the verbal description if you're using a grid and map and just draw it out (which I often do) but noting the location of the staff, what it's made of, and whether there's anything else in the room; also noting anything special or unusual about the environment here e.g. the north passage has some water on the floor and there's an unusual amount of lichen on the west wall of the room - all of these seem like no-brainers to just describe up front as they'd be fairly obvious to the PCs.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> I appreciate the defense, Maxperson. As I explain above though, I didn't clarify in my original statement who the mechanic was speaking to. But later I do say that they will likely alter their language based upon who they are talking to, which may include another mechanic, but I like to believe that mechanics will likely speak to people in their lives other than other mechanics and customers.




Hrm.  I thought I started the mechanics thing with two mechanics talking to one another.


----------



## Riley37

Hussar said:


> Having run The World's Largest Dungeon, I would love to say that all my descriptions were there first type




First, thanks for a direct answer, to a question about an example! Positions explained in reference to examples are more helpful to me, than positions argued in reference to dictionary definitions, which is why I included Maxperson's carved staff in version #1.

That said: I mean #1 and #2 as points on a spectrum, not as the endpoints of the spectrum. Aldarc evaluated #1 as "Your description here honestly seems incredibly conversational." Would you prefer *more* florid text than #1? Always, or situationally, or never? Should the narration foreshadow the wielding of Checkov's Intricately Carved Feywood Staff?



Hussar said:


> And it works both ways.  I just recently parted ways with a player who absolutely refused to engage in the game at any level higher than basic conversation.




I was at first baffled at the thread's emphasis on GM narration and apparent disregard of player narration. Either one can be literary. The emphasis makes sense only insofar as the GM has a task, informing player agency and resolving action declarations, which the GM can *neglect* if the GM excessively allocates limited resources towards florid narration.

I thought of the game ZORK from the 1980s, and similar games. The narration ranges from spare to florid, from "You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door", to the description of the grue as a "sinister, lurking presence in the dark places of the earth". The game's interactive parser can only understand simple, spare player action declarations, such as (GO) NORTH, SEARCH MAILBOX or HIT TROLL WITH SWORD.

When humans sit at a table with each other, I prefer a player whose responses include "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; or close the wall up with our English dead!", over a player whose responses are limited to the spareness of GO NORTH or HIT TROLL WITH SWORD. Going out on a limb: when the literary aspect of a TRPG session reaches excellence, player contributions are often - always? - part of that excellence..

Though not *only* with florid language, since florid vocabulary is not the *only* literary device, it's just an easy device for us to vary in this thread for the purpose of quickly demonstrating different points on the spectrum of literary versus conversational.


----------



## Riley37

Maxperson said:


> Hrm.  I thought I started the mechanics thing with two mechanics talking to one another.




Auto mechanics... or game mechanics?


----------



## Maxperson

Riley37 said:


> Auto mechanics... or game mechanics?




Auto mechanics.  If my game mechanics start talking, I'm checking myself into a 72 hour hold.


----------



## pemerton

Hussar said:


> A qallupilluit is an absolutely terrifying monster from Inuit folklore - a kind of hag that lives under the pack ice.  If you drop that into your horror game for the first time, I don't think "a kind of hag that lives under the pack ice" is going to engage your players, do you?



Why not?

This take me, at least, back to some of the points [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] was making fairly early in this thread. If I'm going to use a qallupilluit in my game, I will want to establish a situation which gives it some sort of heft or significance. There are very many ways of doing that (and obviously RPG system will have a significant impact, on top of system-independent techniques). In my experience, an elaborate or literary description isn't one of them.

If the sudden appearance of a terrifying hag from under the pack ice isn't - for whatever of innumerable possible reasons - going to engage the players, why would, or should, piling on the evocative words make a difference?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> But, that's the point.  All the "literary" work has already been done for you so you can shorthand "zombie".  But, as soon as you get outside of common genre stuff, you're back to having to describe it.  A qallupilluit is an absolutely terrifying monster from Inuit folklore - a kind of hag that lives under the pack ice.  If you drop that into your horror game for the first time, I don't think "a kind of hag that lives under the pack ice" is going to engage your players, do you?




Yes, description is necessary. But as I’ve said, I don’t think that description generally qualifies, unless it’s very wrought. 


Describing the qallupilluit one way or another may or may not engage the players. What I have the qallupilluit do is likely going to be the bigger factor in that regard.


----------



## Aldarc

Hussar said:


> But, that's the point.  All the "literary" work has already been done for you so you can shorthand "zombie".  But, as soon as you get outside of common genre stuff, you're back to having to describe it.  A qallupilluit is an absolutely terrifying monster from Inuit folklore - a kind of hag that lives under the pack ice.  If you drop that into your horror game for the first time, I don't think "a kind of hag that lives under the pack ice" is going to engage your players, do you?



It's not necessarily the literary work that has been done, but, rather, the cognitive ques are likely already present for "zombie" as part of the player's Euro-American culture. Zombie films, IME, probably have a greater mass cultural impact than zombies in literature. 

You are correct that a "qallupilluit" will likely be unfamiliar to those same players. Where I think you are mistaken, however, is that you make an argumentative leap between this unfamiliarity to "ergo you must then supply literary-esque narration to engage the players about the creature" (paraphrasing). You will likely give some description of the physical appearance, but I suspect that the important part will be when you say, "it grabs the child and drags it back into the water" or "it appears to be lying in wait for the child by the hole in the ice." I don't think that you have to go to literary language to communicate a monster or why they should care. 

If I told the players, "You see a githyanki. It sees you and the githyanki charges at you with a knife," I suspect that in that moment the players would understand the critical part with that fictional framing of that scene without either knowing or caring what a githyanki is or its associated literature: i.e., "This damn thing is changing at me with a knife. F*ck that crap. I pull out my bow and shoot it."


----------



## Riley37

Lanefan said:


> One thing a description or narration should strive for, however else it's delivered or phrased, is to _answer any obvious questions before they need to be asked_.




Indeed. A narration which fails to anticipate and address obvious questions, is (in general) a narration which fails to establish situation as an opportunity for player agency and PC initiative. (Aldarc used a more precise formula, which I cannot recall verbatim, but please take my phrasing as an approximation of his.)

A narration could fail at this task by excessive spareness, as with my example. The original says "exits", without clarifying whether those exits are passages, doors, or some other exit. (There's actually one passage and one door. Perhaps as a veteran DM you *habitually* improve on such a spare description.) I almost quoted _Thy Dungeonman_: "Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS."

The narration of Orc and Pie can fail, if it merely establishes the presence of an orc and a pie; the orc is *guarding* the pie, rather than, say, baking the pie, or actively looking for a customer so that the orc can sell the pie. (A player might *initiate* an attempt to purchase the pie, but the GM should leave that to the player.)

Could a narration also fail at this task by excessively florid or otherwise ambitious language? Could literary pretensions, poorly executed, leave the players without a clear prompt,  needing to ask clarifying questions before they can proceed with action declarations? I can imagine important details getting lost in the shuffle, if the DM is going into Lovecraftian style regarding the exits, without corresponding emphasis on the unspeakably eldritch runes carved onto the staff ("you find yourself wondering: carved by human hands, or by some intelligence more ancient than mankind?").


----------



## Riley37

Aldarc said:


> If I told the players, "You see a githyanki. It sees you and the githyanki charges at you with a knife," I suspect that in that moment the players would understand the critical part with that fictional framing of that scene without either knowing or caring what a githyanki is or its associated literature: i.e., "This damn thing is changing at me with a knife. F*ck that crap. I pull out my bow and shoot it."




On another hand, Eric the Paladin died, when he responded to a gazebo, by pulling out his bow and shooting it, without making sure he understood what the DM meant by "gazebo".

Eric the Paladin lived and died by "anything other than scenery is a level-appropriate monster for me to fight". If a githyanki sees my low-level character and charges with a knife, then attempting to surrender or talk it out of fighting has higher odds of survival than a fight-or-flight response.


----------



## Aldarc

Riley37 said:


> On another hand, Eric the Paladin died, when he responded to a gazebo, by pulling out his bow and shooting it, without making sure he understood what the DM meant by "gazebo".
> 
> Eric the Paladin lived and died by "anything other than scenery is a level-appropriate monster for me to fight". If a githyanki sees my low-level character and charges with a knife, then attempting to surrender or talk it out of fighting has higher odds of survival than a fight-or-flight response.



If a gazebo was charging at my character with a knife, I would definitely have questions as a player.


----------



## Riley37

Aldarc said:


> It's not necessarily the literary work that has been done, but, rather, the cognitive ques are likely already present for "zombie" as part of the player's Euro-American culture. Zombie films, IME, probably have a greater mass cultural impact than zombies in literature.




Yes, regarding cultural cues. The DM need not explain what a zombie is, any more than the DM would explain what a gazebo or a githyanki is. If the DM says twenty words (or so) to narrate the situation, then the other nineteen words besides "zombie" should not explain what a zombie is; those nineteen words should establish *other aspects of the situation*, such as whether it's sprinting towards the PCs (modern zombie!) versus shambling slowly (Romero zombie) versus already bisected by a fan-blade trap (and thus a clue that Father Grigorio has been here).

Insofar as you categorize zombie *films* as separate from *literature*, IMO you're switching to a less-situationally-useful definition of "literature". You and Maxperson can haggle over whether the relevant definition is both "written word" AND includes "oral literature". Meanwhile, I recognize "Sean of the Dead" as a work of art which uses foreshadowing, changes of perspective, trope inversion, character development over time, and other techniques often considered "literary", only because of the many centuries in which written word was the main vehicle for the study of such techniques. (I do not recognize "Sean of the Dead" as *high* literature... but damn, high versus low literature is not the useful distinction for current purposes.)



Aldarc said:


> You are correct that a "qallupilluit" will likely be unfamiliar to those same players. Where I think you are mistaken, however, is that you make an argumentative leap between this unfamiliarity to "ergo you must then supply literary-esque narration to engage the players about the creature" (paraphrasing).




Where I think that YOU are mistaken, is whether Hussar (or I) would spend many words on literary-esque narration *in the specific form of describing its appearance and only when the PCs first see it*. Yeah, Lovecraft would go on and on, about whether the monster, when it emerges into view from under the ice, is rugose, or ichthian, or squamous. There are other tools in the literary toolbox. One of those tools is foreshadowing. For example, the behavior of local Inuit can indicate that they're afraid of *something* under the ice. The PCs might hear a humming sound, long before they *see* the qalupalik (they might ask questions about that sound, they might make INT checks to recognize the sound, and so forth).



Aldarc said:


> You will likely give some description of the physical appearance, but I suspect that the important part will be when you say, "it grabs the child and drags it back into the water" or "it appears to be lying in wait for the child by the hole in the ice." I don't think that you have to go to literary language to communicate a monster or why they should care.




Your players would not ask you *what it was* that grabbed the child and dragged the child into the water? I mean, a polar bear might do that, and so might a sea lion. I as a player would strongly prefer to know *before* making action declarations, whether I saw a polar bear, a githyanki, a gazebo, or something else. (Perhaps the PC saw the child, then looked away, then the child was gone when the PC looked again at the child's previous location. In which case, yes, it's the action which matters... *for that one round*.) 

See Lanefan's point: GMs should establish *sufficient description to prompt player agency*. I want to overcome monsters which are more than bags of hit points. My player agency includes reacting differently to a polar bear (or other Beast type monster), than to a gazebo (construct) or a qallupilluit (aberration? monstrosity? humanoid?). My player agency might involve trying to *persuade* the qallupilluit to return the child, perhaps persuasion enhanced with the Suggestion spell. (Especially if the child remains alive under the ice only as long as the qallupilluit maintains Concentration on Breathe Water; in that scenario, stabbing the qallupilluit is NOT my best option.)


----------



## Riley37

pemerton said:


> In my own experience, when this occurs it's very often due to weak situation, weak framing, little or no call to action.




Have you often (or too often) seen that happen, in a situation such that the GM attempted to paper over such weaknesses in the story content, via florid narration? or via other emphasis on the *scenery* of the story? The arboreal elven settlements in the Jackson "Lord of the Rings" movies are visually impressive, but using them as the setting is no substitute for call to action, nor is the term "arboreal" a substitute for call to action.

If your experience with narration with literary pretensions, is narration which is not also in the service of effective situation, effective framing, and effective call to action, then you understandably have an axe to grind. Your experience would be like buying cake from a bakery which lacks competence at the skill of mixing flour, sugar and water, and heating them for the right temperature at the right duration; and which attempts to cover for that lack of core skill, by covering their cakes with way too much gooey, sugary frosting.

Is cake-baking a frosting endeavor? No, not necessarily. But in practice, many of us expect at least *some* frosting on *most* birthday cakes. If you are on a Vendetta Against Frosting, some of us will rise to the defense of *appropriate* amounts of frosting on *competently baked* cakes. Similarly, Hussar and I are arguing for *appropriate* amounts of literary technique (including, but not limited to, narration vocabulary), on *competently baked* scenarios (which includes competently presented calls to action).


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> One thing that occurred to me via seeing a few posts a couple of pages back is this:
> 
> One thing a description or narration should strive for, however else it's delivered or phrased, is to _answer any obvious questions before they need to be asked_.
> 
> The example given was, I think, something like "You enter a room.  Passages exit to the north and west.  There's a staff." in its simplified form.  This leaves a boatload of unanswered obvious questions and thus fails as a useful description.  Some of the numeric dimensions can be left out of the verbal description if you're using a grid and map and just draw it out (which I often do) but noting the location of the staff, what it's made of, and whether there's anything else in the room; also noting anything special or unusual about the environment here e.g. the north passage has some water on the floor and there's an unusual amount of lichen on the west wall of the room - all of these seem like no-brainers to just describe up front as they'd be fairly obvious to the PCs.




I think that this is a good point, and I think the main point of narration is to describe the situation clearly so that the players can use that information to decide what to do.

Although I do think that questions are a good thing, so I don’t think every single detail needs to be provided ahead of time. Only the most relevant and obvious. Leaving the chance for players to ask questions is key, I think. It’s often a sign that they’re engaged and want to know more.


----------



## uzirath

hawkeyefan said:


> What do you focus on with your game prep? Do you focus on creating situations or scenarios with which to engage your players? Or do you focus on how the scenarios are presented?
> 
> Let’s say you have minimal prep time for a session....you can only get so much done. What kind of prep would you typically do?




This weekend I have found myself in exactly this situation. We have a game scheduled for tomorrow and the usual GM bowed out. The group asked me to step in. I agreed, but prior plans have given me less prep time than I would have hoped for. I'm using a modified short adventure from an issue of Pyramid magazine that seemed to fit the current position of the campaign.

My priorities have been the following, in descending order of importance:


Get the basic premise of the scenario down. Customize things such that the particular PCs in their particular spot in the campaign have a compelling reason to get involved with the adventure. Make sure there are elements that connect to the PCs both in terms of roleplaying and mechanics (i.e., have something demonic for the demon hunter to engage with).
Make two handouts (a few bits of text from a ship's logbook and a scrappy map). I don't typically do this sort of thing, but I enjoy such elements as a player, so when there's an easy way to do it, I go for it.
Review some mechanics that might come into play that I'm rusty on.
Think about various scenes (locations, really) that are likely to come into play and how I might describe them. Just jotting down some words in the margins basically.
My sense is that by virtue of my first priority, I share some elements of [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s position. (Indeed, I continue to follow this messy thread because I find the premise to be useful in terms of thinking about my own approach.) Some of my other priorities (i.e., #2 and #4), seem to veer toward the more literary camp. I don't really think of it as being "literary," in the sense of aiming for high art. The other players and I are fans of immersion, though, and I particularly enjoy vivid scenes, so I try to provide a certain level of detail and atmosphere. I find that if I wing all the setting elements, things end up too bland for my tastes. A bit of forethought gives me a chance to inject some life into it.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> If I told the players, "You see a githyanki. It sees you and the githyanki charges at you with a knife," I suspect that in that moment the players would understand the critical part with that fictional framing of that scene without either knowing or caring what a githyanki is or its associated literature: i.e., "This damn thing is changing at me with a knife. F*ck that crap. I pull out my bow and shoot it."




I'm okay with not knowing what a monster is if my PC also doesn't know.  However, I wouldn't accept the above.  I'd ask you to describe to me what it looked like.  What a strange creature looks like is every bit as important to me as what it's doing, even when what it's doing is charging me.  

Does it have 2 arms?  4 arms?  Claws?  Hands?  Does it have a mouth full of fangs or a mouth full of molars?  Does it have quills on its body?  What a creature looks like not only helps me visualize the scene, which is critical to me, but it also clues me in on how it may fight and possibly how to fight it.


----------



## Hussar

Aldarc said:


> It's not necessarily the literary work that has been done, but, rather, the cognitive ques are likely already present for "zombie" as part of the player's Euro-American culture. Zombie films, IME, probably have a greater mass cultural impact than zombies in literature.
> 
> You are correct that a "qallupilluit" will likely be unfamiliar to those same players. Where I think you are mistaken, however, is that you make an argumentative leap between this unfamiliarity to "ergo you must then supply literary-esque narration to engage the players about the creature" (paraphrasing). You will likely give some description of the physical appearance, but I suspect that the important part will be when you say, "it grabs the child and drags it back into the water" or "it appears to be lying in wait for the child by the hole in the ice." I don't think that you have to go to literary language to communicate a monster or why they should care.
> 
> If I told the players, "You see a githyanki. It sees you and the githyanki charges at you with a knife," I suspect that in that moment the players would understand the critical part with that fictional framing of that scene without either knowing or caring what a githyanki is or its associated literature: i.e., "This damn thing is changing at me with a knife. F*ck that crap. I pull out my bow and shoot it."




But, at that point, why not just eschew all description?  After all, the player has zero idea what a githyanki is, so, Generic Monster X has just as much heft.  "You enter a room with monsters" should be just as good as "You enter a room with orcs" since all the background (what I'm lumping into literary anyway) doesn't matter.


----------



## Riley37

hawkeyefan said:


> Although I do think that questions are a good thing, so I don’t think every single detail needs to be provided ahead of time. Only the most relevant and obvious. Leaving the chance for players to ask questions is key, I think. It’s often a sign that they’re engaged and want to know more.




IMO that's good for both player engagement and player agency. When the player zooms in on specific aspects of the narration, and asks about those aspects, then that can also indicate where the character is directing their attention, and what the character is prioritizing.

We humans don't process every detail in our field of vision. We pay more attention to some than to others. This reflects our priorities. Same for PCs.

DM: "A dragon swoops down towards you!"

Player A asks whether it's shiny, because Character A thinks in terms of alignment tendencies. Character A might overlook other details, while zooming in on whether this dragon is metallic.

Player B asks how large it is, because Character B, the battle master, is more interested in a tactical threat assessment (young dragon versus huge ancient dragon) than in guessing its intentions.

Player C asks whether it's unambiguously a literal dragon, because character C is a sage, and wary of false conclusions from first impressions. Character C is double-checking: is this actually a wyvern, or a pseudo dragon, or a dracolich, or something else which we might *confuse* with a dragon?

Player D asks whether the dragon is carrying any items, because Player D's character only cares about monsters in terms of what loot they drop. I'm not saying this is a good trait, but it happens. (Player D finds it entirely reasonable that in WoW, you can kill a vulture, and afterwards, find a glass of vulture milk, upright on the ground, not a drop spilled.)

These are all valid questions - well, at least three out of four are valid - and the GM is wise not to put the answers to ALL of them into the initial narration. All of the PCs see a dragon; each PC notices different details, varying according to their priorities - and their skills, if some questions provoke INT checks (possibly involving proficiencies such as History or Arcana).

If the dragon immediately zooms away, and the PCs don't get a sustained opportunity to observe the dragon, perhaps the PCs would benefit from trading notes. You know, like a team made up of diverse specialists.


----------



## Aldarc

Riley37 said:


> Insofar as you categorize zombie *films* as separate from *literature*, IMO you're switching to a less-situationally-useful definition of "literature". You and Maxperson can haggle over whether the relevant definition is both "written word" AND includes "oral literature". *Meanwhile, I recognize "Sean of the Dead" as a work of art which uses foreshadowing, changes of perspective, trope inversion, character development over time, and other techniques often considered "literary", only because of the many centuries in which written word was the main vehicle for the study of such techniques.* (I do not recognize "Sean of the Dead" as *high* literature... but damn, high versus low literature is not the useful distinction for current purposes.)
> 
> Where I think that YOU are mistaken, is whether Hussar (or I) would spend many words on literary-esque narration *in the specific form of describing its appearance and only when the PCs first see it*. Yeah, Lovecraft would go on and on, about whether the monster, when it emerges into view from under the ice, is rugose, or ichthian, or squamous. *There are other tools in the literary toolbox. One of those tools is foreshadowing.* For example, the behavior of local Inuit can indicate that they're afraid of *something* under the ice. The PCs might hear a humming sound, long before they *see* the qalupalik (they might ask questions about that sound, they might make INT checks to recognize the sound, and so forth).



These paragraphs, especially the bold, lets me know that you missed out on a lot of my past discussion. If you go back to a lengthy reply I made to Sadras fairly recently, I explain that much of what is getting labeled as "literary," including foreshadowing, actually belongs to the broader category of narratology. I regard TTRPGs as narrative endeavors but not literary endeavors. 



> Your players would not ask you *what it was* that grabbed the child and dragged the child into the water? I mean, a polar bear might do that, and so might a sea lion. I as a player would strongly prefer to know *before* making action declarations, whether I saw a polar bear, a githyanki, a gazebo, or something else. (Perhaps the PC saw the child, then looked away, then the child was gone when the PC looked again at the child's previous location. In which case, yes, it's the action which matters... *for that one round*.)
> 
> See Lanefan's point: GMs should establish *sufficient description to prompt player agency*. I want to overcome monsters which are more than bags of hit points. My player agency includes reacting differently to a polar bear (or other Beast type monster), than to a gazebo (construct) or a qallupilluit (aberration? monstrosity? humanoid?). My player agency might involve trying to *persuade* the qallupilluit to return the child, perhaps persuasion enhanced with the Suggestion spell. (Especially if the child remains alive under the ice only as long as the qallupilluit maintains Concentration on Breathe Water; in that scenario, stabbing the qallupilluit is NOT my best option.)



I get the feeling that you skimmed what I said. Some description of the humanoid was presumably provided. I'm sure they would ask, and just because a player asked "what it was" does not mean that they would know or that as a DM that I am obligated to answer. Does their character know? :shrug:


----------



## Maxperson

Hussar said:


> But, at that point, why not just eschew all description?  After all, the player has zero idea what a githyanki is, so, Generic Monster X has just as much heft.  "You enter a room with monsters" should be just as good as "You enter a room with orcs" since all the background (what I'm lumping into literary anyway) doesn't matter.




Monster X


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> But, at that point, why not just eschew all description?  After all, the player has zero idea what a githyanki is, so, Generic Monster X has just as much heft.  "You enter a room with monsters" should be just as good as "You enter a room with orcs" since all the background (what I'm lumping into literary anyway) doesn't matter.




I think you can go either way here. If players know what a Githyanki is, then saying 'it is a Githyanki', gets to the point really fast. If they don't know what it is, describing it in more detail is the better way to go. I want to be clear here that this isn't about avoiding descriptions, at least not for me. I do describe things. It is just I don't approach my descriptions like I am author writing a book or a dramatic narrator. I approach them like I would how I'd describe things if I was telling you about something that happened to me that day. I use a lot of colloquial language in my descriptions for example.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Hussar said:


> But, at that point, why not just eschew all description?  After all, the player has zero idea what a githyanki is, so, Generic Monster X has just as much heft.  "You enter a room with monsters" should be just as good as "You enter a room with orcs" since all the background (what I'm lumping into literary anyway) doesn't matter.




I don’t think anyone’s advocating for no description. But in an instance where players and their characters have no knowledge of the creature beyond what they can see, I think it makes sense to describe only what they see. No need to talk about the astral plane and lich queens and former servitude to mind flayers and all that lore. Save that info for when it makes sense to reveal it. 

But, after characters and their players have grown familiar with the githyanki, then I think it makes total sense to just refer to them by name rather than describing them every time. Especially when something is happening that demands action by the characters. Why bog it down with more detail than needed? 

“The yellow skinned creature charges you, its sword raised! What do you do?”

I’d think that the immediacy of the situation should dictate the pacing. If the player stopped to ask more questions...”What is it wearing?” I’d very likely say something like “Armor of some sort, but you can’t really tell. It’s almost upon you. What do you do?”

All this to say that the level of description to be offered is dependent upon the situation, the familiarity the players have with the content, and so on.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> If the village in the Marvel game is a small, remote, sinister mountain village in (say) Latveria, then probably yes.




I addressed this... it's not a "sinister" village



pemerton said:


> I use the words I need to describe the situation. These will depend on mood, whim, what has previously been said, what seems to matter in the current situation, etc, as well as (obviously) upon what I want to describe. That is to say, the words I use will depend on all the normal determinants of spontaneous human communication.




I don't feel like this is right... in conversation we rarely are consciously choosing our words it's more a stream of conscious effort (which is why people often put their foot in their mouth or have to correct/explain what they actually meant)... while in this situation you are consciously selecting certain words to emphasize a mood, theme, etc.


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> Why not?
> 
> This take me, at least, back to some of the points @_*Manbearcat*_ was making fairly early in this thread. If I'm going to use a qallupilluit in my game, I will want to establish a situation which gives it some sort of heft or significance. There are very many ways of doing that (and obviously RPG system will have a significant impact, on top of system-independent techniques). In my experience, an elaborate or literary description isn't one of them.
> 
> If the sudden appearance of a terrifying hag from under the pack ice isn't - for whatever of innumerable possible reasons - going to engage the players, why would, or should, piling on the evocative words make a difference?




So the Qallupilluit is quintessential bogeyman mythology.

For bogeyman mythology to be thematically potent, it has to have some way to hook into the PC's childhood or folklore, otherwise, its just another creepy monster.  

So this is actually the perfect example where a GM's deftness of framing is hierarchically the apex currency in the purchase of a great gaming moment.

"Your little sister was lost so many years ago but your mother's words echo in your mind nonetheless; 'look after her while we're gone or the Qallupilluit will take her.'  The frozen forest gives way to clearing.  The babe's soft cries give way to gentle parting water.  A mask of sharp teeth and oily hair disappear with it."


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> However, I think horror is fairly exceptional as genres go, and one of the hardest to do well. I don't think you should build general rules about what is good for gaming around that one genre (because while word choice can matter in a session of Ravenloft, it definitely isn't going to be as important in my wuxia or fantasy RPG sessions).




Okay I find this interesting... so if you're playing grim and gritty fanatasy say Zweihander or Warhammer you don't use different descriptive elements in your narration/"conversation" vs. say a Lord of the Rings-esque high fantasy game?  If you're playing Dark Sun it gets the same treatment/presentation/descriptive elements and narrative content as Ravenloft or Dragonlance?  You're telling me the description of say a village in the mountains is the same in all fantasy genres?


----------



## Imaro

Manbearcat said:


> So the Qallupilluit is quintessential bogeyman mythology.
> 
> For bogeyman mythology to be thematically potent, it has to have some way to hook into the PC's childhood or folklore, otherwise, its just another creepy monster.
> 
> So this is actually the perfect example where a GM's deftness of framing is hierarchically the apex currency in the purchase of a great gaming moment.
> 
> "Your little sister was lost so many years ago but your mother's words echo in your mind nonetheless; 'look after her while we're gone or the Qallupilluit will take her.'  The frozen forest gives way to clearing.  The babe's soft cries give way to gentle parting water.  A mask of sharp teeth and oily hair disappear with it."




But do you consider this conversational or a constructed narrative?


----------



## Manbearcat

Imaro said:


> But do you consider this conversational or a constructed narrative?




I haven't been following this thread.

I'm assuming the above contrast or dichotomy you're trying to draw is something essential to this thread?

But if you're looking for an answer (insofar as I'm even remotely capable of inferring what you're looking for from this scant bit)...how about...

Probably both?

It seems to me that if a bogeyman creature of folklore with specific thematic focus is going to be injected into the fiction of play, then it follows that one or more character is going to have some relevant ties to the premise of that folklore (Belief, Relationship, etc) to be addressed through play.

So the foundation of that narrative would have been built long ago and led up to that point of play.

And all play is fundamentally conversation; an endless loop of declarative/question > response (which will take the form of another declarative/question).  You literally cannot have TTRPGing without conversation?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Imaro

Manbearcat said:


> I haven't been following this thread.
> 
> I'm assuming the above contrast or dichotomy you're trying to draw is something essential to this thread?
> 
> But if you're looking for an answer (insofar as I'm even remotely capable of inferring what you're looking for from this scant bit)...how about...




Sorry about that I assumed...  Not necessarily a dichotomy but A contrast comparison between running games in a conversational-esque narrative ( How you would speak to someone if you were having a everyday conversation with them) vs a more constructed or structured narrative (Planned descriptions, word usage, structure or whatever else to evoke emotions, mood, atmosphere, etc.)




Manbearcat said:


> And all play is fundamentally conversation; an endless loop of declarative/question > response (which will take the form of another declarative/question).  You literally cannot have TTRPGing without conversation?




I agree with all of this the question is around the structure of said conversation.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Riley37 said:


> I was at first baffled at the thread's emphasis on GM narration and apparent disregard of player narration. Either one can be literary. The emphasis makes sense only insofar as the GM has a task, informing player agency and resolving action declarations, which the GM can *neglect* if the GM excessively allocates limited resources towards florid narration.
> 
> I thought of the game ZORK from the 1980s, and similar games. The narration ranges from spare to florid, from "You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door", to the description of the grue as a "sinister, lurking presence in the dark places of the earth". The game's interactive parser can only understand simple, spare player action declarations, such as (GO) NORTH, SEARCH MAILBOX or HIT TROLL WITH SWORD.
> 
> When humans sit at a table with each other, I prefer a player whose responses include "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; or close the wall up with our English dead!", over a player whose responses are limited to the spareness of GO NORTH or HIT TROLL WITH SWORD. Going out on a limb: when the literary aspect of a TRPG session reaches excellence, player contributions are often - always? - part of that excellence..
> 
> Though not *only* with florid language, since florid vocabulary is not the *only* literary device, it's just an easy device for us to vary in this thread for the purpose of quickly demonstrating different points on the spectrum of literary versus conversational.




I wanted to revisit this post from a few pages back because I think the nature of the GM role would obviously take focus in a discussion of narration. But looking at player narration may shed some light on the subject.

I’d start off by pointing out that the game being played is a huge factor here. What the players are allowed to narrate affects how much narration is necessary and acceptable.

Having said that, generally speaking, I find high levels of player narration to be annoying. I don’t mind a bit, and I certainly like when players are engaged and talking about the situation. But when it’s a player’s turn and they start in with something like “Recalling his days on the high plains of Valinor, the stoic ranger Aspar presses on, undaunted by the challenges ahead....” I want to smash my head into the table. It just often seems so self indulgent. There’s a time and place for incorporating backstory, you don’t need to jam it in at every chance. Especially when other people are waiting to take their turn, too.

I’m curious how others feel about the player side, and if there’s a difference in how people stand from GM to player narration.


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> I wanted to revisit this post from a few pages back because I think the nature of the GM role would obviously take focus in a discussion of narration. But looking at player narration may shed some light on the subject.
> 
> I’d start off by pointing out that the game being played is a huge factor here. What the players are allowed to narrate affects how much narration is necessary and acceptable.
> 
> Having said that, generally speaking, I find high levels of player narration to be annoying. I don’t mind a bit, and I certainly like when players are engaged and talking about the situation. But when it’s a player’s turn and they start in with something like “Recalling his days on the high plains of Valinor, the stoic ranger Aspar presses on, undaunted by the challenges ahead....” I want to smash my head into the table. It just often seems so self indulgent. There’s a time and place for incorporating backstory, you don’t need to jam it in at every chance. Especially when other people are waiting to take their turn, too.
> 
> I’m curious how others feel about the player side, and if there’s a difference in how people stand from GM to player narration.




Is this a question of length or of literary quality?


----------



## uzirath

hawkeyefan said:


> Generally speaking, I find high levels of player narration to be annoying. I don’t mind a bit, and I certainly like when players are engaged and talking about the situation. But when it’s a player’s turn and they start in with something like “Recalling his days on the high plains of Valinor, the stoic ranger Aspar presses on, undaunted by the challenges ahead....” I want to smash my head into the table. It just often seems so self indulgent. There’s a time and place for incorporating backstory, you don’t need to jam it in at every chance. Especially when other people are waiting to take their turn, too.
> 
> I’m curious how others feel about the player side, and if there’s a difference in how people stand from GM to player narration.




For me, this depends a lot on context and what the other players like. There's a difference between fun role-playing flourishes and hogging the spotlight. If we're in the middle of a tense battle scene and a player decides to start reciting epic poetry on their turn, I'd get tired of it pretty soon. (Just like I get frustrated by players who haven't figured out their tactical maneuver in time for their turn.) This interrupts the flow of the game, doesn't seem realistic (especially with 1-second combat turns in GURPS), and does seem self-indulgent. 

On the other hand, many of the players in one of my regular adult groups are English teachers. They love writing and storytelling. It's not uncommon for one or more of them to have something prepared to share at a game (sometimes in writing). We had a cleric who would, at most sessions, share a stanza from the scripture of his super-weird deity. We all looked forward to this. The writing was good, and it added to the campaign world in meaningful ways. If he had written up the whole thing to share at a single session, we would have thrown all the snacks at him until he stopped, but a stanza at a time was perfect.

As a GM, I often encourage players to narrate and add elements to the game world. I don't have time for the kind of obsessive prep that I used to do (before becoming a parent and having more professional responsibilities). Now I typically work from some loose notes that I'll use to paint a broad picture of a scene. If the party is arriving at a town, I might say, "You see the domes and dusty minarets across the dunes as you approach Satusheh." I leave a lot of the details of Satusheh to the players. If they want to find a tavern, I say, "Yes, you find a tavern called . . ." and let them player fill it in, along with a description, and many of the notable NPCs. I add details to the mix, too, in an organic way. 

The players have taken to this. It even works when I have pre-generated material that needs to slip in. I can introduce my NPCs, as required. A player-generated inn can still have a secret room and a cult operating out of the cellar. The bard that one of them describes by the fire can be the Duke's agent that I was going to have them meet. It's not fully freeform, but it works fairly well, and the creative synergy creates unexpected elements that add to the fun.


----------



## hawkeyefan

[MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] My answer on the first page was in response to the thread title and little else. Upon spending more time to read and absorb the OP and some follow up posts, I clarified my stance. I believe that post is on page 2, perhaps 3.

I think a lot of the confusion is really to be attributed to people not looking beyond the title. And I understand why....I did it myself...but it’s just a headline in that sense.   

I agree that clarity has been needed at times, but trying to pin the problems of this thread on one thing seems limited. I think we can all do better. We can grant benefit of the doubt instead of assuming the worst, we can address each other individually rather than trying to lump everyone into one camp or the other, we can clarify or offer a different phrase when needed. 

I’ve enjoyed a good deal of the discussion at times, and found what others are saying to be interesting and worthwhile....but there’s also been a good deal of nonsense that’s taken up space.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Manbearcat

Imaro said:


> Sorry about that I assumed...  Not necessarily a dichotomy but A contrast comparison between running games in a conversational-esque narrative ( How you would speak to someone if you were having a everyday conversation with them) vs a more constructed or structured narrative (Planned descriptions, word usage, structure or whatever else to evoke emotions, mood, atmosphere, etc.)




No worries.

If your saying that conversation with some pals while you're at dinner is different than TTRPG conversation, then sure.  TTRPG conversation is structured such that it produces an evolving gamestate and the participant experience that goes with that.  The former does have structure, but its more etiquette and cue-driven (so different in some ways, similar in others) and its purpose isn't an evolving gamestate (though it is about participant experience).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> Okay I find this interesting... so if you're playing grim and gritty fanatasy say Zweihander or Warhammer you don't use different descriptive elements in your narration/"conversation" vs. say a Lord of the Rings-esque high fantasy game?  If you're playing Dark Sun it gets the same treatment/presentation/descriptive elements and narrative content as Ravenloft or Dragonlance?  You're telling me the description of say a village in the mountains is the same in all fantasy genres?




I don't play much Grim Dark, and have never played Warhammer or Zweihander. But I have played Dark Sun. I mean the villages will look different and have different kinds of denizens and culture, but I am not going to approach how I describe things differently in terms of constructing what I say (if that makes sense). Again, I tend not to talk like a Narrator, so there isn't really a need for me to shift voices, or use different kinds of adjectives. That doesn't mean there will not be description or that the descriptions won't take things like setting, culture, etc into account. Obviously there is a big difference between how settlements operate in Dark Sun and how they operate in your standard fantasy campaign.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> Is this a question of length or of literary quality?




Either...or both! 

I think that generally speaking the expectation is that the GM will provide the bulk of narration, and so most of the advocacy voiced in the thread so far has talked about immersion. Does player narration add or detract from immersion? Is it highly game dependent? Is it a balance between quality and length? 

For me, as a player, I want the game to keep moving, so I generally want other players to finish their turn quickly. I don't mind a bit of debate about what they should do, and I don't mind if they throw in a bit of narration or dialogue, but I expect it to be reasonable.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## hawkeyefan

lowkey13 said:


> "*but trying to pin the problems of this thread on one thing seems limited."*
> 
> Is it, though? I didn't think I did say just one thing, and I think I did a pretty decent job going over the thread origin and issues at length. But what do I know? Given the issues we are having with definitions, maybe you mean limited to mean ... appropriate.
> 
> I mean, I check in every two hundred comments or so, and it is, for the most part, the exact same problems. It's because of the following:
> 
> 1. New people will occasionally rotate in. "Hey guys, maybe if you realized that literary refers to written works ..."
> 
> 2. The OP effect.  "Hey guys, if you really paid attention to what the OP really meant, this conversation would get back on track!"
> 
> 3. The anchoring/framing effect. Because this is how the argument/thesis/conversation started was originally presented, it always returns back to those unclear, ill-defined issues.
> 
> 4. Definition issues. Seriously- using loaded terms like "quality" (which is going to be subjective) and "core" (um .... okay) and then trying to shoehorn in other aspects like "literary" as a synonym for "performance" is necessarily going to result in people talking past each other (at best) or devolve into everyone's least favorite thing- arguing about arguing ("Your strawman moved the goalpost to ad hominem me with an improper appeal to authority! Also, my dad's argument could totally beat up your dad's argument.").
> 
> 
> Hey- if you're getting something out of the occasional detours (what is an RPG, what is narration, etc.) then that's great- I won't rain on your parade.
> 
> 
> Just seems that the signal/noise ratio in this thread is spectacularly low, given the .... 1300 or so comments. But maybe I missed something. Just seems pretty same-y every time I check in, given that I make the same comment.




I don't know, man.....maybe make a different comment? If your complaint is that the thread seems the same, and in the next breath you say that you keep making the same comment, then maybe try something new? A few pages back, you and I and some others talked about what is essential to all RPGs. It didn't really last because people kept insisting that GMs were a requiremet because D&D, so I stopped discussing it. But for a little while, it was interesting to hear what you and others had to say. 

Recently, I took a comment by @_*Riley37*_ about player narration and asked people to comment on their opinions on that. Most of the discussion has been focused on the GM, so I'm interested if a view on player narration will offer any new insights or takes. 

Do you feel the same about player narration as GM narration?

Edited: I see we posted near the same time, and you offered an opinion on it.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Riley37

lowkey13 said:


> The amount of narration and in-character monologue I can tolerate from other players = X.




See also, George Carlin on driving speed:

  Have you ever noticed that when you’re drivin’, anyone goin’ slower than you is an idiot? And anyone goin’ faster than you is a maniac?
  "Will you look at this idiot!” [points right] “Look at him! Just creepin’ along!” [swings head left] “Holy s—!! Look at that maniac go!”
  Why, I tell ya, folks, it’s a wonder we ever get anywhere at all these days, what with all the idiots and maniacs out there.

I mentioned, a while back, that I gamed with a player who, as GM, gave overly florid narrations. He would end by telling the players that their characters gasped in awe. (All of us, equally, no matter how deeply we've established character differentiation between the stoic veteran and the flighty apprentice? Apparently so.) When he was a player, and the DM was playing a villain's turn, and the villain hit his character, he would jump in to tell us how his character reacted to the hit (eg a rictus of grim determination), which slowed the flow, it was spotlight-hogging. The Champions TPRG has a rule that a monologue is a free action, regardless of length; he often invoked that rule. (IMO that rule is more appropriate to some comic book genres, than to others; Watchmen has a different flow from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.) 

Eventually he ran games for middle schoolers, which on one hand can be a great gift, and on another hand, maybe that was his only remaining way to be the dominant gamer in the room, after fellow adults got tired of his style.

If the OP was "don't be that guy", perhaps coupled with a counter-example of under-narration, then the thread might have ended in the first hundred pages.


----------



## Riley37

hawkeyefan said:


> I’d start off by pointing out that the game being played is a huge factor here. What the players are allowed to narrate affects how much narration is necessary and acceptable.




Yes, but when you say "the game being played", do you mean the system and rule book? I am not aware of any difference between 3.5 or 4E rules on player narration versus 5E rules on player narration, because I'm not aware of *any* rules in 5E on player narration. There is some tradition and culture, among D&D players, which interacts with the rules as written, and which varies from table to table. Hero System has a genre-specific rule about player narration *in character*; when you're using Hero System to play Champions, you can establish that *in-character* monologues are Zero Phase actions (equivalent to free actions). Hero System doesn't have RAW about out-of-character player narration. (Well, not as of Hero 4E.)

Universalis has rules for what players establish about the fiction.  It does not have rules for what players say when speaking in the voice of a character; the declarations which spend Coins to establish Facts are out-of-character. (Universalis is a no-DM system.) I have only played Fiasco once and didn't read the rules book, but I gather that Fiasco allows quite a bit of player narration, including narration which establishes facts in the fiction. 



hawkeyefan said:


> Having said that, generally speaking, I find high levels of player narration to be annoying. I don’t mind a bit, and I certainly like when players are engaged and talking about the situation. But when it’s a player’s turn and they start in with something like “Recalling his days on the high plains of Valinor, the stoic ranger Aspar presses on, undaunted by the challenges ahead...”




I find that self-indulgent. I imagine that player writing novels which are Mary Sue homages to the awesomeness of the protagonist. How about player narration which isn't a zoom onto the face of that player's PC? For example, a narration in which one PC turns attention towards another PC - "Aspar sprints to the side of his fallen comrade Lavinia, to see if she yet lives" - which is meant as a set-up for either the DM, or Lavinia's player, to narrate Lavinia's status? (It's possible that the GM doesn't know Lavinia's exact progress along the Wound Track; so the GM might turn to Lavinia's player for further narration.) 

You mention "it’s a player’s turn". In my experience, gamers apply rigorous standards of "it's my turn, now it's your turn" more during combat (or chase or other action scenes) than during most non-combat. I've also experienced (recently) wrangling over who's taking too a long turn, when PCs enter a village, and split up to pursue a variety of non-combat downtime goals. The dwarven paladin went to the local smithy, the sorlock sought an appointment with the local mayor, the rogue found the worst bar in town, and the DM spent some time on each of their conversations with NPCs. Those scenes aren't mediated by the combat rules; they're not in initiative order as modified by DEX; they still raise the question of which player gets how much of the DM's spotlight. And in all those scenes, one of the time factors, is how much the DM narrates to establish facts and tone about the smithy, the mayor, and the dive bar. If the dwarf paladin's player goes to the smithy, and the DM spends five minutes describing the smithy then five minutes of NPC in-character speech, the local smith telling the story of how he was once an adventurer before he took an arrow to the knee, then that's ten minutes of that scene, before the player has a chance to say *anything* about what he wants at the smithy. If, at that point, the rogue player gets itchy - "when can we resolve what I find at the bar?" - then that player's impatience is understandable AND the paladin player might feel caught between "I want to play my PC!" versus "my scene has gone on too long already".

Wait, what does any of this have to do with literary value?

IMO a story in which the PCs *each have their own interests*, in which the paladin's interest in the forge comes from his worship of Tharmekhûl, while the sorlock's actions follow from his Noble background and his membership in the Lord's Alliance (plus he's the high-CHA "Face" of the party), and the rogue goes to the dive bar *to differentiate himself from all these lofty heroes he tags along with* (he's in it for the loot, not the heroism), is a story with more potential for literary quality, than a story in which the PCs stick with the trope of "go to the local tavern and flirt with barmaids".

This potential for literary quality comes from the players, not from the DM. But whether this potential gets realized, or not, depends in large part on how well the DM rises to the occasion. If the DM has a pre-written speech in which the mayor has a side quest for the party, and thus the DM spends time only on the sorlock's visit, while dropping the ball or giving token attention to the visits to the smithy and the dive bar, then the DM is missing an opportunity, and the DM is rewarding one player with more spotlight time than the others.

In this situation, perhaps the sorlock player should interrupt the mayor (and thus the DM) with "Hey, I came here because I've discovered clues indicating a regional threat, which I'd like you to communicate to the rest of the Lord's Alliance. If you have a mission for my party, then how about I gather the rest of them, and you tell all of us at once." The sorlock might, in the process, lose the scene the player hoped for; and the player will discover, if he doesn't already know, how well the DM responds to narrative interruption.


----------



## Riley37

hawkeyefan said:


> _For me, as a player, I want the game to keep moving, so I generally want other players to finish their turn quickly._






lowkey13 said:


> That is a perfectly reasonable position to have! It's because RPGs exist in that space between social activity and game (with the addition of RPing and nerdom and other parts) that make this hard to pin down; but the basic gist remains.




Yes and no. In most mainstream, bog-standard D&D, this is often a reasonable position, *especially in combat scenes regulated by initiative order*.

In a non-combat scene, within a D&D game, this could be unreasonable. Consider the previous scenario in which the PCs split up on arrival at a town. While the sorlock visits the mayor, for the sorlock's own reasons, the mayor responds with a mission for the whole party. Perhaps the mayor pitches the sorlock, and the sorlock's player and the DM count on the sorlock relaying the information to the whole party; so the DM reminds all players at the table to listen closely to this scene, because though their players aren't getting the information *in real time in the fiction*, their players will get the information as soon as the party regroups (at the Bog-Standard Tavern, that evening). This scene at the mayor's office occurs during the sorlock's non-combat turn AND this scene IS how the story moves forward along the DM's intended plot.

If the rogue's player then jumps in with "Riley, let's not spend the whole session on your sorlock hob-nobbing with his fellow nobles. Wrap up your scene so we can move the story along", and if that pressure to shorten the scene *succeeds*, and three sessions later there's a question of "wait, did the mayor warn us about the dryads? we wouldn't have set fire to the forest if we knew about the dryads!" then that's a consequence of poor narration management between players and DM.

That's an example within D&D. In Fiasco, or Fall of Magic, "finish your turn so the game can keep moving" is a *horrible* position. Without player turns, there is no story progress, at all.


----------



## Riley37

5ekyu said:


> I have to say that to me the defining difference between "literary" and not is not "participation." As a recent netflix product showed there can be interactive movies where viewer choices determine outcomes (and they are not the first.) There have been books that way for longer than that.
> 
> So, I would strongly suggest your title needs a different word than literary or its gonna be very misleading.
> 
> I know I came in hoping for a different discussion than participation.




This was the third post, following the OP and my pesky "so what?" response.

5ekyu, you were... not wrong.


----------



## Riley37

lowkey13 said:


> My meta-comment about the thread is that the signal/noise ratio will always be low, because it will continue to get derailed, and people will end up circling around the same issues. To the extent you want a lengthy, and productive conversation around, inter alia, the necessity of the GM/DM in a TTRPG (and or primacy of same), then a separate thread centered on that would better than a thread were people keep going back to issues of what "literary quality" really means.




Yeah. This is vaguely analogous to a discussion of a maths problem, in which every now and then someone new wanders in, and argues whether we're applying the proper order of operations (exponents THEN multiplication THEN addition). Or perhaps it's closer to people wandering in and arguing whether we're properly applying Euclid's postulates to Cartesian coordinates... when some of us have been trying to solve the problem with polar coordinates.

https://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/NonEuclid.shtml


----------



## Riley37

Aldarc said:


> These paragraphs, especially the bold, lets me know that you missed out on a lot of my past discussion. If you go back to a lengthy reply I made to Sadras fairly recently, I explain that much of what is getting labeled as "literary," including foreshadowing, actually belongs to the broader category of narratology. I regard TTRPGs as narrative endeavors but not literary endeavors.




If you and I were in a one-on-one discussion, then I would work within your distinction between narratology and literature. We're not. When you can get Maxperson, BRG, Hussar, and *everyone else in the thread including the drop-ins*, to follow your usage, THEN you can talk down to me on the basis of that distinction. In the meantime, get over yourself: you're one of many voices in the thread, you're not the OP, and you have no more prescriptive authority over the terms of discussion than I do.



Aldarc said:


> I get the feeling that you skimmed what I said. Some description of the humanoid was presumably provided. I'm sure they would ask, and just because a player asked "what it was" does not mean that they would know or that as a DM that I am obligated to answer. Does their character know? :shrug:




Much as you may find it baffling, or even inconceivable, that someone can read your posts closely and still form different conclusions: it happens. In this case, it happened because you jumped to conclusions, while I did not. "Some description of the humanoid was presumably provided" - you haven't seen the movie "Predator", have you? If that movie were a TRPG module, the players would not get a *visual* description of the humanoid adversary in their first combat encounter with it, nor the second, nor the third.

I get the feeling that you skimmed what I wrote, and you missed this scenario: "_Perhaps the PC saw the child, then looked away, then the child was gone when the PC looked again at the child's previous location."
_
That's how I would run the encounter, if the PC missed a Perception check versus the qallupilluit's Stealth check. Though I would, long before that moment, tell the players that the PCs heard a hum, because in the lore, that's a warning sign of the presence of a qallupilluit.


----------



## Maxperson

lowkey13 said:


> ("Your strawman moved the goalpost to ad hominem me with an improper appeal to authority! Also, my dad's argument could totally beat up your dad's argument.").




My dad's argument will totally rob your dad's argument.  He starts off with a Masked-man Fallacy.  Then he slides into a Broken Window Fallacy.  And then, oh God, he did it again.  He got distracted by an If-by Whisky.  I guess I'll bail him out in the morning.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use the words I need to describe the situation. These will depend on mood, whim, what has previously been said, what seems to matter in the current situation, etc, as well as (obviously) upon what I want to describe. That is to say, the words I use will depend on all the normal determinants of spontaneous human communication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't feel like this is right... in conversation we rarely are consciously choosing our words it's more a stream of conscious effort (which is why people often put their foot in their mouth or have to correct/explain what they actually meant)... while in this situation you are consciously selecting certain words to emphasize a mood, theme, etc.
Click to expand...


In conversation I choose words depending on what I want to say - for instance, if I want to describe a building, I might choose what other building or structure to compare it to. If I want to describe how a person behaved or seemed to feel, I might say they seemed upset and then clarify that to mean (say) angry, not sad.

I didn't say I choose words to convey mood or theme. I did say that my choice of words might depend upon mood. For instance, like many people, when I get worked up my speech becomes more energetic.



Imaro said:


> I addressed this... it's not a "sinister" village





Imaro said:


> so if you're playing grim and gritty fanatasy say Zweihander or Warhammer you don't use different descriptive elements in your narration/"conversation" vs. say a Lord of the Rings-esque high fantasy game? If you're playing Dark Sun it gets the same treatment/presentation/descriptive elements and narrative content as Ravenloft or Dragonlance? You're telling me the description of say a village in the mountains is the same in all fantasy genres?



I have two related thoughts in response to these posts:

(1) If it's not a sinister village then why would the description be the same? _You arrive at a village. It's gloomy and the people don't look up._ vs _You arrive at a village. A friendly child offers to show you the way to the chief's hall._ In my 4e game, when I wanted to convey something about a duergar hold to the players, I described some things their PCs could see, including slaves and brutal overseers.

The more general point: _sinister_ or _brutal_ isn't just an overlay. It's an emergent consequence of particular features of a situation. Non-sinister villages have different features, which therefore warrant different descriptions.

This feeds into the second thought:

(2) What gives LotR a different tone from (say) REH Conan is not just, or even primarily, th literay style. It's the story elements: the characters, their motivations, the consequences that ensue from their choices, and the thematic content that emerges from these things.

I find this is even moreso with D&D fiction like (say) Dragonlance vs Dark Sun. I tend to find most D&D writing a bit overdone. I don't think that the literary stye of Dark Sun books does anything in particular to convey the themes of the setting. It's the actual story elements and expectations for play that do this.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> I wanted to revisit this post from a few pages back because I think the nature of the GM role would obviously take focus in a discussion of narration. But looking at player narration may shed some light on the subject.
> 
> I’d start off by pointing out that the game being played is a huge factor here. What the players are allowed to narrate affects how much narration is necessary and acceptable.
> 
> Having said that, generally speaking, I find high levels of player narration to be annoying. I don’t mind a bit, and I certainly like when players are engaged and talking about the situation. But when it’s a player’s turn and they start in with something like “Recalling his days on the high plains of Valinor, the stoic ranger Aspar presses on, undaunted by the challenges ahead....” I want to smash my head into the table.



This isn't something I have strong views on. When I'm trying to adjudicate an action as GM, and I'm GMing a game in which the fiction has a big affect on resolution and consequences (say Buring Wheel or Traveller) then I like to have a fairly clear sense of what the character is doing, and overly complicated narration from the player can sometime hurt that.

But if the players want to banter with one another, or affirm their PC personalities against one another, that's fine with me.

With you "high plains of Valinor" example, I would see that as somewhat system-dependent. In some systems it's pure self-indulgence. In my 4e game, when the player of the Deva Sage of Ages recalls his days in the heavens, he is warming us up for some potentially unorthodox deployment of one of his memory-oriented abilities. In my MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic games, nearly every pool includes a Distinction that comes either from the PC sheet or the scene, and so there has to be some narration to contextualise that.

So maybe I'm more relaxed about player narration than you? Of course it's hard to tell in this abstracted medium!


----------



## pemerton

Riley37 said:


> If the OP was "don't be that guy", perhaps coupled with a counter-example of under-narration, then the thread might have ended in the first hundred pages.



And if the OP was The Old Man and the Sea then I might have won a Nobel Prize.

If you wnnt to start a thread about spotlight-hoggin narration, go for it! It's not something that I've got much experience of, but I'm sure it's a thing.

But the OP is about something else - namely, the stuff that I said in the OP and have been discussing with other psters since!


----------



## pemerton

Maybe posters who think the thread is not worthwhile, or is overly cluttered, could cease posting in it?


----------



## Hussar

Fantastic idea.

((heads off to unsubscribe from the thread))


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> Maybe posters who think the thread is not worthwhile, or is overly cluttered, could cease posting in it?




Your threads suck!  And you're terrible!  And we hate you!

More stuff!


----------



## Riley37

pemerton said:


> And if the OP was The Old Man and the Sea then I might have won a Nobel Prize




Would the Nobel team consider a post in a TRPG forum as a candidate for the Literature prize?

If so, that might go a long way to break the elitist stigma against assigning literary value to anything connected with the fantasy and science fiction genres.


----------



## Riley37

pemerton said:


> In my 4e game, when the player of the Deva Sage of Ages recalls his days in the heavens, he is warming us up for some potentially unorthodox deployment of one of his memory-oriented abilities.




I recall a character in a Hero System (Champions) game, who had Overall Skill Levels, with the limitation that he could only use them while recounting an anecdote from his decades of service all across the Empire, and applying the lesson from that anecdote to the current situation.

Was I entirely mistaken, in my theory that your OP was related to experiences in which GMs used pretentiously florid narration, as "icing" in a vain attempt to compensate for half-baked "cakes"? Apparently so, since you say that you don't have much experience of spotlight-hoggin' narration, and thus you're managed not to cross the path of spotlight-hoggin' GMs.

Have you accomplished the goals of your OP?


----------



## Sadras

I retread back to a post by Ovinomancer adding onto a reply to myself by Aldarc (excellent posts by both of them) where Ovi speaks about _intent_. I wanted to make a point about this at the time, but life.

As a DM when I find that I won't have the lexicon in the moment to provide the pazaz I desire during a social exchange in a game, I switch to 3rd person, and I do my best to describe what was said and how it was said. This is because I value the wordcraft and I really do not want to mess it up. When however, I have something prepped or inspiration grabs me, sure I spout out something hoping to impress/immerse the players. Importantly, the intent is always there you see, even if the execution does not always follow through.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> So the Qallupilluit is quintessential bogeyman mythology.
> 
> For bogeyman mythology to be thematically potent, it has to have some way to hook into the PC's childhood or folklore, otherwise, its just another creepy monster.



Though sometimes, "just another creepy monster" - something new that the PCs (and players!) haven't seen or heard of before - is exactly what's required at the time.  As in:

DM rolls give a random encounter, DM quickly thinks to self: "Hmmm.  Do I throw yet another monster at 'em that they've seen and beaten a hundred times before, or do I dream up something brand new right now that suits the surroundings?  Yeah, let's go for something new..."



> "Your little sister was lost so many years ago but your mother's words echo in your mind nonetheless; 'look after her while we're gone or the Qallupilluit will take her.'  The frozen forest gives way to clearing.  The babe's soft cries give way to gentle parting water.  A mask of sharp teeth and oily hair disappear with it."



And it doesn't even have to have anything to do with someone's sister in order to make it a) a threat and b) interesting, if the DM does it right.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> Having said that, generally speaking, I find high levels of player narration to be annoying. I don’t mind a bit, and I certainly like when players are engaged and talking about the situation. But when it’s a player’s turn and they start in with something like “Recalling his days on the high plains of Valinor, the stoic ranger Aspar presses on, undaunted by the challenges ahead....” I want to smash my head into the table. It just often seems so self indulgent. There’s a time and place for incorporating backstory, you don’t need to jam it in at every chance. Especially when other people are waiting to take their turn, too.



Where I wouldn't mind some of this. 

Comes down to expected pacing, as so many of these things seem to end up doing: it's an open-ended game* with no set schedule for what adventuring has to be done by when; and if long-winded descriptions of what, why and how a character does something is what keeps (a) player(s) engaged, I'd say to the DM "Sit back, crack open a beer, relax, and let it happen".

* - assuming a typical home game, rather than a con game or some other limited-time affair.


----------



## pemerton

Riley37 said:


> Was I entirely mistaken, in my theory that your OP was related to experiences in which GMs used pretentiously florid narration, as "icing" in a vain attempt to compensate for half-baked "cakes"?



Yes.

The OP was the result of two threads that were current at the time it was posted - one about boxed text, one about narration of action declarations. In the former thread, some advocated for boxed text argued that it is important for establishing tone/mood. In the latter thread, some critics of the idea that players should narrate their action declarations based their criticisms on an assumption that more evocative/"florid" narrations were going to get those players a bonus to their checks.

My own view is that if a RPG system doesn't require players to narrate their action declarations - if it is purely mechanical moves - then that's probably a weakness of the system. But that doesn't equate _narration_ with _evocative description_ - it equates _narration_ with _engaging the fiction_. And the flipside of that is the idea that at the heart of good GMing in a RPG is _framing situations_: the emotional heft of the RPGing situation is generated by the call to action and the invitation to respond as a protgaonist; not the evocative power of the narration.



Riley37 said:


> Have you accomplished the goals of your OP?



I posted an answer to this, or a very similar question, upthread about a fortnight ago:



pemerton said:


> What about me? Do you mean, what did I hope to get out of the thread?
> 
> One's never sure in advance beyond "interesting conversation". But the discussion about storytelling and various modes, driven mostly by [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION], has been interesting.
> 
> [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] have helped refine my framing of my point. That's helpful. And also led it in the direction of "advice to GMs", which led to some fruitful discussions with [MENTION=8495]uzirath[/MENTION] whom I've not engaged with very much before as a poster.
> 
> And [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] has pushed with some challenging posts about pacing that I haven't replied to yet.
> 
> Ultimately, the reason I post on a discussion board is to have discussions.



Since then, there have been more interesting posts and profitable exchanges of ideas.


----------



## Riley37

pemerton said:


> at the heart of good GMing in a RPG is _framing situations_: the emotional heft of the RPGing situation is generated by the call to action and the invitation to respond as a protgaonist; not the evocative power of the narration.




Thanks!


What's at the heart of good playing in a RPG? Responding as a protagonist?

Some of my favorite moments as a player, are times when I inspired another player to high-immersion inter-character RP dialogue. Those moments are worthwhile, in the context of a story in which the PC party is engaged in some worthwhile enterprise, so perhaps they depend indirectly on previously established protagonist response.


----------



## Aldarc

Though you may have had this game in mind for your OP, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], Dungeon World is built on what you describe: GM frames the scene - turns to the PC: "What do you do?" - and then the PC narrates how their character develops or responds to the fiction. Depending upon the results triggered by the dice, the GM then may shift the fictional framing of the story and repeat the cycle.


----------



## pemerton

Aldarc said:


> Though you may have had this game in mind for your OP, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], Dungeon World is built on what you describe: GM frames the scene - turns to the PC: "What do you do?" - and then the PC narrates how their character develops or responds to the fiction. Depending upon the results triggered by the dice, the GM then may shift the fictional framing of the story and repeat the cycle.



When I posted I wasn't thinking of DW, but since starting the thread I was reading the AW rules seriously and I think I posted somewhere upthread the passage from AW where Vincent Baker talks about the game as conversation.

It's on pp 11-12:

[R]oleplaying is a conversation. You and the other players go back and forth, talking about these fictional characters in their fictional circumstances doing whatever it is that they do. Like any conversation, you take turns, but it’s not like taking turns, right? Sometimes you talk over each other, interrupt, build on each others’ ideas, monopolize. All fine.

All these rules do is mediate the conversation. They kick in when someone says some particular things, and they impose constraints on what everyone should say after. . . .

When a player says that her character does something listed as a move, that’s when she rolls, and that’s the only time she does.

The rule for moves is *to do it, do it*. In order for it to be a move and for the player to roll dice, the character has to do something that counts as that move; and whenever the character does something that counts as a move, it’s the move and the player rolls dice.​
But I think a lot of games are quite similar in their basic dynamic, although their rules/"move" structures are different. Classic Traveller works like this, for instance.

The main difference - in this respect - between the AW move structure and some other systems like (say) 4e D&D and Burning Wheel is that the latter have a "say 'yes' or roll the dice" structure - which isn't quite the same as "If you do it, you do it."


----------



## hawkeyefan

Riley37 said:


> Yes, but when you say "the game being played", do you mean the system and rule book? I am not aware of any difference between 3.5 or 4E rules on player narration versus 5E rules on player narration, because I'm not aware of *any* rules in 5E on player narration. There is some tradition and culture, among D&D players, which interacts with the rules as written, and which varies from table to table. Hero System has a genre-specific rule about player narration *in character*; when you're using Hero System to play Champions, you can establish that *in-character* monologues are Zero Phase actions (equivalent to free actions). Hero System doesn't have RAW about out-of-character player narration. (Well, not as of Hero 4E.)
> 
> Universalis has rules for what players establish about the fiction.  It does not have rules for what players say when speaking in the voice of a character; the declarations which spend Coins to establish Facts are out-of-character. (Universalis is a no-DM system.) I have only played Fiasco once and didn't read the rules book, but I gather that Fiasco allows quite a bit of player narration, including narration which establishes facts in the fiction.




I meant the game system being played. As you go on to point out, this view would not work well with all games, like Fiasco. I was thinking more along the lines of what we'd consider traditional games in the vein of D&D, where there's a clearly established turn order and all that goes with it. In a game like that, I've noticed that need to keep things moving as both a player and DM. I absolutely love when players add a bit beyond "I stab the orc" and other basic action descriptions, but it's a fine line between what adds to the game and what becomes self-indulgent noise. 

I've been playing a lot of Blades in the Dark lately, and it does not have an initiative system, and all its action resolution works the same, from social interaction to combat, and I think that's a big part of its appeal. Try to convince a guard you're authorized to pass a checkpoint? Try to sneak past him? Try to quietly murder him? It's all resolved using the same mechanics. The game also expects more narration on the part of the players than D&D expects. I still want to keep the game moving, but that feeling isn't as strong as it is with D&D. D&D can take time because of the nature of the way combat works with "attack- HP loss- repeat" so I think anything that significantly slows that process down rather than speeding it up seems like a negative. So I think the shift in focus is just enough to ease some of that feeling.




Riley37 said:


> I find that self-indulgent. I imagine that player writing novels which are Mary Sue homages to the awesomeness of the protagonist. How about player narration which isn't a zoom onto the face of that player's PC? For example, a narration in which one PC turns attention towards another PC - "Aspar sprints to the side of his fallen comrade Lavinia, to see if she yet lives" - which is meant as a set-up for either the DM, or Lavinia's player, to narrate Lavinia's status? (It's possible that the GM doesn't know Lavinia's exact progress along the Wound Track; so the GM might turn to Lavinia's player for further narration.)




Sure....sometimes it can be worthwhile, or it can be something that adds to the game by giving the GM or another player something to build upon. I have no problem with that at all....quite the opposite, really. 




Riley37 said:


> You mention "it’s a player’s turn". In my experience, gamers apply rigorous standards of "it's my turn, now it's your turn" more during combat (or chase or other action scenes) than during most non-combat. I've also experienced (recently) wrangling over who's taking too a long turn, when PCs enter a village, and split up to pursue a variety of non-combat downtime goals. The dwarven paladin went to the local smithy, the sorlock sought an appointment with the local mayor, the rogue found the worst bar in town, and the DM spent some time on each of their conversations with NPCs. Those scenes aren't mediated by the combat rules; they're not in initiative order as modified by DEX; they still raise the question of which player gets how much of the DM's spotlight. And in all those scenes, one of the time factors, is how much the DM narrates to establish facts and tone about the smithy, the mayor, and the dive bar. If the dwarf paladin's player goes to the smithy, and the DM spends five minutes describing the smithy then five minutes of NPC in-character speech, the local smith telling the story of how he was once an adventurer before he took an arrow to the knee, then that's ten minutes of that scene, before the player has a chance to say *anything* about what he wants at the smithy. If, at that point, the rogue player gets itchy - "when can we resolve what I find at the bar?" - then that player's impatience is understandable AND the paladin player might feel caught between "I want to play my PC!" versus "my scene has gone on too long already".




Yeah, combat and social interaction having different mechanics can cause some murkiness about the amount of time or effort needed for such scenes. And these scenes you've offered as examples are very much in line with what I'm thinking of in relation to the thread topic. Most people have offered examples of creatures encountered and important locations.....and I think such things will by default demand a bit more from the GM in terms of narration. But this kind of "downtime back in town" kind of scenes....I'd simply narrate them each with a couple sentences, and maybe a couple of die rolls to see how successful things went if the player had a specific goal in mind. "You find the smithy....is there some item you want forged? Okay, roll a Charisma check, and you get advantage because of your standing in town." That kind of thing. 

The only way I'd go into more depth with the scene is if the smith was important in some way, or if the reason for visiting the smith was of importance to the character. So if he wanted his father's sword reforged, a stated goal of the character, and the smith in question was said to be the one person who could do that....okay, then let's expand a bit. 





Riley37 said:


> Wait, what does any of this have to do with literary value?
> 
> IMO a story in which the PCs *each have their own interests*, in which the paladin's interest in the forge comes from his worship of Tharmekhûl, while the sorlock's actions follow from his Noble background and his membership in the Lord's Alliance (plus he's the high-CHA "Face" of the party), and the rogue goes to the dive bar *to differentiate himself from all these lofty heroes he tags along with* (he's in it for the loot, not the heroism), is a story with more potential for literary quality, than a story in which the PCs stick with the trope of "go to the local tavern and flirt with barmaids".
> 
> This potential for literary quality comes from the players, not from the DM. But whether this potential gets realized, or not, depends in large part on how well the DM rises to the occasion. If the DM has a pre-written speech in which the mayor has a side quest for the party, and thus the DM spends time only on the sorlock's visit, while dropping the ball or giving token attention to the visits to the smithy and the dive bar, then the DM is missing an opportunity, and the DM is rewarding one player with more spotlight time than the others.
> 
> In this situation, perhaps the sorlock player should interrupt the mayor (and thus the DM) with "Hey, I came here because I've discovered clues indicating a regional threat, which I'd like you to communicate to the rest of the Lord's Alliance. If you have a mission for my party, then how about I gather the rest of them, and you tell all of us at once." The sorlock might, in the process, lose the scene the player hoped for; and the player will discover, if he doesn't already know, how well the DM responds to narrative interruption.




I think this is an interesting point, and again, there's a fine line. 

I like players who invest in their characters. I like when they bring material to the game for me as a DM to use in the game....when they exist as part of the world, with connections and goals and drives. I think that's vital to immersive play. 

Ideally, all the players will be interested in all the characters, so when focusing on one character, it won't be an issue for the players of the other characters. But to expect the same level of care as everyone has for their own character is a bit unrealistic, generally speaking. 

So the way in which those connections and goals and drives are established or displayed is the issue.  




Riley37 said:


> Yes and no. In most mainstream, bog-standard D&D, this is often a reasonable position, *especially in combat scenes regulated by initiative order*.
> 
> In a non-combat scene, within a D&D game, this could be unreasonable. Consider the previous scenario in which the PCs split up on arrival at a town. While the sorlock visits the mayor, for the sorlock's own reasons, the mayor responds with a mission for the whole party. Perhaps the mayor pitches the sorlock, and the sorlock's player and the DM count on the sorlock relaying the information to the whole party; so the DM reminds all players at the table to listen closely to this scene, because though their players aren't getting the information *in real time in the fiction*, their players will get the information as soon as the party regroups (at the Bog-Standard Tavern, that evening). This scene at the mayor's office occurs during the sorlock's non-combat turn AND this scene IS how the story moves forward along the DM's intended plot.
> 
> If the rogue's player then jumps in with "Riley, let's not spend the whole session on your sorlock hob-nobbing with his fellow nobles. Wrap up your scene so we can move the story along", and if that pressure to shorten the scene *succeeds*, and three sessions later there's a question of "wait, did the mayor warn us about the dryads? we wouldn't have set fire to the forest if we knew about the dryads!" then that's a consequence of poor narration management between players and DM.
> 
> That's an example within D&D. In Fiasco, or Fall of Magic, "finish your turn so the game can keep moving" is a *horrible* position. Without player turns, there is no story progress, at all.




I think that such interactions can be summarized in many cases. Rather than the DM adopting the role of mayor with the player as the sorlock and each speaking in character at depth, I think a quick summary of the interaction can serve the purpose just as much. Rather than trying to figure a way to creatively "display" something personal about the sorlock, just have the player say it. 

For example, "The sorlock is always most comfortable dealin with other people of means and standing, so I'll seek an audience with the mayor and see if there's any news he'll share with me". The DM can then summarize the results of the visit, maybe calling for a roll or two if it makes sense. In my opinion, this helps keep things focused, helps keep the other players invested in what's happening, and establishes something very clearly about the PC that may have not been obvious in a more drawn out interaction. 

Again, I'm not saying this is always the way to handle it, and that there's never a reason for a scene to be played out in full....but when it's more specific to an individual character rather than the group, I tend to use that approach in all but the most important of scenes. Or, potentially important scenes, is probably the better way to put it.


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> This isn't something I have strong views on. When I'm trying to adjudicate an action as GM, and I'm GMing a game in which the fiction has a big affect on resolution and consequences (say Buring Wheel or Traveller) then I like to have a fairly clear sense of what the character is doing, and overly complicated narration from the player can sometime hurt that.
> 
> But if the players want to banter with one another, or affirm their PC personalities against one another, that's fine with me.
> 
> With you "high plains of Valinor" example, I would see that as somewhat system-dependent. In some systems it's pure self-indulgence. In my 4e game, when the player of the Deva Sage of Ages recalls his days in the heavens, he is warming us up for some potentially unorthodox deployment of one of his memory-oriented abilities. In my MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic games, nearly every pool includes a Distinction that comes either from the PC sheet or the scene, and so there has to be some narration to contextualise that.
> 
> So maybe I'm more relaxed about player narration than you? Of course it's hard to tell in this abstracted medium!




I don't mind player interaction through character all that much....generally speaking, if that's what the players want to be doing, then I'm all for it. Although I don't think I'd ever go so far as some of the extreme examples I've heard in this or other recent threads. I do want the game to progress. 

My comment was more about narration or focus on one character in particular. 

It would definitely depend on the system. As I mentioned to Riley37, I'm far less worried about this when running Blades in the Dark as opposed to D&D. 

Overall, if one player is going on about their character in some way, and I see other players roll their eyes, or pick up their phones.....that's what I don't want. It's a group activity, and yes there will be time for each player and character to have the spotlight or to get focus, but we all need to be engaged.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> Where I wouldn't mind some of this.
> 
> Comes down to expected pacing, as so many of these things seem to end up doing: it's an open-ended game* with no set schedule for what adventuring has to be done by when; and if long-winded descriptions of what, why and how a character does something is what keeps (a) player(s) engaged, I'd say to the DM "Sit back, crack open a beer, relax, and let it happen".
> 
> * - assuming a typical home game, rather than a con game or some other limited-time affair.




Sure, as anything, it can always be brought back to table expectations. Commenting only about my home game, which is indeed a long-standing, open ended game.....we still want to get stuff done each session, and we want that stuff to be relevant.


----------



## Riley37

hawkeyefan said:


> Ideally, all the players will be interested in all the characters, so when focusing on one character, it won't be an issue for the players of the other characters. But to expect the same level of care as everyone has for their own character is a bit unrealistic, generally speaking. So the way in which those connections and goals and drives are established or displayed is the issue.




I mostly agree. I have a preference for TRPG in which players take *active* interest in each other's characters. I don't just want other players to graciously put up with the scenes in which my character does his thing; I want to contribute to the story, within the scope of my one character. When a D&D party takes a long rest, and when AFAIK a non-combat conversation fits the pace, I might ask, in character "I'm glad we met along the road; if you don't mind me asking - how did you become an adventurer?", which grabs the spotlight *and turns it on another PC*. If the player gives me a boring and/or out-of-character response, then I've learned something about which of my fellow players make the most of those moments. If another player says "hey, Aspar wants to join the conversation, so he sits beside you, re-fletching his arrows and staring grimly into the fire; then he tells you a story about his adventures on the high plains of Valinor..." then I'm probably doing something right.



hawkeyefan said:


> Overall, if one player is going on about their character in some way, and I see other players roll their eyes, or pick up their phones.....that's what I don't want. It's a group activity, and yes there will be time for each player and character to have the spotlight or to get focus, but we all need to be engaged.




Yup. That's the hard and fast test. If I'm boring other players with stuff about my own PC, that's bad; if I'm boring them with stuff about someone else's PC, that's also bad.

If my PC and another PC compare different spell casting methods, and that results in the warlock trying to figure whether he can write Speak with Animals into his Book of Shadows, not from a wizard's book but from watching a totem barbarian cast the spell - then a PC has found an opportunity to *do* something. Also, we've given the DM a new, not-in-RAW decision to make!

The question of when to zoom in for more detail, and when to pull back and summarize or hand-wave, is one of the subtle skills of TRPG. It's a necessary skill for a DM, and IMO it's also a very useful skill for a player. One of the benefits of the Blades in the Dark mechanic about retroactively preparing for a mission, is that the only preparations which take up table time, are the ones which actually come into play.

I can't recall a time when, as GM, I've narrated a description of a location or character to the players, and noticed their eyes glazing over, their attention turning astray... but if I ever do, then that also will be a time to adjust the dial of zooming in for detail versus cutting to the chase.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Riley37 said:


> I mostly agree. I have a preference for TRPG in which players take *active* interest in each other's characters. I don't just want other players to graciously put up with the scenes in which my character does his thing; I want to contribute to the story, within the scope of my one character. When a D&D party takes a long rest, and when AFAIK a non-combat conversation fits the pace, I might ask, in character "I'm glad we met along the road; if you don't mind me asking - how did you become an adventurer?", which grabs the spotlight *and turns it on another PC*. If the player gives me a boring and/or out-of-character response, then I've learned something about which of my fellow players make the most of those moments. If another player says "hey, Aspar wants to join the conversation, so he sits beside you, re-fletching his arrows and staring grimly into the fire; then he tells you a story about his adventures on the high plains of Valinor..." then I'm probably doing something right.




For sure....I definitely want players to be invested in each others' characters. I don't typically expect for other players to disengage when the spotlight is on someone else. But the longer that happens, and the less engaging the material is for the group as a whole, the more the risk. That's why I'll kind of narrate things along in those kind of downtime scenes you mentioned. Although, if there seems to be something there, I will indeed try to zoom in and see what comes of it. 



Riley37 said:


> Yup. That's the hard and fast test. If I'm boring other players with stuff about my own PC, that's bad; if I'm boring them with stuff about someone else's PC, that's also bad.
> 
> If my PC and another PC compare different spell casting methods, and that results in the warlock trying to figure whether he can write Speak with Animals into his Book of Shadows, not from a wizard's book but from watching a totem barbarian cast the spell - then a PC has found an opportunity to *do* something. Also, we've given the DM a new, not-in-RAW decision to make!
> 
> The question of when to zoom in for more detail, and when to pull back and summarize or hand-wave, is one of the subtle skills of TRPG. It's a necessary skill for a DM, and IMO it's also a very useful skill for a player. One of the benefits of the Blades in the Dark mechanic about retroactively preparing for a mission, is that the only preparations which take up table time, are the ones which actually come into play.
> 
> I can't recall a time when, as GM, I've narrated a description of a location or character to the players, and noticed their eyes glazing over, their attention turning astray... but if I ever do, then that also will be a time to adjust the dial of zooming in for detail versus cutting to the chase.




Yeah, I don't think the average description of a location or an NPC by the GM is going to cause people to stop paying attention or anything....that concern is more about players who've maybe crossed over into the self-indulgent area. But if a GM is offering too much information, the players can miss relevant details. Tying back to the OP, I want to give them the info they need so that they can decide how to act. I'm not averse to establishing mood and the like, but I don't want any effort toward that to get in the way. If all the "shadows dancing in the corner" kind of stuff makes my players miss or forget that there's a door to the north, then I'd prefer to leave the dancing shadows out.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Riley37

lowkey13 said:


> Where is my game?




Have you considered writing the Cookie Clicker TRPG, if you can swing the licensing?

Or perhaps Progress Quest?

GURPS: Tic Tac Toe?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Riley37

Go to the zoo. The kangaroos are your players. If they don't notice that you are DMing a game for them, then you win!


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Riley37

Orc and Pie, but without the orc and the pie?

Have players write Level 20 5E D&D characters, give them a mission briefing, have an NPC wizard send them to the Meta-Astral... which is uninhabited; and see how far they go, before they realize that the sandbox only contains sand (and the hazards from the table in the DMG).

If they spend almost the entire session optimizing their level 20 characters, then they only have the remaining time for a short window of non-opportunity.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Manbearcat

Lanefan said:


> Though sometimes, "just another creepy monster" - something new that the PCs (and players!) haven't seen or heard of before - is exactly what's required at the time.  As in:
> 
> DM rolls give a random encounter, DM quickly thinks to self: "Hmmm.  Do I throw yet another monster at 'em that they've seen and beaten a hundred times before, or do I dream up something brand new right now that suits the surroundings?  Yeah, let's go for something new..."
> 
> And it doesn't even have to have anything to do with someone's sister in order to make it a) a threat and b) interesting, if the DM does it right.




Couple things:

1) In the spirit of this thread, I was trying to demonstrate that the framing of the creature is hierarchically more important than the words used to depict it (though again, they matter...they’re just lower in the hierarchy).

2) If you aren’t thematically framing a “bogeyman” as a bogeyman, then it seems pretty apt to point out that the situation the PCs are confronted with would be “bogeymanless”!

3) In your last sentence, what do “threat”, “interesting”, and “does it right” mean here in terms of confronting the PCs with a bogeyman trope? Are you just saying that you can present bogeymen in “bogeyman-neutral” ways that are still interesting threats? If so, that’s a pretty straight-forward claim. Of course you can. But the framing will have an extremely consequential impact on both the gamestate and on players’ emotional entanglement.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Manbearcat

[MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION]

I think you’re more or less saying what I said in my initial post in this thread:

Framing and understanding of dramatic device (arc composition and pacing, tropes) are fundamentally tethered. Insofar as they are (and they are), if one wants to fold “understanding and deftness in deployment of dramatic device” into “literary”, then we’re going to have a (self-imposed imo) communication impasse.

My take on the lead post is the distinction being drawn is with respect to specific skill in word usage (exposition and elocution or oratory skills broadly...or scripting and then speaking). 

Again, that is on the hierarchy, but, IMO, much lower down than conflict/situation framing is (which, again, includes what I wrote above).


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Manbearcat

This is so much more entangled than I ontrmdrf. EDIT - (Lol how about INTENDED. My phone autocorrected to ontrmdrf. Makes sense).

Ok, let me pose a simple question.

Is it possible to be very good at conflict framing (a) and resolution (b) yet be mediocre in words usage on the journey from a to b?

Is the inverse possible (poor at framing and resolution but beautiful prose/oratory)?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Manbearcat

I feel like there is a teeny tiny excluded middle between MAXIMUM TERSENESS (SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY) and exposition economy (while still managing the key components of dramatic device)


----------



## Satyrn

Manbearcat said:


> I feel like there is a teeny tiny excluded middle between MAXIMUM TERSENESS (SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY) and exposition economy (while still managing the key components of dramatic device)



Hey hey hey!

Maximum terseness would just be a single, lowercase sunday.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> Overall, if one player is going on about their character in some way, and I see other players roll their eyes, or pick up their phones.....that's what I don't want. It's a group activity, and yes there will be time for each player and character to have the spotlight or to get focus, but we all need to be engaged.



That's probably a point that generalises to all narration!


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> Is it possible to be very good at conflict framing (a) and resolution (b) yet be mediocre in words usage on the journey from a to b?



Yes. Someone can be good at plotting but poor at scripting. Someone can have good imagination for drama, conflict, story and yet be a bad writer.



Manbearcat said:


> Is the inverse possible (poor at framing and resolution but beautiful prose/oratory)?



I would say so, yes.


----------



## pemerton

lowkey13 said:


> Some people might claim that- I would imagine that some, like the OP, honestly believe that a lack of "highfalutin'" language indicates a lack of presence; I would only mention that the OP regularly refers to speaking at, inter alia, conferences and giving presentations; while we might view this type of speaking as somewhat banal compared to Finnegan's Wake, it is certainly true that such public speaking is far outside of the norm today. And I think there is a reason for that ...



I don't quite follow this, and so am not sure what view is being attributed to me. For my answers to [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s questions, see the post immediately upthread.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Riley37

lowkey13 said:


> Framing requires narration. Narration requires word choice.




Or interpretive dance. Or pictures drawn with crayons. That's also a viable option.

Unfortunately, the scene in "Hush" episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, in which the gang play D&D, with Giles as DM, was cut from the broadcast.


----------



## Bedrockgames

lowkey13 said:


> The first one isn't easy, but here goes-
> Proper framing/resolution requires choice of words that are appropriate for the occasion. Different people will have different styles that are appropriate and, therefore, work. But IME, I have not seen a GM who is both EXCELLENT at framing/resolution, and terrible at oratory/word usage.




I have seen this. I've played with great GMs who used a lot of awkward phrasing and had trouble describing things on the fly. This is where the players asking questions really helps things. I generally didn't find these experiences to be diminished by the GM's difficulty. Oratory isn't everything. Substance is often more important to me. Sometimes there is a direct line of causation between someone not narrating as well but being great at providing content. For example a person who thinks really fast and has a hyper active imagination, often in my experience, will be prone to verbal ticks, stumbling, and jumping around over details. 

Just to roughly quote from my favorite series "Isn't what a man has to say more important than how he says it?"


----------



## Aldarc

Yeah, I have experienced playing with a number of GMs who were not good at phrasing, narration, or the performative aspects of GMing but excellent with framing scenes, stakes, and pacing.


----------



## Maxperson

Riley37 said:


> Or interpretive dance. Or pictures drawn with crayons. That's also a viable option.




I would argue that those are just unorthodox methods of narration.  They're still communicating ideas.  Synonyms of narration include portrayal and sketch.



> Unfortunately, the scene in "Hush" episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, in which the gang play D&D, with Giles as DM, was cut from the broadcast.




I would have liked to have seen that.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> Just to roughly quote from my favorite series "Isn't what a man has to say more important than how he says it?"




No.  

A lot of people with great ideas have been ignored by people, because the one with the idea didn't say it right.  A lot of horrors have happened, because someone with a bad idea that people generally wouldn't listen to, were sold on it by someone saying it the right way.  How you say something is very often more important than what you are saying.


----------



## uzirath

Maxperson said:


> How you say something is very often more important than what you are saying.




I agree with this in terms of writing or public speaking. (I have often worked with students who somehow think that the good idea buried in their grammarless "paragraph" should exonerate them from a low grade.) 

With gaming, however, I am more forgiving. This ties into the concept of a game being collaborative, more like a conversation than a speech or a piece of writing. In conversations, people are also more forgiving about poor word choice and other delivery flaws. If you've ever suffered the peculiar torture of having to type up recordings of conversations, it's immediately apparent that live conversations are a bloody mess. Grammar is shoddy;  vocabulary is used incorrectly; there are awkward pauses and unnecessary repetitions; people are cutting each other off; etc. The participants in those conversations, however, may not even notice these rhetorical flaws, especially if they are deeply engaged with the content being discussed.

RPGs are, I think, closer to a conversation in this regard. Once people are engaged, together, with the fiction, they're not as hung up on rhetorical quality. Some tables may apply a more formal aesthetic to portions of their games. I'm thinking of tables where the GM tends to deliver longer narrations, or where players deliver big in-character speeches. But even then, much of the back-and-forth outside of those elements is far less formal and structured. A few pages back, I posted about a game with a bunch of English teachers who like to create speeches and literary tidbits for their characters. In that game, when the cleric reads his latest bit of liturgy, we are apt to clap if it is especially good. Clearly, word choice and literary quality matter in that context. But, even in that game (which is fairly unusual in my experience), the majority of our time is spent in informal conversation where the quality of delivery is far less important than the fictional situation. The quality of that situation, in terms of player engagement, does not, in my experience, depend primarily on the rhetorical quality of the GM's delivery.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Manbearcat

I think the fault line here is going to be if you answer “yes” to the below two questions, and pretty much all iterations possible of good/bad/mediocre on either side of the balance.



> Is it possible to be very good at conflict framing (a) and resolution (b) yet be mediocre in words usage on the journey from a to b?
> 
> Is the inverse possible (poor at framing and resolution but beautiful prose/oratory)?




I would have to answer “yes” to all of them because I neither conceive nor have I experienced anything approximating a tight (or even shabby) coupling between the two.

I’m like most people; good at some things, better at others, and only sometimes am I on the top of my game of all things at once (be it an intellectual enterprise like GMing or a martial one).

My post-mortem reflections upon instances of my GMing have shown me that I’ve had plenty of simultaneous instances of:

1) Inspired (how well it hooks into PC Dramatic Need and forces a defining choice) framing > lacking evolution of gamestate/fiction > rather insipid exposition 

2) Meh framing > exciting evolution of gamestate/fiction > evocative but minimalist exposition

3) Awesome > Awesome > Potent but minimalist

4) Awesome > Crap > Potent, evocative, lacking brevity


And everything in between.

I’m all kinds of GM.

Often consistent, energetic, and on top of my game.

Rarely uninspired and going-through-the-motions.

Sometimes mentally blocked, fatigued, and frustrated.

The only correlation to bad gaming that I can draw is when either of my Framing or Fiction/Gamestate Evolution Post-Resolution is off.

Hence why I put them hierarchically at the top, connect them to understanding dramatic device, but don’t correlate them profoundly to certain facets of exposition skill (I do correlate it to some aspects; the ability to communicate with economy but provocatively almost certainly has an amplification effect...one way or the other...but not a causal effect...hence why it’s lower on the hierarchy).


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## darkbard

lowkey13 said:


> But to re-state the obvious; yes, of course you don't see yourself engaged in anything but "mere conversation" or "mere framing" because you're already experienced, and your natural ability, honed through those years of experience, provides the results you seek.




Well, of course, and I agree this is why we will never agree on the argument: because of the definitions. _Context matters_, especially when it comes to such nebulous concepts as "literary/literature." I'm pretty sure pemerton, Manbearcat, (not sure about Bedrockgames), etc. don't consider these posts literary, though it's clear you do.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## darkbard

lowkey13 said:


> My last post-
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever feel like you keep saying, over days and weeks, that people are talking past each other, because of definitions, and you keep saying that, and every now and then, someone will say, "Hey, you know what Lowkey, you know what the real problem is, definitions! I mean ... context matters, buddy."
> 
> 
> ....and you just kind of want to smash your head repeatedly into your desk? Ever get that feeling?




Aye, but for the _context of this discussion_, pemerton pretty clearly describes from the beginning (I would argue, though others, like [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION], have framed this as _almost_ from the beginning, i.e., with some early supporting posts) the intent behind his use of the term "literary." 

Rather than people jumping in and obfuscating the discussion with arguments over alternative definitions, why not engage the OP on the terms presented? Or just, y'know, not get bent outta shape by the usage?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> No.
> 
> A lot of people with great ideas have been ignored by people, because the one with the idea didn't say it right.  A lot of horrors have happened, because someone with a bad idea that people generally wouldn't listen to, were sold on it by someone saying it the right way.  How you say something is very often more important than what you are saying.




I don't disagree. But you are misreading what I am saying. I am saying exactly because what you said is true we should pay more attention to substance than packaging, more attention to a person's ideas than the rhetoric they wrap it up in, and more attention to what a GM is actually saying than the way they are saying it. 

So I wasn't denying that people pay attention to how things are said. I didn't say this wasn't the case. My statement was saying it shouldn't be the case. It is an ought statement. Wouldn't you agree  the things you mention in your quote are bad? Doesn't this suggest we should pay more attention to substance than delivery? The example I gave was from I, Claudius. In that scene, which I tweaked to fit to this context, he is speaking to the Senate after the Praetorians declared him emperor. One of the issues the senate is concerned about is his mind and his stammer. So he says what a man says is more important than how long he takes to say it.


----------



## darkbard

lowkey13 said:


> Since I clearly lack the cognitive ability to understand the _context of this discussion
> 
> [...]
> 
> why don't you explain it to me like I'm a slightly dumb golden retriever, since it is very very tiring for people to keep saying "But you just don't understand what the OP really meant" without proffering an explanation._



_

Histrionic much? Look, if you find this so "very tiring," what, then, is the purpose of your reentry into the discussion every few hundred posts? Clearly you must derive something from this discussion beyond the occasional impulse to meet head and keyboard?




			Good? So tell me, in your own words, what exactly the intent behind the term "literary" is, and why that distinction matters for the post your responded to. 

Click to expand...



As I stated pretty early in this thread, I believe any attempt to define some immutable, univeral definition for "literary/literature" is a fool's errand. What matters for this thread is not fixing some definition but rather [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s argument that what makes TTRPGs unique and distinct from literature is the framing of situations as a call to action on the part of the PC-inhabiting-player over descriptive flourishes as performance for performance's sake.

While this thread has occasionally offered some other interesting discussion, I don't believe squabbling over definitions has provided anything really useful.

So, no, I won't define "exactly the intent behind the term 'literary'" beyond what I have said above: this thread's main thrust is about framing engaging calls to action as core to TTRPGing over performance for performance's sake (though, and perhaps I separate myself from pemerton on this, I don't think this is a universal statement: I think there are gamestyles and players who value performance for performance's sake over the engaging call to action)._


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> Couple things:
> 
> 1) In the spirit of this thread, I was trying to demonstrate that the framing of the creature is hierarchically more important than the words used to depict it (though again, they matter...they’re just lower in the hierarchy).



I'd say that's a matter of opinion.  Without words, there is no framing; and without the right words the framing very likely isn't going to come off in the manner intended.



> 2) If you aren’t thematically framing a “bogeyman” as a bogeyman, then it seems pretty apt to point out that the situation the PCs are confronted with would be “bogeymanless”!



Perhaps, but it's still a slimy creature with big teeth and an attitude that the PCs have to deal with in whatever manner they see fit.



> 3) In your last sentence, what do “threat”, “interesting”, and “does it right” mean here in terms of confronting the PCs with a bogeyman trope? Are you just saying that you can present bogeymen in “bogeyman-neutral” ways that are still interesting threats? If so, that’s a pretty straight-forward claim. Of course you can. But the framing will have an extremely consequential impact on both the gamestate and on players’ emotional entanglement.



I'm saying it's possible to present the creature as consequential etc. without even pulling out the bogeyman trope.  That, and my example was dealing with the idea of maintaining interest by making up a new creature on the fly rather than relying on the standbys; this doesn't work with the bogeyman trope as that trope requires some prior set-up and-or foreshadowing either direct from the PCs' backstories or stories they've heard from elsewhere.


----------



## uzirath

lowkey13 said:


> Look at the comments you have made in defense of this theory. Long, lengthy, well-written, good grammar, decent vocabulary, engaged with the argument, and so on.




Sure. Yes. My framing, narration, gaming conversation, etc., is probably, by some metrics, more "literary" than someone with less formal education, less experience with public speaking, etc. 

My point wasn't solely about my experience though. I teach RPGs to children ranging from ages 6-14 (and some older). Many of them do not have well-honed skill with language. Many of them succeed at running (and playing in) awesome games, despite that weakness. I am not arguing that good narration can't help—skillful presentation matters in RPGs as in other mediums—but I've slowly come to accept [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s basic premise that it is not the most significant element. I regularly see GMs with strong language skills struggling to attract players to their tables because they talk too much or only want the story to go their way. For the kids who stick with it, there is much to enjoy: the GMs may write great descriptions, have good voice control, use spooky foreshadowing, etc. But, often, the table nearby, with a GM who is flustered and has weak vocabulary manages to be more popular because that GM is refereeing a more engaging story, a story primarily written by the other players, dependent on interesting (or hilarious or gruesome) interactions between characters and the fictional environment.

Similarly, in college, I had the opportunity to do a two-year folklore study of RPGs. (This was amazing. Still pinching myself.) I referred in my last post to the "torture" of typing up transcripts. That was a big part of the project. I ended up with hundreds of hours of recordings of live D&D games. As I analyzed that data, it was surprising to me that some of the most compelling games (from the perspective of the players at the table) did not depend on strong rhetoric, great writing, lots of GM prep, etc. At the time, I wasn't primarily focusing on that element and didn't even have a vocabulary for talking about it (this thread is a couple decades late), but it stuck with me.



> To the extent you do not enjoy longer narration, that's fine! That's a preference! But ... and I'm going to say this one more time ... just because someone prefers Hemingway over Henry Miller doesn't mean that they are both effective at what they do. Follow me?




Yes. I agree with you.

My post was in response to the idea that [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s maxim, "How you say something is very often more important than what you are saying," applies universally to all forms of communication. I think the statement is more applicable to communication styles that require the words to stand on their own. Written communication, especially, benefits from a better presentation because there are no conversational elements, no facial expressions, no gestures, no ability to interrupt and ask questions, etc. Speeches and theatrical performances create a similar separation of performer and audience, though communication can be achieved through things other than words. The playing of an RPG, at least when you're around a traditional tabletop, is more like a conversation, which is judged by different criteria.

Not saying there ain't overlap. Not saying that a great voice actor can't add a lot to a game (personally, I like that stuff). Not saying that some groups might not play quite differently. But I'm largely sold on the premise that if I'm helping to train up new GMs, I should focus my energy on their fictional situations rather than on teaching them more evocative vocabulary. There are exceptions, of course, and as a teacher, I would adjust my approach accordingly.


----------



## Lanefan

darkbard said:


> As I stated pretty early in this thread, I believe any attempt to define some immutable, univeral definition for "literary/literature" is a fool's errand.



Probably true, but as the thread title not only includes the word 'literary' but highlights it, it only follows that some time then has to be spent nailing down a) what the OP specifically meant by the word and b) what the word means to everyone else in general.  These two things so far don't appear to be the same, and this difference represents about 500 posts so far.


> What matters for this thread is not fixing some definition but rather [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s argument that what makes TTRPGs unique and distinct from literature is the framing of situations as a call to action on the part of the PC-inhabiting-player over descriptive flourishes as performance for performance's sake.



And even this comes down to a) definition and b) preference.  The OP has been fairly consistent over the long run in suggesting he prefers to frame situations that almost force the players - through their PCs - to act*.  But it's also possible - and sometimes even desireable - to frame situations much more passively and merely give the players - through their PCs - a choice as to whether to act or not; leaving it up to the players to drive the action by what they do or don't do.

Put another way - and even this might not be any clearer - there's nothing at all wrong with a flourished description of a situation in which "we do nothing" would be a valid declaration from the players/PCs.  Not every description should force the players into react mode; I'd far rather the description neutrally be what it is (and worded well enough to be engaging in and of itself) and have the players in proact mode deciding a) if the described situation warrants any action at all, and if so then b) what that action will be.

* - said action being open-ended and not pre-determined or pre-supposed in any way.



> While this thread has occasionally offered some other interesting discussion, I don't believe squabbling over definitions has provided anything really useful.



Well, it has; in that it's shown that some posters** feel the entire thread is built on a faulty premise due to a not-fully-agreed definition of the highlighted word in its title, and would like to see that foundation more firmly nailed in place before trying to build a discussion on it.  That said, I'll confess to having mostly skipped over many of the definition-argument posts. 

** - of which I'm not one, really - I kinda get what the OP's definition is (I think!) but I'm not sold on the underlying premise he puts forward.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Riley37

uzirath said:


> people are cutting each other off; etc. The participants in those conversations, however, may not even notice these rhetorical flaws, especially if they are deeply engaged with the content being discussed.




"With all those idiots and maniacs on the road, it's a wonder we get anywhere at all!" - George Carlin

It's a wonder; and it's humans actively working with each other, in speech just as on the freeways.

It's possible for people to work with each other during less-conversational communication. If a DM is trying for a fancy description, and failing, it's often possible for a player to interrupt just long enough to ask a helpful guiding question. DM: "A squamous, amorphous entity inches towards you..." Player: "When you say inching, do you mean moving by extension and retraction, like a slime monster, or do you mean that its movement rate is less than ours?"


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## uzirath

lowkey13 said:


> Weirdly, I was primarily thinking about my experience teaching D&D (5e) to kids in this thread as well. . . . And that's why I keep saying that we overlook this, and overlook how games improve over time as we learn more ... techniques. Performance
> techniques. Dramatic and narrative techniques.




I think you mentioned teaching to kids before; I have trouble keeping track of all the different elements of this mongo thread! But, I'm glad you're bringing the next generation up to speed too. 

I agree that all of this is part of it, and I've included similar language in my pitches and budget requests at school. But there are pitfalls if I focus too heavily on performance/dramatic/narrative techniques with students. More on this below.



> "But I'm largely sold on the premise that if I'm helping to train up new GMs, I should focus my energy on their fictional situations rather than on teaching them more evocative vocabulary."
> 
> But ... this is the issue I keep coming back to. It's not about an evocative vocabulary.




Yeah, it was a weak example. I agree with you that there is a lot more to "literary" (or "theatrical") technique than vocabulary. Sorry to trot that out here again.

I used to give new players the same advice that I received as a beginning gamer: model your stories on fiction that you love (whether books, TV shows, movies, plays, etc.). This is not always terrible advice: I still get inspiration from all sorts of fiction. But there are many pitfalls for GMs: railroading, too much exposition, resistance to improvisation, plot armor for antagonists who are "supposed" to show up later, feeling that the players are "messing up" the story . . . and I'm sure everyone on the forum could add many more examples. So I've slowly migrated to mainly teaching RPGs as their own thing, related to other art, but with different aesthetic sensibilities. A primary difference is the collaborative nature of authorship and the dynamic, improvisational element.

I'll admit, though, that I haven't teased all of this out, and I'm developing my thinking partly from this thread. (Gaming club is over for the year, so I won't be back in the "lab" until next year to try out some new ideas.)


----------



## hawkeyefan

Isn't it really just a style versus substance debate? Neither is right nor wrong...both have their place, and both are present in gaming. But which is more prominent will of course vary by person. 

Put another way, is an RPG more of a game, or more of a story? Is it more important that it engage its participants in the way a game does (taking action, making decisions, achievement, etc.), or in the way a story does (producing emotion, immersion, etc.)? Yes, a RPG can be described as a game that is a story (or perhaps more accurately a game that produces a story), so it's really both things...but which do you think it is more? Obviously we all want to have fun, and we all want to be entertained....but when we play a RPG, which is more key to enjoyment? 

In a medium like comic books, which includes both images and words, which is more important? Again, no right or wrong answer. There have been stories told entirely visually, with no words at all, and they've been brilliant. There have been other stories told with minimal visuals, but the narration and dialogue carries the story. 

Some people will place more importance on one over the other; comics are a visual medium, so they must have images, so therefore the art is more important. Without the art, the writing may still produce what we would call a story, so the writing is more important.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## hawkeyefan

lowkey13 said:


> All substance, no style, and you are just playing a boardgame ... or a wargame.
> 
> All style, no substance, and you are just doing community theater.
> 
> That's why it's neither ... or both. It tastes great, and is less filling.
> 
> (Its a STYLISTIC .... SUBSTANCE, or, put another way, it's a ROLE PLAYING .... GAME     ).




Yeah, I think I acknowledged that in my post, and I think we've made that clear throughout the thread, despite proponents of either using extreme examples as support. Both are necessary. 

But I would imagine that most of us feel that one is more important than the other, such as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s stated preference in the OP. 

To use your comparison (dated though it is, I sadly get it ), for some folks, lite beer being less filling may be more important to the taste. For others, the opposite is true. While it's both, what matters to people is, I think, what's interesting to discuss.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## darkbard

[MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION], to a much greater extent than you might imagine, I largely agree with much of your recent postings here, but because of your sarcastic and antagonistic style, I have lost any desire to engage your substance right now.


----------



## pemerton

darkbard said:


> Well, of course, and I agree this is why we will never agree on the argument: because of the definitions. _Context matters_, especially when it comes to such nebulous concepts as "literary/literature." I'm pretty sure pemerton, Manbearcat, (not sure about Bedrockgames), etc. don't consider these posts literary, though it's clear you do.



Further: a message board is a written medium. It's not a conversation except in some rather metaphorical sense. Doubly so in my case given that most of the other posters are in a different country and different time zone from me.

And further further: I would have thought it's pretty clear my now that the OP is talking about the _aims_/_virtues_ or RPGing. What it's _about_ as an aesthetic activity.

And yet further again (and to the universe in general rather than darkbard in particular): not all disagreement is the result of confusion over what people mean. Sometimes people just say things that one disagrees with. It happens, in the arts as much as anywhere else.


----------



## Imaro

darkbard said:


> @_*lowkey13*_, to a much greater extent than you might imagine, I largely agree with much of your recent postings here, but because of your sarcastic and antagonistic style, I have lost any desire to engage your substance right now.




I guess it's not just whether content is good or not... I guess the desire to engage with it or not can actually depend on how it's presented... Who woulda thunk it...


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> I guess it's not just whether content is good or not... I guess the desire to engage with it or not can actually depend on how it's presented... Who woulda thunk it...



Don't think anyone's disputed that being a jerk has an effect...


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> Don't think anyone's disputed that being a jerk has an effect...




Sooo... Are you agreeing that how content is presented can determine whether people wish to engage with it?


----------



## Fenris-77

Something I've started to use more in my Literacy instruction, and which is going to feature in the RPG club I'm going to start next year, will be actual, honestly to goodness improv. Not because I want every session to be an improv session (far from it) but I found that improv as a warm up really loosened kids up and got them working together and overcame some of the shyer kids' natural reluctance to get into the conversation. It gets them thinking creatively, and that will help any RPG session.

As to the 'literary' value of D&D, or other RPGs, I think the term is too loaded in a bunch of ways. People who are "in English" or "in the business" tend to use 'literary' in one hand as a valorization of 'serious' authors and works, and in the other hand as a stick to flagellate authors they feel are too something (usually too popular or genre, but that's a different argument). In the broadest sense to call something literary is say it is connected to writing (literature), which RPGs are in enough ways to make the cut, at least for me. RPGs are a written thing, at least in part and to start, and the study of literature and it's forms, devices etc, very much inform pretty much every aspect of the game. I don't put a lot of value on 'literary' as a descriptor, so I don't feel like I'm giving much up being on the yes it is side of things.


----------



## pemerton

I think that for at least some maths teachers, who have graduated in the first instance with a qualification that emphasises skills other than verbal communication, training to teach and then working as a teacher improves their ability to speak clearly, to convey ideas well, to choose the right word for the task at hand, etc.

I don't think this suffices, in and of itself, to show that teaching mathematics is a literary endeavour.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> Sooo... Are you agreeing that how content is presented can determine whether people wish to engage with it?



Sure.  Literally no one in this thread has said otherwise.  I'm starting to think you've maybe missed the point.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> Sure.  Literally no one in this thread has said otherwise.  I'm starting to think you've maybe missed the point.




Really??  Because I literally brought up this idea that how content was presented could in fact determine whether a group would be interested in the content earlier in the thread (and one of the reasons I thought of it as core to the game) and these were the replies... Emphasis mine.



Hriston said:


> Because color (dungeon dressing) is content that provides atmosphere when imagined by the participants at the table. The quality of form with which it’s expressed isn’t what’s important but rather whether the odors, noises, furnishings, and items found in an area suggest a torture chamber, a harem, or a wizard’s laboratory. *In other words, it’s the actual content that matters, not the particular words that are used and the way they are said.*







pemerton said:


> ...
> My take on this is the same as @Hriston's - it sounds to me like the situation is not interesting enough! As I've already posted in this thread, my advice to that GM would be to work on situation, not to work on voice modulation...


----------



## hawkeyefan

lowkey13 said:


> I hear what you're saying, but I'd go back to what I was discussing with manbearcat, in that you can't really disambiguate them like that.
> 
> Which is is what I've been trying to say for a while; even doing the whole substance/style dichotomy is inherently pejorative. "Yes, I just want the sizzle- hold the steak please."
> 
> What you refer to as the style, I would say is inherently part of the substance of the RPG. You can't even have an RPG without the "substance" of roleplaying.
> 
> The form follows the function. Or, perhaps, the function follows the form. Because they are intertwined.




I don’t think that style is in any way a pejorative. Earlier I listed several artists whose storytelling was more important than their story...and I consider them all brilliant. 

Perhaps your view that it’s a pejorative is part of the issue? 

Style’s precisely what’s being discussed. And yes, again, the two are intertwined. You can’t separate them in play. I’m fully aware of that. No one is saying “use only one and eliminate the other.”

But we absolutely can talk about which deserves more focus. We can do so generally, we can do so for specific examples, we can do so for RPGs or any other medium. I would say that they are separate enough that a GM could work on improving one area over the other. Would you agree with that? We typically describe the GM role as having multiple areas, right? Do we think of these areas as one jumbled mess, or as interrelated but distinct roles? I think it’s the latter.


----------



## Hriston

Imaro said:


> Really??  Because I literally brought up this idea that how content was presented could in fact determine whether a group would be interested in the content earlier in the thread (and one of the reasons I thought of it as core to the game) and these were the replies... Emphasis mine.




I don't know about @_*pemerton*_’s post, but that post of mine you quoted was not made in reply to you or anything you said. I made it in response to @_*Hussar*_’s post which directly preceded mine and which asked why dungeon dressing appears in most editions of the DMG.


----------



## Imaro

Hriston said:


> I don't know about @_*pemerton*_’s post, but that post of mine you quoted was not made in reply to you or anything you said. I made it in response to @_*Hussar*_’s post which directly preceded mine and which asked why dungeon dressing appears in most editions of the DMG.




I was speaking to the genesis of the tangent... but not sure how this changes *what* you said.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> Really??  Because I literally brought up this idea that how content was presented could in fact determine whether a group would be interested in the content earlier in the thread (and one of the reasons I thought of it as core to the game) and these were the replies... Emphasis mine.




Yep.  I still think you've missed the point.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> Yep.  I still think you've missed the point.




Uhm... *shrug*... ok


----------



## Imaro

hawkeyefan said:


> But we absolutely can talk about which deserves more focus. We can do so generally, we can do so for specific examples, we can do so for RPGs or any other medium. I would say that they are separate enough that a GM could work on improving one area over the other. Would you agree with that? We typically describe the GM role as having multiple areas, right? Do we think of these areas as one jumbled mess, or as interrelated but distinct roles? I think it’s the latter.




My advice to someone who wants to be a great DM would be to focus on both (as well as other things not brought up in this thread), get better at both and practice both because they are intertwined and complement each other.  That said play to your strengths and shamelessly steal (content or presentation) to make up for what you are weakest in. 

I think stressing one as core or higher than the other only serves to exclude or downplay one skill vs another... one playstyle vs. another... etc. which ultimately I don't see the purpose of except maybe to make certain people feel their way of playing is superior??


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaro said:


> My advice to someone who wants to be a great DM would be to focus on both (as well as other things not brought up in this thread), get better at both and practice both because they are intertwined and complement each other.  That said play to your strengths and shamelessly steal (content or presentation) to make up for what you are weakest in.
> 
> I think stressing one as core or higher than the other only serves to exclude or downplay one skill vs another... one playstyle vs. another... etc. which ultimately I don't see the purpose of except maybe to make certain people feel their way of playing is superior??




Saying they’re both important is fine. Saying one is more important than the other....whichever one you may believe to be....is also fine. Is it about being superior? I don’t think in the way you mean. 

It’s not “my game is superior to yours because I focus on the fictional situations more than the presentation” but rather “For me, games that focus on fictional situation more than presentation are the superior choice.” 

To go back to comic books....I care much more about the writing than I do about the art. That’s not to say that I don’t care about the art at all, or that I don’t appreciate it. Quite the opposite. For me, I’ll tolerate lesser art for a great story much more readily than I’ll tolerate a weak story for great art. Ideally, both will be great, but if anyone asked me which is more important, I’d say the writing. 

It’s not an attack on art, or on anyone for whom the art is more important. It’s just a matter of preference.


----------



## Riley37

lowkey13 said:


> (I'm thinking about how to say, using dance, "I rolled a 13. Did I hit?" I think I have to practice!)




You do a Disco Poke, with exactly enough accuracy to hit AC 13. Duh.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/leonoraepstein/19-disco-moves-that-could-beat-someone-up


----------



## Riley37

lowkey13 said:


> the individuals who are most involved in advancing the "Only framing!" perspective tend to write long, flowery, narrative pieces, whereas those attacking it tend to write in a jocular and conversational style. Jus' sayin'.




No narration! Only framing!

See also:

No take! Only throw!

https://imgur.com/gallery/q46L4QH


----------



## Hriston

Imaro said:


> I was speaking to the genesis of the tangent... but not sure how this changes *what* you said.




What I said was in the context of [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]’s question about dungeon dressing, which relates directly back to the OP by equating dungeon dressing with “the literary”, not the context of your tangent, which really does seem to miss the point because no one is saying the players are going to be interested in elements of dungeon dressing no matter how poorly they’re described.


----------



## Riley37

lowkey13 said:


> That's why it's neither ... or both. It tastes great, and is less filling.
> 
> (Its a STYLISTIC .... SUBSTANCE, or, put another way, it's a ROLE PLAYING .... GAME     ).




Have you played my new TRPG, "Floor Waxes & Dessert Toppings"?

Further dilemmas:

Is light primarily a particulate endeavor?


----------



## Riley37

lowkey13 said:


> "When you say inching, do you mean moving with the old AD&D system of movement?"




Of course, you should capture it; "that belongs in a museum". You'll have to use AD&D rules on subdual. You might even resort to AD&D rules on morale checks and/or grappling. It's a horror monster; and those rules do Sanity damage, direct to the players.

Actually, you should *start* by luring it into a museum. Once it's inside, its 12" move will traverse 120 feet, rather than the battlefield value of 120 yards.

Even better, lure it into an old edition of Hero System, in which 1" is two meters!


----------



## Riley37

Hriston said:


> I don't know about @_*pemerton*_’s post, but that post of mine you quoted was not made in reply to you or anything you said. I made it in response to @_*Hussar*_’s post which directly preceded mine and which asked why dungeon dressing appears in most editions of the DMG.






Imaro said:


> I was speaking to the genesis of the tangent... but not sure how this changes *what* you said.




Alright, Ovinomancer, please issue a ruling:

Should I evaluate Hriston's assertion only according to its literal content?

Or does context change the value of its content?

Is it true... from a certain point of view? That is, the point of view, which equates Hriston with nobody?

Archaic allusion time:

Q: Who did Polyphemos hate, even more than Odysseus?

A: Nobody!


----------



## pemerton

Riley37 said:


> No narration! Only framing!



The post you quoted is nearly 400 words, has two footnotes and an edit, and references Hemingway and Henry Miller.

I'm not sure there's much profit in critiquing posting styles or trying to diagnose irony. [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] has (by my count) 7 posts since posting "My last post". Is that irony? An atypical use of the word _last_? (Maybe we should debate the meaning of the word _last_, or even _post_ - my count of posts doesn't XP/laugh clicks - for several hundred posts.) Or is it just a change of mind and someone saying stuff that they feel like saying?


----------



## Riley37

lowkey13 said:


> the problem with this thread is that people are arguing past each other because they can't agree on what they are discussing.




You have told us the problem with this thread. Well done. Would you like a biscuit? Or some other form of recognition?

I know the problem with D&D, and I still play D&D.

I know the problem with cheese, and I still eat cheese.

I know the problem with this thread, and I still post in this thread.


----------



## Riley37

pemerton said:


> The post you quoted is nearly 400 words, has two footnotes and an edit, and references Hemingway and Henry Miller.




So why are you replying to my four-word (and a link) post, rather than replying directly to the 400-word post?

Perhaps because I said the same thing, but more elegantly, and you hope to elicit further elegant responses, by engaging with me rather than with the anti-paladin?


----------



## pemerton

Riley37 said:


> So why are you replying to my four-word (and a link) post, rather than replying directly to the 400-word post?
> 
> Perhaps because I said the same thing, but more elegantly, and you hope to elicit further elegant responses, by engaging with me rather than with the anti-paladin?



Having just re-read [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION]'s post, I think I may have misread - by "my last post" perhaps he mean "my previous post" (the next bit of the post itself is not legible for me because of some text formatting issue, but maybe it's a quote of a previous post?).

I feel that reinforces my view that meta-comments (ie on the quality and formal properties of poster's posts, as opposed to what they're actually saying) is generally unproductive.



Riley37 said:


> by engaging with me rather than with the anti-paladin



When I play a FRPG I nearly always play a paladin (or similar archetype). Presumably that's more evidence of something-or-other.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Riley37 said:


> Alright, Ovinomancer, please issue a ruling:
> 
> Should I evaluate Hriston's assertion only according to its literal content?
> 
> Or does context change the value of its content?
> 
> Is it true... from a certain point of view? That is, the point of view, which equates Hriston with nobody?
> 
> Archaic allusion time:
> 
> Q: Who did Polyphemos hate, even more than Odysseus?
> 
> A: Nobody!



If there's an honest question in there, could you fish it out for me?


----------



## Aldarc

Riley37 said:


> Archaic allusion time:
> 
> Q: Who did Polyphemos hate, even more than Odysseus?
> 
> A: Nobody!



Though I love this reference, I do have to quibble. Polyphemos did not hate "Nobody" (Οὖτις) more than Odysseus, because in his escape Odysseus reveals his actual name to Polyphemos, who then prays to Poseidon for vengeance.


----------



## Maxperson

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't disagree. But you are misreading what I am saying. I am saying exactly because what you said is true we should pay more attention to substance than packaging, more attention to a person's ideas than the rhetoric they wrap it up in, and more attention to what a GM is actually saying than the way they are saying it.
> 
> So I wasn't denying that people pay attention to how things are said. I didn't say this wasn't the case. My statement was saying it shouldn't be the case. It is an ought statement. Wouldn't you agree  the things you mention in your quote are bad? Doesn't this suggest we should pay more attention to substance than delivery? The example I gave was from I, Claudius. In that scene, which I tweaked to fit to this context, he is speaking to the Senate after the Praetorians declared him emperor. One of the issues the senate is concerned about is his mind and his stammer. So he says what a man says is more important than how long he takes to say it.




It wouldn't be charisma if it didn't work. 

Speaking of charisma.  In my games I make note of the charisma of the PCs.  Even if the most eloquent player gives me an amazing speech, if his PC has a charisma of 4 I'm going to filter that speech though his charisma and the NPCs will hear it different.  Conversely, a stammering and stuttering player whose PC is a charisma 20 paladin, will have his speech filtered through the 20 charisma and the NPCs will hear it much more favorably.  

That may make it seem like content matters more than presentation, but I don't think that it does.  Even with the filter, the presentation still matters just as much as the content.  I'm just adjusting the presentation to match the charisma.  Both presentation and content matter equally in my opinion.


----------



## Imaro

Maxperson said:


> .... the presentation still matters just as much as the content.  I'm just adjusting the presentation to match the charisma.  Both presentation and content matter equally in my opinion.




This pretty much sums up my stance since this thread began. It's like asking what's more important in playing basketball, being able to dribble or being able to shoot... Both are, even though you could technically play a good game without doing one or the other and/or putting emphasis on one over the other.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> This pretty much sums up my stance since this thread began. It's like asking what's more important in playing basketball, being able to dribble or being able to shoot... Both are, even though you could technically play a good game without doing one or the other and/or putting emphasis on one over the other.



My take on this thread debate using basketball: What's more important in playing basketball, being able to dribble, shoot, and set up plays or developing a theatrical style to your gameplay.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> My take on this thread debate using basketball: What's more important in playing basketball, being able to dribble, shoot, and set up plays or developing a theatrical style to your gameplay.




Bad analogy.  This thread debate using basketball would be...  What's more important in playing basketball, offense, defense, shooting or dribbling?    Theatrics in most sports is nearly non-existent.  It shows up a little bit after touchdowns, goals and such, but for most of the game it's not there.

If you wanted to use a "sport" where theatrics and the sport might be on equal ground, go with the WWE.  That contains enough theatrics during the entire event to contend with the content of wrestling.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> My take on this thread debate using basketball: What's more important in playing basketball, being able to dribble, shoot, and set up plays or developing a theatrical style to your gameplay.




Yep and that's why no meaningful discussion is taking place between the two main sides of this argument.  You see it as totally superfluous to the game while I and others see it as an integral part of the whole... of course if every time we bring up an example it gets put in the.._that's not what we are talking about bin_... but when a definite line  is asked for it's brushed off as not really required (because of course the people who see it as superfluous all agree on where the line is..._the superfluous stuff of course!!_.... it's easy to see how such disparate views arise and understanding is minimal.


----------



## Aldarc

Maxperson said:


> Bad analogy.  This thread debate using basketball would be...  What's more important in playing basketball, offense, defense, shooting or dribbling?    *Theatrics in most sports is nearly non-existent.*  It shows up a little bit after touchdowns, goals and such, but for most of the game it's not there.
> 
> If you wanted to use a "sport" where theatrics and the sport might be on equal ground, go with the WWE.  That contains enough theatrics during the entire event to contend with the content of wrestling.



This certainly shows you don't watch much basketball. Theatrics are definitely there. It's part of the dunks, the juking, the fade aways, the finishes, and playstyles of many players. Legendary basketball player Julius Erving (Dr. J.) even got his start in a league dedicated to the theatrics of basketball: the Harlem Globetrotters.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> This certainly shows you don't watch much basketball. Theatrics are definitely there. It's part of the dunks, the juking, the fade aways, the finishes, and playstyles of many players. Legendary basketball player Julius Erving (Dr. J.) even got his start in a league dedicated to the theatrics of basketball: the Harlem Globetrotters.




The analogy was with the game of basketball, not with how it's played in specific arenas...NBA & Globetrotter exhibitions (which aren't even an example of basketball being played).  Unless we are now only talking about RPG's played for presentation to an audience...


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> *The analogy was with the game of basketball, *not with how it's played in specific arenas...NBA & Globetrotter exhibitions (which aren't even an example of basketball being played).  Unless we are now only talking about RPG's played for presentation to an audience...



I know, and what I said applies to that.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> I know, and what I said applies to that.




EDIT: Not even worth it.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> Yep and that's why no meaningful discussion is taking place between the two main sides of this argument.  You see it as totally superfluous to the game while I and others see it as an integral part of the whole... of course if every time we bring up an example it gets put in the.._that's not what we are talking about bin_... but when a definite line  is asked for it's brushed off as not really required (because of course the people who see it as superfluous all agree on where the line is..._the superfluous stuff of course!!_.... it's easy to see how such disparate views arise and understanding is minimal.



Not so much superfluous as much as less fundamental to the basics. You will naturally develop a style, but the basics of ball-handling, shooting, and play-making are important fundamentals of the game that propel it forward. Many great players of the game typically have both, but we generally expect one over the other. Those who are style without substance are typically overrated players with nothing to show, while those who are substance over style are more likely to have the stats and accolades than the other way around.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Maxperson said:


> That may make it seem like content matters more than presentation, but I don't think that it does.  Even with the filter, the presentation still matters just as much as the content.  I'm just adjusting the presentation to match the charisma.  Both presentation and content matter equally in my opinion.




I do the same thing actually. But this reasoning doesn't make much sense to me. The presentation is the same, you are just interpreting the presentation differently based on a mechanic. However I think we are getting pretty far afield of the crux of the debate. It really isn't about whether one is more important than the other. It is more about what kind of delivery/presentation/description people want. Some of us want a style that is natural, doesn't affect the manner or techniques of novel writing, some of us do want a more literary style of description. We've debated the meanings of these various terms. But I think if we make an attempt to understand the key difference arising, it centers around what kind of descriptions do you want from the GM and do you want them to be more or less literary (i.e. should they be evocative, sound like novel prose, employ literary techniques, etc or should they be more conversational and plain spoken).


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> I do the same thing actually. But this reasoning doesn't make much sense to me. The presentation is the same, you are just interpreting the presentation differently based on a mechanic. However I think we are getting pretty far afield of the crux of the debate. It really isn't about whether one is more important than the other. It is more about what kind of delivery/presentation/description people want. Some of us want a style that is natural, doesn't affect the manner or techniques of novel writing, some of us do want a more literary style of description. We've debated the meanings of these various terms. But I think if we make an attempt to understand the key difference arising, it centers around *what kind of descriptions do you want from the GM and do you want them to be more or less literary (i.e. should they be evocative, sound like novel prose, employ literary techniques, etc or should they be more conversational and plain spoken).*



 @_*Aldarc*_ 's  post above yours is definitely about which is more important... And contrary to what you've been saying it's been framed like that by quite a few posters in this thread.

EDIT: Emphasis mine... IMO this would have been a much more interesting discussion topic


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> @_*Aldarc*_ 's  post above yours is definitely about which is more important... And contrary to what you've been saying it's been framed like that by quite a few posters in this thread.
> 
> EDIT: Emphasis mine... IMO this would have been a much more interesting discussion topic




Yes, we've been getting sucked into that debate on the thread. We've also been sucked into debates over the meaning of words. I am not denying that. But I think the central conflict is fundamentally over what kinds of descriptions we enjoy from the Gamemaster, and was more at the heart of the conversation. At the very least I think it is a more productive conversation to have. I've entertained some of the definitional arguments and some of the broad principle arguments, but I don't really think there is much to be gained by having them.


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> @_*Aldarc*_ 's  post above yours is definitely about which is more important... And contrary to what you've been saying it's been framed like that by quite a few posters in this thread.
> 
> EDIT: Emphasis mine... IMO this would have been a much more interesting discussion topic



That's probably because the entire basketball analogy was originally framed in terms of greater importance.


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> I do the same thing actually. But this reasoning doesn't make much sense to me. The presentation is the same, you are just interpreting the presentation differently based on a mechanic. However I think we are getting pretty far afield of the crux of the debate. It really isn't about whether one is more important than the other. It is more about what kind of delivery/presentation/description people want. Some of us want a style that is natural, doesn't affect the manner or techniques of novel writing, some of us do want a more literary style of description. We've debated the meanings of these various terms. But I think if we make an attempt to understand the key difference arising, it centers around what kind of descriptions do you want from the GM and do you want them to be more or less literary (i.e. should they be evocative, sound like novel prose, employ literary techniques, etc or should they be more conversational and plain spoken).




Well if you start a thread around that premise I'd be more than happy to discuss since I think there's too much baggage in this thread to have any type of meaningful discussion and alot of posters have already bailed on it.


----------



## Imaro

Aldarc said:


> That's probably because the entire basketball analogy was originally framed in terms of greater importance.




No it wasn't... I think you missed the point.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaro said:


> No it wasn't... I think you missed the point.



Get yer own shtick.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Aldarc

Imaro said:


> No it wasn't... I think you missed the point.



And my point was not about how basketball was being played in different arenas.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> Well if you start a thread around that premise I'd be more than happy to discuss since I think there's too much baggage in this thread to have any type of meaningful discussion and alot of posters have already bailed on it.




Fair enough, just started a thread.


----------



## Imaro

Ovinomancer said:


> Get yer own shtick.



Imitation is the greatest form of flattery


----------



## Satyrn

lowkey13 said:


> I think @_*Satyrn*_ stated it best, earlier in the thread (and no, I can't possibly find it) when he said that as much as he hates these threads, sometimes he can't turn away. Like a car wreck, maybe? I think it's more like the movie _Crash_ (not the one that shouldn't have won an Oscar- the Cronenberg one).



I mean, neither of them should've won an Oscar . . . but both of them should have starred Sandra Bullock.

Also, do you remember when you said the following?




> Some lines you just never expect to see.
> 
> As pretty as an airport.
> 
> My favorite line from a Taylor Swift song.
> 
> As sad as seeing a room full of dead gnomes.
> 
> As enjoyable as a D&D game with Paladins.
> 
> @_*Satyrn*_ stated it best.
> 
> &c.





So true.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Satyrn

lowkey13 said:


> I resemble that comment ... wait a minute, how dare you accurately use my own words against me! I demand I retract my comments!



Yeah, as soon as I read that post, I saved your words with the hope that I could weaponize them against you one day in the future.

I wasn't expecting to get the perfect setup literally one day in the future. Glorious.


----------



## Satyrn

I've got more to say! (Lots, lots more!)



lowkey13 said:


> Bonus fun fact! Did you know that enworld is sortable? So, for example, let's say you wanted to find the four longest threads in the General Role Playing Games Discussion forum since 5e was published. Here, let me show you-
> 
> https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?611305-What-is-*worldbuilding*-for
> https://www.enworld.org/forum/showt...ers-about-the-gameworld-is-not-like-real-life
> https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?531049-Judgement-calls-vs-quot-railroading-quot
> https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?658728-Is-RPGing-a-*literary*-endeavour




And yet no one - not a single solitary person - responded to the the best post ever posted on EnWorld.

https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?657586-Exploding-Toads!-Turtle-Grenades!




(Okay, not too much more)


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Fenris-77

lowkey13 said:


> "Every movie is better with Sandra Bullock."
> 
> Alfred Hitchcock, probably.



He was obviously talking about _Fire on the Amazon_. Possibly Bullock's finest work, and a ground breaking cinematic masterpiece. Followed very closely by the cult classic, _Sandra Dances the Can Can with a Line of Paladins on a Fresh Bed of Dead Gnome_. A lesser know work I'll admit, but one of my favorites.


----------



## Satyrn

lowkey13 said:


> That's because it's tagged with Homebrew.
> 
> The only homebrew I partake in better get my wicked messed up.
> 
> I don't want my homebrew to make me read about exploding toads ... I want my homebrew to make me SEE exploding toads.
> 
> *hic*



If you're sitting at my table, you will see them. Heck. My awesome literary narration will have you feeling sad about the violent end to their too-short existence. You'll be provoked into pondering the meaning of life, the deepest question of human existence, the universe - everything.

And you will, of course, answer "52."


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Fenris-77

lowkey13 said:


> Hmmm...
> "Gentlemen, like Hitchock, prefer brunettes."
> 
> Charles Coburn, indubitably.



I thought it was that "gentlemen prefer chaotic evil dog-faced humanoids"? Maybe it was brunettes. I can never keep my _bon mot_ straight, and your can never tell with Coburn.


----------



## BronzeDragon

I see people walked right by the correct answer to the title's question and didn't notice it.

It's "No."


----------



## Ovinomancer

BronzeDragon said:


> I see people walked right by the correct answer to the title's question and didn't notice it.
> 
> It's "No."



Dude.  Stop posting right now and go write this paper!  You will be famous for all time!  Imagine, I've posted 8n the same thread as the person with the right answer to what literature is (or at least conclusively is not)!

To be so lucky!


----------



## Manbearcat

lowkey13 said:


> It's easy to overlook what you have.
> 
> But if it's not apparent, this is why (inter alia) D&D is so useful for kids with autism; because they don't have these natural abilties, and because it can help teach .... narrative and emotion which goes into proper framing.
> 
> But to re-state the obvious; yes, of course you don't see yourself engaged in anything but "mere conversation" or "mere framing" because you're already experienced, and your natural ability, honed through those years of experience, provides the results you seek.




Citing the above, I want to make sure I've captured your position before I attempt to move the conversation forward.  To do so, I'm going to also cite the below from me:



Manbearcat said:


> Hence why I put them (skill in identifying how to frame, evolve, and resolve situations where PC dramatic need is tested or in conflict with something else) hierarchically at the top, connect them to understanding dramatic device, but don’t correlate them profoundly to certain facets of exposition skill (I do correlate it to some aspects; *the ability to communicate with economy but provocatively almost certainly has an amplification effect...one way or the other...but not a causal effect...hence why it’s lower on the hierarchy).*




Is your position that I (and others) have a blind spot for the gravity of the amplification effect I cite above (or further still, that it is indeed a causal effect) because of natural ability/decades of honing the crafts of exposition and oratory?

Some kind of cognitive bias due to being well-practiced; call it "Aptitude Bias?"


----------



## Riley37

BronzeDragon said:


> I see people walked right by the correct answer to the title's question and didn't notice it.
> 
> It's "No."




I'm not yet willing to rule out "category error" as the more correct answer.

Is light a particle endeavor?


----------



## BronzeDragon

Ovinomancer said:


> Dude.  Stop posting right now and go write this paper!  You will be famous for all time!  Imagine, I've posted 8n the same thread as the person with the right answer to what literature is (or at least conclusively is not)!
> 
> To be so lucky!




Ah, the strong aroma of "Pretentious Storygamer"....

You may wanna ease up on the cologne just a tad.


----------



## Ovinomancer

BronzeDragon said:


> Ah, the strong aroma of "Pretentious Storygamer"....
> 
> You may wanna ease up on the cologne just a tad.



Amusing. It's mostly those you'd kneejerk into "storygamers" that are on the no side and the process-sim follks on the yes side.  I'm on the "you can call it literary, if you want, but it's at best mediocre literature."   I don't call my games, story or otherwise, literary at all.

Maybe take the hint that you've already removed all doubt twice now and stop continuing to do so?


----------



## Riley37

Ovinomancer said:


> If there's an honest question in there, could you fish it out for me?




You need the step by step? Can do!

You asserted the following, in reference to Imaro's assertion about communication of content:



Ovinomancer said:


> Sure. Literally no one in this thread has said otherwise.




Imaro then quoted Hriston asserting that only content matters, without regard to what words communicate that content.

So if you still stand by your "no one in this thread has said otherwise" assertion, does your assertion now stipulate that when you said "no one", you meant Hriston?

A simple "yes" or "no" response should suffice. Thanks in advance for your clarity and brevity!


----------



## Ovinomancer

Riley37 said:


> You need the step by step? Can do!
> 
> You asserted the following, in reference to Imaro's assertion about communication of content:
> 
> 
> 
> Imaro then quoted Hriston asserting that only content matters, without regard to what words communicate that content.
> 
> So if you still stand by your "no one in this thread has said otherwise" assertion, does your assertion now stipulate that when you said "no one", you meant Hriston?
> 
> A simple "yes" or "no" response should suffice. Thanks in advance for your clarity and brevity!




Sorry, did you miss where [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] said he was taken out of context and wasn't saying what [MENTION=7266]LM[/MENTION]aro was claiming?

It's been a busy thread, and people have trued to address things in multiple shifting frameworks as conversation has progressed.  If you are trying to claim that people have actually advanced that being a jerk doesn't matter, then I don't see how a conversation can continue.


----------



## Riley37

Ovinomancer said:


> Sorry




Apologies mean more and go further, when you also stop practicing the behavior for which you apologize.



Ovinomancer said:


> did you miss where @_*Hriston*_ said he was taken out of context and wasn't saying what @LMaro was claiming?




I did not miss that. Hriston said what he said, in the words he used. You can stand by your assertion that no one has said any such thing; you can walk it back; or you can deflect, dodge, distract and dissemble.

I only rarely see a "no one is saying that" claim which holds up to rigorous factual examination. More often than not, someone somewhere IS saying that (for whatever value of "that").



Ovinomancer said:


> If you are trying to claim that people have actually advanced that being a jerk doesn't matter




I haven't said anything on that topic. AFAIK you're the only one using that particular word in this thread. I'd rather not become the second.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Riley37 said:


> Apologies mean more and go further, when you also stop practicing the behavior for which you apologize.



This is as far I as bothered to give you.


----------



## Hriston

Riley37 said:


> Imaro then quoted Hriston asserting that only content matters, without regard to what words communicate that content.




How do you get from me saying content matters to me saying *only* content matters? Obviously, all sorts of various things matter to different people when they play RPGs. Central to the experience of playing an RPG, however, is imagining the game’s fictional content. Whether a group considers their imaginings to be a literary endeavor, on the other hand, is a particular concern of the group in question. To other groups, it may not matter at all.


----------



## Riley37

Hriston said:


> Obviously, all sorts of various things matter to different people when they play RPGs. Central to the experience of playing an RPG, however, is imagining the game’s fictional content. Whether a group considers their imaginings to be a literary endeavor, on the other hand, is a particular concern of the group in question. To other groups, it may not matter at all.




I agree with what you're saying here!

Your position and perspective as a whole, are more nuanced, more flexible, less absolutist, than this one thing you happened to say, somewhere back along the way: "In other words, it’s the actual content that matters, not the particular words that are used and the way they are said."

Even so, when Ovinomancer denied that anyone had said any such thing - well, as a matter of fact, you HAD said that thing. That sentence, as written, says that content matters, and wording doesn't matter. I'm not asking you to stand by or renounce that sentence as the sum of your thoughts on form and content; I was challenging Ovinomancer's assertion that no one had said anything along those lines.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## pemerton

Riley37 said:


> I did not miss that. Hriston said what he said, in the words he used. You can stand by your assertion that no one has said any such thing; you can walk it back; or you can deflect, dodge, distract and dissemble.



Seriously?

Let's put to one side the fact that, contra  [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], Hriston's post was in reply to Hussar, not to him. Here is the exchange between Hussar and Hriston:



Hussar said:


> If the literary is unimportant, then why do DMG’d include dungeon dressing sections, most of which has little to no mechanical impact?





Hriston said:


> Because _color_ (dungeon dressing) is content that provides atmosphere when imagined by the participants at the table. The quality of form with which it’s expressed isn’t what’s important but rather whether the odors, noises, furnishings, and items found in an area suggest a torture chamber, a harem, or a wizard’s laboratory. In other words, it’s the actual content that matters, not the particular words that are used and the way they are said.



Hriston is refuting an express claim that "dungeon dressing" is a literary matter simply because it's non-mechanical, and also an apparent implication that the role and significance of dungeon dressing is a matter of evocative words used rather than content conveyed.

Is anyone seriously suggesting, on the basis of this post, that Hriston thinks that word choice never matters to human conversation? or that rudeness ("being a jerk") can't affect human communication?

It's ludicrous that I even have to make a post addressing this.

And while we're doing _review the past for misinterpretations_, here are a series of posts from Imaro and me:



Imaro said:


> Really??  Because I literally brought up this idea that how content was presented could in fact determine whether a group would be interested in the content earlier in the thread (and one of the reasons I thought of it as core to the game) and these were the replies... Emphasis mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the group isn't interested in engaging with the situations presented because your presentation/performance doesn't make it interesting to them... well there's no game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My take on this is the same as    [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s - it sounds to me like the situation is not interesting enough! As I've already posted in this thread, my advice to that GM would be to work on situation, not to work on voice modulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Imaro appears to imply that _me doubting whether presentation/performance is central to making a RPG situation interesting_ is the same as _me denying that how content is presented could ever in fact determine whether a group would be interested in the content_. Such that the following, from Imaro, is some sort of "gotcha":



Imaro said:


> Are you agreeing that how content is presented can determine whether people wish to engage with it?



Do you make the same implication? Do you think it's a reasonable reading of my post?

Just in case it needs to be spelled out (and I think I already posted a version of this a long way upthread, but maybe you and Imaro missed it): If the GM spits on the players, or smells, or speaks a language that is foreign to the players, or yells at them, or calls them ****holes, or any other of the innumerable ways that people can make for unpleasant company and can be unpleasant interlocutors, then I'm sure that might effect the willingness of the players to play the game. If the GM whispers, stammers excessively, mumbles, swallows his/her sentence endings, repeatedly uses the wrong word, etc, etc, then the same might be true.

Much the same things applies to dinner parties, boardgame nights, attending tutorials, and really any occasion where people get together to interact.

Is anyone asserting, on this basis, that all human interaction and communication is a literary endeavour? Is anyone asserting, on this basis, that _speaking loud enough to be heard_ or _choosing the right word to accurately describe something_ is an aspect of _literary_ quality? Or in other words, is anyone asserting that the concept of _literary_ as an adjective applied to _endeavour_ and/or _quality_ is empty, and adds nothing to the general notion of human interaction and communication?

Does anyone who read the OP, which includes the following - _RPGing requires narration: GMs describe situations, and players declare actions for their PCs that respond to those situations_ - think that I'm unaware that RPGing involves communication and interaction?

I'm frankly at a loss as to what you want me, or  [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION], or  [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION], to take away from your posts on this matter.


----------



## pemerton

Riley37 said:


> when Ovinomancer denied that anyone had said any such thing - well, as a matter of fact, you HAD said that thing. That sentence, as written, says that content matters, and wording doesn't matter. I'm not asking you to stand by or renounce that sentence as the sum of your thoughts on form and content; I was challenging Ovinomancer's assertion that no one had said anything along those lines.



If someone says "All the cheese is gone" before the dinner party, and then the next day you and a friend are debating whether or not anyone has ever thought that there's no cheese left in the world, the person who said "All the cheese is gone" doesn't count as an example of such. It's not that _they said as much but didn't mean it_. It's that _anyone who thinks that's what they said_ doesn't understand the relevant semantic features of natural language.

   [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] _literally did not assert_ that the particular words used by a speaker never matter to the effectiveness of communication. Which is the assertion that you and   [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] appear to be imputing to him. (And if that's not what you're imputing, then why is he turning up at the end of your "gotcha" stick?)



Riley37 said:


> when Ovinomancer denied that anyone had said any such thing - well, as a matter of fact, you HAD said that thing.



Again, this is just false.

Hriston wrote some words which, _if misinterpreted_, are capable of bearing the meaning that you and Imaro attribute to them. But that doesn't mean that Hriston said the thing that you are misinterpreting him as having said. That's what makes your interpretation a _misinterpretation_.

 [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] even pointed this out, after [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] pointed it out, and yet you persist in attributing your misinterpretation. Why? What's the point? What do you think it's adding to the thread?


----------



## Riley37

pemerton said:


> Is anyone seriously suggesting, on the basis of this post, that Hriston thinks that word choice never matters to human conversation? or that rudeness ("being a jerk") can't affect human communication?




Hey, if you have questions about anyone's assertions about who is or isn't a jerk, then please take them up with Ovinomancer, not with me. That's his topic, not mine.

If you want to defend the rigorous factual accuracy of Ovinomancer's assertion "_Literally no one in this thread has said otherwise_", then good luck with that. I doubt that you'll earn his gratitude; but I've been wrong before.



pemerton said:


> Is anyone asserting, on this basis, that speaking loud enough to be heard or choosing the right word to accurately describe something is an aspect of literary quality?




If no one was before, then I am now. Speaking loud enough to be heard, and choosing the right word to accurately describe something, are aspects of literary quality. A poetry reading which fails on either or both of those qualities, will fail as a literary event. Speaking loud enough to be heard is not a relevant quality to *all* literary projects, but it applies to some literary projects; choosing the right word to accurately describe something applies to many and to most literary projects.



pemerton said:


> Or in other words, is anyone asserting...




The thing about those different words, is that they form a different assertion, which does not necessarily follow from the previous assertion. Why conflate such different assertions?

My question stands unanswered: is light a particulate endeavor?

This question is a trap. Understandings of light which only consider it as a particle are incomplete. Understandings of light which only consider it as a wave are incomplete.

So far as I can tell from this thread, understandings of RPG which depend on whether the narrative aspects are primary over the framing aspects, or vice versa, are not useful understandings of TRPG.

I've learned from several of the exchanges in this thread. Not because the title by itself is a useful question; but because many people have done their best to bring useful understandings to bear on it.


----------



## Maxperson

lowkey13 said:


> That's because it's tagged with Homebrew.
> 
> The only homebrew I partake in better get me wicked messed up.
> 
> I don't want my homebrew to make me read about exploding toads ... I want my homebrew to make me SEE exploding toads.
> 
> *hic*




I hear licking exploding toads can get you there, too.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Riley37 said:


> Hey, if you have questions about anyone's assertions about who is or isn't a jerk, then please take them up with Ovinomancer, not with me. That's his topic, not mine.
> 
> If you want to defend the rigorous factual accuracy of Ovinomancer's assertion "_Literally no one in this thread has said otherwise_", then good luck with that. I doubt that you'll earn his gratitude; but I've been wrong before.



In your unseemly haste to get your digital boot in, you seem to have forgotten the context of my remark.  Here it is:


Imaro said:


> Sooo... Are you agreeing that how content is presented can determine whether people wish to engage with it?




Your saying [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s actually said that how content is presented cannot affect if people wish to engage with that content.  It's the only way that  you can keep this e-peen wagging contest going.  Well, okay, then.  Yours is the biggest.  Really.  None larger.


----------



## Manbearcat

lowkey13 said:


> "I can't frame that. There's loads and loads of things you just did that might as well be magic!"
> 
> You see where I'm going with this, yes? So when you ascribe positions on the hierarchy, it's necessarily from the position you have now; as you would put it, your aptitude bias.
> 
> It is somewhat difficult to fully grok the ways in which you have internalized the techniques you use, and how they impact your game... things that you now think of as merely incidental to framing, but which are both necessary and a predicate.
> 
> Since we both watch sports, I will use an analogy- a lot of people enjoy criticizing sports commentators (pick your sport, say, football). But have you ever tried to do it yourself? IT IS INSANELY HARD. Or, just watch an amateur calling a high school game on local access. With reps, and time, people eventually get good at it. They learn when to speak, when not to speak, when to let the images create the drama, and when to fill in space (blowouts, say). After a while it becomes second nature. For many, it is automatic.
> 
> And yet, it is there.




Ok, so I understand your position. So I guess I just have a few questions/thoughts:

1) Why can’t Aptitude Bias run the other direction (as so many do); overestimating the importance of a honed Skill-set or natural affinity? 

2) In the last several years on these boards, we’ve seen a LOT of instances of people who are articulate, well-read, tenured GMs struggle significantly in one or both of (a) framing interesting scenes that hook into PC dramatic need and (b) evolving the scene dynamically post resolution such that the situation changes and requires a new decision-point to be navigated.

In these cases you saw overwhelmingly (c) people say they had a bad time and (d) the system sucks (rather than taking ownership to get better at a and b).

3) In the last 2 years, I’ve GM-workshopped (say in on games or outright taught) 3 adults and a couple of early teens on Dogs in the Vineyard, Dungeon World, Strike(!), Mouse Guard, and 5e. Only one of them is articulate and comfortable speaking. But we’ve focused on broad scenario design, how to think about interesting scenes that hook into play premise or PC flags, how to be forgiving of yourself and take a moment to ponder as you need to, how to develop shorthand and use note cards as personal cues. None have reported what happened in 2 above outside of the games I’ve sat in on, and the games I’ve sat in on were fun and well-paced despite often quite imperfect exposition. When things didn’t work, we’ve reflected upon it (or they’ve reflected to me) and it’s overwhelmingly something akin to “the idea I had sucked” or “this idea for what happened after x would have been much more exciting.” My guess is you think this is because we focus on that in the workshopping?

4) Do you think Dungeon/Hex design > scene framing/post resolution evolution > skill in exposition/oration all hook into the same bandwidth?


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Satyrn

Maxperson said:


> I hear licking exploding toads can get you there, too.



That glorious feeling I'm feeling right now? It's not because my local basketball team won a basketball tournament. All my time wasted in this thread had just paid off. I've just struck gold. GOLD! Black and gold chequered, hallucinogenic exploding toads. But it's not just when you lick them. Anyone caught in the explosion must make a Wisdom to avoid tripping out.


The next time my players face goblins is gonna be insane.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Riley37

Manbearcat said:


> Ok, so I understand your position. So I guess I just have a few questions/thoughts:




I sense the presence of some useful angles on the questions at hand. I also can't sort out the meaning of some of your sentences. I'm amused that I'm having this problem, in a conversation which has gone round and round on form versus content. I want to understand your points.

In #2: In how many of those cases, did the GM have a strong track record of success with systems they knew well, then struggle while running another, new-to-them system?

(If that's the issue, then I have further questions about GMs applying fundamentals in familiar systems versus in newly-learned systems.)

In #3: What is GM-workshopping? Does it involve GM A watching GM B prepare a scenario and then watch while GM B runs a table? Is it one-on-one, or a group activity?

In #4: are you using > to mean "greater than", or to mean "and then as subsequent steps in a process", or something else?

Thanks!


----------



## Riley37

Satyrn said:


> The next time my players face goblins is gonna be insane.




DMG has optional rules for Sanity as a stat, for campaigns with Sanity Loss as a horror mechanic (*cough* Call of Cthulhu *cough*). A bad trip could cause Sanity loss.

One of the PCs in my regular group has profiency with alchemy kit and an interest in the mushrooms of the Underdank which includes recreational usage. He's a Light domain cleric, whose go-to offensive action is channel divinity as Radiance of the Dawn. When he's been eating those particular mushrooms, Radiance might also be a dazzling, trippy light show. We've speculated on whether he could craft a spell which imposes hallucinogenic intoxication on others across an area, "Mass Chill Out", sort of a combination of Calm Emotions with Hypnotic Pattern.

You've now given me the idea of secondary explosions - that is, once one person starts tripping, that person then relays a psychic splash effect onto others nearby, possibly with ripple effects to tertiary and quaternary targets.


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=6786839]Riley37[/MENTION], you didn't answer my question as to what you think it adds to the thread to insist that [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] said something that he didn't, on the basis of attributing a meaning to his words that they were not intended to bear, and which no reasonable reader of them in the context of their production would impute to them.

As to your question about light, light isn't an endeavour of any sort. It's a natural phenomenon. Unlike RPGing, which _is_ an endeavour; and which is framed in the OP as an aesthetic endeavour (subsequent posts have noted classic dungeoncrawling as an exception; as best I recall no poster has disputed that framing or the exception), and which therefre has goals and features that contribute to quality, success, etc.

Unlike the case of _light_, it's therefore not a category error to ask whether RPGing is literary endeavour, any more than it would be a category error to ask whether theatre or film-making is a literary endeavour, and whether the qualities that make for good theatre or cinema are essentially literary qualities.

On speaking loud enough to be heard: of course if one can't be heard at the recital, it will not succeed. That doesn't make adequacy of volume a literary quality. If it rains and the noise of the rain on the roof drowns out the speaker, or the roof leaks and the audience all leave as a result, that will also cause the event to fail; but that doesn't make architecture or roofing a literary quality.

The general points are (1) that not all necessary or faclititive conditions for the success of a literary endeavour are, in virtue of that, lliteary qualities; and (2) that not all necessary or facilitative conditions for a successful RPGing session pertain to the character of RPGing as an aesthetic endeavour. And - as per my example of mathematics teaching not far upthread - the converse is true, also. Teaching mathematics doesn't become a literary endeavour just because doing it well requires thinking about words in something like the way a writer might. RPGing can be more fun with snacks; that doesn't make RPGing a culinary endeavour.

Anyone who thinks that RPGing is sui generis as an aesthetic activity of necessity agrees with the "no" answer in the OP, although perhaps not for the same reasons.


----------



## pemerton

lowkey13 said:


> What do they have in common? All of them? Um .... strange use of scare quotes/asterisks!



I don't understand what you're trying to achieve. If you're not interested in the topic as it's been framed or discussed, or think the thread is unhelpful, you're very welcome not to post in it. If you think my threads involve code-of-conduct violation, you have the option of reporting them.

Are you trying to pick a fight and have this thread shut down? Are you trying to clutter the thread with enough off-topic nonsense to prove your point that the thread shouldn't exist?

If you want to take part in a thread about the use of literary/narrative devices in RPGing, then why not start one?


----------



## Riley37

pemerton said:


> @_*Riley37*_, you didn't answer my question as to what you think it adds to the thread to insist that @_*Hriston*_ said something that he didn't, on the basis of attributing a meaning to his words that they were not intended to bear, and which no reasonable reader of them in the context of their production would impute to them.




I have no opinion on whether that action would add anything to thread; no one has done the action which you just now described, not as you describe it.

Ovinomancer made an assertion which I considered untrue, and I challenged that assertion. I made no statement about what Hriston *intended*; I repeated a quote of Hriston's words, *exactly as written*. You can try to "stir the pot" between me and Ovinomancer, if you like, but I doubt you'll get results which are both successful and useful. If you want to get him and/or me thrown out of the thread, well, you can get me out of the thread just by PMing me a request not to comment further in this thread. The mods have enough on their hands already. I will keep *reading*, at least long enough to get Manbearcat's answers to my questions about his thoughts.



pemerton said:


> As to your question about light, light isn't an endeavour of any sort. It's a natural phenomenon.




That is a true statement. Some analogies are closer than others. Light and TRPG are not in the shared category of "natural phenomena". They are in the shared category of "things which have multiple aspects, such that the thing can only be well understood when one considers all of those aspects".



pemerton said:


> Unlike the case of _light_, it's therefore not a category error to ask whether RPGing is literary endeavour, any more than it would be a category error to ask whether theatre or film-making is a literary endeavour, and whether the qualities that make for good theatre or cinema are essentially literary qualities.




No more, and no less. Has anyone ever gained anything useful, by asking whether theatre or film-making is a literary endeavour, while bundling that question with the further question of whether the qualities that make for good theatre or cinema are essentially literary qualities (as if yes to the former proved yes to the latter, and vice versa)?

If the current state of the art, of theatre and/or film-making, has been advanced by such a question, then that's news to me. (shrug) But if it has, then go ahead, break the news to me!


----------



## Hriston

Riley37 said:


> Even so, when Ovinomancer denied that anyone had said any such thing - well, as a matter of fact, you HAD said that thing.



 [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] denied that anyone in this thread had said that how content is presented *cannot* determine whether people wish to engage with it. 

Here’s what I said:



Hriston said:


> Because _color_ (dungeon dressing) is content that provides atmosphere when imagined by the participants at the table. The quality of form with which it’s expressed isn’t what’s important but rather whether the odors, noises, furnishings, and items found in an area suggest a torture chamber, a harem, or a wizard’s laboratory. In other words, it’s the actual content that matters, not the particular words that are used and the way they are said.




_NOT_ the same thing!


----------



## Riley37

Okay, if 

(a) the quality of form isn't important
(b) whether (X in-game phenomena) suggest (Y category of room) (for various X and Y) is what's important
(c) the content matters
(d) the particular words that are used don't matter
(e) the way that they are said doesn't matter

but "matters" does not include "whether people wish to engage"

then you and I have divergent understandings of "matter".
"Matter" is relative; something can matter to me and not to you.

I was a drop-in player at a game store today. The DM read aloud some boxed text. He didn't read it SO badly, that I left the table - but his perfunctory tone affected how many players listened how closely, and did or didn't pick up on mission-relevant content.

One way of truth-testing an assertion, is to check whether it leads to false conclusions.
Here's a link to one of my favorite examples: http://ceadserv1.nku.edu/longa//classes/mat385_resources/docs/russellpope.html


So let's apply your scope of what does and doesn't matter, to the next time I will TRPG.
I will run a game tomorrow, at the same store, with walk-in players.
If the PCs walk into a room, and I give a description of the room which suggests a torture chamber (eg the captive cowering in a cage)
and I do so in rapid, elided Spanish
that is, if the only difference between tomorrow's instance, and previous times I've run the adventure, is "the choice of words and the way they are said"
and the players who don't speak Spanish leave the table
then by your standards, I conveyed all the necessary content, and some of the players left over *something that doesn't matter*, so it's not my fault.
The departure of those players, however, will matter *to me*.
Again, condensed: if the choice of words and the way they are said, results in players disengaging, that's within the scope of what matters *to me*.
If it doesn't matter to you, then *shrug* you DM your way, and I'll DM mine.


----------



## Aldarc

Riley37 said:


> I was a drop-in player at a game store today. The DM read aloud some boxed text. He didn't read it SO badly, that I left the table - but his perfunctory tone affected how many players listened how closely, and did or didn't pick up on mission-relevant content.



So the literary content of the written text (e.g., diction, structure, style, content) was deprecated by the tone and performance? What if the DM had not read the boxed text aloud - a rote performance - but had instead engaged in a more natural style that communicated the message of the boxed text without reading from it? What you say here suggests that something else that has not really been explored in the conversation much: that the premade "literature" fails to engage the DM who is running it for players. Normally, this has been framed from the presumption that the DM is engaged and we are instead focused on non-DM player engagement.


----------



## Riley37

Aldarc said:


> So the literary content of the written text (e.g., diction, structure, style, content) was deprecated by the tone and performance?




Maybe the literary content, but insofar as the relationship between "literary" and "content" is already a point of contention, I'd rather say that the literary effect or impact was reduced  He didn't convey excitement or strong interest in the written text. For his purposes, "it's a generic science fiction orbital station, apply tropes as needed" sufficed, except when zooming in on plot-crucial details. At one point, he said "the meeting location is a few blocks away... well, not blocks..." I responded with something like "how about, it's four bulkheads spinwards from here?" and he said "Sure, go with that."



Aldarc said:


> the premade "literature" fails to engage the DM who is running it for players. Normally, this has been framed from the presumption that the DM is engaged and we are instead focused on non-DM player engagement.




Well put. Thank you. Yeah, in this case the author and the DM at the table were different people, perhaps with different goals for use of descriptive language. For all I know, the people who wrote the module cranked up the formality of the prose style, for boxed text, on the basis of tradition - that is, perhaps they felt obligated to match the style of boxed text in whatever modules had formed their understanding of TRPG. As if a module had to provide boxed text with long sentences and lots of scenery-describing adjectives, or else it would not inspire respect, if you know what I mean. FWIW, the DM had found a story/module written for Starfinder, but was running it in the Warhammer setting, and some nuances of tone or scenery may have suffered some distortion in the process.

Now I'm extra glad that I gamed today, and that I brought a recent example into the thread, because Aldarc picked up on something in the example!

(I imagine that more value may ensue from Aldarc's point, than from the chain of (a) Hriston's declaration, (b) Ovinomancer's declaration, (c) my contradiction of Ovinomancer's declaration and (d) pemerton's counter-contradiction. Time will tell. And "value" varies by who does the assessment of value...)


----------



## Maxperson

Riley37 said:


> Okay, if
> 
> (a) the quality of form isn't important
> (b) whether (X in-game phenomena) suggest (Y category of room) (for various X and Y) is what's important
> (c) the content matters
> (d) the particular words that are used don't matter
> (e) the way that they are said doesn't matter
> 
> but "matters" does not include "whether people wish to engage"
> 
> then you and I have divergent understandings of "matter".
> "Matter" is relative; something can matter to me and not to you.




I agree.  If nobody wants to engage with the content, then the content doesn't matter.  If "it's the actual content that matters,'' content determines whether people engage or not.  

Now, I clearly do not agree that "it's the actual content that matters."  I think both content and presentation matter equally.  Of course, you can never guarantee engagement.  100% content, 100% presentation, 50/50%, sometimes you are going to whiff and the players won't be interested.


----------



## Maxperson

Aldarc said:


> So the literary content of the written text (e.g., diction, structure, style, content) was deprecated by the tone and performance? What if the DM had not read the boxed text aloud - a rote performance - but had instead engaged in a more natural style that communicated the message of the boxed text without reading from it? What you say here suggests that something else that has not really been explored in the conversation much: that the premade "literature" fails to engage the DM who is running it for players. Normally, this has been framed from the presumption that the DM is engaged and we are instead focused on non-DM player engagement.




In my experience, this is less about the DM failing to be engaged, and more that the DM has failed to learn the box text in advance and just reads it as he goes.  If he had learned it in advance and was able to describe the scene with the box text as the guide, the players would have been more engaged.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Riley37

Maxperson said:


> In my experience, this is less about the DM failing to be engaged, and more that the DM has failed to learn the box text in advance and just reads it as he goes.  If he had learned it in advance and was able to describe the scene with the box text as the guide, the players would have been more engaged.




In this case, those two factors - DM engagement, and DM preparation - went hand in hand. He didn't care much, so (a) he neither rehearsed narration nor internalized the content well enough to describe it in his own words and (b) we didn't care either. Unfortunately, the "we didn't care either" extended to details useful for getting through the pretext of investigating our way to a fight scene. (And for amusing role-play and problem-solving along our way to a fight scene.)


----------



## Bobble

There will always be those few who over think the simple.  Role playing is role playing.  It has been around since the dawn of time.  Children do it instinctively.


----------



## pemerton

lowkey13 said:


> how does framing _sans _narrative work in a humorous RPG?



Can you explain what you mean by _framing sans narrative_?

Here's a link to an account of a fairly recent session I played of a humorous RPG (The Dying Earth). There was framing. I don't know whether or not it counts as "sans narrative".


----------



## Ovinomancer

Oops, wrong thread.


----------



## lowkey13

*Deleted by user*


----------

