Paul Czege on such topics as game design, fatherhood, roleplaying games, self-awareness, crowdfunding, and creativity.
What do you think?
"RPGs are not literary forms.
Someone once said that a great book can't be read, only re-read. Literature of quality reveals further depths on reexamination. It's characterized by psychological depth and a careful, innovative use of language -- things RPGs are not good at.
RPG scenarios are played once, possibly as part of a linked campaign. There is no reexamination, only forward movement. Whatever artistic qualities RPGs may have, they are not literary ones."
-- Pat Harrigan




I'm not certain I'd agree that RPGs are literary forms, but I definitely disagree with the second paragraph. Looking at a traditional RPG scenario, like "Keep on the Borderlands," I can see Harrigan's point, although I don't concede it. I've run KotB 5+ times in the last 10 years and learned something from it each time. Looking beyond that -- what are games like The Mountain Witch and My Life With Master but tightly drawn games built around a scenario? They are very replayable and create new viewpoints on the same scenario each time.
Looking just at scenarios for the moment, I don't think the argument holds up - specifically because of that statement 'RPG scenarios are played once', which is just untrue. I've run The Sword for Burning Wheel multiple times - often with the same players - and it's exposed something different each time.
The art form I'd draw closest links to is actually the theatre - the script can be read and appreciated as a written form, but that's not where it stands out. The key thing is how it's interpreted by the participants, and how each participant's interpretation builds on the other to create something ephemeral and unique.
Though I'm still unsure on how to vote - I don't agree with the author's arguments, but I also don't think RPGs are literary forms. I feel like I'm missing the argument's context, because I'm not sure I'd ever claim that RPGs were literary.
Dictionary definition...
literary works: written, poetic, artistic, dramatic.
I'd say rpgs qualify under that heading while simultaneously carving out their own space -- and especially if we're talking about certain styles of rpgs.
Agreed - I think I was thinking about if they were literature rather than literary!
I think the headline is trivially true -- RPGs aren't literature. They're also not sculptures. They're not airplanes, either. There's a temptation to think "that's not literature!" is a slam which would trigger my RPG-fan-tribalism, but I've got no problem with saying that literature and RPGs are different genres.
I don't think I buy the supporting commentary, though. "Someone once said" is a pretty weak way to frame an argument, an appeal to an absent "authority" (why should we take "someone's" word?). Even if the re-readability thing is true, is it the central feature of literature?
Furthermore, is it true that "psychological depth" and "careful, innovative use of language" are the key elements of literature? I'm not sure that's true at all. Some "great books" are considered great even when they're translated from other languages, so I'm skeptical of the second element. It also raises the question of what counts as literature, e.g. you might say that "psychological depth" and "careful, innovative use of language" might be very apt descriptors of good songwriting. Are songs a subset of literature?
Since I don't buy the first paragraph I don't think the second paragraph can be engaged with meaningfully.
I agree with the above comments.
Who is Pat Harrington? I'm curious.
https://mitpress.mit.edu/authors/pat-harrigan
Thanks. I was wondering why the name seemed familiar I have those Person books on my Wishlist.
I assume this is from Second Person? Might try and pick that up, it sounds like an interesting read.
It's from Things We Think About Games, by Will Hindmarch and Jeff Tidball. There's a section at the end of additional contributions from folks like Mike Selinker, Pat Harrigan, John Kovalic, and others. I have Second Person. It's interesting. Maybe get it via inter-library loan to just check it out?
Thanks!
The author switches halfway through from talking about "RPGs" to "RPG scenarios." He conflates "literary form" with "great books." This argument is sloppy all over.
RPGs (and scenarios) aren't novels. But many of the things that make literary novels great, make RPGs great. A rich and inspiring setting (e.g. #TCTW, obviously). Economic and evocative language. A distinctive narrator's voice (UA3 comes to mind).
And a lot of other aspects of literary writing are addressed in play - e.g. characters, pacing, thematic content - and as such are often addressed procedurally in the game text.
I would say that RPGs CAN BE A literary form.
I voted "disagree", but in the strict sense I probably agree.
My opinion is that this general topic touches on RPGs as improvisational art, and the expectations of improvisational art vs conventionally composed art. If "literary" inherently implies the latter, I probably wouldn't argue too much. But if there's room for improvisationally created (& performed) storytelling, then I disagree with the quote.
NOPE.
Beyond my initial gut reaction, I don't think Harrigan understands literature or rpgs except in the narrowest of ways. His statement represents everything against which I try to design games.
Up above, Clinton makes a great point. Many games are tight scenarios that beg to be replayed. The cast of characters may change, but the themes and questions garner further and deeper exploration. Playing an rpg is both performative and highly linguistic, relying almost exclusively on verbal descriptions. That the form is also improvisational is a red herring. It's the equivalent of saying jazz isn't music because no song is played the same way twice. What a bunch of crap.
If a party can have literary qualities an RPG session can. If a party can't an RPG session can't. As for the specific description in the OP: I would hope everyone here has had the experience (in a game, at a party, or ina text message conversation) where the back and forth of conversation produces a sentence of very high literary quality by accident--and also the experience of noticing psychological depths revealed via conversation
Your timing is actually quite good with this post since I have been kicking around design ideas related to it, though more related to the idea of RPG play as art..
"Literariness" as implied by the quote I think necessarily requires planning and review and intention. An author spends days to years honing the one story such that there is much in it that needs to (likely) be reread to really "get." Generally the playing of a session of an RPG doesn't allow for those sorts of things. Usually there is too much action/reaction occurring to allow for such intention. Additionally, when does the "reread" occur? In general there is no record of the game that can be later mulled over.
There are a couple places where I think these things are kind of changing though, or at least have the possibility of changing. Specifically I am thinking of play-by-post games and streaming (and recorded) games. Play by post games certainly could be (or at least become) literature - it requires time and intention and revision - but seeing as though it is the written word - that is totally feasible.
I think streaming can head in a literary direction assuming the players are reviewing past "episodes" and working to reintegrate things into future ones - or even better - intentionally putting things in in earlier episodes planning to reintegrate them later.
I think the issue that mostly holds this back is that games aren't designed with this in mind. They aren't designed to push players towards reflection, revision, layering, motifs, foreshadowing, etc. They also aren't designed for exact replay. All the words are the same every time you read a book. You can't make that happen playing a game a second time. You can watch or read or listen to a game that has been documented and maybe notice literary qualities (assuming they are there and are there intentionally) - but not replay it the exact same way.
I also think that literature (and really art in general) has an idea of an audience. Generally when you are playing an RPG there is no audience outside of the people participating in the game. (Again, this isn't the case if you are streaming or maybe publicly playing by post.) I think that leads to different personal goals while playing. I think it also leads to more openness and willingness to push personal boundaries - you know only a few people are seeing you do this completely unscripted thing.
All that being said, I don't think anyone has written a game yet with the goal of literariness. (ie designs in mechanics to make it happen and rewards it) I am intrigued by the idea though.
The idea of a singular romantic author (or of authorial intent for that matter) has long since dwindled as a requirement for literariness. So too do I believe that "review" is an outmoded requirement. It isn't even possible to review a particular dramatic performance, and yet no one hesitates to call plays literary. Sure you can review a script or go to another showing that will be very similar. But neither of those options are the same as that one particular performance that you saw. They are both different instances of the same work.
As for audience, why does a work have to be available to a mass number of people to be literary? In a rpg, the audience is the play-group. It's a small audience, but it's an audience all the same. If a book is read by just five people before it's destroyed, is it any less literary?
The definition quoted by Harrigan is based on, quite frankly, an old fashioned and pretentious definition of what it means to be literary. Just look at his second line: "[Literature is] characterized by psychological depth and a careful, innovative use of language -- things RPGs are not good at." Does anyone really believe that rpgs are not good at depth or innovative use of language? What about people who have played nearly any of the story/indie games that have come out in the last 15 years or so? His entire premise is absurd and ignorant.
The only way you'll get me to go along with the premise that rpgs are not literary is if you* mean they are not "literature" in the strictest sense of not being written works -- i.e., the artwork is in the performance only. But that is so specific as to be useless in this context.
* Not "you" specifically, btw. I don't mean to direct this at you, but rather at Harrigan I suppose.
I think it just isn't really an apples-to-apples comparison to be honest...
I do think though this is an area in the design space ripe for experimentation and innovation. I think the vast majority of games are meant to be played in a certain way that hasn't really deviated much in thirty-plus years. I think we should be looking into how we play games now (sometimes in person, sometimes via video chat, sometimes by post, etc.), who we play games with (a static group, a static group with some drop outs, a totally changing group, etc.), when we play games (real time (for an hour or four all at once), asynchronously (PbP), etc.), how the narratives proceed (generally linearly, sometimes in flashbacks, almost always with a static cast of main characters often bound solely to a single player, etc.)... There are definitely a handful of games that push against these norms, but not many.
Something I am deeply interested in exploring is whether there can be a focus on the cohesion and power of the narrative as a whole and design for that and incentivize that...
(Apologies to PaulCzege if I am thread-jacking.)
I think that experimentation is and has been happening for over a decade now. I look at my shelf, and it's filled to the brim with games that do the things you're suggesting. So I guess I'm at a loss... or, and this is possible, I'm in a bubble.
Something worth sorting out is what Harrignan means when he says "RPGs." Is he talking about the game text, i.e., the physical product whether book, PDF, or otherwise? Or is he talking about a specific instance of play?
Another thing worth sorting out: are we merely arguing about the definition of "literary" or "literature," or are we defending the roleplaying form against an accusation that it is some sort of lessor art form? You'll note from my replies above that I'm pretty much assuming the latter, and then going to town.