Do you see games more as art or technology?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
raniE

raniE

Big Bearded Guy
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
4,304
I'm involved in rpg discussions in other places as well. In one of those places, a Facebook group for Swedish rpg players, a discussion about games and nostalgia recently came up. I went into the discussion questioning why old games, games based on older designs and games using older style systems are often derided simply for being old. This seldom happens in other art fields I noted. No one has ever told me that old movies are bad or old music is bad simply for being old. I've often had people deride games simply for being older, even in direct conversation with people off the internet. To me, this doesn't make any sense, but to them, it is as obvious as saying that a new car is obviously better than an old car. And then I saw the difference in perspectives, something that had never really occurred to me before. I see games as art. They see games as technology.

Art can't really become obsolete, nor can new art really supplant old art. Any given piece of art can be more competently executed than another, but ultimately individual taste is the arbiter of what is good and not, and even when any "objective" standards are brought to bear, they are not related to whether the art is old or new. Technology however can be improved. A given piece of equipment can simply be objectively better at its function than another, and often (but not even close to always) technological advancements will ensure that a newer tool is in fact better than an older one.

Maybe this perspective is only new to me and everyone else already understood this, but I found it interesting, an maybe some others will too. And maybe the analogy will even help in discussions of games, to help clear up misunderstandings between people who view the games from fundamentally different viewpoints?

How about you? Do you see games, especially rpgs, as art, or technology, or something else entirely? Do you have any other insights to share? Or do you think my analysis is fundamentally flawed?
 
So they think the new dice roll better than the old ones? The new pencils write better than the old kind? I suppose none of them plays chess or cards, too.
giphy-2.gif​
 
Last edited:
raniE said:
How about you? Do you see games, especially rpgs, as art, or technology, or something else entirely? Do you have any other insights to share? Or do you think my analysis is fundamentally flawed?
Click to expand...
Well I'd say you are right in that some view them in a technological manner. I've had people say pen and paper RPGs are outmoded by computer games. And that older point and click computer games are made irrelevant by modern action RPGs. So certainly this is a viewpoint some people have.

At the extreme end I've heard people say novels have been replaced by TV serials and movies or paintings by photography.

So yes some people think art can be improved upon and rendered irrelevant in a way detached from its quality.
 
Last edited:
Dumarest said:
So they think the new dice roll better than the old ones? The new pencils write better than the old kind? I suppose none of them plays chess or cards, too.
Click to expand...

Well, one of them insisted new board games were also better than old ones, so may very well not play chess. In my mind, there are certainly elements of technological improvement in rpgs. But they pretty much all have to do with making it easier to get a game out there. Desktop publishing, PDFs, being able to distribute digitally over the internet and do print on demand, all of those have had a huge impact on the ability to get your game, adventure, source book or what have you out there and into other people's hands. So that I see. But in my mind the end product is still a piece of art, and its greatness or lack thereof is independent of when it was made.
 
raniE said:
Well, one of them insisted new board games were also better than old ones, so may very well not play chess. In my mind, there are certainly elements of technological improvement in rpgs. But they pretty much all have to do with making it easier to get a game out there. Desktop publishing, PDFs, being able to distribute digitally over the internet and do print on demand, all of those have had a huge impact on the ability to get your game, adventure, source book or what have you out there and into other people's hands. So that I see. But in my mind the end product is still a piece of art, and its greatness or lack thereof is independent of when it was made.
Click to expand...
I'd have to assume they are dismissing out of hand games with which they have no experience. They'd probably be surprised how many "new" ideas in RPGs date back to the late 1970s and early 1980s.

The only effect technology has had on games is, as you say, in the realms of production and distribution. It can't make a bad idea good or an incoherent writer more intelligible.

As for board games, I'm going to say I'll take the sturdy old Risk board with wooden tokens that last a lifetime over the cheapie plastic crap they sell now, so even then technology doesn't necessarily mean "improvement" as it often just means "cheaper and easier."

And don't get me going on computer-generated "art" in games. I've yet to see a piece that compares with a good line drawing.
 
Séadna said:
Well I'd say you are right in that some view them in a technological manner. I've had people say pen and paper RPGs are outmoded by computer games. And that older point and click computer games are made irrelevant by modern action RPGs. So certainly this is a viewpoint some people have.

At the extreme end I've heard people say novels have been replaced by TV serials and movies or paintings by photography.

So yes some people think art can be improved upon and rendered irrelevant in a way detached from its quality.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I'm not sure I've ever encountered anyone that went that far. The people I talked to certainly still seemed to think rpgs and board games were worthwile. Just not older ones.
 
Definitely an art. Some people are militant about being ignorant these days, internet utopianism also encourages that attitude.
 
Art. RPGs are part of a long line of storytelling traditions.
 
raniE said:
I went into the discussion questioning why old games, games based on older designs and games using older style systems are often derided simply for being old. This seldom happens in other art fields I noted. No one has ever told me that old movies are bad or old music is bad simply for being old.
Click to expand...
I have heard definitely heard this sentiment spoken about music, time and time again, by a contingent of each generation in its youth. Dismissal of what came before is as common among the young and blanket discounting of the new by the aging generation. You'll see plenty of that sentiment expressed around here - and sometimes it's dead right.

More generally, I think that every kind of aesthetics has its own irrational set of prejudices and fashions. It's extremely common.
raniE said:
Art can't really become obsolete, nor can new art really supplant old art.
Click to expand...
I partially disagree. Sometimes I think that a piece can speak to a certain kind of sensibility or way of experiencing the world, and that perspective fades. I think of certain pieces of symphonic music that possess a kind of aristocratic pomposity that strikes me as absurd in modern times.

It's not really a matter of being obsolete as being out-of-fashion, in my opinion. Things can come back around in cycles, over decades and even centuries.
raniE said:
How about you? Do you see games, especially rpgs, as art, or technology, or something else entirely?
Click to expand...
Both. I see no tension between the two categories; they are not mutually exclusive. They are other things, too, like objects of commerce. That sounds pretty facile, but what I'm saying is that the importance of these categories depends on the kind of conversation. They aren't partly one thing and partly another - games are 100% all of the above. If you own a warehouse, the fact that games are art does not diminish from their status as commercial products when you're paying the bills.
 
I don't see games as art or technology. I think "games" are inherently their own category, because ultimately the goal is entertainment.

I think a game can be re-purposed as art - such as that train game where players compete to fill as many passengers on as they can and then there's a reveal at the end of where those trains are headed - not what I would necessarily call "good art", but like art, the goal of entertainment is secondary to that of evoking emotions. Just as gamebooks can be works of art, but this has nothing to do with the games played using it.

I think games can utilize technology, but it's a mistake to treat a games system as analogous to technology. Technology can be objectively improved and advances over time. Game systems don't have any sort of universal progression from one to the next, and new games do not offer superior ways of playing, only alternatives.
 
Last edited:
I view RPG as neither, they are something new. They allow individuals to create a pen & paper virtual reality where people can pretend to be a character or have abilities and experience interesting adventures in a setting. This is accomplished by using the rules of a wargame, the judgement of a human referee, and most important going back and forth where the player describe what it is they are doing, and the referee describing the result. Finally this all can be done within the time one has for a hobby.
 
Eh, I'm more of a "on the shoulders of giants" person. The truth is, that the longer the RPG field is around, the more designers can learn from each other. It doesn't mean that modern games are necessarily better, but it does mean that they are starting from a privileged position of having way more material to learn from. I think that the average successful modern game is probably better than the average successful classic game just because of this, but at the same time, that doesn't mean that there weren't gems that are still worth playing. I still think Jovian Chronicles 1e is the best Mecha RPG for me despite it being released 22 years ago.

In addition, I think there are way more styles of modern games than there have ever been. This may not be directly "better" in overall quality, but it is more likely you will find a game that is perfect for your style now than it was 20 years ago. If your style matches the prevalent styles of classic games, then you wouldn't see this kind of advancement in the hobby as necessary, but it is there.

I'm generally of the opinion that we just know more about RPG design now than we ever have, but brilliant games that break the mold of just another good game and are truly great are generally mostly timeless if you enjoy the style of it.

As for the comment of people hating on anything old, the opposite is also true. There are a lot of people who hate anything new and treat it as automatically inferior. There is a lot of bias in subjective assessment of games.
 
Crapping on old games is just the new version of crapping on D&D that was popular in eighties games. It's trying to justify why you need their awesome newness when the oldness will do it.

Even so, when I say sorcery I mean it. In theory you can sit down with half a dozen friends and have a completely awesome rules free game. But all the rules and dice and miniatures and props actually do serve a purpose and can lead to a better game. Any halfway sane* new age person can tell you exactly the same thing about magic. You don't really need all that stuff but the stuff still contributes something. An aura of mysticism maybe.

I always figure the aura of mysticism is really one of the reasons D&D has stayed number one. It's the secret hand shake, the rules over reason, the strange dice and jargon. It creates the sense of community of initiates and illuminated ones.

*there's no accounting for Alan Moore after all ;)
 
EmperorNorton said:
Eh, I'm more of a "on the shoulders of giants" person. The truth is, that the longer the RPG field is around, the more designers can learn from each other. It doesn't mean that modern games are necessarily better, but it does mean that they are starting from a privileged position of having way more material to learn from. I think that the average successful modern game is probably better than the average successful classic game just because of this, but at the same time, that doesn't mean that there weren't gems that are still worth playing. I still think Jovian Chronicles 1e is the best Mecha RPG for me despite it being released 22 years ago.

In addition, I think there are way more styles of modern games than there have ever been. This may not be directly "better" in overall quality, but it is more likely you will find a game that is perfect for your style now than it was 20 years ago. If your style matches the prevalent styles of classic games, then you wouldn't see this kind of advancement in the hobby as necessary, but it is there.

I'm generally of the opinion that we just know more about RPG design now than we ever have, but brilliant games that break the mold of just another good game and are truly great are generally mostly timeless if you enjoy the style of it.

As for the comment of people hating on anything old, the opposite is also true. There are a lot of people who hate anything new and treat it as automatically inferior. There is a lot of bias in subjective assessment of games.
Click to expand...
I was going to reply but EmperorNorton EmperorNorton said it better than I could.

I think newer games give me what I want faster, with less fat and in better presented/explained fashion than old games. There are exceptions, but overall that has been my experience. Take of that what you will.
 
Last edited:
I think the art in RPGs is crafting the right rules set for the genre of your game instead of hammering a square peg into a round hole like Modiphius does with ever property they license. It might seem like I’m picking on them but their over reliance on 2d20 is not a strong point. It is not a strong enough rules set to be used like that, a la the better d20 rules which were used seemingly everywhere in the early 00s. You bend the rules to the setting, not the other way around.
 
raniE said:
I'm involved in rpg discussions in other places as well. In one of those places, a Facebook group for Swedish rpg players, a discussion about games and nostalgia recently came up. I went into the discussion questioning why old games, games based on older designs and games using older style systems are often derided simply for being old. This seldom happens in other art fields I noted.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree that this doesn't happen in other artistic fields. One of my friends dared to be a classically realistic painter in New York in the second half of 20th Century and got nothing but scorn for it. Didn't he know that representational art is dead?

To go with a more famous example from the New York art scene, MOMA owns Andrew Wyeth's painting "Christina's World".
W1siZiIsIjE2NTQ1NyJdLFsicCIsImNvbnZlcnQiLCItcmVzaXplIDIwMDB4MjAwMFx1MDAzZSJdXQ.jpg


It's famous enough that they begrudgingly exhibit it, but it's in an easy-to-miss corridor behind the cafeteria because Wyeth's style is too old-fashioned to be proper art.

Whether it is music, architecture or fashion, you'll find contempt for whatever trend everyone was embracing a decade earlier.
 
1969 Pontiac GTO or 2019 Dodge Challenger.

By any measurable means the 2019 Dodge is a superior piece of equipment, but if offered their choice I'm guessing 75% of car guys would take "The Judge".

Are cars technology or art?
 
Baulderstone said:
I have to disagree that this doesn't happen in other artistic fields. One of my friends dared to be a classically realistic painter in New York in the second half of 20th Century and got nothing but scorn for it. Didn't he know that representational art is dead?

To go with a more famous example from the New York art scene, MOMA owns Andrew Wyeth's painting "Christina's World".
W1siZiIsIjE2NTQ1NyJdLFsicCIsImNvbnZlcnQiLCItcmVzaXplIDIwMDB4MjAwMFx1MDAzZSJdXQ.jpg


It's famous enough that they begrudgingly exhibit it, but it's in an easy-to-miss corridor behind the cafeteria because Wyeth's style is too old-fashioned to be proper art.

Whether it is music, architecture or fashion, you'll find contempt for whatever trend everyone was embracing a decade earlier.
Click to expand...

I remember seeing it at MoMA in 2009 (lived in NYC six weeks — longest I've ever been away from home) and being enamored of it. A friend gifted me a reproduction. I have it tucked away somewhere. I sometimes consider hanging it in my waiting room but fear it'll go over most people's heads — not many people must know the context (I sure didn't when I first encountered it).

And yes, it's easy to miss.
 
As for the original post — people draw arbitrary lines in the sand to shit on each other all the time.

Seeing RPGs as tech is popular with people who enjoy very specific things about elfgames, be it number-crunching combat or thespy narrative stuff — probably what Ron Edwards meant when he thought of "agendas" — and are okay with the idea, from a game design perspective, of downplaying some elements to strengthen others.

I sometimes feel lovers of older games (like myself) are usually more "holistic" in their enjoyment, but it could be just me projecting. Sometimes you have a badass fight or a poignant in-character drama moment, and that's cool, but sometimes you fuck shit up and set yourself on fire while checking for traps and survive just to get eaten by a giant spider and that's pretty funny too, so you shrug, roll another PC and get home at 3am tired as all hell but fuck it that was fun and you and the gang will laugh about for many many years, over many a beer.
 
Last edited:
The Butcher said:
I remember seeing it at MoMA in 2009 (lived in NYC six weeks — longest I've ever been away from home) and being enamored of it. A friend gifted me a reproduction. I have it tucked away somewhere. I sometimes consider hanging it in my waiting room but fear it'll go over most people's heads — not many people must know the context (I sure didn't when I first encountered it).

And yes, it's easy to miss.
Click to expand...
If you like Andrew Wyeth and get to spend some time in the US again, I highly recommend visiting the Brandywine Museum in Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania. It's the Wyeth family museum. In addition to Andrew's incredible art, there is a lot of cool N.C. Wyeth art, like his illustrations for Treasure Island. I've had the good fortune to be given a tour of the place by Andrew Wyeth's granddaughter. That was fascinating.
 
Baulderstone said:
I have to disagree that this doesn't happen in other artistic fields. One of my friends dared to be a classically realistic painter in New York in the second half of 20th Century and got nothing but scorn for it. Didn't he know that representational art is dead?
Click to expand...


The most important lesson I learned in art school is that the "modern art scene" is a parasitic social construct composed of, and designed only to empower, failed artists.
 
The simple answer is that the fluff is art, while the crunch is technology. A setting that worked thirty years ago is still going to work today, just maybe not in the same way - cutting-edge predictions for the future turns into quirky alternate presents, for instance - but if they were fun to play in then, they'll still be fun to play in now. As far as rules go, though, the evolution of game design is towards efficiency of use and away from rule systems that are, for one reason or another, a pain in the ass.

It gets a bit more complicated from the fact that when it comes to technology, a lot of people tend to find old, clunky technology a lot more charming than new, sleek technology - and when it comes to technology that's meant to be used solely for enjoyment, charm counts for an awful lot.

But I still say that a lot of people like fiddly charts and different dice used for everything for the same reason that a lot of people like tinkering with vintage cars. And I'm not going to fault them for enjoying themselves... but if they try to tell me that a car made fifty years ago is objectively just as good as one made yesterday and that any supposed "improvements" are just a matter of fleeting fashions, then I'm going to be highly skeptical at the very least.
 
Ive never considered RPGs to be art or technology. Its just never crossed my mind to think of them in such a way. I consider them to contain art and produced with the help of current technology. At the end of the day most children roleplay with out any written rules or art. I know I played cowboys and indians.
 
As children, we used to roleplay, without rules or structure.
The power of 'make-believe' was always within us all, and some of us never lost it.
Our ancestors used to tell mighty epics and bawdy tales around the campfires.
RPGs are a relatively new creation, one that is more immersive, yet hearkens back to the storytelling pursuits in days gone.
It is only now that, as the rpg population matures, we are trying to quantify this previously elusive hobby that appeals so much to us.
I don't think it's art or technology, but whatever it is, we are only just starting to grasp.
Most of all, it's just creative enjoyment.
 
Mankcam said:
As children, we used to roleplay, without rules or structure.
The power of 'make-believe' was always within us all, and some of us never lost it.
Our ancestors used to tell mighty epics and bawdy tales around the campfires.
RPGs are a relatively new creation, one that is more immersive, yet hearkens back to the storytelling pursuits in days gone.
It is only now that, as the rpg population matures, we are trying to quantify this previously elusive hobby that appeals so much to us.
I don't think it's art or technology, but whatever it is, we are only just starting to grasp.
Most of all, it's just creative enjoyment.
Click to expand...
Yes. And no.

RPGs have very little do do with telling stories. Use an RPG to tell a story round a campfire, see how long you get before you're accused of railroading and control freakery. RPGs are more like a game of Mad Libs. Or Who's Line Is It Anyway than some story telling derived form.

It's too ephemeral, too personal and too rambling to be story telling. If I was to compare it to anything, it's a private jam session. Mostly improvised, but with some structure. Incredibly self indulgent and utterly meaningless to anyone not taking part in it.

What RPGs are, is something of it's own. It's the spawn of wargaming, cousin of Let's Pretend and is really it's own thing. Not art, unless you want it to be. Not technology, unless you buy into the patches and updates model that seems popular these days.
 
I see them as an interplay of art and the game of make-believe. Of course, we can argue that all art is a game ... but let's not go there:devil:! YMMV, that just happens to coincide with my opinion.
And yes, that means that older games aren't inherently worse than new games. OTOH, that also shoots down the idea that newer games are inherently inferior, as some people like to imply:smile:.
IME, people seldom approach that subject from the standpoint of a defined view on games and art. Much more often, they pick art or technology to validate the games that they like best, as an expression of tribalism. Again, YMMV and I actually hope your mileage varies. That's one of my least optimism-inducing conclusions about RPGs, and I'd actually like to be disproven:wink:!

David Johansen said:
Sorcery of course!
Click to expand...
Ah, but what does the setting and system support when it comes to magic? Is it magic as art (Maelstrom, arguably BoL, and of course Ars Magica:tongue:), magic as technology (D&D/PF), magic as chaos (Warhammer, Elric, UA, All for One....wait, why are so many of my favourites here?), or magic as a game for the educated classes (Flashing Blades, where magic falls under the same heading as other uses of legerdemain):grin:?
 
Stevethulhu said:
Yes. And no.

RPGs have very little do do with telling stories. Use an RPG to tell a story round a campfire, see how long you get before you're accused of railroading and control freakery. RPGs are more like a game of Mad Libs. Or Who's Line Is It Anyway than some story telling derived form.

It's too ephemeral, too personal and too rambling to be story telling. If I was to compare it to anything, it's a private jam session. Mostly improvised, but with some structure. Incredibly self indulgent and utterly meaningless to anyone not taking part in it.

What RPGs are, is something of it's own. It's the spawn of wargaming, cousin of Let's Pretend and is really it's own thing. Not art, unless you want it to be. Not technology, unless you buy into the patches and updates model that seems popular these days.
Click to expand...
I was pointing out that it hearkens back to ye olde storytelling, not that it actually is the same as telling stories.

Depending on how this is emphasised really depends on the group playing, and the game itself.

I do like your 'jam session' reference, that is a pretty good analogy
 
Last edited:
TristramEvans said:
Hm, read the definition, and I think it's the same concept as when I say "Hate the game, not the Players baby"
Click to expand...

I think Huizinga’s idea is actually pretty simple but of course a lot of ‘theory’ is making the simple complex or at least appear complex:

‘All play moves and has its being within a play-ground marked off beforehand either materially or ideally, deliberately or as a matter of course. Just as there is no formal difference between play and ritual, so the "consecrated spot" cannot be formally distinguished from the play-ground.’
 
I think you can tell a story while playing an RPG. It’s an open-ended story if it’s not a railroad. Some people like railroads too. You can’t dismiss any play style. There are things that I don’t particularly care for in RPGs, but I’m not going to hate it just because it exists.
 
I do think that overly simulationist rpgs became less relevant with the rise of video games.

I don't think that photorealistic art became less relevant with improvements in cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top