Do you see games more as art or technology?

[Ladybird]

But what does ‘saying something’ mean when it comes to usually non-representational forms of art like instrumental music or dance?

Well, that's the key thing, isn't it. Again, I'm inclusive, I'm happy to believe other people if they say they've got a message from something; as someone who plays videogames, reads comics, enjoys noise music and has collected minis, I'm used to my interests being looked down on as "anything in that medium is not art"

 

[clash bowley]

I personally believe that thinking of RPGs as art is a snare and a delusion, but that's me and I am routinely reviled for thinking so. I just wanted to assure everyone that being the only one who thinks this way is not deterring me...

 

[Caesar Slaad]

Seriously though. Trying to say it's one or the other will miss out on certain aspects.

As has already been discussed at length, you can neglect the factor of artistic resonance, audience tastes, etc.

At the same time, perhaps technology may be too strong a word. Technique? As we play games, we learn from experience, learn what gets used, what doesn't, and better way to do things. Can you imagine if a game today told you to multiply your stat by 5 and roll percentile to get under the product, when you have a d20 sitting right there? Probably not. But in the heyday of D&D-alikes, that was sort of a cutting edge technique.

Which at the same time is why you see ads for stuff like "old school games with new techniques" - they try to adhere to older styles, but take advantage of the more objective lessons we have learned in the interim.

 

[Simlasa]

My boundaries of 'what is art' are pretty wide (and not at all lofty)... but I still think it requires some sort of intent... and when I get to the game session and they tell me their intent is to 'make art' then I'm probably not going to stick around long. But they still don't annoy me as much as the folks who think games are technology and talk about 'evolution'... thinking 'evolution' is synonymous with objective improvement. Usually they're just excited about the new thing they bought and can't talk about it without shitting on whatever was exciting last week.

 

[Faylar]

Both.

Technology can be a medium for art.

I think that Games have evolved since started with 80s games in the early ninetys. I've seen an evolution of systems that are mostly better with design elements in mind such as ease of play, streamlining, better layout, quicker pacing, etc... every new idea is added to the codex we all draw from when making a game. We have preferences, so some of us dismiss entries while others embrace them.
But the game engine you use is a delivery system for the art that you enjoy. It's no different than older music, tv, or video games. The more that is left to the viewer, the more our minds fill in. This is appealing to some, but we tend to get locked visually into our own styles in our mind's eye and struggle with descriptions that don't fit that vision, so new technology allows us to get a better and clearer image of another person's vision, and we can then add that too.
How many times have you seen a new image of a ship or a power armor and thought... "wow! I never thought of that before"? That is where the new technology comes in... we have better art (Arguably) and more access to it than before. Printing used to be expensive for magazine color spreads, so they were a few color inserts in the middle or front. These were selected from an entire book of art... the rest shelved. Now, we can add in more. then Layout needs to be fine tuned... rules get clipped and refined to allow them to fit, etc...

I am very much of the RPGS are technology as well as art. Every new system is built upon the design, trials, successes, and failures of previous iterations. If that is not technology, I don't know what is.

 

[EmperorNorton]

I think one thing to remember is that even when you talk about art, like let's say painting for instance, it isn't like advancements haven't been made.

New brush techniques, new pigments, new ways of mixing paints, new methods for layering, etc. etc. etc.

That doesn't necessarily mean "better art", but it does mean that the artist has way more tools available to create a piece than they ever have in the past, which usually means that the artist can have an easier time creating the piece they intended to create, and has access to more styles than anyone before them.

 

[CRKrueger]

I personally believe that thinking of RPGs as art is a snare and a delusion, but that's me and I am routinely reviled for thinking so. I just wanted to assure everyone that being the only one who thinks this way is not deterring me...

You’re far from the only one who thinks that way.

 

[CRKrueger]

When people are saying “both”, what they’re essentially saying is “neither”. Kinda sorta having aspects of something doesn’t make it that thing, it makes it something different.

 

[robertsconley]

When people are saying “both”, what they’re essentially saying is “neither”. Kinda sorta having aspects of something doesn’t make it that thing, it makes it something different.

I think RPG design are not art but something else. However a RPG book can be a work of art. And the artistic aspect an important part of its presentation. However the design of such a product is part that something else I spoke of above.

For example Vornheim has a specific feel as a result if being work of art in the form of a book. However the design that ZakS implemented can be pulled out and same information presented in a different way that functions the same. Although that book will not invoke the same feeling as the original presentation. And one has to be careful in doing this due to his use of incorporating specific pieces of arts in his map to convey information and setting the tenor and tone of that location.

The same way with Jason Sholtis work like Operation Unfathomable. His art and presentation is designed to involve a specific feel of weird fantasy and to convey specific pieces of information on his maps.

 

[Faylar]

When people are saying “both”, what they’re essentially saying is “neither”. Kinda sorta having aspects of something doesn’t make it that thing, it makes it something different.

Not at all. I said both, and I mean both.
Role playing games are a medium for creativity and therefor art. However, there are many aspects to a complex game, and the game system is technology. Most games have role playing and mechanics as their focus. The mechanics is where a lot of the technology of an RPG come into play, but those mechanics create a framework for the role playing which I believe is the art aspect.

 

[deepthaw]

I never really understood why certain places felt the need to compartmentalize certain kinds of games. It’s not like old-school games were under assault. Quite the contrary; they made a comeback.

Don't call it a comeback. They've been here for years.

In all seriousness - nothing gets under my skin like people complaining about others having badwrongfun. But I don't think it's limited to the RPG community. I think it's just a thing people do.

 

[Baulderstone]

When people are saying “both”, what they’re essentially saying is “neither”. Kinda sorta having aspects of something doesn’t make it that thing, it makes it something different.

No, I think EmperorNorton laid it out pretty clearly in that creating a split between art and technology is artificial. Art is created using technology, whether you are making paint by grinding pigments from rocks or playing around with Photoshop.

 

[Edgewise]

When people are saying “both”, what they’re essentially saying is “neither”. Kinda sorta having aspects of something doesn’t make it that thing, it makes it something different.

That is false in this case and false generally. Leaving aside your "kinda sorta" qualifier, as the millennials say, things can be two things, especially if they're not mutually exclusive categories.

 

[Baulderstone]

That is false in this case and false generally. Leaving aside your "kinda sorta" qualifier, as the millennials say, things can be two things, especially if they're not mutually exclusive categories.

Nice AV Club callback.

 

[ORtrail]

Spoken like someone who never used truly old polyhedral old dice.

Dice that you need to wax in the numbers and which are made of plastic so soft they deform after an evening of gaming are objectively inferior to newer dice.

Quoted for truth. Those dice were terrible.

 

[deepthaw]

I think RPGs are neither art nor technology, but they share elements of both.

Art is designed to appeal to humans in an emotional way, and RPGs do that via the story telling and competitive aspect of the rules. But those same rules have been refined over time and have mechanical aspects that somewhat fall into the technology sphere due to how we can iterate and improve upon them over time.

 

[ORtrail]

I'll agree with the some of each crowd.

Technology has created better quality materials, most importantly to me is the ability to Google info for an adventure. And a map. Fillable PDFs save me so much time. Map generators/creators. Online games. Sharing thoughts with a post on a forum.

So, technology has had the biggest impact on RPG over the years.

 

[Faylar]

I think we are splitting hairs a bit here too...

Generally speaking, Art is a means of expressing creativity and ideas. Anything that qualifies as a medium is a delivery system for art. Be these performance, audio, or visual arts... art is art. So it you consider literary works as art, as is commonly accepted, then RPGs do qualify as art. When a story is being created at a table, it is a shared creative experience, or an artistic collaboration. Since most RPGs come with visual elements and setting/storyline built in, then I would say that the books themselves also qualify as art as they are conveying ideas and creativity in themselves.

Technology in a literal sense is the application of science for practical purpose. However, since it is arguable that RPGs followed a science to get them where they are, then the word may not sit well. However, as for the science of Role Playing games, I would argue there is... We use trial and error, we study player dynamics, we use odds calculators, we create models and apply them to the game, then alter them, adapt them to mesh with other models, etc... Creating a volume of rules is using a form of applied sciences like engineering.

So, seeing Role playing games as a singular entity is also an issue. It's a complex thing with different parts. If you made a dry rules only booklet with no presentation beyond a technical one and no story, setting, or ideas being conveyed, then I would say that you are presenting a piece of technology to create art with. Since we often package this with all the elements to interact with a story, I would say it becomes both. Both aspects are present in the container that is the RPG.

To add one more thing for consideration... Social sciences like philosophy, and anthropology are considered science even though they rely heavily on thought models. Both of these sciences, and more, are applied in the creation of a role playing game. How much research has a game designer on this forum had in order to create their system. For me, I know far more about social issues, history, and technology, than I would have if I never looked into it for creating a realistic setting. My setting and game then have become an application of scientific research.

 

[AsenRG]

Honestly curious, what are some examples from the past decade of new rpgs (not updates of old ones) that you would consider heavily simulationist?

Mythras is one of the biggest I can think of, and calling it a new game is a bit of a stretch. Even the latest editions of GURPS and Hero are a decade or more old afaik, and are basically on life support.

I had in mind stuff like Mythras, EABAv2, Traveller 5. I doubt anyone would claim T5 is either "an update of older stuff", or "on life support", given how popular the KS campaign is.

The Fragged game is there, I suspect. I need to ruminate on it further. Anyway, there's probably other ones, those are just what I had in mind when writing the post!

 

[cody]

I'd say T5 is literally an update of older stuff, isn't the most recent kickstarter just a reprint / bugfix? Either way it's clearly trading on nostalgia for an older game and the name.

 

[AsenRG]

I'd say T5 is literally an update of older stuff

You can say that, except you'd be wrong.

Also, the question was about the last decade. Clearly that comprises the first T5 KS, too.

Even with Mythras, outside of combat, it isn't that heavy on strict simulation.

But the game is still simulationist in combat, and quite detailed.

Looking at the Luther Arkwright book as an example, the rules on tech and vehicles are a lot closer to the WEG Star Wars end of the spectrum than the GURPS Vehicles end.

And with good reason, given that GURPS Vehicles is well-known as something even many GURPS fans consider unnecessarily detailed!

 

[AsenRG]

I guess Shadowrun is an example of a surviving school of game design based on "throw a crap ton of rules in a possibly misguided attempt at simulating something", given things like square roots and chunky salsa. But even Catalyst seems to have figured out that doesn't fly as well these days, judging by Anarchy and 6th edition getting a haircut.

And jusdging by the reaction I see on other forums, 6th edition might well be as well-received by current fans as D&D4e was.
I guess we're going to see.

 

[robertsconley]

When a story is being created at a table, it is a shared creative experience, or an artistic collaboration.

Except if one disagrees that tabletop RPGs are a form of collaborative storytelling as I do.

Why do I disagree? Because listen to somebody giving an account of a RPG campaign. It is indistinguishable from giving an account of a journey like a trip to Greece, or that time you climbed Mount Everest. If you line up several individuals who experienced a campaign, they will all give different but related account just if they were all on a trip to hike the Appalachian Trail or describing the weekend they were involved in helping Habitats for Humanity. So my conclusion that an RPG campaign is something different.

Then what is it? I believe is practical way of running a virtual reality with pen, paper, maybe some dice, and a human referee. One that can be done in the time one has for a hobby.

People been dreaming of holodecks and cyberspace ever since science fiction dreamed it up. But as it turned out we can get pretty darn close if we use the technique that Dave Arneson pioneered and Gary Gygax refined.

What is a virtual reality? Well it is a way to experience a different reality either fictional or based on real life as if you are really there. So with tools and mechanics of an RPG, you pretend, in a way that interesting, to visit or be a character in a different place having adventures.

Thus you can take a trip to Greece without having to go to Greece. Or more commonly a trip to ancient Greece, don the gear of a hoplite and go have some adventure in the ancient world of the 5th century BC. Or Middle Earth, or the Verse, or your own imagined setting

Is that art? No I don't think so, I think it something completely novel. However like I said before, the material created to support this can be works of art.

 

[cody]

You can say that, except you'd be wrong.

I guess the creators are wrong too?

"Marc Miller's Far Future Enterprises is raising funds for the legendary Fifth Edition of Traveller on Kickstarter! Traveller was born July 22, 1977 as a now-iconic Little Black Box with three Little Black Books. ... This is Traveller’s 35th year, and Marc has worked for several years on what he calls the Ultimate Edition: Traveller5. It includes so many things that players have asked for, or that have been imperfectly handled previously."

They are clearly advertising it as an update of older stuff.

 

[robertsconley]

They are clearly advertising it as an update of older stuff.

It is an update of an older edition of Traveller5. Which incorporated updated materials from multiple previous editions of Traveller that used 2d6 as the primary mechanic.

 

[Faylar]

Except if one disagrees that tabletop RPGs are a form of collaborative storytelling as I do.

Why do I disagree? Because listen to somebody giving an account of a RPG campaign. It is indistinguishable from giving an account of a journey like a trip to Greece, or that time you climbed Mount Everest. If you line up several individuals who experienced a campaign, they will all give different but related account just if they were all on a trip to hike the Appalachian Trail or describing the weekend they were involved in helping Habitats for Humanity. So my conclusion that an RPG campaign is something different.

Then what is it? I believe is practical way of running a virtual reality with pen, paper, maybe some dice, and a human referee. One that can be done in the time one has for a hobby.

People been dreaming of holodecks and cyberspace ever since science fiction dreamed it up. But as it turned out we can get pretty darn close if we use the technique that Dave Arneson pioneered and Gary Gygax refined.

What is a virtual reality? Well it is a way to experience a different reality either fictional or based on real life as if you are really there. So with tools and mechanics of an RPG, you pretend, in a way that interesting, to visit or be a character in a different place having adventures.

Thus you can take a trip to Greece without having to go to Greece. Or more commonly a trip to ancient Greece, don the gear of a hoplite and go have some adventure in the ancient world of the 5th century BC. Or Middle Earth, or the Verse, or your own imagined setting

Is that art? No I don't think so, I think it something completely novel. However like I said before, the material created to support this can be works of art.

You can ask 5 different people to explain the plot of a novel or movie too and get different answers. That's a problem with shared experiences in general, not with it being a collaborative story.

I think we can safely say that we fundamentally disagree on what is or isn't art here.

 

[robertsconley]

You can ask 5 different people to explain the plot of a novel or movie too and get different answers. That's a problem with shared experiences in general, not with it being a collaborative story.

Explaining a plot of the novel is not the same as recounting an experience one actively participated in. It is the difference between showing a story that a group of authors worked on and each of them giving an account of their experience working together to create that story. Not the same thing.

I think we can safely say that we fundamentally disagree on what is or isn't art here.

Well, one can revise or alter art. Unless you invented time travel it is a bit hard with a RPG campaign. The same with a trip to Greece.

 

[Edgewise]

I'm surprised this conversation is as friendly as it is. I'd imagine that a discussion of the definition of "art" would be even worse than one about the definition of "RPGs".

Answering the OP would require an agreed-upon definition of both art and technology. Overall, it's going to come down to how expansive and persnickety your definition is. My definition of art is pretty broad - about the only thing I hard-exclude are unintentional works. And my definition of technology goes back to Sid Meier, who showed me that things like democracy could be considered technologies. Hell, I think that magic in most fantasy games qualifies easily as a kind of technology.

But trying to develop a consensus on things like that is a fool's errand.

Well, one can revise or alter art.

That being said, this is so far outside my criteria for "art" that I'm a little puzzled.

 

[Endless Flight]

I can't picture RPGs as virtual reality because I picture things like Lawnmower Man or something.

RPGs to me are simply make believe with written down rules.

 

[Faylar]

Explaining a plot of the novel is not the same as recounting an experience one actively participated in. It is the difference between showing a story that a group of authors worked on and each of them giving an account of their experience working together to create that story.




Well, one can revise or alter art. Unless you invented time travel it is a bit hard with a RPG campaign. The same with a trip to Greece.

Your Greece trip a strawman argument. It actually does nothing to disprove anything. All it disproves is a point I am not making.
Bottom line is this... I see a collaborative story telling as Art. If you disagree, fine, but don't try telling me my opinion is wrong.

Once again, we disagree on what Art is. Once a performance (Which is art) is over, you can't revise or alter it, you can only refine it and do it differently next time. The same with a D&D session.

 

[Endless Flight]

I'm surprised this conversation is as friendly as it is.

'Tis the Pub!

 

[Ladybird]

Well, one can revise or alter art. Unless you invented time travel it is a bit hard with a RPG campaign. The same with a trip to Greece.

Well, you say that, but your memories of it and your perception of the events will change over time, you'll feel differently about it the day you got back, a week later, a year later, a decade later.

 

[Baulderstone]

I'm surprised this conversation is as friendly as it is.

As a mod, I took a deep breath when I first saw this thread appear, but it's been fine. Plenty of disagreement, which is to be expected, but no name-calling yet.

 

[Faylar]

As a mod, I took a deep breath when I first saw this thread appear, but it's been fine. Plenty of disagreement, which is to be expected, but no name-calling yet.

You want me to call someone a goose? Them be fightin words around here.

 

[Baulderstone]

You want me to call someone a goose? Them be fightin words around here.

As long as you don't call Bunch that, I am sure it will be like water off a duck's back.

 

[robertsconley]

Well, you say that, but your memories of it and your perception of the events will change over time, you'll feel differently about it the day you got back, a week later, a year later, a decade later.

No different then memories of a trip to Greece. The question is are RPGs campaign like the experience of climbing Mt Everest or more like watching the 2015 film Everest or reading Into the Thin Air?

The question is not semantics it makes a difference in how one prepare and manages a campaign. In my case I have no expectation of how anything is going to turn out. I define for myself the motivations of the characters and write up descriptions of locales. If nuanced enough I will draft a timeline of will happen as if the PCs never were there. But that is just an aide to tack how the characters interact with each other.

Then the session starts and what unfolds is it the result of what the player decide as if they are there, and my calls on how the NPCs would react based their defend personalities and motivations.

What the decades has given me is the experience to craft situations that most find interesting. I won't just send you on a trip to Greece, I know all the interesting destinations and people and they will be there ncorporated into the trip. This include alternatives.

This is very different then me writing a story about a trip to Greece either by myself or with others

 

[Faylar]

No different then memories of a trip to Greece. The question is are RPGs campaign like the experience of climbing Mt Everest or more like watching the 2015 film Everest or reading Into the Thin Air?

The question is not semantics it makes a difference in how one prepare and manages a campaign. In my case I have no expectation of how anything is going to turn out. I define for myself the motivations of the characters and write up descriptions of locales. If nuanced enough I will draft a timeline of will happen as if the PCs never were there. But that is just an aide to tack how the characters interact with each other.

Then the session starts and what unfolds is it the result of what the player decide as if they are there, and my calls on how the NPCs would react based their defend personalities and motivations.

What the decades has given me is the experience to craft situations that most find interesting. I won't just send you on a trip to Greece, I know all the interesting destinations and people and they will be there ncorporated into the trip. This include alternatives.

This is very different then me writing a story about a trip to Greece either by myself or with others

Fiction vs Non fiction though. Your trip to Greece was an experience, your game at your table is still an interactive collaboration where a bunch of people create and interact in a scenario.
If you go to Greece and experience the Parthenon, that is non fiction. You are there and simply experiencing it. If you take your characters to a purely imagined destination and describe a temple to them, they then interact with it, and the temple can change from people's input where as the Parthenon does not.

Tomb of Annihilation could be regarded as you do... as a trip to Greece, but each game plays differently, and there is still a collaboration going on there. One mis-reading of the clliffs of Omu could suddenly give an entirely different view of the layout, and then another player declaring an action from that description solidifies it... changes it. If you were to go to the Cliffs of Dover, you would have no input on how others with you see it. You aren't painting a picture of Greece, you are painting a picture of Chult, however, and your players can alter the canvas.

There is a reason why it is called the "Theater of the Mind".

 

[Dumarest]

Spoken like someone who never used truly old polyhedral old dice.

Dice that you need to wax in the numbers and which are made of plastic so soft they deform after an evening of gaming are objectively inferior to newer dice.

Have you ever made a post that wasn't a desperate attempt to assert authority on a topic? You must have very low self-esteem given the way you constantly seek the approbation of strangers online.

1. I have dice that are older than you.
2. Research the history of dice before making moronic claims about them.
3. Learn what "polyhedral" means before attempting to use it in a sentence.
4. Learn what "truly" means since you apparently don't have a handle on that word either.
5. "old polyhedral old dice."

(Take your time and sound out the hard words that you don't understand and feel free to use a dictionary before replying.)

 

[Faylar]

Have you ever made a post that wasn't a desperate attempt to assert authority on a topic? You must have very low self-esteem given the way you constantly seek the approbation of strangers online.

1. I have dice that are older than you.
2. Research the history of dice before making moronic claims about them.
3. Learn what "polyhedral" means before attempting to use it in a sentence.
4. Learn what "truly" means since you apparently don't have a handle on that word either.
5. "old polyhedral old dice."

(Take your time and sound out the hard words that you don't understand and feel free to use a dictionary before replying.)

Welp... it looks like I don't need to call anyone a Goose now....

 

[Edgewise]

Yer all just geese! SILLY-ASS GEESE!

It had to be said.