Do you see games more as art or technology?

[Endless Flight]

I got these dice. They are one of my favorite sets.

 

[clash bowley]

Geeses! Terrible geeses with bright eyes! Ach!

 

[AsenRG]

You lack a matching d30, I see?

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.

1. What the creators think is one thing. Marketing is another.
2. I have read and played the 1977 edition of Traveller, T5, as well as several editions between them. They're further away than OD&D is from D&D5e and/or Tunnels and Trolls, IME. In fact, the distance between T&T and D&D5e looks about right.
3. If you have honestly tried CT & T5 and found them to be the same, you probably also find that all those so-called new games are just developments of the wargame Chainmail. Which is a position some people might be holding, but not one that contributes to the discussion. And I'd say it is mistaken, too.

 

[AsenRG]

Also, I think that RPGs are like erotic art, except for the excitement part, usually.
If it's good, it's art. If it sucks in a way that isn't part of the performance, it's just porn. When you see it, you know which kind it is!
And some people would never see it as art, because it's just something that willing adults do together...

Truly, the similarities are striking!

 

[cody]

I don't care how similar it is or isn't to classic traveller, and I'm not going to read 1000 pages of poorly playtested rules to find out. My point is there's no way T5 would have had a successful kickstarter if it wasn't trading on the old traveller name. And "sucessful" here is relative, there have been D&D supplements, "story game" rpgs, and video game rpgs that have had order of magnitude more successful campaigns. It's evidence that people have nostalgia for Traveller, it's not evidence that overly simulationist games are still relevant on their own merits. Technology has passed them by.

 

[Faylar]

I don't care how similar it is or isn't to classic traveller, and I'm not going to read 1000 pages of poorly playtested rules to find out. My point is there's no way T5 would have had a successful kickstarter if it wasn't trading on the old traveller name. And "sucessful" here is relative, there have been D&D supplements, "story game" rpgs, and video game rpgs that have had order of magnitude more successful campaigns. It's evidence that people have nostalgia for Traveller, it's not evidence that overly simulationist games are still relevant on their own merits. Technology has passed them by.

I think you are mistaking trends with technology here. There are still simulation games in higher editions out there, but they are niche at the moment. Rules light, Abstract, and Story games are trendy in the community at the moment, but not passed by. In another decade we could be saying the opposite.

 

[cody]

I agree there's more to the trends than technology, but I am specifically talking about the human effort of high simulation games relative to technology.

Do you seriously believe a decade from now someone is going to come out with a brand new RPG that requires people to calculate square roots at the table or look through hundreds of charts in order to resolve attacks and have it be a million seller?

 

[robertsconley]

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.

Point 1
Fiction vs Non Fiction? I do see that as a consideration. See the Recon RPG You can run non-fiction tabletop roleplaying campaign depicting real places, and real people. The US Military does it all the time.

Point 2
Collaboration is a preference not a requirement for a successful tabletop RPG. The first tabletop roleplaying campaign ran, Blackmoor (and others) didn't have much in the way of NPCs. All the characters in the games were players. Dave Arneson major tasks as referee was a neutral arbiter. The cleric was developed because one of the "bad" guy players managed to turn his character into a Dracula style vampire. The other players pointed it would be reasonable that there would Van Helsing type that hunts vampire. He mixed in other stuff like the legend of Charlemagne's Paladin and that how the Cleric character class was born.

I guess one can call abiding by the rules of the campaign and the decisions of the referee collaboration. But since many were acting in their own best self interest it doesn't seem the same type of collaboration when multiple artists work together to produce something.

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.

You have to do that if you want to use the rules of a game as the mechanism to collaborative story. But in a traditional RPG how the temple is described is how it is in the reality of the setting.

However because it created and adjudicated by a human referee all the details of the temple are not described. So if there something that could be there it needs to be made up on the spot if relevant.This is not the same at what done in collaborative storytelling. Where the temple and its details are made up because it been judged convenient to the narrative. Whereas in the other approach the details are made because it ought to be there for the players to interact with as their character.

I realize that the point is nuanced. However it have very different implications for a campaign.

 

[AsenRG]

Terribly sorry, but it's not gonna fly, cody !
You don't get to claim it's "an update of older stuff" and then, when disproven, to turn around and claim it's all about the brand name.
You don't get to argue about a game you haven't read, and claim it is irrelevant because it doesn't fit your preferred narrative, either.
You claimed no new simulationist games are being made. I offered you examples. You claimed that they are just updates of older games. I told you that it's evidently untrue to anyone who has read them. Like me, for example. And unlike you, by your own admission.
Now you're changing it to yet another argument and claiming the examples that prove you wrong don't matter. Because reasons.
OK, you don't get to waste any more of my time. Welcome to my Ignore List. You're going to be in fitting company!

Also for the record, I don't care how successful the games I play are. They exist, they are being produced, the enthusiasts still have fun with them and that's all I care about!

 

[Faylar]

Point 1
Fiction vs Non Fiction? I do see that as a consideration. See the Recon RPG You can run non-fiction tabletop roleplaying campaign depicting real places, and real people. The US Military does it all the time.

Point 2
Collaboration is a preference not a requirement for a successful tabletop RPG. The first tabletop roleplaying campaign ran, Blackmoor (and others) didn't have much in the way of NPCs. All the characters in the games were players. Dave Arneson major tasks as referee was a neutral arbiter. The cleric was developed because one of the "bad" guy players managed to turn his character into a Dracula style vampire. The other players pointed it would be reasonable that there would Van Helsing type that hunts vampire. He mixed in other stuff like the legend of Charlemagne's Paladin and that how the Cleric character class was born.

I guess one can call abiding by the rules of the campaign and the decisions of the referee collaboration. But since many were acting in their own best self interest it doesn't seem the same type of collaboration when multiple artists work together to produce something.

You have to do that if you want to use the rules of a game as the mechanism to collaborative story. But in a traditional RPG how the temple is described is how it is in the reality of the setting.

However because it created and adjudicated by a human referee all the details of the temple are not described. So if there something that could be there it needs to be made up on the spot if relevant.This is not the same at what done in collaborative storytelling. Where the temple and its details are made up because it been judged convenient to the narrative. Whereas in the other approach the details are made because it ought to be there for the players to interact with as their character.

I realize that the point is nuanced. However it have very different implications for a campaign.

There are slways exceptions to the rule. I still see any fluid interaction like in a tabletop rpg to be collaborative. Players add to it all with actions, interpretations and so on.
If the GM simply told everyone to shut up and narrated it all that would remove the collaboration but it would still be storytelling and therefor art.

One more thing... Sorry to have come on strong a few posts back. I ate a snickers now.

 

[robertsconley]

I agree there's more to the trends than technology, but I am specifically talking about the human effort of high simulation games relative to technology.

Do you seriously believe a decade from now someone is going to come out with a brand new RPG that requires people to calculate square roots at the table or look through hundreds of charts in order to resolve attacks and have it be a million seller?

It already been done. It called World of Warcraft. If you look at the code of any MMORPG the core engine is a tabletop roleplaying game. Generally percentage based. However because it all automated players don't have to deal with the details and it can be complicated as the developers thinks it ought to be.

As for pen & paper, those type of RPGs were never a million seller. The closest was Classic Traveller. Square root used for one very specific purpose, to calculate in-system travel times. Even then Miller give you a look up chart you could use instead. And if you wanted to use the formula well we had calculators with square root function. Which by 1980 were pretty much everywhere.

I have no doubt that somebody someday will use tablets and smartphone as part of a pen & paper RPG and it will be a monster hit. The things are still spreading everywhere and for the next generation i.e. my kids the devices are a part of their lives.

 

[cody]

Terribly sorry, but it's not gonna fly, cody !
You don't get to claim it's "an update of older stuff" and then, when disproven, to turn around and claim it's all about the brand name.

I didn't claim none were being made, I said they "became less relevant with the rise of video games" and asked for "some examples from the past decade of new rpgs (not updates of old ones)." When people gave examples of actual new games (e.g. Fragged) I acknowledged them. I don't think Traveller is a good example for reasons stated. Sorry if you're having trouble reading what I'm saying or getting upset about it.

 

[Faylar]

Some number games are popular. There is crossover. I just spent an evening making cities and town based off of population densities and arable land.

Math can be fun and so can math heavy games with the right group.

 

[robertsconley]

There are slways exceptions to the rule. I still see any fluid interaction like in a tabletop rpg to be collaborative. Players add to it all with actions, interpretations and so on.

You do understand that players are free to choose anything that their character can do? It possible that the group agrees not to choose to leave Saltmarsh because the referee spent $50 on Ghosts of Saltmarsh. That metagaming, maybe done for a good reason because the referee has time for a game but doesn't have much prep time so using Saltmarsh allows everybody to get together and have fun.

Or my case sitting down with Brendan, Adam, Nick and others and agreeing that they will accept the job offer that the bishop gives them or follows up the rumor that Radagast the Brown tells them about. Because outside of the game, our goal was to play through a authentic medieval adventures in the former, and a Adventures in Middle Earth adventure in the latter.

But if either were part of a normal campaign meeting periodically, the players would be free to decline (or accept) the Bishop's job offer, or ignore the information Radagast the Brown gives them. I would be prepared to handle the different possibilities including making up stuff on the fly if not of my prep covered what the players want to do.

All of this is in service of making one feel like they visited a fantasy medieval setting or Middle Earth as a character who had an interesting adventure. The outcome of which I can't won't even attempt to predict.

If the GM simply told everyone to shut up and narrated it all that would remove the collaboration but it would still be storytelling and therefor art.

The GM telling folks to shut up and narrating is not a RPG campaign. It may have the same trappings but the referee is using his players as a captive audience for an exercise in oral storytelling. Probably very bad oral storytelling and the players won't showing up again.

 

[robertsconley]

One more thing... Sorry to have come on strong a few posts back. I ate a snickers now.

We are cool. :-)

I would point out that while I have opinions, it needs to be said that there different ways to approach this. While I don't think using the rules of a game is a good way of collaborating on stories, I don't have a problem with people trying and aware of many groups where it has worked out to be a fun and interesting activity.

One way to look at my views is as a what if. What if you want to visit somewhere as a character or even yourself. With no expectation as how it going to turn out. Maybe you have plans, maybe you don't. How does one make that happen with in the limitations of pen, paper, maybe dice, the rules of a game and a human referee?

 

[CRKrueger]

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.

Your problem isn’t that you define collaborative storytelling as art.
Your problem is that you apparently define RPGs as collaborative storytelling.

 

[Faylar]

You do understand that players are free to choose anything that their character can do? It possible that the group agrees not to choose to leave Saltmarsh because the referee spent $50 on Ghosts of Saltmarsh. That metagaming, maybe done for a good reason because the referee has time for a game but doesn't have much prep time so using Saltmarsh allows everybody to get together and have fun.

Or my case sitting down with Brendan, Adam, Nick and others and agreeing that they will accept the job offer that the bishop gives them or follows up the rumor that Radagast the Brown tells them about. Because outside of the game, our goal was to play through a authentic medieval adventures in the former, and a Adventures in Middle Earth adventure in the latter.

But if either were part of a normal campaign meeting periodically, the players would be free to decline (or accept) the Bishop's job offer, or ignore the information Radagast the Brown gives them. I would be prepared to handle the different possibilities including making up stuff on the fly if not of my prep covered what the players want to do.

All of this is in service of making one feel like they visited a fantasy medieval setting or Middle Earth as a character who had an interesting adventure. The outcome of which I can't won't even attempt to predict.


The GM telling folks to shut up and narrating is not a RPG campaign. It may have the same trappings but the referee is using his players as a captive audience for an exercise in oral storytelling. Probably very bad oral storytelling and the players won't showing up again.

Umm you are arguing something im not here.
As for the sit down and shut up part that was hyperbole and an example of taking collaboration out.
Kinda mossed my point I think.

 

[Faylar]

Your problem isn’t that you define collaborative storytelling as art.
Your problem is that you apparently define RPGs as collaborative storytelling.

Thats how I see them. Its not a problem though.

 

[CRKrueger]

Thats how I see them. Its not a problem though.

It is if you don’t realize that while you prefer to add storytelling to what you call roleplaying, there are many people who do not, and do no storytelling whatsoever when they roleplay, unless it is in-character.

 

[Faylar]

It is if you don’t realize that while you prefer to add storytelling to what you call roleplaying, there are many people who do not, and do no storytelling whatsoever when they roleplay, unless it is in-character.

Once again, there is no problem. You are also assuming a lot from very little. I think we are done here.

 

[Baulderstone]

Well, I guess I was right about this topic after all.

 

[Faylar]

There is no further problem from me. I'm stopping that conversation now before a problem arises.

 

[Baulderstone]

There is no further problem from me. I'm stopping that conversation now before a problem arises.

Just to be clear, I wasn't calling you, or anyone, out specifically. I've just noticed that the more abstract and theoretical an RPG conversation is, the more likely it is to get ugly. Also, any conversation about about differences between Traveller editions remain this forum's Kryptonite.

 

[Justin Alexander]

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.

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

It's Gray Duck you fucking philistines. (/minnesota)

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.

I just watched a really cool video about how Into the Spider-Verse literally created new technology in order to create its art:

A few thoughts on the thread in general:

1. raniE actually did a pretty good job of distinguishing what he meant by the word "art" from the word "technology" in the thread-starter. As the thread continues, however, it runs increasingly into the familiar pitfall of people having radically different understandings of what constitutes "art."

2. Even insofar as people agree on what the definition of a "roleplaying game" should be (which they obviously don't), this thread is seeing a lot of rhetorical muddiness between whether an RPG is a physical printed book, a set of mechanics, and/or the actual experience of what happens at the table.

3. Once you combine a lack of mutual understanding over what one considers "art" with a lack of mutual understanding over what constitutes a "roleplaying game" (either generally or in the specific context of the question being posed by the thread), there's a whole lot of people talking past each other.

My two cents:

First, I consider improvised theatrical performances to be art, and I think that's widely accepted as true. It's difficult for me to see how that can be art, but the thing we do at the table during a typical roleplaying game isn't art. (Even RPG sessions that lean heavily towards gamist predilections; there's improv theater competitions and I'd still consider those art. Possibly there is a distinction between the type of competition/challenge seen in an RPG and that seen in, say, American Idol, but that would be a very finely carved distinction.) This may not be true if your definition of "art" is dependent on having an audience, but I've always found that thesis somewhat lacking: A painting not being art until somebody sees it is a distinction that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Second, if we instead consider the physical object which is a game manual it becomes a trickier question in some ways. I would tend to argue that pure mechanics are closer to a pencil or CGI rendering software; they're the tools that we use to create the art. On the other hand, there are virtually no RPG manuals that limit themselves to the purely mechanical. Even those that don't include artistic prose describing characters, worlds, etc. (and those are also few and far between) will still almost always include a mechanical description of specific creative content.

For example, the mechanical description of an elf in D&D. Even if you strip that of all other text, it's nevertheless a creative description of a fictional entity, distinct from other possible descriptions of that entity. Insofar as RPG mechanics are a tool like a pencil, the way in which the fictional element has been described using that tool is a creative (and therefore, IMO, an artistic) act.

Third, can RPGs be "improved?" Yes. Generally not as a total class, though: That's like arguing whether a pencil or CGI rendering software is "better." Better at doing what? But when we talk about more specific things, then, yes, we can (and historically have) designed better pencils and better CGI rendering software. And as a game designer, from a purely practical standpoint, there's a reason why we playtest and revise games before publishing them.

 

[CRKrueger]

The problem is, once you declare RPGs to be "art", extremism follows, aka The Forge*. Similarly, once you declare RPGs to be technology, extremism follows, aka The Gaming Den*, as certain people really only are interested in declaring RPGs to be one thing or another in a attempt to make their playstyle the objectively better way, played by the majority, etc etc and other playstyles are inferior, or worse don't even exist or are the result of a medical condition.

Take a car. Pretty much technology, right? Someone better tell those crazy Italians that cars aren't Art then. I can take a technological approach or an artistic approach, or both to nearly anything that exists, from a handaxe to a water bottle to a technical manual. Does that make anything that humans ever produced both Art and Technology? If so, then there's not much use in using that definition is there?

Beethoven probably improved his 5th Symphony before the final cut, so...technology? Playtesting is Art or Technology? Are we judging mechanic solely by what they do, or also by how they "feel" at the table when using them?

Artistic or technological elements or aspects do not make Art or Technology, unless everything is.


* Yes, both those sites were important in their own way, regardless of the shenanigans.

 

[robertsconley]

First, I consider improvised theatrical performances to be art, and I think that's widely accepted as true. It's difficult for me to see how that can be art, but the thing we do at the table during a typical roleplaying game isn't art.

Like figuring out whether a set of mechanics is a wargame or a RPG it boils down to focus. Improvisational theater is spontaneous and unscripted like the verbal interplay that occurs while roleplaying. But the focus is to create a performance that entertains. Whether it an audience or the group itself if it is private.

RPG in contrast the focus on pretending to be a character in a imagined setting done in a way that emulate its reality to some extent. It is a nuanced point but lets to a different hobby than the one that surrounds improvisational theater. Similar to the difference between the Melee wargame and The Fantasy Trip RPG.

Finally the thing to keep in mind about RPGs are like X is historically there are many things people try to sub for X. Which I think is a good indication that RPGs are something unique and their own thing. A hybrid that borrows this, this, this, and that to make completely new form of entertainment.

• It not writing a novel yet one can use the techniques of characterization to develop interesting NPCs.
• It not art but one can use art in the form of books, maps, and aides to set the tone and tenor of a campaign.
• It not a wargame but one uses the rules of a wargame to adjudicate things like combat.
• It not about creating stories yet it can use settings that are depicted in novels, films and plays to great effect.
• It nominally a game but there isn't a way to win or even end it except by just simply stopping.
• The first RPG ever published is still enjoyable in its original form except there are new RPGs that have very different presentation and uses modern technology to great effect. That are also enjoyable to play.

 

[Faylar]

The problem is, once you declare RPGs to be "art", extremism follows, aka The Forge*. Similarly, once you declare RPGs to be technology, extremism follows, aka The Gaming Den*, as certain people really only are interested in declaring RPGs to be one thing or another in a attempt to make their playstyle the objectively better way, played by the majority, etc etc and other playstyles are inferior, or worse don't even exist or are the result of a medical condition.

Take a car. Pretty much technology, right? Someone better tell those crazy Italians that cars aren't Art then. I can take a technological approach or an artistic approach, or both to nearly anything that exists, from a handaxe to a water bottle to a technical manual. Does that make anything that humans ever produced both Art and Technology? If so, then there's not much use in using that definition is there?

Beethoven probably improved his 5th Symphony before the final cut, so...technology? Playtesting is Art or Technology? Are we judging mechanic solely by what they do, or also by how they "feel" at the table when using them?

Artistic or technological elements or aspects do not make Art or Technology, unless everything is.


* Yes, both those sites were important in their own way, regardless of the shenanigans.

Art and Technology are two different things and can co exist quite well. In fact, this coexistence is almost necessary in either case.

With a car, there is technology in it's engineering, making it drive, safety concerns, performance, etc... however, the design and aesthetics are undoubtedly art. If you ever watch a car body sculptor making a shell for a vehicle, there is absolutely no denying the art involved there. Much of art in the world is constrained by technology, either in medium delivery, or in including design elements.

The Hand axe is both technology and art as well... you need technology to improve the metallurgy, figure out balance, etc... it is then art to make it aesthetically appealing and in some cases, no, it is less art and more that function is already appealing.

The 5th symphony is art in coming up with the idea and translating it to music. You could then argue that technology is used in fine tuning it according to the acoustics and trial and error. If there is an application of science involved, it is using technology. Using technology and advancing it are also two separate things as well.

If you boil everything down to simple components you can have a more honest insight into what is art or technology (Form vs function) but things that are more complex will often be both. In a car, a valve or a gear box is technology, for sure, but the overall design and visual appeal was created by an artist using the confines imposed by the technology under the hood. So that is art. If you see them as separate disciplines, then both disciplines have been applied and it is a fusion of both... as is most things.

As for extremism, you will have that no mater what you do, I would much rather not avoid terms or change my lexicon to pander to extremists... That's just censorship, and fuck censorship.

 

[Justin Alexander]

Take a car. Pretty much technology, right? Someone better tell those crazy Italians that cars aren't Art then. I can take a technological approach or an artistic approach, or both to nearly anything that exists, from a handaxe to a water bottle to a technical manual. Does that make anything that humans ever produced both Art and Technology? If so, then there's not much use in using that definition is there?

On that note, here's a thing from Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics.

Like figuring out whether a set of mechanics is a wargame or a RPG it boils down to focus. Improvisational theater is spontaneous and unscripted like the verbal interplay that occurs while roleplaying. But the focus is to create a performance that entertains. Whether it an audience or the group itself if it is private.

RPG in contrast the focus on pretending to be a character in a imagined setting done in a way that emulate its reality to some extent. It is a nuanced point but lets to a different hobby than the one that surrounds improvisational theater. Similar to the difference between the Melee wargame and The Fantasy Trip RPG.

I would tend to argue that your understanding of the agendas of both improvisational theater and RPG players is rather limited here.

Ignoring the nuances of the role of audience vs. participant in private play, for example, your premise here would appear to require the conclusion that Critical Role isn't playing a roleplaying game because their focus has become entertaining an audience.

 

[robertsconley]

Ignoring the nuances of the role of audience vs. participant in private play, for example, your premise here would appear to require the conclusion that Critical Role isn't playing a roleplaying game because their focus has become entertaining an audience.

One could view is that they are using an RPG instead of more conventional improv techniques to run improvisational theater. However my view is that given their track record they are still on the tabletop roleplaying side of things. I view their success at entertainment is a side effect of what happens when trained actors and related professionals are the ones running and playing in a campaign.

If it doesn't look like a home campaign well what you do at conventions doesn't line up 100% with what you do in a home campaign either. Or with what you do with organized play. The venue has an impact but I think it all in the same ballpark of tabletop roleplaying.

But want about their performances while roleplaying characters? Like I said earlier while I don't view RPGs as art. The book describing the rules can be a work of art. Likely somebody roleplaying a character can be a work of art in the same way an actor the performance of the role of Hamlet can be a work of art. In LARPs a player can have a costume that is a magnificent creation and a work of art. But it doesn't make LARPs art nor a great acting performance make an RPG a work of art.

I think the issue you and other are having with what I am saying is because of the whole contract business with RPG campaigns. The heart of the idea is that we are there to cooperate not only out of game but in-game to make the campaign. Because improve also requires cooperation most, like yourself, view it as equivalent. Thus what the group does in a campaign is art just like what a troupe does with improv is art.

My study of the history and development of RPGs plus my own experience over the decades is that in-game cooperation is a convention not a requirement or characteristic of RPG. An RPG campaign can be fun and enjoyable with every single player character being at odds with one another.

In short every player is exercising their freedom to choose what their character can do to the fullest. That freedom makes RPGs as a whole something else, not art. I opt to call that something else creating an experience.

As for the out of game cooperation it about the logistic of making it happen in a way that is pleasing to everybody. It sucks to play football in a crappy stadium so we do maintenance. We remain quiet at certain times, or agree to be at a place at a certain time, to keep ourselves clean, promise to be polite even when you whack my paladin :-) and so on.

I would tend to argue that your understanding of the agendas of both improvisational theater and RPG players is rather limited here.

Yeah what do I know about this stuff right? I only ran LARP events for a decade. Been refereeing for thirty+ years. Ran conventions, managed gaming clubs, published a few things. I guess you are right my understanding of this stuff is limited.

 

[Faylar]

Most people on this site have the cred to back our opinions.

I still think it comes to a fundamental disagreement between us as to what art is. I respect your opinion and arguments but disagree.
I still see aspects of play as artistic expression. Everyone is still creating and adding to the experience.
You conceptualize and create your character, back story, etc... Your interactions change the story. To me, since its all happening in a theater of the mind... Its art.

 

[robertsconley]

I still see aspects of play as artistic expression.

To clear I agree with this. That some aspect of play can be considered art.

 

[Justin Alexander]

Yeah what do I know about this stuff right? I only ran LARP events for a decade. Been refereeing for thirty+ years. Ran conventions, managed gaming clubs, published a few things. I guess you are right my understanding of this stuff is limited.

Unfortunately, I've generally found that being parochial for a very long time doesn't result in someone becoming less parochial. After decades of engaging in these discussions, I am generally very skeptical of anyone asserting that even when other people say they are doing X while playing that they are deceiving themselves and what they're really doing is something else entirely. There are cases where that may be true, but I am unconvinced that it is so in this case and I remain very skeptical of your assertions to that effect.

My study of the history and development of RPGs plus my own experience over the decades is that in-game cooperation is a convention not a requirement or characteristic of RPG. An RPG campaign can be fun and enjoyable with every single player character being at odds with one another.

As much as I disagreed with your claims that improv theater cannot focus on truthful representation of character within the context of the character's world (which actors would describe as the "given circumstances"), I could understand where that belief might come from. But I must profess that I am completely baffled by the assertion that characters in other artistic mediums are never "at odds with one another."

I think the issue you and other are having with what I am saying is because of the whole contract business with RPG campaigns. The heart of the idea is that we are there to cooperate not only out of game but in-game to make the campaign. Because improve also requires cooperation most, like yourself, view it as equivalent. Thus what the group does in a campaign is art just like what a troupe does with improv is art.

To be clear, my definition of art also does not require cooperation. That's entirely your bailiwick. And, to be frank, this is also something I find utterly bizarre. The logical conclusions that solo artists aren't creating art or that music isn't art if it's performed as part of a singing composition are fascinating as a thought experiment, but I don't see them as particularly viable or useful.

I'm forced to agree with Faylar: Your understanding of what constitutes "art" is so radically and fundamentally different from my own that it is likely impossible we will ever reach a common ground of understanding on this topic. Insofar as "art" cannot feature participants or characters who are in conflict with each other, I agree that RPGs are not "art." But that assertion of the definition of "art" is so far divorced from my experience creating and viewing art (across many different mediums) that I can't even begin to fathom what the basis of it is supposed to be.

 

[Endless Flight]

 

[AsenRG]

Odds are good that my definition of "art" would be just as foreign to you.
Possibly to all of you, since I derive it from the word "artful"*, regardless of which one came first. The common root is used in languages to denote closely related stuff.
And yes, that means that anything you do with a high level of skill is art, while when someone like me draws, it's not art, but wasting paper!

*It helps that the same etymology applies in all the languages I know.

 

[Faylar]

Artful is akin to artisan. It also has another definition meaning conveying creatively.

Art is artistry which is akin to creative skill or ability

I think that is more the roots .

 

[AsenRG]

Artful is akin to artisan. It also has another definition meaning conveying creatively.

Art is artistry which is akin to creative skill or ability

I think that is more the roots .

Yeah, I told you it might well be different from the one you prefer.

 

[Necrozius]

Most people on this site have the cred to back our opinions.

I most certainly do not. So please take my opinions with a handful of salt: the only humans that admire any of my accomplishments in any way are my children. Otherwise I’m an avatar of mediocrity. Anyways,

I’m of the opinion that if everything can be defined as “art”, down to industrial design, sports and maths, then nothing really is art. Then my brain goes back to the basics: did the creator invest time, effort and passion into the final product? Was the final intention of the resulting product to provoke an emotional or intellectual response from the consumer? That’s good enough for me.

 

[raniE]

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".

'Tis the Pub!

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.

I didn't post this in the Facebook group that prompted me to think about this, because the only place I could think of would be able to have a civil discussion on this topic was here. And, apart from a few posts, I was right.

Anyway, sorry for not being more on the ball with replying to my own topic. I've been busy with work and then a mini-convention yesterday. I think there have been a lot of good points made though. I do agree with Necrozius that if we decide everything is art, then the word sort of becomes meaningless. Maybe it would have been better if I had left out the words art and technology from my original post, but since those were the words that appeared in my mind when I had the thought, it would have been weird not to include them.

 

[AsenRG]

I didn't post this in the Facebook group that prompted me to think about this, because the only place I could think of would be able to have a civil discussion on this topic was here. And, apart from a few posts, I was right.

Anyway, sorry for not being more on the ball with replying to my own topic. I've been busy with work and then a mini-convention yesterday. I think there have been a lot of good points made though. I do agree with Necrozius that if we decide everything is art, then the word sort of becomes meaningless. Maybe it would have been better if I had left out the words art and technology from my original post, but since those were the words that appeared in my mind when I had the thought, it would have been weird not to include them.

First, apologies for my own contribution to the hostilities. I just grew bored with the shifting goalposts.

Also, next time try to find some comparisons that are less likely to inflame hostilities. I mean, it wasn't your fault...
But it would have been way more fun to see the Pubbers trying to compare dish recipes to smartphones!

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I'm slightly surprised to see this was an argument about RPGs as opposed to board games. I've seen the claim a lot more in the latter community, mostly from people who consider Catan Year Zero.

I touched on this in the board game thread. I don't take a "whiggish" view of games in general, where we're on a forward march of progress with games inevitably getting better as time goes on.

I do think that production values have increased (because that is to do with technological developments). I also think that access to the market for new designers has become far easier due to developments, the mainstreaming of the Internet being the obvious example. While there's some issues with the loss of gatekeepers I still think that's a net positive.

What I don't believe is that the quality of games themselves and gameplay has improved. At least not in an objective sense. At best we can say that some people find their personal taste is better catered to by modern trends. And for some of us the opposite is true, which is where I am in boardgaming curently.