I've created characters: just as if I was writing a novel.

I've helped develop an existing setting: just as if I was writing a novel in a shared universe (like Known Space or the Cuthulu Mythos).

I've written some brief plot notes - and if I was writing an adventure the plot would be more fully developed

It contains elements - such as the longer pieces of flavour text - that are undeniably literature

It's all been done with a certain degree of craft; I've concentrated on improving my use of English to better communicate my ideas.

So why is Year of the Zombie: Marauders not art?

It's imaginative or creative writing, therefore it is literature, therefore it is art.

It's not Shakespeare however. :mischief:

Of course something being art doesn't stop it having another function, designer furniture can be classed as art, you still park your arse on it, more often than you stand appricating it's form. I would say the function of Year of the Zombie: Marauders is more important than it's form. Sure you can read it just as a piece of literature, but you get more out of it if you used if for a Roleplaying Game, it's function.

Writing, as all crafts, has a healthy dose of art in it, if it is good.
Playing RPGs with your buddys should not, and will never be art, in any high cultural sense.

So maybe your writing is art.

Playing an CoC Adventure is not.

I see this forum is still jumping with posters.

Quote from: Bagpuss...Of course something being art doesn't stop it having another function, designer furniture can be classed as art, you still park your arse on it, more often than you stand appricating it's form. I would say the function of Year of the Zombie: Marauders is more important than it's form. Sure you can read it just as a piece of literature, but you get more out of it if you used if for a Roleplaying Game, it's function.

I've got to agree with this - RPGs are (IMO) primarily tools. By and large, the function of a game is to be played - enjoyment derived from the extras (the writing, the milieu, etc) is secondary in nature.

Quote from: EnkhiduI've got to agree with this - RPGs are (IMO) primarily tools. By and large, the function of a game is to be played - enjoyment derived from the extras (the writing, the milieu, etc) is secondary in nature.

I agree with that. I'd also throw in that RPGs are just games and shouldn't be taken much more seriously than Monopoly or Scrabble. I say "much more" because there is a certain level of extra attention and devotion that are required in most RPGs, but some folks take that to ridiculous levels.

Quote from: BagpussI see this forum is still jumping with posters.

Give me time. I haven't even started any changes yet (except for one). Over the next few days you should see some pretty radical changes to the Forums, and some new statements and then a big campaign to get things rolling.

RPGPundit

I think Settembrini got it right. A game can include art and can probably even be art, but game play is not art.

Quote from: YamoI think Settembrini got it right. A game can include art and can probably even be art, but game play is not art.

I agree with that. Game play as art is basically theatre or acting.

Quote from: SettembriniWriting, as all crafts, has a healthy dose of art in it, if it is good.

Understatement of the year.

Quote from: SettembriniPlaying RPGs with your buddys should not, and will never be art, in any high cultural sense.

Emphasis mine.  And you are very, very wrong.  You'd only be simply wrong IMHO, had you not used the bolded statements.  "Should not" and "will never be" implies 2 things.  1.  That you have absolute knowledge, which you don't, because no one does.  2.  That there is no room for dissenting opinion nor discussion.  

That's wrong, you should leave room for debate.  You should stick to your guns of course, but denying discussion doesn't do anyone any good.

Quote from: SettembriniSo maybe your writing is art.

Playing an CoC Adventure is not.

Writing is art, we agree.  Playing CoC can be art, just as improvisational acting can be art...which is really all good roleplaying is.

Quote from: YamoI think Settembrini got it right. A game can include art and can probably even be art, but game play is not art.

What if you have an audience?

You are treading into the realms of cultural relativism here. Of course, throwing a cow from a skyscraper can be "art". With an audience, anything can be an artistic statement.
But the big difference is the "sender´s" intention: When I play my Traveller character, I do not have the intention to make an artistic statement.

If you for yourselves have the intention to make an artistic statement while playing your character, then technically that would be "art".
I pity those who do so.

Don´t forget: Semantics aside, there is good and relevant art, and there is art nobody ever notices and for the better of humanity. If some fucker thinks his impersonation of Balduin, the tenth level Wizard, should be taken as an artistic statement, he has my utter and bewildered blessing. As well as lost any respect I have for him.

In this line of relativist thinking, even postings  are "art". So stop semantics and start to see clear.

Quote from: SettembriniYou are treading into the realms of cultural relativism here. Of course, throwing a cow from a skyscraper can be "art". With an audience, anything can be an artistic statement.
But the big difference is the "sender´s" intention: When I play my Traveller character, I do not have the intention to make an artistic statement.

If you for yourselves have the intention to make an artistic statement while playing your character, then technically that would be "art".
I pity those who do so.

Don´t forget: Semantics aside, there is good and relevant art, and there is art nobody ever notices and for the better of humanity. If some fucker thinks his impersonation of Balduin, the tenth level Wizard, should be taken as an artistic statement, he has my utter and bewildered blessing. As well as lost any respect I have for him.

In this line of relativist thinking, even postings  are "art". So stop semantics and start to see clear.

Wow. That's one of the more high handed things I've ever had directed at me.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that it is entirely possible for gaming to be (performace) art. It's not my cup of tea,  but I guaran-damn-tee that its a type of gaming that others do/have/will enjoy. More importantly, its useless for me to care about what type of game they enjoy if those games don't affect me.

As far as this:

Quote from: YouSo stop semantics and start to see clear.

Fuck off, please.

It depends on how you roleplay. I have seen some roleplayers take it to the level of performance art, so it can be done, but I don't personally care for it.

I know the danger of using definitions, but I'll try this approach to attempt to show that both answers are (in)correct.

Art: The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. (The American Heritage Dictionary)

Now a gaming session, in almost every system of which I am aware, fits the first part of the definition - that it, the players are consciously producing sounds, colors, etc.

It's the second part of the definition - "that affects the sense of beauty" that causes problems.  Since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the answer to the original question is completely subjective.  It could be that an observer feels a particular session is not very artistic.  Another observer might believe that the same session is truly a work of art.  Yet another observer might never consider the possibility that a gaming session could even be art.

In the end, I think those involved in the discussion/argument will always be talking past each other.  IMHO - it's a moot point.

And as a last note - no definition I could find even implies that art is about the intention of the person creating it....YMMV