Naughty me, creating a contentious thread and then going on holiday.  Oh well, I'm back now

Supplimentary question: What if the GM intends his or her game to make an artistic statement?

When I first read Hold At All Costs: Zero and then Year of the Zombie, I had a series of realisations

I could use this adventure to create a game that gave my players a feel for what it means to be a special forces soldier
I could use this sourcebook to create a game that shows my players what it means to be in a survival situation

The choices that they make and their consequences would give them insight into what it's like to be a person in those sort of extreme situations and give them insight into the "human condition"

Now that's art - isn't it?

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonNow that's art - isn't it?

Why does it matter if I think, or anyone else here thinks, it's Art? Do you think it's Art?  Yes? Great! No? Great!

It's interesting how there is a push not just to allow an individual to think aspects of gaming are Art, but to convince others that it is. Why is it important if anyone else believes it's Art?

The problem I have with debating "Are RPGs art?" on a message board is that it's hard for all parties involved to agree to definitions for either RPGs or art.  I'm approaching 25 years in the hobby and I still haven't seen a definition for RPGs that completely satisfies me.  And "what is art" is a debate so cliche that the Monty Python crew riffed on it at least once.  I think this topic would be better handled in a "Pistols at Dawn" disputation, with only two people properly equipped to debate both RPGs and art.

IMO:

RPGs are a *Craft not a form art.



*using this definition of Craft:to make or manufacture (an object, objects, product, etc.) with skill and careful attention to detail.

Quote from: FeanorIt's interesting how there is a push not just to allow an individual to think aspects of gaming are Art, but to convince others that it is. Why is it important if anyone else believes it's Art?

Well firstly, I find the whole field of Aesthetics and the boundary between art and craft fascinating

Secondly, I want to produce the best product I can possibly can.  If there's a way of using existing theories of theatre and literature to improve what I'm doing (and I'm convinced that there is) then I'd like to attempt this

Thirdly, several people on this board are convinced that RPGs cannot be art and I'm a naturally contrary bastard

Quote from: McrowIMO:

RPGs are a *Craft not a form art.



*using this definition of Craft:to make or manufacture (an object, objects, product, etc.) with skill and careful attention to detail.

Lots of objects and crafts are artistic, even functional ones.

Quote from: ZalmoxisLots of objects and crafts are artistic, even functional ones.

Yes, but that is why I used the above definition. Most craft items of any type are not consider art by the majority of people. Generally the creator of an object considers his creation "art", but to the buyer it is just a trinket.

So in my case I understand a game designer refering to his work as "art", but to me it just a cool game (trinket) that I want.

Quote from: McrowYes, but that is why I used the above definition. Most craft items of any type are not consider art by the majority of people. Generally the creator of an object considers his creation "art", but to the buyer it is just a trinket.

So in my case I understand a game designer refering to his work as "art", but to me it just a cool game (trinket) that I want.

I'll be honest with you. From my own point of view, I have never seen a single RPG or played in a single RPG setting that I considered "art" in any form. However, I can see how someone with a sufficiently broad definition of art could apply it to those things... even though I personally don't feel that way.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonWell firstly, I find the whole field of Aesthetics and the boundary between art and craft fascinating

Secondly, I want to produce the best product I can possibly can.  If there's a way of using existing theories of theatre and literature to improve what I'm doing (and I'm convinced that there is) then I'd like to attempt this

Thirdly, several people on this board are convinced that RPGs cannot be art and I'm a naturally contrary bastard

Firstly: Well...I've got nothing to this one.  Good-on-ya, Mate.

Secondly: I obviously can't fault your desire to produce a better product, nor your desire to use theater and literature theories as inspiration, if that's your cup of tea.  However, does it matter whether other people believe RPG's are Art, or even can be, for you to pursue these goals?

Thirdly: Ahhh...well...contrarian arguments can be fun, until someone loses an eye, that is.

Quote from: BagpussIt's not Shakespeare however. :mischief:

I can't resist it. I tried, honestly!

Shakespeare isn't even Shakespeare! (Assuming any of you even agree Shakespeare is "art")

Heh. Sorry. I tried.

The problem with the whole thing is:

WHY would anybody insist on calling it art, AND have that acknowledged by everybody else? What are the motives behind that?

OK, the gm WANTS to make an artistic statement on how the soldier behaves in a war? For starters, this isn't art, it's just a THEMATIC dimension of RPGs that's basically to be found in any RPG, with differing amounts. So still he wants it to be art. If nobody in his audience acknowledges it as such, it is at the very least irrrelevant, and inconsequential art statement.

Quote from: SettembriniThe problem with the whole thing is:

WHY would anybody insist on calling it art, AND have that acknowledged by everybody else? What are the motives behind that?

What are the motives behind arguing about it?

That's easy:
I doubt the motives of anybody calling it art.

In A theory of fun for game design, Koster freely admits that one of the reasons that he's writing the book is an attempt to show to his father that what he's doing with his life (writing computer games) is a worthwhile human activity.  I guess that's the sort of thing you mean by being suspicious of the motives of anyone claiming that writing games is an art.

In this book, he argues that one of the major ways that human beings learn things is by playing games and that learning things triggers the receptors in the brain that let us know that something is fun.  He also tracks the development of computer games and shows that there is a common theme among the better (more engaging, more "fun") modern games.  A narrative or story that develops, expands and becomes more complex as the gameplay develops, expands and becomes more complex.  This goes for "twitch" games, real time strategy games, CRPGs (obviously) - even "God games" like SimCity or Civilization (except that in many God Games, you're writing your own story, your strategy about how you'll complete this game).  As you continue to learn - both about the story and about the intricacies of playing the game, you continue to have fun.  If the game stops developing, if you run out of things to learn, it becomes a grind  (think about the end stages of many CRPGs where you're just killing things in order to be a high enough level to beat the final boss).

He concludes by suggesting that a way that computer games may develop is by investigating the way that narrative is used in film, literature and theatre and seeing how these techniques can be applied to computer games.  I suggest that those of us who write social, storytelling games like tabletop RPGs should do the same.

I'd have to re-read to check, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't make any claims that computer games are art.  What he does do is suggest that if the craft continues to improve and if people write games with an intention of communicating something about the human condition then computer games may reach the status of an art form.

Why is this an aspirational goal? Look at comics.  Will Eisner told an anecdote about being hit with a rolled-up newspaper by Rube Goldburg while the man shouted "Comic's aren't art! You're in vaudeville and don't you ever forget it!"  Will disagreed and continued to make the Spirit the best work of art he could possibly make, inspiring a generation to turn "the funny pages" into "sequential art".  Now we have respected writers from film, television and literature writing monthlys for DC and Marvel and (this is the important bit) not considering that they're slumming while they're doing it.

Wouldn't it be cool if Joss Wheldon had written parts of the Serenity RPG? And used the things he'd learnt while writing for RPGs to inform and develop the stuff he's doing in his day job (just like Neil Gaiman uses the things he's learnt while writing for film and literature now he's doing comics again).  A boy can dream can't he?

People are asking for a definition of art, so here's one: Any artifact or activity intended to communicate a subtextual message.

This excludes simple works of craft, but includes masterworks like the Medici Goblets, a Masamume katana and Grayson Perry's ceramics (an interesting choice of examples there, but hey!).  It also excludes simple "buy this product - it's the best" advertising, but includes the more complex and "artistic" campaigns like the Guiness adverts or the ninties "Gillette - The Best A Man Can Get" campaign.

Now is there anything that is included in that definition that is definately not art?

(other than role-playing games )

QuoteI guess that's the sort of thing you mean by being suspicious of the motives of anyone claiming that writing games is an art.

Let me take you back to one of my very first statements re-uttered in different words:

Writing anything can be art. As can be the crafting of anything. Using the artifact is not. Pipe smoking is not art, and RP-Gaming truly isn`t neither, except in the most cultural relativist thinking.
Doom level design might have been artistic, when Sandy Petersen did it, playing doom is never art (created by the player) in any meaningful way.

What I doubt are those fuckers, we call them Swine once in a while, who claim to be artistes just by playing, e.g. w/o any real effort or mental sweatwork involved. They are even devalueing your claim or aspiration to artistry.