Quote from: James J SkachEh, I don't know.  I don't know Tony personally, but he's always seemed to me, here, to be the kind of guy who is truly interested in other people's answers/thoughts/etc. When he asks, I'm pretty sure he's sincere.

He's much better at it than I am. So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Oh, i'm not saying that there's anything sinister in it. Just that it seems to be the way it's going at present.

Gotcha...and I think, after reading Pundy's latest retort, I get where you could see that (after also going back and reading the thread again).

There's a lot of "it's just a game" talk from someone who has devoted so much of their life to running a website about it, blogging about it, fighting wars around the internet about it, and generally basing a huge amount of their life about it.

I don't know that makes a difference, Jimmy.  Look at us, sitting around punding on the keyboard with our paws about...just a game.

The game itself is not what the discussion entails. It's about people who basically came into the sandbox, didn't like the structure, and decided the way to change it was create a dirt pile and piss in your sandbox.

Now if you're playing in the sandbox - it's just playing in the sandbox.  The argument with the people who came along and pissed in your sandbox to get people to play in their dirt pile is a separate issue.

No problem, Jimbo. Gaming isn't "just a game" to me. It's a lifelong hobby and a venue for meeting and interacting with all sorts of cool people. It's not some sort of meaningful pursuit of Art, but if it were "just a game" you can bet I'd be doing something else right now.

I wasn't commenting on the discussion topic itself, merely pointing out an apparent incongruity in a point that's been made repeatedly.

Quote from: jhkimWell, obviously this is a question of clashing definitions.  A lot of people feel that transient, irreproducible performances can still be art -- like jazz musicians, dancers, stage actors, stage directors, improv troupes, and so forth.  

I'm not saying that your definition of art is wrong -- just that the clash is clearly just a semantic one over what you mean by the term "art".

But we can use movie cameras and audio recording equipment to record "live" performances for the enjoyment of future generations. And, crucially, even before such equipment existed, the people you describe could still perform for audiences night after night and be appreciated.

RPG groups, on the other hand, don't do what they do for the benefit of any exterior audience. As far as I am aware nobody would willingly pay money to sit and watch even the most scintillating gaming group playing a game.

A lot of people post game reports or (blatant plug) campaign journals for others' enjoyment. Does that count?

Quote from: WarthurRPG groups, on the other hand, don't do what they do for the benefit of any exterior audience. As far as I am aware nobody would willingly pay money to sit and watch even the most scintillating gaming group playing a game.

I would actually say in my experience, the best sessions sound pretty damn stupid to an outsider, because the people talking are really deeply engaged with the stuff going on in their brains, in a way that does not translate across other media - and should not be expected or forced to.

I can call an RPG art without blinking.  However, I don't feel that there's any actual value in presenting them as such; it distracts one from thinking about the actual things that RPGs do.

Which last bit, I believe, is a cousin to Pundit's point.

Quote from: James McMurrayA lot of people post game reports or (blatant plug) campaign journals for others' enjoyment. Does that count?

Not really, because you're taking the events of the game and putting them in an entirely different format specifically for the purpose of explaining them to an outsider. The RPG has not produced art in this case: at best, it's provided the inspiration for a short story (which might itself be art, but that's a different matter).

I am aware that some people have podcast their game sessions in the past. I've never listened to such things, because I have less than zero interest in listening to other people play an RPG.

Me neither. Does anyone listen to those? And if so, does that make them art? Or heaven forbid, Art?

Quote from: WarthurBut we can use movie cameras and audio recording equipment to record "live" performances for the enjoyment of future generations. And, crucially, even before such equipment existed, the people you describe could still perform for audiences night after night and be appreciated.

RPG groups, on the other hand, don't do what they do for the benefit of any exterior audience. As far as I am aware nobody would willingly pay money to sit and watch even the most scintillating gaming group playing a game.

You're harping on differences between mainstream art forms and RPGs.  And indeed, there are a bunch of these.  The point is that it's still just a semantic difference, not really a substantial one.  i.e. What does one think is the essential quality(ies) of art?  

1) One view is that art is constructive creative endeavor.  Under this view, the size of the audience or even whether the audience is there isn't the important center of art.  People just jamming with their garage band or painting for their own enjoyment are still engaged in art.  

2) Another view is that art is all about communicating an important message to a large audience.  Art means symphonies, operas, and art galleries -- not just regular people making music or pictures or whatever.  

Here's the key.  So person #1 says "RPGs are art".  And then person #2 thinks that person #1 is being pretentious because obviously RPGs aren't performed for a big audience, so they're obviously just wrong.  They get in some snit over how the other side sucks when really they just have different word definitions.  

As for my own definition:

I don't think that permanence is important to art.  The presence or absence of cameras doesn't make a performance art or not art.  I don't think that repetition is required for art.  i.e. If a jazz musician plays a little differently for every different audience, that doesn't mean his music isn't art.  Lastly, I don't think that money is important for art.  Even if people won't pay money to see something doesn't mean that it isn't art.

Any argument about what qualifies as art is seriously fucking doomed from the outset. There is no definition. One man's art is another man's pretentious nonsense; another's art could be considered by others as unsophisticated trash. Permanancy, consistency, audience, value - all irrelevant.

The crux of being a 'swine' must surely be about superiority. Isn't that what actually gets up peoples' noses? Being told that because you do something in a certain way that you are inferior, brain-damaged, crippled, whatever.

And as much as any of us would love to be able to lay claim to the One Pure Way, I'll bet there's not one of us posting here who can't think of a style of play they have no regard for, even if we're only bored by it, let alone repulsed.

If how you play works for you and your group, that's great. If someone looks down at you for enjoying that, poor them. They're obnoxious twats, and that's that. If they do actually come to your table and try to force you to play in a way you don't like, tell them to fuck off. If they _offer_ you a different way, and you don't like it, there should be room for polite refusal. If they are only muttering away in their own dark corners at conventions or on the internet, fucking ignore them.

- Q

Quote from: James McMurraySwine, defined as "people that look down on you for gaming differently than they do" definitely exist. Hell, Sett and Pundit both count as Swine.

In fairness, Ron Edwards fits that definition, too. I mean, painting all White Wolf fans as hopeless wannabe goths looking to get laid is a pretty good example of this kind of "swinery". Of course, as noted, so is painting all Forge contributors as navel gazing fascists (although I do think some of them fall neatly under that category).

QuoteSwine, defined as "the global internet conspiracy of people that look down on other gamers" doesn't exist.

Agreed. If Luke Crane can add me to his MySpace friends list despite my past venomous criticisms of his personality, the conspiracy can't be real. And let me tell you -- they were fucking venomous criticisms.

Quote from: James McMurrayThere's a lot of "it's just a game" talk from someone who has devoted so much of their life to running a website about it, blogging about it, fighting wars around the internet about it, and generally basing a huge amount of their life about it.

Quote from: jdrakehIn fairness, Ron Edwards fits that definition, too.

I'm cool with that. Never met the man, nor drank his kool-aid. I tried to read one of his essays on GNS once and got equal parts boredom and confusion for my trouble.

I'm a neutral in this "war." Happy to take pot shots at everyone who makes an ass of themselves.