RPGs as art form?

[M. J. Young]

Having read Justin's objections, I'm now wondering whether RPGs are in some way akin to Karaoke. The tracks themselves are artistic; they're often more artistic than the vocals which are added by the user--but the user by adding his voice to that which is on the tracks creates a new work of art.

So with RPGs, the combination of system and setting is an artistic creation which itself serves as the backdrop for another artistic creation which incorporates it; the backdrop is art in itself, but art intended to facilitate art.

It occurs to me that there are other examples in other media. Set designers, scene painters, and costumers all are artists creating props and sets for movies or plays, all of which are works of art in themselves but which only function artistically in the context of the greater product. Similarly, radio sound effects are works of art of a sort, but make little sense without the drama within which they function. Theme music for a movie frequently doesn't work without the accompanying images, but is not the less art for that.

Thus it appears that artistic elements can be works of art in themselves and still be utilitarian/tools whose function is to facilitate other works of art. I think RPGs fall into that category.

--M. J. Young

[C. Edwards]

So with RPGs, the combination of system and setting is an artistic creation which itself serves as the backdrop for another artistic creation which incorporates it; the backdrop is art in itself, but art intended to facilitate art.

'Art intended to facilitate art' is synonymous with 'tool intended to facilitate play'. The two are one and the same with one view being adopted over the other on the individual level due to 'what is art?' being a purely subjective determination. At least, that's how I'm seeing it.

Excellent example with the Karaoke, M. J.

-Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Your Sim-preferences are showing a bit there, M.J., if I may be allowed a touch of personal labelling.

Narrativist play is predicated on disavowing karaoke as the primary model for story-producing play. I have two extensive chapters in Sorcerer & Sword about it, using karaoke specifically as the "thing to avoid."

Best,
Ron

[C. Edwards]

Hey Ron,

I think one of us is misunderstanding M. J.'s analogy. I'm seeing it, in the context of RPG's as interactive art, as the karaoke track being the system (particularly Creative Agenda) that is the framework for play. In this case play being the actual vocals. The lyrics on the screen are just the theme. How an individual addresses that theme becomes clear in their actual singing.

Maybe I'm just confused, but that doesn't seem any different to me than addressing Sorcerer's "What price are you willing to pay for power?". That question would basically be the lyrics that are expressed in a particular way by each individual. Karaoke my be more subtle in this way, especially with mediocre vocalists, but I see them as one and the same in M. J.'s example.

-Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Chris,

That's ... interesting, but it strikes me as awfully odd to limit in-play input to the extent that karaoke limits the creation of music. I guess I think about the whole band and every possible noise involved as the music, not just the vocal pitches and tremolos.

So to me, the role-playing rules text is a set of instruments, maybe a mixing board, and perhaps extending the analogy even to the bag of snacks set aside for breaks. Without play, it all just sits there. Nothing there is the music, except when in use.

Best,
Ron

[Emote Control]

On the other hand an instrument's artistic power is solely dependent on the knowledge and skills of the musician.  An RPG is a whole creation of itself, and guides its own usage.  I don't hold with "totally dependent on players" for something being fun -- it's undoubtedly a big deal, but the game itself is not carved bone but living flesh.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there Emote,

That's a bit purple, I think. If there's no musician, there is no music. A book on the shelf ain't role-playing; role-playing is an activity. When you start talking about a game in the absence of play as "living flesh," I can only shrug. Those words literally mean nothing to me in terms of supporting a point.

I also think you won't get too far with a dichotomous approach to discussion - no one is saying "totally dependent on players," especially not at the Forge. The core essay here is called System Does Matter, after all. To stick with my analogy, it'd be awful hard (not impossible, but hard) to play rock and roll with a penny whistle and tympani.

Best,
Ron

[C. Edwards]

That's ... interesting, but it strikes me as awfully odd to limit in-play input to the extent that karaoke limits the creation of music.

Ahh, I see. I don't think the analogy was meant to go that deep so I'm not looking at it in that way. I thought it was just supposed to be an easily accessable example to show a correlation between interactive art and RPG's.

I guess I think about the whole band and every possible noise involved as the music, not just the vocal pitches and tremolos.

I certainly agree with this and I think we're on the same page. We just vary in our interpretations of M. J.'s analogy.

-Chris

[M. J. Young]

My analogy wasn't supposed to be quite so controversial. I'll accept the label of strongly simulationist, but I think Chris is getting it and Ron is pushing it too far.

The Karaoke analogy certainly could be pushed too far quite easily, if we're thinking of it as tracks that exist and will play through as recorded, over which the the singer reads the script. That's not at all what I was meaning. I was, rather, looking for a concept in which one artistic expression was intended to support another, and was in some sense incomplete without the other; and in which the one expression occurred prior to and independent of the other. Most of the other musical examples demand concurrent expression--the orchestra supporting the ballet, the accompanist supporting the soloist. In those cases, we've got the creation of the supportive element and the primary element concurrently. I was looking for something in which the supportive element was created first, and was in some sense a complete work, to which the primary element would be added later. Karaoke is this model; with less baggage, perhaps, there are musical performers today who buy prerecorded tracks (often the background recordings from albums) so that they can perform the songs in public by singing over the tapes. As a musician, I hate this kind of thing--it's not spontaneous, it's not alive, it strikes me as fraudulent. I remember back in maybe '72 there was a three-member vocal band who did this. They hired studio musicians to record tracks which they had arranged, set up superb playback equipment, and sang over the tapes in concerts throughout the New York metro area--and even in high school I thought that was bogus. But that's not the point. The point is that you can have a recording that is artistic in itself, but is made to support the artistry of someone else.

I think that a game is exactly that. The combination of system and setting is a work of art, and in one sense is a finished work of art. At the same time, it is most commonly appreciated when it is used as the support for the creation of another work of art, the live performance of a created game experience. The fact that the game experience is a work of art does not invalidate the claim that the game on which it is built is also a work of art.

The Karaoke example does not mean that the tracks are recorded in the same sense in games. It only means that there is one work of art which contains another work of art, that the other work of art pre-existed the one now being created, and was created to serve that function. I can imagine other examples--a painting of a room in which there is a painting, the painting within the room faithfully reproduced in the painting of the room, but that doesn't capture it, because the original painting was created to stand alone, not to be part of this. The settings and props created for movies or plays, which may be very artistic but exist to support the creation of the other. Perhaps the script of a play is a work of art, but the presentation of the play is another work of art, and the script, as wonderful as it is, exists to make the play possible. All of these examples are limited, because there doesn't seem to be anything quite like role playing games in this regard: a medium in which one work of art provides the structure and support for another, without dictating more than the broadest outlines of the form that other will take.

But perhaps this might get the idea across: is Glorantha a work of art? Given that it was created solely to be used in the creation of stories or games, does it become less so?

--M. J. Young

[dragongrace]

I think that a game is exactly that. The combination of system and setting is a work of art, and in one sense is a finished work of art. At the same time, it is most commonly appreciated when it is used as the support for the creation of another work of art, the live performance of a created game experience. The fact that the game experience is a work of art does not invalidate the claim that the game on which it is built is also a work of art.

I agree with MJ here in that both the product and the play CAN BE works of art.  The game itself can be considered a work of art as perhaps a piece of literature or a something akin to a comic book or illustrated novel.  As a non-played game it can still provide insight into human nature, provide inspiration for life, or generally entertain.  

As a session of play it can also be artwork in that it is somewhat akin to a play.  The play itself is not entirely written out (most often).  There are lighting cues, stage direction, improvisations that are left up to a director.  Obviously the play as a written piece is a work of art with a purpose.  That purpose is to be performed.  But even without the performance, I would say that Shakespeare's plays are important literature.  The gaming session however may or may not be art.  As for a play, a simple classroom reading in which each person takes a part and blandly recites the words on a page (Ah the good ole days of High School English) is probably not considered art.  Games can be played in this way surely (I know, I've been there).  But games, as with plays, can be taken up to that level of artistic mastery by investing oneself in it.  

An actor rather than the classroom reader, invests themselves in the part and becomes entangled in the performance.  A rpg player likewise can become invested in a character.  A Director to the actor may have them go through several times until they get it right.  A GM says, "you get one shot buddy, make your roll."  If you ran the same game every night for a few months without the dice, deciding on specific outcomes for each intersection of change it would become much like the play.

Where should rpgs be classified?  Until they are given their own category within the world's "artistic" community they are most likely interactive media, or in orther words meant to be experienced.  A game that is not played is, by most probably, considered a failure.  Whether or not a game that is never played is considered art falls on par with, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around..."

At least this is how I perceive it.

JOE--

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Good discussion! I'm thinking that I should clarify my overall take on it - that M.J. has nailed the issue to the extent that I can't think of much or anything to add. My only contention was the karaoke analogy, but taking it as a "soft" analogy, as Chris and M.J. have clarified, its point works for me.

Best,
Ron

[clehrich]

I think that a game is exactly that. The combination of system and setting is a work of art, and in one sense is a finished work of art. At the same time, it is most commonly appreciated when it is used as the support for the creation of another work of art, the live performance of a created game experience. The fact that the game experience is a work of art does not invalidate the claim that the game on which it is built is also a work of art.

I'm not sure.  Doesn't this mean that you could have a system/setting/etc. that is unplayable but still a work of art?  I suppose it's theoretically possible, as a radical phenomenon, but it does seem to me that there is a kind of primacy to be accorded to actual play in RPGs.  This makes RPGs a somewhat peculiar (not necessarily unique) art form.

As Joe comments, a play can be a work of art on its own, even if the performance is worthless.  One can make this argument also about scored (i.e. written-out before performance) musical forms, but it's trickier: only an expert can "hear" a work from reading it on paper.  So audience factors start to come into it.

As I've said elsewhere, I think the music analogy -- I mean written-out, not so much improvisational music -- fits very well.  While an expert with RPGs can evaluate a system/setting just from reading it, most folks need to play it a bit before they can make any decisions.  Furthermore, one of the things that an expert RPG reader will look for is playability.  This all fits pretty well with scored music: an expert may be able to read the thing and think: (1) the harmony/polyphony/tonality/etc. is fascinating and brilliant, but unfortunately (2) it's scored such that essentially nobody could actually perform it.  (This has been said of Schoenberg's Cello Concerto, for example.)  The point being that while the artwork here exists potentially within the text, it takes the sort of expert who can extrapolate actual performance from such a text to find it.  For normal circumstances, the proof is in the pudding: it's actual play, the performance, that is art or otherwise.  Thus, again, the focus in music on conductors/soloists/orchestras/etc. as interpreters of a work.

Anyway, the point is that I see actual play as the make-or-break issue in evaluating an RPG aesthetically.

Chris

[dragongrace]

Anyway, the point is that I see actual play as the make-or-break issue in evaluating an RPG aesthetically.

I had a friend in college who used a computer attached to her synthesizer to replecate musically a fight between two cats.  What was produced was about 17 pages of an esentially unplayable (unreplicatable perhaps) score.  To write it she had to have played it once, in order for the computer to record it.  But to read it and try to play it again, pieces of the pages were black messes of musical notes upon notes upon notes all crammed together.

To look at the score,each page, was a work of art visually.  As I am told the professor gave her an 'A' so conceptually in a musical sense it was also a work of art.  Whether or not I would want to listen to it to relax of an evening, is another matter entirely.

It was a one shot.  I think that even if someone creates the 'unplayable' game, there is communication going on between the artist and those who read it.  Even it is is deemed unplayable, I would still contest the game itself can be a work of art standing on its own.  

Now whether or not a particular piece is a work of art is a matter of opinion.  Everyone raise their hand if they think 'Polar Bear in a snow storm' painting concept (i.e. White Canvas) is a piece of art.  For all those who don't think so, take a trip to the Carnegie Art Museum in Pittsburgh, PA, and I imagine they still have hanging "Oil on Aluminum", which is esentially a large white nothing.  The point here is that some think it's art, some don't.  Maybe it's defined as art by what you can take away from it.

For a game, if you find a game unplayable and thus draw nothing from the experience of reading it in a game context, you will consider it to not be art.  However, at any point in the process either from reading or playing or even discussing it with other, you take away something of the 'experience' of the game, then perhaps you should consider it art.

JOE--

[clehrich]

Joe,

As I noted in the post you're responding to,

Doesn't this mean that you could have a system/setting/etc. that is unplayable but still a work of art? I suppose it's theoretically possible, as a radical phenomenon....

I wanted to include this sort of thing -- not to mention John Cage's "2:33" (two minutes 33 seconds of silence in a concert hall -- which isn't really silence at all, but a demand for the audience to become the performers just by rustling and coughing) -- but at the same time recognize that this is relatively unusual and "radical."  Your friend's "cats fighting" piece sounds like a lovely example of radicalism in music: she transforms what is ordinarily considered "noise" into "music" by (1) calling it music, and (2) scoring it as music.  I like this sort of thing.  It's not everyone's cup of tea, admittedly, but this is just the sort of intellectual experimental category-pushing that I happen to enjoy.

But I still think there is a kind of primacy accorded to "music" as something one listens to deliberately.  Radical music that seeks to undermine and challenge this category requires the category to be there to be challenged.  And I don't really think RPGs have reached the point that there is such a static, powerful, reified category (such as "music," "painting," etc. have often come to be) that there's much need to challenge the category.

So in short, I don't see why experimental examples mean that RPGs aren't fundamentally about play.  I mean, suppose you wrote an RPG that was literally unplayable; that is, it looks in every way like an RPG, but when you sit down and try to play it, you realize that it actually simply cannot be played -- it's not incoherent, it's not weird, it's deliberately not something you can actually do.  That's a radical experiment, but wouldn't the point of it be to make readers think about the nature of play and the relationship of the text to play?

Oh -- and as a bizarre thought experiment (for another thread, please!), anyone want to write an unplayable game?  You'd have to think about what play is pretty intently to make sure that the game is absolutely 100% not playable by any human being ever anywhere.  Anyone?

[M. J. Young]

I'm glad Chris Lerich has focused on modern music to illustrate, because I agree that it illustrates well. I think, though, that it might go against his point to some degree.

Let's accept that the point of a role playing game is that it be designed to be played. Much like music in this regard, or like plays, there is an underlying created artwork with a functional purpose of supporting another artistic creation or expression.

As an aside, it occurs to me to mention architecture in this regard--functional art. Architecture falls short in that the function of most of it is not related to supporting another artistic expression; but it will be useful I think in this discussion.[/list:u]
Charles Ives wrote a number of symphonies which were never heard in his lifetime. Some of them still have not been publicly performed--the strictures on bringing three concert bands into one auditorium, and having them play in different keys and tempos yet come out together are too great to overcome. Yet in our computer age, we are finding ways to reproduce the sounds which were in his mind, which he placed on paper. Those works did not become works of art when we learned to produce them; they always were, even though they were then unplayable.

This is not the only example, certainly. I heard a violinist perform a work by (if I recall correctly) Beethoven years ago which, in introducing it, she explained he wrote for a friend of his, one of the leading violinists of the age--who declared that it could not be played on a violin, and refused to do it. Techniques advance, we learn to do things we once thought impossible, and we expand our understanding of the possible as we grow.

It is possible for a great work of art to be unplayable by us in our current state, and yet still be great, awaiting someone who can play it. It could similarly be the case that a role playing game is not playable by us, but is still a great game once players advance to the point at which they can grasp it.

On the other hand, no one said that all works of art are necessarily good.

I really object to what-his-name, the science fiction author who wrote the Star Trek episode City on the Edge of Forever, and his arrogant attitude about how science fiction always has literary merit, because if it doesn't have literary merit it's not science fiction but sci-fi. That's nonsense. There is good and bad in every genre, in ever medium, in every artform. That can't be escaped. There are buildings that don't serve their functions well at all. And certainly there are (or at least are bound to be) role playing games which are so poor as artistic expressions that they fail to fulfill their function because they are not playable.

Playability may be one measure of quality; it may also be a measure of the skill of the artists. I don't think you can say it ceases to be art merely because it's bad, or merely because it is beyond our current ability. Most good artistic role playing games are going to be playable, and it is certainly one factor to consider in evaluating a game.

--M. J. Young