When Can We Stop Making "Games"?

[Jonathan Walton]

I find myself increasingly frustrated, not by the expectations of those outside of the gaming community, but by the expectations that gamers and designers have set for themselves.  To me, roleplaying is not just about "games," it is not just an amusement or diversion to while away the time.  There are plenty of other things I'd do if I wanted just to while away the time.  I roleplay and design roleplaying games because they provide a strikingly different aesthetic experience than watching movies, listening to music, or playing sports.  Yes, watching movies can be mindless entertainment, as can listening to music, or playing pick up games.  But there is the recognition, within the community that enjoys them, that there is an art, a beauty, an aesthetic experience involved as well.

But, increasingly, I find myself trapped by terminology that seeks to ghettoize roleplaying as an obscure pasttime.  "Game Master" is one.  God forbid people actually using "Dungeon Master" across all roleplaying games and genres.  The implied heirarchy in both terms, the implication that this is the person in charge of everything that goes on, just doesn't work to reinforce the idea of shared narrative space. And "player," though you could argue for the archaic meaning of "actor," makes beginners and old timers more likely to associate roleplaying with Monopoly or Connect Four.  And the persistant use of "game" or saying that "it's just a game, so don't sweat the details" is infuriating.  If it was just a game, then why are so many of us devoting portions of our life to it?  Why would many of us drop our other jobs and do this full time if we could afford it? No, it stopped being "just a game" a while ago.

Why can't people be serious about roleplaying? Why can't people be responsible? Yes, there are many amateur artists, musicians, and athletes that aren't serious about their work either, but roleplaying seems, for the most part, dominated by people with no ambition or vision.  Of the 50+ gamers that I've met on my college campus (and I go to Oberlin, where people are supposed to be intelligent, progressive, and out there), I don't know of a single one, besides myself, who thinks of roleplaying as something other than a pasttime.  And, when I broach the subject to them, they seem uninterested or say "yeah, of course" without really thinking about it.

What is it going to take?  Yes, early opera, early theater, early non-representation art, early performance art, comics, video games, and cartoons were/are still in that same ghetto of diversions and entertainments.  How do we get out of it?  Time?  I'm not that patient.  Does someone need to write a roleplaying masterpiece so good that no one can deny its artistic merit?  I'd argue that there are several out there that already meet that requirement, but gamers, being the close-minded, traditionalist people that they can often be, don't universally recognize those works either, so how can we expect outsiders to?

It has to start with us.  We have to stand up and not be embarrassed in asserting that roleplaying is art, REAL art, like painting or sculpture or literature or theater or movies or comics or video games, that it provides an aesthetic experience that is unique and relatively new.  Finally, and I feel this very strongly, we have to be willing to change the majority view (both inside and outside the gaming community) that these are "just games."  If we can't do that, we'll not only be ghettoized, but we'll be buried in a mountain of false expectations, surrounding why we game, what the purpose is, and the aesthetic experience that we can derive from it (the latter of which is limited, under existing assumptions, to a very slim range that I find completely uninteresting and unacceptable).

So that's it.  A bit of a rant, but I really needed to get that off my chest.  Comments and suggestions welcome.

[Matt Snyder]

Jonathan -- do you wish to see this hobby emerge from its closeted niche or to become recognized as art? I think this is a crucial question you MUST consider.

You seem to at first rail against the term "game." Consider football, which is "just a game." I've even heard that when playing football as a kid. "Don't get all crybaby, it's just a game." This "just a game" also garners MILLIONS of dollars (if not BILLIONS), and is probably the single most popular hobby or past time in America. People take it VERY seriously. It is most decidely mainstream. I can't think of anything MORE mainstream than NCAA and NFL football. (And I like both quite a bit!)

I do not see our perception of this hobby as "just a game" as the limiting factor in its widespread acceptance. Furthermore, I do not see acceptance of the activity as art defining its acceptance into the mainstream. I think it's far more important for the hobby's sake to become mainstream than it is for the the hobby to be viewed as an artform.

Oh, and I totally agree with you that gaming CAN BE art, and that several games already achieve this on two fronts: Publication and Actual Play. I'm interested in both, of course. But I'm mostly interested in art via Actual Play.

[ethan_greer]

Popular entertainment of any sort is "ghettoized," as you term it, by American culture. This includes RPGs, movies, TV, comics, popular music, and to a lesser extent literature (but definitely SF and most popular fiction.)

In the collective consciousness of this culture, in order for something to be considered "art," it has to be either old or pretentious, preferably both. And even if something is given the nod and referred to as art, it is completely relegated to a level of trivial unimportance, "fluff" if you will. "Art" is not important to this culture on a conscious level. "Art" is stuffy and boring, and too expensive and unnecessary to be a priority to real, normal folks.

Of course, popular movies get pumped out at an extraordinary rate, rock bands are a dime a dozen, comics and games proliferate, and the average American watches over a thousand hours of TV a year.

But that's not art, oh no. It's entertainment. There's a huge difference, right? Of course there is.

What do I take from this? Simply, fuck "art." "Art" is a word that has been rendered all but meaningless in America. If you want something to be called art and thought of as art by the populace at large, you're automatically relegating yourself to the pretentious, snobby fringe, at least in the minds of the general public.

Instead, I say, just make good stuff. Be it games, movies, comics, music, whatever. Who gives a shit what people call it? Who cares if they think it's art or not? If it's good stuff, people will consume it, and there's the chance that someone's life will be improved in some measure by it.

And I think that's as noble a goal as any "artist" can have.

-------------------------------

Wow. That ended up being a bigger, rantier response than I'd intended. I guess you struck a chord, Jonathon. And in my mind at least, in terms of what I wrote above, I think you're on the right track.

[Ben Morgan]

It's been said that an artist is not truly appreciated until after they die. Look at Shakespeare. In his time, being in theatre was not a respectable profession. Actors were no better than street rabble.

For RPGs to finally be considered art, a prominent game designer has to die.

Seriously, though, Matt's observations are spot on. Professional football is indeed a multi-billion dollar industry, when you consider all the merchandising tie-ins and athlete endorsements.

People also have historically had a habit of taking a derogatory label and making it their own, a source of pride. Witch, geek, nerd, that other N-word. I for one am proud to call myself a gamer. So there would be something to aspire to: Professional Roleplayer. Professionar Gamer.

-- Ben

[pete_darby]

I'd also step in and say that the idea that most things like literature, or drama, are worthy of being "taken seriously" is fairly new, and possibly fairly destructive.

When Shakespeare was writing, theatre was something to watch after work. When the Brontes were writing, the novel was only just becoming taken seriously by some, by treated as an entertaining diversion, and not worthy of artistic consideration, by many. When Orson Wells made Citezen Kane, most academics would sneer at the idea of a movie being worthy of artistic appreciation. Many still do, as they would at the work in TV of Rod Serling, or Paddy Chayefsky, or Dennis Potter.

And I think most of those above were primarily interested in two things: making good entertainment and being paid for it. While I definitely agree that there are dangers in the present ghettoisation of RPG's, I think elevating us to the status of art could lead to a nicer looking, but possibly even smaller ghetto.

Elevating us to the status of entertainment would be cool though... which I guess will only take place through conspicuous enjoyment & gently proseltyzing. Will changing what we call it and ourselves help? I don't think so. I mean, with the rise of consoles, playing games per se is now more socially acceptable than at most times in the last couple of decades.

The other thing we can do is to make games (and I've no shame in calling them games, but I may be odd) that vastly widen the possible experiences inside games. And it's happening, as you say. And the "mainstream" of rpg'ers are ignoring them. So? We can introduce them to people who don't presently play them, maybe they'll like them. If they're resistant because "I don't like that D&D crap," then we can rightly tell them it's nothing like that, any more that someone refusing to see American Beauty because "I don't like that Matrix crap" is making sense.

But hey, I seriously suggested claiming that GM stands for Genius Mundi, so I may have a touch of the hypocrite about me...

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I understand where you're coming from, Jonathan, but I don't think it's something to worry about. Some will say roleplaying is dying in the face of computer games the way some thought television would close movie theatres.

I don't think you should worry about it, but that means you will have to be patient.  

What you seem to be refering to is a Myst by a masterpiece RPG. I say Myst because some attrbute that game to selling CD ROMs to the general public. Many bought CD-Rom drives...or PCs with CD-Rom drive just so they could play that game (or so their kids could play it...or their spouse....etc.) How do you make this thing that will awaken the general publics interest in roleplaying?  I think it will be made when it is made.

Keep in mind that Casablanca was just one of the movies the studio was making that year. Just one in the crowd. It has been singled out over the years as a classic of film and chumps like me will buy it on DVD to see the deleted scenes and listen to the audio commentary.

In other words, patientce, grasshopper. And keep writing.

[jdagna]

Role-playing, as far as I'm concerned, is basically on par with sports.  It is a game, even though people take it extremely seriously.  It isn't really an art, though there's some blurring of the lines when you think about people watching football players versus watching actors in the theater.  But, most people play and watch sports as an entertaining past time and nothing else.

Personally, I would hate to see role-playing games considered anything else.

[Lxndr]

But can gaming really reach a point where people would, y'know, watch it as much as they watch professional sports?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Moderator talking: I'm going to require a little more meat & focus to this thread, if it's to continue.

- Role-playing as "art"
- Recognition of role-playing in some kind of positive judgmental way, by some unspecified larger societal group
- Commercial standing or status for role-playing publishing or participation

All of the above are separate topics, and, as usual when someone brings up one of them, all the others get dumped into the sink with it.

Jonathan, you wrote that you find yourself "trapped by terminology." Rather than flail about in an over-ful sink, I'd like to examine that more carefully. How are you trapped? By whom? Keeping you from what?

In other words, I really don't see the crisis, and in order for me to understand how you are seeing one, you'll have to lay it out in detail.

Best,
Ron

[Walt Freitag]

Deleted post in light of cross-posted moderator comments.

- Walt

[M. J. Young]

To focus on the terminology issue, if the terms seem to get in the way, don't use them.

Seriously, when we were writing Multiverser we asked ourselves what we should call our "dungeon master". We settled on "referee", because it is a term that has meaning to people outside the hobby. Now, you can argue that "storyteller" or "game master" or any of a dozen other ideas are more suited to the concepts of role playing games, but you can't really argue that they express something closer to the reality of the position to those outside gaming. I nearly always use the word "referee" when referring to that position, except in the peculiar case of D&D, where I'll use dungeon master. Even then, outside gamer groups I'll explain that "the referee is called a dungeon master".

And yes, the referee in role playing games does more than the referee in football; but everyone understands that when the game changes so does the role of the referee. The referee in a debate has a different job from the referee in a basketball game, but the word conveys enough of the idea that it crosses over easily enough.

I don't have any problem with "game" or "player". After all, I'm inviting people to participate in an interactive bit of fun; why shouldn't I say I'm inviting them to play a game? I invite people to play miniature golf, or pinochle, or Trivial Pursuit--why not a role playing game?

That something is a game doesn't mean it isn't taken seriously. As the people at Milton Bradley or Parker Brothers whether they take their games seriously, and they'll tell you that they make their living on those, so they most certainly do. That doesn't mean they expect all the people who play the games to take them seriously--it's enough that they enjoy them, and play them. That's my attitude. I'm serious about helping other people have fun.

I talk about "real roleplaying games" a lot with people who have never realized that CRPGs are merely computer emulations of the real thing. Usually D&D does come up in that context; but it's an example--and no one is so limited that they can't understand that games can be different from each other, even if they don't realize that without the limiting factor of the computer you can make them even more different.

As to art, I sympathize. I think that everyone who works in a creative field has this problem: is what I'm doing "artistic". It's an illusion. You're looking for validation of your work as having some sort of lasting merit that transcends momentary trends and preferences. There is no way to actually know that. I think the art world has done itself a disservice by attempting to claim modern efforts as capital-A Art. Art is that which crosses boundaries, can be appreciated by future generations, escapes the concerns of the moment even while reflecting them. You can't know that something is or is not Art for at least a decade, I'd wager. What you want to do is create something good.

Validation is a trap. I don't know who won the Origins Awards last year; do you think this made a significant difference in their sales? I do hope that Ron has every success with Sorcerer, but I'm not sure how much difference the Diana Jones Award makes to that--admittedly he is only the second annual recipient, but I was unaware of the existence of the award until I'd heard he had won it (and although I can't say I know him well, I've corresponded with previous winner Peter Adkison so maybe I should have known about it sooner). It's nice to have validation, but it doesn't pay bills--all it does is reassure you that you're not one of the idiots you see out there creating trash nobody wants without the slightest clue that they're wasting their efforts. Even then, you face the doubts that arise from what you might call closed-group syndrome--my Multiverser players all think it's a wonderful game, but have I fooled them? (No--I get good feedback from people who are outside that group, solid independent opinions that it's something worthwhile.) You can't get your confidence from others, because there will always be favorable and unfavorable reactions. You must ultimately do what you believe is the best you can do, and put it out there without being afraid of what anyone else is going to think or say. You must validate yourself to yourself.

So forget about words like "art". They're meaningless when used in a context like this. Sure, a game can be art. Knowing that it is doesn't make any difference to anything that matters.

--M. J. Young

[Jonathan Walton]

First, thanks to Ron for moderating.  I was busy all day or I would have helped provide a bit more direction here.  Since my opening post was kind of a rant, I didn't really explicitly point out the issues I really wanted to talk about, though they were there in the original post.  But to first derail any side threads...

• I am NOT talking about societal perceptions of roleplaying or people outside of roleplaying thinking about it as "art" or "not art."  I'm speaking purely of the roleplaying community's perceptions of roleplaying.  Misconception prevention begins at home.

• I am NOT talking about "capital A" Art, high Art, priviledged Art, Art that only a few people can properly understand.  Though there are some people within roleplaying you assert that roleplaying is that kind of Art, accessible only to a select few who truly understand it, that's not what I'm referring to.  I'm talking about roleplayers approching their craft as a craft, the way that graffiti artists and rap stars and snow sculptors do.  This is definitely "little a" art.

• I am NOT looking for personal validation here (though you bring up some interesting points, M. J., which could be fuel for another thread).  I'm looking for validation from the roleplaying community of what we're all doing.  I want us to, with a united voice, agree that the endeavour that we're all engaged in is a worthwhile and meaningful one.  I want us to acknowledge that we (collectively) are doing more than just filling up our time with passing fancies (not that there's anything wrong with passing fancies).
So what am I talking about?

Roleplayers' perceptions of roleplaying.  That's what I feel trapped by.  The terminology point is related because the terminology we use for roleplaying both comes from roleplayers' perceptions of the activity (when they coin new terms) and reinforces previous ways of thinking about roleplaying (when you continue to use existing terms).

Here's one example.  I'm starting a new campaign next week.  Originally, it was going to be an "Unknown Armies" game, substituting a "folk underground" for the "occult underground," creating a secret world populated by creatures from folktales and mythology.  Very Neil Gaiman.  But then I started trying to explain the rules of "Unknown Armies" to my girlfriend, a theater major, who is genuinely interested in roleplaying, but doesn't have much experience with it.

A few minutes into talking with her I realized that I had to start at the beginning, explaining things like the GM-player distinction, division of narrative powers, the party system, why we use numbers to quantify character traits, why the randomness of dice doesn't cause utter chaos and derail any narrative structure, etc.  Basically, I found myself explaining and, in many cases, defending the existing of pre-assumptions about roleplaying that I've been trying to tear down and replace in many of my own game designs.  Can I justify the existence of a Game Master?  I had a very difficult time doing so.  "Why does that make things better?" she would ask.  "Wouldn't it just be easier for everyone to share narrative control?  Why do you get to be the main author of the story?"  In the end, she convinced me to ditch "Unknown Armies" and go with a hodge-podge system that uses playing cards, Once Upon a Time Cards, and the Everway Fortune Deck.  I'll write up an Actual Play report next week and tell you how the first game goes.

This cemented my conviction that I want to write roleplaying games for non-gamers and casual gamers.  They are SO much more fun to play with.  But the problem is that this isn't really possible.  How do you write for an audience that doesn't know that your product exists and won't know unless you track them down and stick it into their hot little hands.  Even then, you'd almost have to force them to play it.  Roleplayers would be much more willing to buy my games and play them, but they're not my target audience and probably aren't as likely to enjoy my game as non-gamers are.  So it looks like the best option is to write games that might be enjoyed by a minority of existing gamers interested in non-traditional stuff and hope that they'll bring in their non-gamer friends (which is pretty close to the sales model of many people on the Forge).

Here's the problem with that: gamers bring all of their baggage with them.  I don't want to write a game for people to play.  I want to write directions on how to create and sustain shared narrative space for people who are serious about enjoyed that aesthetic experience.  This isn't to say that I don't ever feel like making games or that making games is somhow bad, but some days I really just don't want to create games, I want to create something more "serious."  I want people to approach my game like they would a script for a modern play.  I want them to prepare for a session like they would prepare for performing in a piece of theater.  Basically, I want them to approach it like "little a" art.  But, inevitably, whatever group that plays it will not take that approach.

This has nothing to do with me being overprotective of my work and wanting it to be played "in the right way."  I'm talking about the culture of roleplaying.  If a group of friends and I decided to perform "Angels in America" for an audience, we're not likely to snicker to each other, break character, cause distractions, goof around, etc. even during practices.  We approach the work "seriously" because of the culture that surrounds theater and the respect we have for the original work.  However, if my friends and I get together to play Diplomacy or D&D or Nobilis, all of those playful behaviors are sure to come out during play, because the culture that surrounds "games" is different than the culture that surrounds "art."  Even in modern performances that place Hamlet on the Titanic, where directors and actors take great liberties with the original work (which is sure to happen in roleplaying) there is an attitude about it that it is something serious and artisitically important.  Yes, it's fun and entertaining and enjoyable, but that doesn't mean it doesn't take skill and concentration to pull off effectively.

Sure, games are great, but man cannot live on pop music alone.  Sometimes you want some substance.  The cultural attitudes within roleplaying means that everything is likely to be treated as pop, evaluated purely for its quick entertainment value, its hooks, its crunchiness.  Is roleplaying not a form of expression?  Can it not say something significant?  Why does it always have to be a game?

[deadpanbob]

Jonathan,

Well, I think I know a couple of people who write cross-word puzzles, and quite a few who do them, that would take insult in your insistance that 'games' are not, and cannot be taken seriously.

I play Bridge on pretty much a weekly basis - and spend a good deal of time preparing for that by reading the bridge columns and playing the occasional hand of online Bridge - activities that I enjoy and have fun with - but that I take very seriously in terms of my prep for Bridge - and while I have fun playing the game - I take it seriously too while I'm playing it.

Now, on to topics directly related to roleplaying.  Fact of the matter is, I do consider roleplaying as a sort of performance art during the act of actual play, and I do think that some games in their designs are works of art - in the same way a building can be a work of art or a bridge can.

When I prep for roleplaying, and when I'm playing, I've found that the instance of joking around, of self-depricating humor, isn't counter to the idea that those of us playing take the game quite seriously on multiple levels.  I don't see the two things as incompatible in the least.

Finally, I laud your deisres to write a game for non-gamers, in an attempt to eschew any baggage that a history of roleplaying brings to the table - and I think that having games that can translate to a more mass market audience will ultimately do roleplaying as an industry a lot more good than harm.

All I ask is that you take care not to paint with quite so broad a brush, and dismiss those of us who like a little fun, gamesmanship and design with our craft.  We can be quite serious about what we do without feeling the need to classify it as art, little or big 'a'.

I could be totally wrong about this, but I bet there are at least a few serious, established indie-rpg designers who take their work very seriously, but don't consider themselves artists, nor their work to be art, again little or big a.

Cheers,


Jason

[Marco]

The chess games I participate in at the chess club are in nobody's opinion any kind of art.

But the Immortal Game? Fisher with his bishops? Even the cool John-Henry-esque assault Kasparov is making on the deeper and deeper blue machines we're seeing now ... those could be considered art.

There have been times I've looked on in appreciation at what someone else has done--and times when I've looked at my own work in gaming with the satisfaction of a creator.

I don't think that a GM is any more a hinderance to an artistic game than a script-writer is to a movie (and the link in the analogy is *very* loose before anyone gets carried away: both have input in the final product, neither define it).

When I run fast-action high combat and treasure games that's (for me) more like top-40's pop-music. Sometimes when I do the other stuff, it is (for me--only for me) 'art.' Sometimes it's just plain experimental. Sometimes I'm not really prepared and it's like doing standup (heady and risky).

So I think RPG's are a kind of art. I think a lot of people already precieve them as such (I had two players today ask me in-depth questions about the basis of a completed campaign. One suggested I write it up as a novel). That's perhaps in some ways analogous to looking at it from a reader-author perspective (but only in some ways).  But it still stands as art (IMO--and theirs too).

So I guess what I'm sayin' is: it's how well you do it and how seriously you take it--and if you want it to be or not.

-Marco

[taalyn]

Just a quick thought before bed...

Why does art have to be "serious"? Religion in some parts of the world is a joyous, shouting, laughing, dancing sort of thing, entirely at odds with the sombre, serious religion you'll find in many Amercian churches.

Is improv comedy not art? What about Shakespeare's comedies?

I guess what I'm saying is that, to me, the goofing around and gigling is as important a part of the "art of gaming" as immersive and emotional experience. Just like life.

Aidan