Art: Does It Matter?

[Lxndr]

I intially posted here, in the Connections forum:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8700

looking for someone who could do art and layout, and the conversation sort of took a left turn, and an interesting one (to me). Rather than attempt to continue the conversation in the Connections forum, where it appears out of place, I'm creating a new topic over here in Publishing.

I considered posting this new spun-off thread in the Indie Game Design forum, but it feels to me that art is strictly a publishing matter - art is not actually a part of any game, it simply sits in the layout adjacent to the game (which is all in the text). Thus, "Design" doesn't seem apropos for such a discussion. If this is truly more appropriate for another forum, I apologize.

In the original thread, while asking for someone to help layout my book and find art, I explained one of the reasons why I was looking for art - namely, that its very presence in game texts baffles me. In my eyes, at best, interior art is ignored, and at worst it sabotages the text by drawing the eye to the images. The only reason I was asking for art help at all (in addition to layout stuff) was due to the exhortation of several of my cohorts, who convinced me that the average consumer would want pictures in their books.

Things really got off when Eero Tuovinen made the comment that the minimum amount of art in a document could really be "zero with the right layout." Quite honestly, that is my dream roleplaying book - one with zero art. As I mentioned there, it appears that I'm in the minority, and that to a large part of the rpg audience, zero-art is a mortal sin, rather than nirvana.

Eero also mentioned that, apparently, even on a pdf document, a cover is preferred. His theory is that even if you don't have a physical book (which would by definition have a cover), a cover-picture is still a pivotal marketing element. I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with that, but I figure what's the harm? Unlike interior art, cover-art does not have a chance to interfere with any adjacent text.

The discussion through most of yesterday was basically a choir of "you don't really need art, man, if you don't want it." But last night, the dissenting opinions finally began, as I knew they would. If it had been in some forum other than "connections" the dissent might have happened quicker.

I already know that art does not matter to me, to the point of the confusion that I constantly have that anyone considers it at all. So I find myself in a position to ask to all you non-Lxndr gamers out there:  why does art matter to you? What, exactly, does art add to your understanding and enjoyment of the rules? What is it about an rpg book that makes you want art, whereas when you read either fiction books or rules for non-rpg games, you are generally fine without it?

[Matt Snyder]

Just as the text, as written, is one way a group may play a particular game, a guideline from which they may or may not follow, so too is art one way a group may imagine a game.

In other words, if we agree that the physical thing that is a book is not actually "the game," but rather a framework for how a group might play a game, then similarly art is not actually "the game" but a framework for how a group might visualize the game in actual play.

Therefore, yes, art matters. In so much as it makes the imagined "space" more, um, coherent in the mind's eyes of the players. (How's that for butchering the system does matter language!)

Of course, I'm also on record as saying you can do without art (by which I mean illustration an/or images). But in every case where I do say "Yep, no art is doable" I immediately say "So long as the layout ROCKS." By which I mean so long as the layout does something more than just functionally presenting information. It must also present some kind of abstract vision and bring identity to the game, I argue.

By the way, I profoundly disagree with your notion that art "interferes" with text. I am baffled as to why you find it necessary to distinguish between the two. They are both parts of the whole that is content, usually contained within a physical product, a book.

That is, when I look at an RPG book, I don't see "text" on the one hand, and "art" on the other. I see a whole product that contains a set of content. It is style and subtance, and together they are a whole. Whether the book succeeds as a whole piece of content is another matter.

Finally, as for how art affects my understanding of the rules? Easy. Art is color. Or rather, art is "suggested guideline" for how a group might describe and imagine color in their actual play. Art is a "rulebook" for color, and I find color a very important part of system.

[Valamir]

One thing I would highlight is that its not a question of Art vs no Art.  But good Art vs. no Art.  Bad art IMO does more harm than good.

By bad I don't just mean poorly rendered, nor to matters of taste.

Poorly chosen art can be just as bad as poorly rendered art.  Art can do wonderful things for crafting a shared vision of the game world.  It can also highlight where the game falls down.

An amazingly moody piece with lots of good action can be quite nice to look at.  But if the game fails to deliver the mood or the action promised then the art actually hurt the game by building expectation the game couldn't live up to.

Even more basic is when the illustration and the text don't match.  This is VERY easy to have happen, as all it takes is a publisher who didn't explain well enough what he wanted or an artists who didn't pay attention (or a publisher who just grabbed any old image and labeled it as something it wasn't designed to be).

While such occurances are quite easy to understand, to my they are the artistic equivelent of a typo.  A picture of a character with no left arm, when the story clearly says it was his right arm that was lost; a picture of a "monster" that doesn't match the text description, a picture of a Tudor mansion when the text described it as Georgian...these are all areas that I find are just as bad as failing to properly proof read the text.

IMO the artist and the publisher need to really be working as a team to make the art match the text, or the publisher needs to be willing to alter the text to match what the artist gives him.

This is even BEFORE getting into all of the layout issues of where to place the art and how big it should be, etc.

There's alot more to art in a game than simply having it or not having it.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi,

We've been down this road before, so let's make sure the discussion doesn't merely recapitulate old stuff. See Art necessity and especially PDF publishing. Take it from there, and let's get to new ground.

Best,
Ron

[xiombarg]

Some of these issues also were discussed in Popular and Damaging and its spin-off threads.

I tend to lie between Alexander and Matt on the art issue, with a slight leaning towards Alexander. Frankly, most of the time I could care less about art. A game entirely made of text is fine with me.

However, I understand Matt's point -- that art (and layout) can be part of an illuminated whole. After all, "a picture is worth a thousand words" -- a good illustration of something can often beat a description of it. (Tho it's a pet peeve of mine when a game has ONLY the art and no description, so you're forced to hold up the book to your players.) However, like metaplot, layout and art are easy to screw up, detracting rather than adding to the work. Witness myriad (but not all) White Wolf products (and imitators) that use an artsy but unreadable font, grey-on-black text or something similar.

This is why, in fact, White Wolf spends so much on art direction -- so they can produce beautiful books. I mean, to use a different example, as much as I love the system and setting, there is alo something nice about holding a beautiful artifact like the Nobilis book -- even without knowing anything about the game, my friend James was ready to run out and buy the book after seeing it, until his girlfriend talked him out of it. And as Matt says, there's Color there -- the book really brings home the majesty of the setting in a way that no amount of text can do.

So, for me, the issue is: Make sure you text is solid, and it when it comes to art, tread lightly and rely on people you respect.

[Mike Holmes]

Even more basic is when the illustration and the text don't match. This is VERY easy to have happen, as all it takes is a publisher who didn't explain well enough what he wanted or an artists who didn't pay attention (or a publisher who just grabbed any old image and labeled it as something it wasn't designed to be).

Anecdote time:
So I'm reading Cyclops Vale, last night, a module for the RM world called Shadow World. On the cover, is the Cyclops from the title, rendered in a very cool painting with greenish skin covering his massive frame, and most importantly his eyes missing, and an odd amulet on his forhead. In the text, see, it describes Rarg, the cyclops as being a giant that had his eyes gouged out, and now sees by use of this magic amulet. Pretty cool take on the standard concept of a cyclops.

On the page with the text, there's a Paul Jaquay's line drawing of the cyclops menacing two adventurers, with the caption, "Rarg Attacks the Adventurers" or something like that. As you might guess, yes, Rarg in the picture is a good old one-eyed cyclops. It's a pretty neat picture, with his clothing obviously assembled from various pelts sewn together, and his hair tied in a braid, etc. It's just not Rarg.

Classic art "typo".

Mike

[Lxndr]

By the way, I profoundly disagree with your notion that art "interferes" with text. I am baffled as to why you find it necessary to distinguish between the two. They are both parts of the whole that is content, usually contained within a physical product, a book.

Matt - I distinguish between the two because, in my experience, only one of the two provides the meat (this being the text).  I've yet to see art help me understand a bit of mechanical foo, which is the main reason for referring to a game text, especially during play (once again, this is in my experience). I also find it easier to glean information from words (which express information) than art (which, while it contains more information than a similar sized block of text, merely implies that information instead of stating it outright).

Art in game books is generally something I have to skip over to get to the meat, much like I fast-forward through commercials and opening-credits when watching a tv show or movie that I've taped. To continue the analogy, both commercials and television show are a part of the same product, the broadcast/recording/whatever, but they are not the same thing.

There's alot more to art in a game than simply having it or not having it.

Very true. But first one has to decide whether or not one will have it - all else flows from that initial decision. And the purpose of this thread is, hopefully, to determine why people want art. Because I don't understand it (and maybe I'm simply unable to comprehend it, that's always possible).

[Matt Snyder]

Art in game books is generally something I have to skip over to get to the meat, much like I fast-forward through commercials and opening-credits when watching a tv show or movie that I've taped. To continue the analogy, both commercials and television show are a part of the same product, the broadcast/recording/whatever, but they are not the same thing.

This is, I think, a deeply misleading analogy. Firstly, commercials and TV shows are not the same product in the way that art and text are in a game book (there are few, if any, ads in game books, and they rarely, if ever, interfere with the text). Second, is it not possible to view a TV show with one set of commercials, then have another person see a rerun with a different set of commercials. Did the show, then, change substantially from what it was? I argue it does not, substantially and practically speaking.

This analogy of yours concerns me, because maybe you're not getting my more crucial points. With respect, I cannot understand how you'd compare artwork that exisits "within" a game to advertisements that exist "outside" a TV show.

Art and text are two sides of the same coin, can we agree on that? But, what is the coin? The coin, usually, is a book, sometimes a box set or a PDF, etc. In all cases, however, that product is a means by which people take some instructions and then use those instructions to make a game happen with other real people in real time.

In other words, the book is not a game. It's instructions for real people on how to play a game.

I'm saying that art (yes, when done well, that's a given) can be instructive for the "how to play a game" in ways that text can not be or can not perform as well as. Specifically, art can define and inspire exploration of color for a group of people playing that game. (Art might also define setting in the case of handsome maps, for example.)

[quozl]

And the purpose of this thread is, hopefully, to determine why people want art. Because I don't understand it (and maybe I'm simply unable to comprehend it, that's always possible).

People want art becuase it helps them think that what they're reading is cool.  Cool art = cool book = cool game.  It is extremely rare for someone to say a book had really cool art but was a horrible game.  

Also, remember that a majority of RPG book buyers do not play the game.  They buy the book for cool art and cool ideas.

[Lxndr]

This analogy of yours concerns me, because maybe you're not getting my more crucial points. With respect, I cannot understand how you'd compare artwork that exisits "within" a game to advertisements that exist "outside" a TV show.

But to me, the art does exist outside the game (which is, to me, encapsuled entirely in the text). This is how I approach game documents - as a bunch of text surrounded by extraneous bits of non-game matter known as art.

(yes, yes, the "game" in question is "the document that instructs on playing the game")

No, Matt, a TV show would not change substantially from what it was, between one viewing and another, despite commercials. That's part of my point. I am under the (possibly mistaken) impression that actual play of a game would remain substantially similar, whether or not a game has art (or what sort of art it has). Is there any evidence to the contrary? I cannot imagine why it would be different.

Art and text are two sides of the same coin, can we agree on that?

This is, I think, the crux of what I'm failing to grasp. I don't think I can grasp the opinion that art and text are two sides of the same coin. Text is quite honestly a necessity, while art quite honestly is not. At least, I've seen a number of playable games without art, whereas I've not seen one forego text entirely.

Game text is the coin - art is... something else. The fuzz in the pocket next to the coin? Perhaps the coin purse - something that is often (always?) found holding the coin (text), but in order for the coin to be useful, it has to be removed from the purse. Damn, that's a butchered analogy.  I'll try to think of a better one, but don't hold your breath.

I'm saying that art (yes, when done well, that's a given) can be instructive for the "how to play a game" in ways that text can not be or can not perform as well as.

Can you give an example of art being successfully instructive in mechanics or other "how to play a game" foo?

(Art might also define setting in the case of handsome maps, for example.)

Perhaps I'm mistaken in this opinion, but I wouldn't really count a map as "art". A map is an immediately-functional representation of an area, a diagram of sorts, even if it doubles as a piece of art. Fastlane is planned to have a diagram of a Roulette layout and an explanation of what bets in various positions mean. In both cases, they are true companions to the text (and the text often specifically refers to them), as opposed to the majority of game art, which are drawings/paintings that happen to be adjacent to the text.

Am I making any sense?

quozl:  I'm an rpg-buyer who winds up not playing a lot of the games he buys, for one reason or another. The games I purchase, I do purchase for the cool ideas (which, to belabor the point, are ensconced in the text). Art isn't really a factor, apart from a brief, fleeting, resigned thought of "oh, look at this money they spent on non-game material, a cost that is being passed on to me."

[Matt Snyder]

Examples wherein art explains how to play in ways text cannot:

Trollbabe
InSpectres new edition
Dark Sun setting D&D
Planescape setting D&D
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay
Pendragon
Dragonlance 1st ed. D&D
Whispering Valut
Zero
Tribe 8
Jovian Chronicles
Etc. etc. etc.

Oh yeah, 2 more:
Dust Devils
Nine Worlds

All of these, and many, many more, would have very different explorations of color given different or NO art. (and yes, these aren't always exemplars of gaming or coherence, but regardless the art contributed in ways that the text never could to parts of the exploration of those games) Art probably can't help you explore, say, system that much, if at all. But that doesn't mean that exploring, say, system is far more important than color.

Does this mean they'd be unplayable without the art? Of course not. The text would be sufficient to play. Does that mean that play would be "enough" different that the art matters? I say, emphatically, yes. You seem to disagree. I can only offer up my passionate viewpoint on the matter.

Fundamentally, I think that saying no art is fine, as I've said all along. That said, why disarm yourself of additional means to instruct how the game operates? I wouldn't, you might consider it. It seems that you think so non-visually, that I have a hard time imagining how you would instruct people if visuals don't instruct the game you've created. So it goes.

However, keep in mind that you are a very radical minority, in my experience. Most people do not divorce text and "other stuff" in their minds when they approach a publication. So long as you accept this, and still go no art, then knock yourself out!

[Valamir]

Ehhhh....this discussion is starting to polarize in a way that I don't think is too useful.

While I agree with the idea you're conveying Matt, I think you state the case a little too strongly.  

Pictures and text are simply two different ways for the publisher to communicate with the reader.  It conveys information about how the author perceives his game or game world.  That information can be used or ignored just like any rule in the text.

For example, take a look at the art in Pendragon.  What is it like?  The art is fairly authentic and pays attention to historical detail of dress and trappings.  This heavily informs the reader of the way the game is meant to be played.  Chaosium's Arthur is a real king in a real place in a real time that may not have ever actually existed, but it could have.  One can get the exact same feel and message from the text.  The art reinforces this message.

Now imagine replacing all of the art in Pendragon with D&D 3E style art...or Warhammer style art.  Lots of improbable weapons, spikey armor, and "kewl" but ahistorical details.  Or replace it with spikey haired anime portraits.  Imagine Pendragon done with the art and feel of Slaine.

Very different information is being conveyed to the reader.  The art as it exists now suggests that historical authenticity is important to the game.  Players can choose to ignore that they same as they can ignore anything, but it is the publisher's attempt to communicate the feel they were going for.

D&D or WH style art by contrast suggests that the players should be emphasising something completely different.

Art is simply another vehicle for the author to convey how he envisions the game world to his audience.  Its all part of that building a shared imaginary space.

If Orkworld had been illustrated with pictures from Elfs, would the Orkworld elves seemed nearly as evil and sinisterly powerful to the players?


But Alexander's points are not without merit.  I happen to be a very text oriented absorber of knowledge myself.  Most comics I've ever read I've thought "nice story, would have preferred it as a novel".  Just the way people are wired.

If one can get the information one needs to enter the shared imaginary space from the text...does one NEED art.  No clearly not.  Similiarly, if one can understand the game mechanics simply from reading the rules, does one NEED examples.  No.

But would anyone seriously consider a game written without examples to be a good idea?  Probably not.  Examples may not be strictly *necessary* but they are quite helpful...especially for people whose brains are wired differently, or where the text is not worded well.

Exactly the same thing with art.  Art helps convey the color and atmosphere of the game world, in exactly the same way that examples help convey the application of mechanics.  A different way of presenting the same information.  Ideally rules + example is clearer than either one alone, and text + art is clearer than either one alone.

[Matt Snyder]

Ralph, you've restated my position almost exactly. My crime is that I said that same point too strongly? Um, guilty, I guess.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Matt Snyder has already said the essential: you can do art, no art, chiselled stone tablets or short flash movies, as long as it serves your overall purpose, communicating your vision of the game. A roleplaying game is fundamentally a guide to certain kind of gaming, and thus it's primary function is to sell itself. A good game is one that isn't left to dust on the self and isn't drifted to something it isn't. If you can do it without art, so much the better. Amen.

However, there is another viewpoint on the matter, one that doesn't necessarily conflict with the above and that might indeed illuminate the question: art can be a part of the value of the rpg book as an object, regardless of it's value as a guide to playing. This is true about other functions as well, for rpgs are commonly f.ex. books for reading only, for those people who really don't play but like to read. So there is really many ways a game book can be utilized, and the role of art is different in each case.

Considering the above, one really just has to visualize what he's trying to achieve. When going for the collector market or coffee table style, art and expensive look are paramount, because you are selling an object, not a game. This isn't in any way a marginal strategy, and I attribute the success of Whitewolf's Exalted largely to this factor. People will continue buying those hard-covers, because they are collectible and beautiful objects. My very own brother buys everything in the line because he likes reading the books and no doubt would feel bad stopping collecting.

That said, the real question for us is what is the part of art in the game in the narrow sense. We aren't interested in these fringe marketing strategies, but in how to make a better game. As I said above, Matt Snyder said the important thing about this: art gives visual cues for imagination. All games don't need this, but some do.

[Lxndr]

Matt> I own, or have access to, these game books from your list:

[*]Trollbabe
[*]InSpectres new edition
[*]D&D: Planescape Main Box
[*]Dragonlance: 1st Edition D&D Hardcover
[*]Whispering Vault (MRB)
[*]Zero (MRB)
[*]Tribe 8 (MRB)
[*]Dust Devils
[*]Nine Worlds (playtest)[/list:u]
I can't remember a single piece of art from any of these. Period. That's how much impact they've had on my play of these games, on my enjoyment of these games, on my reading of these games. Do they have art? I can easily take your word for it. Did that art have any effect on actual play? That's where I falter - that's what I can't grasp.

(Matt, I'd be interested if, either in here or PM, you selected a particular work from the above list, so I could reference it, and explained how exactly a particular illustration served to explain something that the text did not adequately explain. Is that possible? I simply cannot see a connection between art and "how the game operates" and a specific example might, might help me make that connection.)

Finally, I'm aware that I'm in a very radical minority. It's lonely over here. I don't exactly oppose having art in my books, I'm just trying to understand its purpose, and I'm coming to the conclusion that I'm simply unable to comprehend on anything more than an abstract intellectual how it affects the average person. Which makes it difficult to have any sort of art in my games, no?

Valamir> I've never seen Orkworld, Pendragon, Elfs, or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, and I've only seen a very little bit of D&D 3e art, all of which I pretty much don't remember. So I feel spectacularly unqualified to say anything about your commentary in the first half of your post. I will take a moment to pause and express bafflement once again that the art in a game book communicates something about play to the reader, but that's all.

Huh!  I am baffled!

Okay.  I've expressed it.  

Moving on to the rest of your post, I've actually enjoyed a few graphic novels (never really read comics per se, as I have a number of structural and financial issues about the standard comic book format, and much prefer to wait for comic stories to be bound in a nice, cheaper graphic-novel format).  Unlike an RPG (which is "text, and the pictures sitting next to the text"), in a graphic novel, the text and the art have managed to form a unified whole.

I'm confused, however, by your likening examples of play (description of the actions of the player and/or the character, the specific instances of mechanics happen behind it, quite obviously displaying the actions at the table and how they relate to events in the imagined space) to art (which, as far as I can tell, just sort of sits there with its arms folded and issues a challenge: "go ahead, try to interpret me.")

Does art really affect individuals that way? I can easily see the point of examples in game books - they augment the text by showing how the text is to be used. I don't see art doing this so much, because it just sorta sits there, next to the text, inscrutably.

Eero> I'm particularly sure I don't want my rpg products to be considered a collector's item, at least not for any sort of "visual art" value. I don't quite comprehend people's love of hardcovers over the inestimably superior paperback, either.

Anyone>  Can anyone else step up to the challenge that I posed to Matt? I'd be interested to hear other viewpoints besides his own, on this matter. Pick an illustration in a published work that I own (I can give you a list, the above is just my expression of the overlap between Matt's earlier list and my own) and show me how that illustration explained to you how to play the game - and thus, keeping to Eero's point at the end of his post, "how to make a better game." That's what I'm looking for - how does Art matter in that context?