This is my thousand and first Forge post!

The weekend before GenCon, Meg and I went to As You Like It, performed by Shakespeare and Company in Lenox, Mass. It was very good. It presented a serious challenge to me as a roleplayer and as an rpg designer. I went into GenCon shaken, I was like, what am I doing, I'm wasting my time, I need to be a novelist instead. I came out of GenCon fully renewed. Conversations and actual play at GenCon gave me my answer, and it was a better answer than "I need to be a novelist instead." But I'm going to pass the challenge on to you, the Forge, at large.

This is from Shakespeare and Company's mission statement:

A Statement of Values that Unite Us
Under all Shakespeare’s plays are three vital questions:
What does it mean to be alive?
How should we act?
What must I do?

By making the performance and exploration of Shakespeare's plays the center of our lives, it follows as the night does the day that we must ask ourselves these questions in all our actions. The plays themselves demand that we take ourselves out into the social and political fields, making connections between the arts and humanities, arts and government, arts and business, arts and education, arts and spirituality.

The second, larger question is much like the Gamist one: why role-play for this purpose? Why this venue, and not some more widely-recognized medium like writing comics or novels or screenplays? Addressing Premise can be done in dozens, perhaps hundreds, of artistic media. To play Narrativist, you must be seizing role-playing, seeing some essential feature in the medium itself, which demands that Premise be addressed in this way for you and not another. What is that feature? If you can't see one, then maybe, just maybe, you are slumming in this hobby because you're afraid you can't hack it in a commercial artistic environment.

lumpley wrote:
So, Forge people, is roleplaying an art form? Actual play, I mean: when we play, are we taking on those questions in any kind of a real, serious artistic way?

What do the games we choose to play contribute? Anything? And what about the games we design? (Just look at Shakespeare & Co's articulation of Premise and tell me they don't.)

And then if so, and this is the hardest part, are we making the connections that our art demands? The humanities, government, business, education, spirituality. Are we there? Are we even close?

the lumpinator wrote: And then if so, and this is the hardest part, are we making the connections that our art demands? The humanities, government, business, education, spirituality. Are we there? Are we even close?

lumpley wrote: So, Forge people, is roleplaying an art form? Actual play, I mean: when we play, are we taking on those questions in any kind of a real, serious artistic way?

What do the games we choose to play contribute? Anything? And what about the games we design? (Just look at Shakespeare & Co's articulation of Premise and tell me they don't.)

And then if so, and this is the hardest part, are we making the connections that our art demands? The humanities, government, business, education, spirituality. Are we there? Are we even close?

Right on, John. (said with sixties inflection; said also with complete commitment, no irony/sarcasm)

Best,
Ron

I'd like to go further on the outreach element. I think this is where the power and urge to be a novelist Vincent felt, comes from. These performers are having a real world impact with their story...they are to some degree affecting how many people think and feel on an issue.

Indulge this; were very much a species that likes to learn from each other. It's part (perhaps all) of the reason were dominant on this planet. Other species do it, but I'd say were the species who go nuts at it. We will learn skills that have no other purpose except to help learn other skills (learning to talk so as to be able to speak with others and learn more things).

Well, even if that doesn't sit well it's clear that movies and books have an effect on culture.

Now, let's have a look at a commonly shared story which isn't really nar or anything: Jack and the beanstalk

Jack screws up on a deal, has some wacked thing happen, he goes into a castle and after seeing the hen, loots it and just leaves. Not content with that (unlimited wealth), the thief goes back for the giants harp and loots that, then manages to kill the enraged bad guy giant. (Yes, I was reading this to my son last night and thinking how wack it is).

I mean hell, I've been on plenty of D&D dungeon crawls that will give you a more sophisticated/engaging (to a child) tale to tell than that. Dungeon crawls that were full of crunch, no less. But look at that strange Jack and the beanstalk story and a G, N or even S game session...which gets handed on? Which get's repeated even as just an oral tradition?

Have the most brilliant sessions where amazing gamist tactics (that could even apply in the real world) are done, or deep, moving addresses of premise that reveal shocking truths about life as a human, or the power and majesty to be felt by stepping into another world entirely. So what? It all dissapears. Sure, your group remembers, but suppose in RL you were all in another country and had some amazing experience...but refused to speak about it with friends and relatives when you got back, let alone write about it in a book or contribute an article on it in some other media.

I think the experiences of roleplay excite us, because were primed to go and share excitement with others, who might share it with others and so on, the knowledge being shared and strengthening the community, potentially. But with roleplay, we neuter ourselves and just keep the experience in that one cell of people.

Let me be clear here, a session of roleplay doesn't have to enter into shared cultural knowledge (like Jack and the beanstalk). What I'm saying is that the current habits of roleplayers is that it never even gets a chance. I'll be honest and say that I think Nar probably has the best chance of entering shared cultural knowledge in some small way, but how? When those who experienced make sure it's insulated from the rest of the world, or atleast from people who don't roleplay.

The fact is, your game session might be worthy...it might get repeated and repeated again by others mouths. Sure, it'll get a little chinese whispered in the process, but so will that shakespear groups message. But does it get the chance, even through mediums like anecdotes you might mention during conversation at a party?

And damn, I can't find the thread I started months ago on creating some sort of artifact from play. I think I mentioned in it the idea of taping good sessions (preferably humourous), editing them slightly and then getting some air time at your local public radio by some means (I can think of a few valid ones). Also mentioned a few other things, that slip my mind.

Anything else come to mind for other posters?

Well, for what its worth, I am a novelist (and, much as I hate to admit it, a poet), and I think what we're producing is far cooler than just more literature. I mean, I am fond of new literature. I read good books and write mediocre ones, and I'm very cool with that and it excites me.

But it is not what we are doing. What we are doing is not "like" fiction writing, nor is it "like" theatre. It is a totally novel artform, although perhaps one rooted in oral traditions and mythic storytelling.

So let's not worry about whether we are as cool as Shakespeare. We are cooler than Shakespeare. The Shakespeare of RPGs will come thousands of years from now, and he will be building on the artform that we are making and defining, right now.

I cannot stress this enough. We are making a new way of understanding and communicating with the world and each other. This is awesome.

The question to ask is not about Shakespeare. The question to ask is about Thoth and Mimir and Odin and Prometheus and Pan and Inanna. Are we (and I use the collective to mean we, all of us, the people who play RPGs) as cool as them, those ancestors who wrent from the stuff of our minds not only new art, but new artforms, who didn't just have something important to say, but an important way of saying that? The people so important that they have become gods?

Are we as cool as them?

yrs--
--Ben

What does Shakespear have that RPGs don't? (aside from godlike talent in the strictest sense of the word)
Something acting companies can show others. Imagine if acting was purely for actors, without an audience; I believe theater would be very marginalized, as marginalized as RPGs are. Shows and movies allow for a passive form of theater, as well as the active.

Can we make movies about RPG sessions?
It's been done. If you haven't seen 'The Gamers', get yourself to www.deadgentlemen.com.
'The Gamers' was pure farce, pure inside jokes. Would it be possible to have movie about a serious RPG session, showing people confronting a serious moral problem that they could not confront in real life?

Problems: you've have two hours max for the story. I think that's reasonable with a focused group, but just barely.
I think it is worth a try.

There was a _very_ brief web site called 'RPG Radio' that had snippets of live RPG broadcast over the web. It didn't work that well. Listening to an RPG session drove home to me how much of it is body language and non-verbal communication.

I think something more like the BBC program 'Hypotheticals', except with the conceit of ongoing characters facing various situations in the same way the hypotheticals were suggested.

Indeed, looking back at it that show was almost full on roleplay. There's a new way of describing roleplay to newbs.

Well, I was there with Vincent at GenCon. Truth to tell, I did some serious percolatin' on the question. And I'll be doing more - probably about a month more. I'l be heading out of town for a while, and I'll be thinking on this more than I should, maybe. But so far . . .

Shakespere and Company had their hundreds of people at the play. Peter Jackson has got his millions and millions watching LOtR. Roleplaying has just me, and you, and you (and maybe you, and you, and you - or so).

And - know what? My life is really more about me and you (and you and etc.) than it is about hundreds or millions.

The opportunity in roleplaying is, I think, much bigger than we give it credit for. And it is often unfulfilled - sometimes for the reasons John points to, and other times just because of . . . whatever.

I think I'd like to change that. That's what I'll be thinking on, long and hard, over the next month-ish.

Gordon

Noon wrote: The fact is, your game session might be worthy...it might get repeated and repeated again by others mouths. Sure, it'll get a little chinese whispered in the process, but so will that shakespear groups message. But does it get the chance, even through mediums like anecdotes you might mention during conversation at a party?

And damn, I can't find the thread I started months ago on creating some sort of artifact from play. I think I mentioned in it the idea of taping good sessions (preferably humourous), editing them slightly and then getting some air time at your local public radio by some means (I can think of a few valid ones). Also mentioned a few other things, that slip my mind.

Anything else come to mind for other posters?

Vincent wrote: So, Forge people, is roleplaying an art form? Actual play, I mean: when we play, are we taking on those questions in any kind of a real, serious artistic way?

Vincent wrote: What do the games we choose to play contribute? Anything? And what about the games we design? (Just look at Shakespeare & Co's articulation of Premise and tell me they don't.)

Vincent wrote: And then if so, and this is the hardest part, are we making the connections that our art demands? The humanities, government, business, education, spirituality. Are we there? Are we even close?

The plays themselves demand that we take ourselves out into the social and political fields, making connections between the arts and humanities, arts and government, arts and business, arts and education, arts and spirituality.

The word I used at GenCon was "monastic." There's still a particular kind of isolation in addressing premise in roleplaying, unrelated to the intimate size of our audience:

I can mention to my coworkers that I saw As You Like It at Shakespeare & Co, and I can tell them something meaningful about it, like how smart it was and how deftly they handled the gender commentary.

I just can't do that with my roleplaying. They wouldn't know what the hell I'm talking about.

Now, that mattered a lot to me going into GenCon, and it seemed like a hopeless problem. It matters a lot less to me coming out - and y'know, maybe there's hope, too. Maybe what we're doing now will create something years and decades from now - like Ben's vision - create something that fits into society in such a way that people can address premise intimately and talk about it at work the next day.

Or but maybe not. I guess we'll find out, huh?

-Vincent

Agreed, Vincent. I think the co-worker issue is a matter of the broad awareness and acceptance of Shakespeare, rather than the theatre art medium per se.

Similarly, in some rosy universe we could have that conversations with co-workers about the ubiquitous My Life With Master, and discuss just exactly how your session cleverly addressed (say) gender issues in dysfunctional families.

I think this has happened in one way with D&D -- people identify with one another and can talk about how they dealt with Room XX in Keep on the Borderlands (or whatever, especially tournament modules like the Slavers modlues, for example). "You died too!?! I know, that room sucks!" But, I don't view it as something that cherishes the human condition in the way art can. It's more like talking about video game challenges, which I see (and take part in) all the time. Social, sure, but not terribly enlightening.

As far as the coworker issue is concerned, I'd like to remind people that actors and playwrites and directors were traditionally considered (and, in some places, this lasted well into the 20th century) scum of the earth, filth, and on par with prostitutes. This is thousands of years after the genesis of theater as an artform! I mean, wow, talk about a long wait for "legitimacy."

I think that gamers are in the same state and, in all honesty, may be there for a while. I mean, no one talks about how their night at the strip club went, right? Or, if they do, they only talk about it in the company of like-minded individuals. I admire those trying to change this, but I don't see it as a major problem for the artform as a whole right now.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S. I am suddenly struck by the constant comparison of gaming/comic stores to porn shops, and also by the large number of gamers that I know who have worked in porn or related industries. Huh. Neither here nor there, I guess.

I’ll take the liberty of starting out by quoting Shakespeare. It seems kind of appropriate, although painfully arty.

“What's in a name?
That which we call a rose
by any other word would smell as sweet”

In a way I hoped this discussion wouldn't arise here at the Forge, because I think it is somewhat of a sidetrack. Then again, I suppose it is inevitable, and in its own way important. The thing is that we've been arguing a lot about this in the Scandinavian community, and I sincerely think the argument itself hasn't made our games much better.

Firstly I'd like to present a hypothetical problem. Where would this discussion be heading if someone claimed that Nar-motivated roleplaying is art, but roleplaying motivated by the other CAs are not? I am confident that a heated and emotional debate would ensue, with lots of rethorics of mass destruction being fielded and a quick moderator-intervention required. What does this tell us about the term Art? If art was a descriptive term, which identified certain qualitative differences between different forms of human creative activity, there is no reason that such a statement should anger anyone. After all, we all agree that there are qualitative differences between different forms of roleplaying. Instead, my little thought-experiment indicates that art is another kind of term entirely. Art is simultaneously a statement of absolute value and a semantic quagmire of horrific depths; hence its application is a recipe for heated debate.

When the term art enters the stage, people tend to forget the relative ontological stations of words and what they signify. The stuff comes first; the words get tacked on afterwards due to similarity and, sadly, the power-games of wicked people. Art makes people forget this, and they lose themselves in some platonic dream where Artness is an intrinsic trait in certain phenomena.
In my opinion, a better phrasing of the question presented in this thread would be: Does it make sense, and is it useful, to call roleplaying Art, and to attempt to understand it as an art form?

I think roleplaying (as in actual play) in the long run will benefit from not striving for being recognized as a form of art, and that Art is not a useful perspective for understanding it.

Art and roleplaying are simply not sufficiently similar. The creative output of roleplaying is indivisible from participation and contribution. Reading a transcript of roleplaying is not roleplaying. Recalling a session is not roleplaying. Preparing for roleplaying is not roleplaying. The point of roleplaying is experiencing the joy of doing it, and nobody can do that for you. Roleplaying does not communicate anything out of its creative process, it creates nothing apart from the effects it has on those involved, and it involves no intention of doing so. You do not roleplay to change the world, and if you do you’ve chosen the wrong means. Roleplaying is a personal and private affair; art is a personal and public one. Now, one could of course point out that every player is communicating with all the others, being each others audiences and artists, but that is a similarity on the definitional, not the qualitative level, and therefore it isn’t very relevant. Although I dislike the current state of affairs within the world of art, I do not think they will be changing anytime soon. Art as a term is decreasingly coming to mean what I think it should, being defined in self-referential terms, the art world being increasingly occupied with meta-art concerns – the artists and the art-academics disappearing in a professional feedback loop. I do not think that the term art will be reclaimed, but maybe another word will arise to take the place it is vacating; human activities that create beauty, meaning and understanding on a non-scientific level. For now I think we are better off trying to understand roleplaying as a special form of creative social activity, to which the Big Model is an important effort, and resting assured in that roleplaying is every bit as important and valuable as we find it to be.

-Erling

Erling Rognli wrote: Art and roleplaying are simply not sufficiently similar. The creative output of roleplaying is indivisible from participation and contribution. Reading a transcript of roleplaying is not roleplaying. Recalling a session is not roleplaying. Preparing for roleplaying is not roleplaying. The point of roleplaying is experiencing the joy of doing it, and nobody can do that for you. Roleplaying does not communicate anything out of its creative process, it creates nothing apart from the effects it has on those involved, and it involves no intention of doing so. You do not roleplay to change the world, and if you do you’ve chosen the wrong means.

Yikes! I agree with Erling. The important question to me isn't "is roleplaying Art?" or even "is it useful to call roleplaying Art?" but "are we participating in society?"

We've been handling it really well so far, I think. Let's not mess it up with "what is Art?"

-Vincent

We've been handling it really well so far, I think. Let's not mess it up with "what is Art?"

Yeah, but Vincent wasn't asking whether RPGs are art.

He's asking whether RPGs can produce insights or entertainment that travel beyond the immediate group that created them.

I'm not sure what my answer is on that... even his example that he can talk with his co-workers about how "As You Like It" was handled assumes a massive and hidden level of common ground between his co-workers and himself, most of it ground painfully into us in high school english classes.

For instance, he doesn't have to explain what a play is. That doesn't hold true for RPGs. If somebody is anything but totally ignorant it is so rare that we automatically label them "gamer" and decide that they are not part of the "larger society" that we're talking about.


EDIT: I realized what was nagging me about Erling's argument that (to sum up, perhaps incorrectly) "The joy of roleplaying is in doing it, so an external audience is impossible". Baseball. Football. Sports in general are clearly about the enjoyment and achievement of the people on the field, but they are also ripe for spectators to participate in that very enjoyment in a vicarious manner.

TonyLB wrote: Yeah, but Vincent wasn't asking whether RPGs are art.

He's asking whether RPGs can produce insights or entertainment that travel beyond the immediate group that created them.

For instance, he doesn't have to explain what a play is. That doesn't hold true for RPGs. If somebody is anything but totally ignorant it is so rare that we automatically label them "gamer" and decide that they are not part of the "larger society" that we're talking about.

EDIT: I realized what was nagging me about Erling's argument that (to sum up, perhaps incorrectly) "The joy of roleplaying is in doing it, so an external audience is impossible".

Baseball. Football. Sports in general are clearly about the enjoyment and achievement of the people on the field, but they are also ripe for spectators to participate in that very enjoyment in a vicarious manner.

Nathaniel, if I'm asking whether roleplaying is art, I'm also providing the definition, right in what you quoted. For purposes of this thread, you're doing art when you roleplay if you're taking on Shakespeare and Company's three questions in a serious way. "Serious" meaning "non-accidental," not "frowny."

-Vincent

I think just as any visual or performance art can be *bad* and fail to address those three questions (which fits perfectly with the definition of art as a level of philosophy), so can an RPG.

Conversely, an RPG, like a visual or performance piece can succeed at asking those questions. Infact, assuming someone is familiar enough with RPGs do want to observe, they can even be asked of non-participants.

I think that the distinction of to whom the questions are asked is important. No piece of art requires that all of humanity be engaged by it. Rather a subset of humanity is engaged by those questions. The same holds true for an RPG. Questions of meaning, morality and other premises are explored by humans in a creative act, either through the making of it or the observing of it (observing one another at the gaming table, or reading a "replay" after the fact).

RPGs can fit the bill as "art" given the definition in the original post if they actually do involve meaningful integration of those questions into the lives of the participants and/or third party observers.

I have watched people role play on occaision. Usually not a whole session though. On the other hand, I did watch a whole session as my introduction to RPGs. My friend got the original D&D Basic set for his birthday. I said who would want to play something with pen and paper and imagination only (no board, no scenery, no miniatures). After they quit for the night, I took the rule book and sat up all night reading it, and trying to understand it, and changing a couple rules. In the morning, I announced I was ready to run a game. I ran 2 or 3 complete games that weekend (it only took a few hours to get enough experience to exceed 3rd level afterall).

Of course I soon learned about using miniatures for combats (though these days I actually prefer counters). I'm very visual so I need the visual reference. I think what may have hooked me was the visual reference of the dungeon maps. Plus obviously it was a lot of fun. Oh, and as GM I didn't have to compete with the other players (my number one reason for not enjoying games).

Would I watch D&D on TV? I could see watching a recognized master. At Origins, I did actually spend some time watching Jonathan Tweet run D&D.

Frank

For me, roleplaying is about creating an experience for yourself and a group of people that you want to share it with. In this way, it reminds me of reading a good book aloud to a group of people (a tradition that we started at my college as "Storytime"). It's intrinsically personal and performance-based and based in the desire to communicate an experience with others.

There are plenty of groups like Shakespeare & Co who view their medium as essentially about communicating and discussing. Shenandoah Shakespeare Express is similar, as is Bread & Puppets (though they're more interested in political discussions at the expense of others). Personally, I view roleplaying in this way, as an opportunity to address, discuss, and communicate my own views on parts of the human experience that I find especially interesting and rewarding. Honestly, I think you can tell in a person's writing or by watching them roleplay whether they view things in a similar fashion. It's about whether, in general, they're consistantly appealing to higher ideals than simply whatever would be the most fun for themselves at any given moment.

We can certainly walk away from reading a great game or playing in a great session or even playing in a not-so-great session with another player who really "got it"... changed and touched in a way that Shakespeare has been doing to people (or, really, people have been using Shakespeare to do to each other) for hundreds of years. I think, recently, I've wanted to step back from my demand that roleplaying "be art" and instead just think of roleplaying as a medium for whatever message you're interested in sharing, even if the answer is "no message." This allows people who want to see roleplaying as art to have their way, while still making space for other points of view.

That said, what does Shakespeare have that roleplaying doesn't have? Not a lot actually. I many ways, I think online MMORGs are kind of the Shakespeare of roleplaying. It's a fairly accessible medium that everyone can understand pretty quickly. It enables people to get their feet wet in roleplaying and serves as an entry point for new players (arguablely), and also allows roleplaying to happen for a massive audience at the same time. This is the audience that Rune and Everquest (the pen and paper RPGs) were trying to lure in. Then again, I don't think most MMORGs have the kinds of high ideals that Shakespeare did, and they aren't normally intrested in addressing the big questions of existence (there is, however, Skotos' Castle Marrach, which I quite enjoyed my brief time in), but that could, concievably, happen at some point.

Then again, I think one of the neat things about roleplaying as a medium is that is seems to be more effective with a certain size group, though this obviously varies a bit with specific people, games, and play styles.

TonyLB wrote: He's asking whether RPGs can produce insights or entertainment that travel beyond the immediate group that created them.

So: How to communicate what goes on in an RPG session to others?

I think reading raw transcripts of RPG sessions would bore me to tears. If RPG-inspired fiction was the way, then we'd all be pointing at the Dragonlance novels.

What might work, and I think this is interesting enough that I've talked myself into getting a group together to try this, is to have each character keep a running journal of the campaign, then edit _that_ together into a publishable novel.

eef wrote: So: How to communicate what goes on in an RPG session to others?

I think reading raw transcripts of RPG sessions would bore me to tears. If RPG-inspired fiction was the way, then we'd all be pointing at the Dragonlance novels.

What might work, and I think this is interesting enough that I've talked myself into getting a group together to try this, is to have each character keep a running journal of the campaign, then edit _that_ together into a publishable novel.

There is some value to an edited transcript. I feel like I would be bored by reading a raw transcript.

But watching a game, now that's another story. And of course part of the art is the performance (and RPGs are a performance, even if the GM and players don't get up and dance around - just as much as a book reading is a performance). In fact, to me, the performance aspects are a lot of what is worth watching of other games. How does the GM handle pacing? How does he handle NPC voices? How does he convey mood? There's also a lot to be learned in how the players implement the mechanics. Watching a game where the players roll their attacks before they are called on can be an eyeopener to how to improve the pacing (not only does the combat run quicker, even if sometimes a player has to abandon their roll because they misunderstood a circumstance, but the players are more fully engaged since they have something to do while the previous player relates his results).

And you can learn more by watching sometimes than by playing (that's also one reason I enjoy watching people play a board game - since you are detached, you can watch what everyone is doing, and so long as you don't smirk etc. to blow someone's bluff, many players will show you their hand [and some will even point out their next play]).

Frank

This is an old thread of mine in a similar vein: Being in the band and second audience

Watching sport or theatre performance won't affect you in the same way as participating will. The results of participating and watching are in fact profoundly different. If we are to discuss the values of roleplaying as a spectator event we must first form some hypothesis of how this would affect the audience. We cannot assume that the audience would receive the same, or even remotely similar, benefits from roleplaying as would the participants, not even the entertainment value, as the form of enjoyment conferred by participating and watching are also different in both sports and various forms of theatre.

I agree that if you define art in the ways Nathan does, it would apply to roleplaying. My point, however, is that whether roleplaying is art or not isn't a question of what roleplaying is, but of how we choose to define Art, which might be the most semantically malleable term in existence, and how badly we want roleplaying to be valuable and important independently of our subjective assessment. This gets me thinking that discussing in terms of art or not will not be very fruitful. I got the impression that Vincent, who started this thread, in a sense agreed, and rephrased his question to concern whether roleplaying does, or could, participate in society. I find this to be a far more valid and interesting question, because it could have an answer that can be disputed and discussed. The only valid answer I can see to the question "Is roleplaying art?" is "Do you think it is?" Discussions on those premises tend to lead nowhere, in my experience.

As an aside, I must note that I very much agree with the definition Nathan presented; in the sense that I think the phenomena his definition refers to is the one most deserving of the term Art and its related status. But that's just my personal opinion, and it cannot be said to be true as such. Furthermore (and in reply to a question) I believe that materials for roleplaying can indeed be art, and that the term in that case is far more relevant. But I still find it far more interesting to ask if it is a good roleplaying game than to ask if it is art or not. The former will tell me much more about things I want to know than the latter, which really amounts to making a judgment of absolute value on the authors work.

I think an important point in this case is that no medium or creative activity directly participates in society, or changes it. Mediums interact with people, and can provoke change in the ways people think. This can in turn change society, in the long run. Roleplaying can definitely produce insights that change a participants view or perspective and give her a more extensive understanding. This extended understanding can later enable her to widen the horizons of others through other forms of interaction. Roleplaying affects people, people affect others, and ultimately society. Roleplaying can produce insights that travel beyond the immediate group, but the fact that they travel is not by virtue of what roleplaying is, but because of how humans interact.

I think there is an erronous piece of reasoning that cause us to ask ourselves if our roleplaying is participating in society, perhaps feeling doubt about the importance of our creative actions compared to those of others. The error lies in comparing roleplaying with media with a much larger sphere of impact. Roleplaying by its very nature has a small sphere of impact, in that a single instance of roleplaying will affect a limited number of people. In comparison with media that can reach millions, like literature, we're bound to feel small and insignificant.

However, roleplaying does have two important redeeming factors; its potential force of impact, and the fact that it is self-administered. Roleplaying can provoke truly profound changes. After participating in PanoptiCorp, a participant ended up quitting his job in the Norwegian conservative party, because his changed perspective on election campaigning and political strategizing made it hard for him to keep working within those fields. Again, roleplaying didn't cause him to quit his job, but it made him see himself and the world differently, and he had the integrity to act upon the consequences of his views.

That a single instance of roleplaying has a small sphere of impact is offset by the fact that it is controlled by the individual. In principle, anyone has access to roleplaying. You are not dependent on receiving the input to provoke insights; you can create it yourself, together with your friends. That is a very powerful thing, and has a certain beauty, because it means roleplaying is very resistant to use for manipulative purposes, and that it cannot be controlled by illegitimate powers. They can burn your books and ban your movies, but they can't stop people from imagining stuff together.

I therefore really believe that roleplaying can, and indeed does, participate in society. But as I see it, this only becomes apparent when roleplaying is considered on its own terms and not those of fundamentally different forms of creative expression.

-Erling

An interesting but odd topic, this.

My wife and I frequently cook gourmet (IMHO) meals and invite friends and neighbors over. We also sometimes invite friends and neighbors to prepare a meal together, or to bring various dishes for potluck-style gatherings.

I don't think it would ever even occur to anyone to ask, "is that participating in society?" Baby, that is society.

That we don't publish cookbooks, videotape our cooking, record our dinner conversation, or retail our dishes at the local market is irrelevant to that question. Whether the dinner conversation is about the food, about what the kids and relatives are up to, or about weighty world affairs is irrelevant to that question.

I certainly don't see any reason why role playing could ever be considered any less "participating in society" than sharing a meal with friends and neighbors, and I see at least one reason why it could be considered more so (since, as others have pointed out, role playing more often involves shared examination of how to behave and human nature).

- Walt

Hmm... but, Walt, meals with folks don't have the emotional wall around them that the word "game" seems to bring to the table (along with "entertainment").

What I mean is, no-one will stop an interesting conversation around the table about the state of the world, or even the neighbourhood, during a dinner party by saying "Woah! Can we stop getting all heavy about 'issues', I thought we came here to eat!"

We've still got a predominant atmosphere here, which is as much a product of millenial western society as RPG subculture, that art =/= entertainment, that you can't enjoy yoursefl while addressing issues, that treating an issue seriously means frowning a lot, stroking one's chin and looking over the top of your spectacles.

You don't have spectacles? Dammit, how are you going to address issues properly without SPECTACLES!

But I'm trying to hammer away at the false dichotomy hiding in there, which is where good art settles. It entertains, engages and enlightens. Rule of thumb, I'd say anything created deliberately that does all three is art (and I only put the created deliberately part in to exclude the majesty of the universe as a de facto work of art).

More on thsi when I'm not supposed to be pretending to work.

What I mean is, no-one will stop an interesting conversation around the table about the state of the world, or even the neighbourhood, during a dinner party by saying "Woah! Can we stop getting all heavy about 'issues', I thought we came here to eat!"

About replays: At GenCon, Andy Kitkowski did a fascinating little presentation on the Japanese roleplaying scene. He said - and correct me if I misunderstood, Andy - he said that replays are teaching texts, not unlike our own Actual Play forum. The point of 'em is to show you how roleplaying works and get you excited to do it yourself, not to passively entertain you a'tall.

Which seems smart to me.

About participating: I was watching Firefly last night, and that show is freakin' awesome, but I turned to Meg and said "this show is so freakin' awesome that I cannot wait to play Primetime Adventures."

-Vincent

Okay, now my big post on participation.

I've not been active here for a month or two, thanks to my being in the Canterbury production of the Mystery Plays. Now, apart from the interest of someone who's into Chris Lerich's ritual theory, something about this issue was brought into focus for me.

Amongst other parts, I played Abraham, and the Abraham of the mystery plays isn't the Abraham I got taught in school: he attempts to bargain with the Angel who tells him to kill his son. When he has just about reconciled his impending loss of Isaac, he nearly fails again when he remembers what it will do to his wife, lies to his wife, spends half the play in asides to god telling how his heart is breaking, and is only pushed to raise his knife (twice, he funks it the first time and asks god for strength) by the admonishments of his son to obey the law of God.*

It made for an incredibly powerful on act play, and I'm reliably informed that on at least one night, many of the audience were in tears**. So I'm sure the audience were moved, felt involved in the scene, identified with the protagonist's dilemma...

But of course, I was right inside that. Constrained by the script, my freedom of expression was in the delivery of the lines, the movement of my body inside the actions dictated by the script.

With the drama of the script and the setting (the crypt of Canterbury Cathedral), it wasn't difficult to produce a reaction in myself and the audience. What surprised me was when I "turned it up to 11" on the last night, how deeply affecting it was to me. The emotion didn't feel "faked" in any way, and I was genuinely grateful when the sound cue cut off my penultimate speech as I wasn't sure I could say it and remain upright.

Soooooo, all very nice for Mr Luvvy, but what the heck has this to do with RPG's as "art" or "socially relevant"?

Remember back when I said I had people in tears? That was from watching. Inside it, and it really felt at times like I was in "Being John Malkovich" and looking out of another body that I was manipulating like a puppet, it was vastly more affecting. But still, I had my lines, my moves... how much greater, then, could that have been if I were confidently creating that drama as well as presenting it, knowing and trusting the other players and the system we're working in that whatever is done is right, that the passion of the story will carry it through!

I tell you this, actors get more out of a play than the audience. I'm pretty sure directors do too. If I ever get any decent work of fiction finished, I'll know whether the joys of good writing beat those of good reading (I'm willing to guess that for all but the most masochistic of writers they do). How lucky are we then to have available to us a form that combines writing and directing and performance so perfectly!

So in play, when we're inventing stories or situations that we care about, we're in a fantastically priveliged position that is sabotaged by the mantra "It's only a game." And Jacob's Ladder is "only a movie", and one i love, but i can't sit through it in one sitting, because it works so well I am profoundly disturbed. I'm famous in my family for crying at the ends of movies not so much at sad endings, but at endings that are so emotionally right that I can't contain myself (yes, I've cried at perfect jokes in movies). I'm reading Robert Fagel's translation of the Iliad at the moment, and I am caught up in the drama of pride, hubris, blood, heroic death and senseless death. But it's "just a book". The Abraham and Issac play was "just a play", but a play that told the story of a faith that moved a man to the ultimate sacrifice, and that play moved me and the audience to tears. But it's "just a story."

Any artistic medium, heck, any communicative medium, is capable of entertainment (as in providing a change from the necessary activities of existence), engagement (as in engaging the mental and emotional attention) and enlightenment (as in providing insight, or information, or sartori or gnosis previously unrealised in the enlightened). In saying it's just a game, we're fighting shy of all but the first.

Frank: is the point of a dinner party to eat or to talk? I'd suggest the latetr, and the former is merely a delightful (hopefully!) way of structuring the evening. And humans being social and political animanls, how can any conversation be honestly devoid of social relevance, however abashed? What I meant was, can you imagine a dinner party where conversation was specifically denigrated in favour of eating? But still in RPG's, there is the idea that whenever any serious addressing of anything starts at the table, it should be stamped on, as "Hey, I thought we were here to have fun." Maybe intense character tragedy is my preferred entertainment tonight, but don't tell me I have to treat it as irrelevant in order for it to be fun. Them false dichotomies again.

*SPOILER: it was, of course, the weakest practical joke in the bible, but at least didn't involve dubious translations of the word rope, camel or indeed poisoner.

** the pathos of the scene greatly enhanced by having a 19-stone man with tears rolling down his face holding a bloody great sharp knife over a 7 year old boy who could have played his earlier part as an angel with no make-up.

The 'are we here for the food' question is sort of relevant to the 'Rapid deployment rpgs' thread ( http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12633&start=15 )

In that Ralph, myself and I think one or two other guys have suggested that a flat out goal is needed.

This is much like the goal of gathering to eating food.

But the fun in both cases comes from the journey itself, rather than reaching the goal/finishing the meal.

I think men do have problems with multi tasking (to be more prescise, we don't focus on this skill). Thus we kind of either push hard for the goal, or we push for the contents of the journey (which makes that the goal...and you might see the problem there, since the goal is something that becomes not important).

The thing with food is that some people can eat while the others talk, then vise versa...you can nibble or gorge, depending on whether you've got something to say or just want to listen. The goal of eating is not disrupted by people talking.

How about roleplay? Well, given the medium you use to reach the goal is the way you primarily socialise, it does encourage the exclusion of other activities the journey could otherwise have.

How is this on topic? Well, excluding those activities excluded can actually be ones that enhance the session/improve the journey to the goal. Catching the penny, missing the pound.

But really, in terms of those rapid deployment games...if you don't set a goal, you wont even have a clear journey to pin a social occasion on.

Damn, I think I might be rambling though...

Noon wrote: The thing with food is that some people can eat while the others talk, then vise versa...you can nibble or gorge, depending on whether you've got something to say or just want to listen. The goal of eating is not disrupted by people talking.

How about roleplay? Well, given the medium you use to reach the goal is the way you primarily socialise, it does encourage the exclusion of other activities the journey could otherwise have.

How is this on topic? Well, excluding those activities excluded can actually be ones that enhance the session/improve the journey to the goal. Catching the penny, missing the pound.

Ben Lehman wrote:

eef wrote: So: How to communicate what goes on in an RPG session to others?

I think reading raw transcripts of RPG sessions would bore me to tears. If RPG-inspired fiction was the way, then we'd all be pointing at the Dragonlance novels.

What might work, and I think this is interesting enough that I've talked myself into getting a group together to try this, is to have each character keep a running journal of the campaign, then edit _that_ together into a publishable novel.

BL> Well, the Japanese seem to like exactly the raw transcripts but, more importantly, I ought to as why you think this is important? I mean, it's not like movies are validated by their novelizations, or plays are validated by their movie forms. Taking an artform out of its proper context generally causes it to suck. Why should that be different with RPGs? So therefore, it seems to me that the best way to tell a person about the contents of an RPG is to play it with them.

yrs--
--Ben

My quick pop in and pop out to let this topic continue without derailment.

Hey Walt,

Your example of "the dinner where you're all talking about the food" is the rough equivalent of baseline Exploration not Simulationism. That baseline converstation is the carrier wave (the sea - to use a previous analogy) upon which the analagous CA equivalents of other-topics-of-dinner-conversation are modulated upon (or sailed upon). I understand, like you said, that these are analogies and are imperfect, but the fit to Sim was incorrect. If this post does violence to this thread, then I apologize and request that it be moved to a new thread before serious derailment settles in.

I now return this thread to its previous topic of conversation.

Hi Walt,

Just a bit of groundwork stuff to establish in relation to that, to see if it sounds right to everybody.

Now, the food tends to inspire talking/socialising.
Also, what the food inspires can be gotten into so intensly the food can end up being forgotten (atleast for awhile).
And if you have themed food...all italian food, for example, some (not all) of that talking will revolve around that theme.

Sound about right?

Man, I really want to take this metaphor out the back with a baseball bat and give it a good beating...

But: even if you go to a dinner party where all the talk is about the food, the point of the evening was the talk, not the food. Going to a dinner party where everyone tries to avoid speaking because it would get in the way of eating seems weird to me. But very much like many of my family get togethers.

So I'm with Walt in his last post. But what's this got to do with Shakespeare now, folks?

To get away from the metaphor and back to the meat of Walt's original reason for bringing up dinner parties, which I have no beef with: RPG's engage a social grouping in a creative arena in a form potentially "deeper" with greater involvement than any other form you could care to mention, apart from possibly group therapy. The created art is intensely personal to the group and socially relevant as much as you could care for by it's very nature of creation. (I'd certainly point to this thread for a textbook example of that).

Are we as cool as shakespeare? According to reaction in that thread, we're at the very least rivalling the best of network TV in it's native structure & modes, if not it's native media. Now, if you knew how good I thought serial TV was at the moment (Never better, in my opinion), you'd see that I think we can be cool as anyone. And as lame and goofy too, and that's our charm.

I thought Walt's first post answered a question Vincent posed--are we participating in society? We _are_ society. The problem I perceive is that we often take or leave out the social and personal aspects when we game. Or worse substitute gaming interactions for social interactions, hence gaming codepence--sticking with a gaming group even though you can't stand the people so you can get your fix.

I may be wrong--but it seems to me that if we've gotta leave our selves at home, then we won't be likely to address any hard questions cause it will be too hard for us to unpack them around people we don't trust or care about. And this may be different for roleplaying as compared to other forms (novel, film etc) since it is directly interactive, and fairly intimate. Characters in a movie don't care if you bawl your eyes out, and the theatre is dark, so your neighbors might miss it. On the other hand, it's hard to be moved in a group of 3-4 people and have it be glossed over.

yrs,
Emily

Emily wrote: The problem I perceive is that we often take or leave out the social and personal aspects when we game. Or worse substitute gaming interactions for social interactions, hence gaming codepence--sticking with a gaming group even though you can't stand the people so you can get your fix.