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.

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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

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

Deleted post in light of cross-posted moderator comments.

- Walt

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

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?

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

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

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

Okay, focussing on reforming RP from within the current subculture: in this respect, I personally feel that Universalis is the most significant release of recent years, and simultaneously my present top recommend for getting newbies to the hobby started.

It fundamentally strips away all the accreted wargaming roots of RP, and actually delivers on the promise of every "what is role playing chapter." It answers those niggling questions of "why do you have a GM then? Why does one guy get to decide everything if the possiblities are limitless?"

Now, I'm not giving up on more conventional RPG's and just playing Universalis (there's a line about cold dead fingers that comes here), I enjoy the more conventional style immensely. But every time amongst conventional RP'ers when new styles of gaming where, to keep with the same example, narrative authority is more evenly distributed, the general response is along the lines of "that would never work," or "but who stops players exploiting the system," or "that isn't RP, it's mutual intellectual masturbation." To the last, the ususal reply is "And your style of play would be...?" To the others, we can point to Universalis first amongst many others and say "It can be done, it has been done, it's enormous amounts of fun."

And, feeding into other concerns, since it explicitly lets you fix the social contract at the start, you can eliminate (or at least question) the assumed habits of RPG'ers at the outset. And you'll never look at your entrenched game habits in the same way again.

But I'm preaching to the choir here: the best thing is to get out and play games like Universalis with both grognards and newbies, and argue by the doing not the arguing. Maybe one day, the naysayers will look up from their dice to find that they're surrounded by a vastly increased market, hobby, industry, whatever, and wonder how it happened. I mean, isn't that what happened when Vampire took off?

Incidentally, Jonathan, why aren't you using Universalis? Not that I'm pimping (any more than I normally do, and I'm cutting back since no game designers or publishers have yet sent me any material reward for doing such), but it seems that it may be a solution for your friend's concerns out of the can. Even if it doesn't work, the failure can be informative to your friend why things are normally done "the old way."

Pete

PS Re-reading before posting, I know Jonathan's not going to entirely (or possibly even mostly) agree with me, but I still think it's relevant to the thread, and the responses should be a lot more useful, especially given that Jonathan's experience with Universalis trumps mine by several magnitudes.

I play with a GM because I *want* a GM--I've recently started a group with not one but three newbies (of various degrees--one of the "what is role-playing").

I had no problem justifying the existence of a GM whatsoever.

-Marco

Marco wrote: I play with a GM because I *want* a GM--I've recently started a group with not one but three newbies (of various degrees--one of the "what is role-playing").

I had no problem justifying the existence of a GM whatsoever.

-Marco

Jonathan's conversation with his theatrically inclined GF does bring up the interesting point that what is "radical" to traditional roleplaying gamers, such as systems without detailed Points of Contact, or the idea of playing without a gamemaster, or whatever, may seem obvious and sensible to people who have never been exposed to Traditional RPGs.

This point was brought up by Ron before in the discussions about the "Vanilla vs Pervy" terminology before that terminology was weighed in the balances and found wanting, and replaced by "Points of Contact."

Before I start it as a separate thread, has there already been a thread that collects "RPG design myths," like "You have to have a GM", etc.

Mike Holmes wrote: Actually, yes. Quite a while back there was exactly that thread. I can't search it up, but maybe somebody else can find it.

Ron Edwards wrote:
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?

ross_winn wrote: Basically one of the things that makes the forge of limited utility for me, is that the structure of the community sets up a lexicon. This lexicon limits the effective discourse. This limited discourse describes a self-selecting subset of ideas. The net result of this is that we all make the same thing, or very similar things. Just like the generally mechanically less complex games we commonly see on The Forge. I personally tend to doubt that we will see something like Theatrix, or Living Steel, or Hero spring from this community for this reason.

I agree with John. Actually I think that JAGS might not be a good example for various reasons (I think it pre-dates The Forge, for example). But consider the game that Rob's putting together COTEC: Million Worlds. Very Hero System in some ways but with more layers of complexity.

One of the reasons you don't see such games more is that they do take long to make, and aren't as easy.

But take Ralph's new game, Robot's and Rapiers. Already comes in at well over 100 pages sans art, and can't be called simplistic in any way.

Anyhow, I'm just wondering what terms are doing the limiting? Simulationist? The term we use to describe games like Hero System? How can a descriptive set that is meant to include all extant games, and all potential games be limiting?

We're all limited by language. But that doesn't change by allowing people to use whatever terms they like. That just thwarts communication of any sort. It's an imperfect system, but we're using it as well as we can. That means we don't "Force" anything on anyone. We say, "here's how we say X, here's how we say Y". People are free to challenge these terms in any way they want. And they do so very frequently. Which results in changing meanings over time, rather than a rigid cling to meanings for no reason. Which means that thought evolves rather than staying at the sort of point where people just shout "Roll playing vs. Role playing" at each other.

Mike

But take Ralph's new game, Robot's and Rapiers. Already comes in at well over 100 pages sans art, and can't be called simplistic in any way.

I am gonna return to the entertainment or game and art debate. I think what Jonathan has in mind is a question of type or level of education. Games can entertain but they can't educate in the way a classical theatric play could. While games directly force to respcect the rules and this could be considered education, art educates by teaching, which stands for showing you experiences of some* else's (hi)story or simply, experiences of some* else. Some* that is not yet you, that is still out and away of you.
In that I have to agree with Jonathan. While wargames are simply games and can't educate in the manner of art, role playing games endorse this by the way they have to be deployed and played.

*someone, somebodies, somethings..whatever

Xechnao got my point in one try.

Movies are generally recognised to be capable of entertainment and... something else, which I was calling "art." I mean, take an Oscar-winning movie like "American Beauty" or "Traffic." Yes, they were beautiful. Yes, they were entertaining. But they also said something about the human experience, what it means to be alive, etc. Most forms of entertainment which are recognized as art forms (the novel, poetry, music, etc.) have this duality, entertainment and higher purpose. I think even the general movie goer recognizes this. Some movies are purely for entertainment, but there are some that are trying to say something, whatever that is.

Roleplaying is different. Board & card games are differerent. Until recently, comics was different too. Within the general audience of people appreciating them, they were/are pure entertainment and nothing else. I imagine that most people on the Forge would be willing to contest this view and say that, yes, roleplaying can have other motives too. But I feel like we're a pretty strong minority and we don't really speak up much because we feel a bit silly. The only way we really push for "meaningful" games is by designing ones that directly address certain issues.

Sorceror is about disfunctional, addictive relationships (which, at one time or another, describes ALL relationships). My Life with Master addresses similar issues, as well as the internal conflict of the oppressed. Dust Devils' "shoot or give up the gun" is a different example of the same kind of thing. To some extent, you might equate this issue with the fairly recent "rise of Narrativism" (in game design, since there has been Narrativist play ever since roleplaying began) and the inclusion of universal themes in play.

The reason Nobilis resonates so much with me is that every situation says something about the human experience. You can be the embodiment of Suicide serving Heaven, trying to find a way for this horrible concept to benefit the cause of beauty. You're constantly wrestling, constantly learning, and constantly growing while you play the game, simply because of complex issues that come up and need resolving.

Anyway, I'm wandering a bit.

I'm surprised no-one mentioned this(or I missed it...).

Movies are generally recognised to be capable of entertainment and... something else, which I was calling "art." I mean, take an Oscar-winning movie like "American Beauty" or "Traffic." Yes, they were beautiful. Yes, they were entertaining. But they also said something about the human experience, what it means to be alive, etc. Most forms of entertainment which are recognized as art forms (the novel, poetry, music, etc.) have this duality, entertainment and higher purpose. I think even the general movie goer recognizes this. Some movies are purely for entertainment, but there are some that are trying to say something, whatever that is.

I'm surprised no-one mentioned this(or I missed it...).

Movies are generally recognised to be capable of entertainment and... something else, which I was calling "art." I mean, take an Oscar-winning movie like "American Beauty" or "Traffic." Yes, they were beautiful. Yes, they were entertaining. But they also said something about the human experience, what it means to be alive, etc. Most forms of entertainment which are recognized as art forms (the novel, poetry, music, etc.) have this duality, entertainment and higher purpose. I think even the general movie goer recognizes this. Some movies are purely for entertainment, but there are some that are trying to say something, whatever that is.

I think the point being made was that RPG's can't educate us about someone, thing, whatever, else. I'd say it's arguable whether art can ever do that, but hey.

But certainly, Sim style playing can certainly do that, at least as well as film, theatre or literature: I'd argue that well played nar is better at telling you about yourself in other situations, but that's a function of art too.

xechnao wrote: While games directly force to respcect the rules and this could be considered education, art educates by teaching, which stands for showing you experiences of some* else's (hi)story or simply, experiences of some* else. Some* that is not yet you, that is still out and away of you.

simon_hibbs wrote:

xechnao wrote: While games directly force to respcect the rules and this could be considered education, art educates by teaching, which stands for showing you experiences of some* else's (hi)story or simply, experiences of some* else. Some* that is not yet you, that is still out and away of you.

I disagree. I think the experience of playing My Life With Master can be very illuminating. You are playign a characetr that is more than human in some ways, and less than human in others. In Shelly's masterpiece we empathise with the dilemas the moster faces through the artistry of her writing. In the game we empathise with our characters through the artistry of the game design.


Simon Hibbs

Jonathan Walton wrote:

Roleplaying is different. Board & card games are differerent. Until recently, comics was different too. Within the general audience of people appreciating them, they were/are pure entertainment and nothing else. I imagine that most people on the Forge would be willing to contest this view and say that, yes, roleplaying can have other motives too. But I feel like we're a pretty strong minority and we don't really speak up much because we feel a bit silly. The only way we really push for "meaningful" games is by designing ones that directly address certain issues.