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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

Lxndr wrote:

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.

Matt Snyder wrote: 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?

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.

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

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!

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.

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

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.

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)


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?

I agree that art can be an informer of sorts in RPGs. Despite not being a fan of art, I get that idea. I mean, on a simple level, if I see a picture of an Orc as having a piglike nose, then I'm likely to describe orcs that way, I guess.

But that would be my point. I think that art (as opposed to diagrams or maps) can only convey two things. One is tone. That's a lot of what Ralph was getting at, I think. A game can be conveyed as dark or light, or whatever by the art. The other thing that can be conveyed is actual data in terms of what things look like in the world. As in my Orc example above. It may, in fact, be important in play that the shorter mountain is pictured as closer to the city than the taller one. In this way, I think art has some effect like maps. That is, they are data as to what the "reality" of the gameworld is like.

The question that I have is to what extent these things are neccessary to establish in the text. I mean, if the designer wants to nail them down, that's fine. But I don't see it as particularly neccessary. Much less neccessary than would be explained by the inclusion of art in game texts.

Further, I think that art in most RPGs is actually rather haphazard. Rarely are the artist and the designer one and the same. Moreover, I think that the artists usually don't have any idea precisely what the designer is trying to convey. Sure, with Vampire, you have an agreement, but I think that's because the designers were trying to match a genre that was already associated with an art movement. Even then, however, I'd say it's hit and miss.

The point is that I personally feel like the art in most RPGs is actually there for marketing purposes only. It's about as useful to me as the blurb on the back page in terms of informing me about what play can be like. And that I don't need.

Note that text can be like this as well. I think that art in the form of bad gaming fiction in texts is already a cliche. These, too, do not manage to portray anything that makes me feel like I can play the game better after reading it. Basically, the game is played from the rules portions of the text. These directly inform how to play. Art only indirectly informs, and to the extent that it's hard for these forms to be clear about what they're saying they'll tend to be more hit and miss than text. In any case, I think that text can always do what the art is attempting to do. It might take a lot of dry words, but I have no problem with that.

So, can art be done better, can it really be part of the game in terms of getting things across regarding how best to play? Maybe, but it's not an easy spec to meet, I think.

Mike

P.S. Oh, and before somebody hauls off and calls me "non-visual", I'm mildly dyslexic. That is, I think visually instead of symbolically for the most part (and It makes typing a chore!). Maybe I just don't need art, because I'm constantly turning everything I read into a picture in my head? Interestingly, Alex recently identified himself as hyperlexic. :-)

Mike

Lxndr wrote: 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?

Raven> That really wouldn't be a horribly clashing case of signal (text) to noise (art)?

IT sounds like you're agreeing with Mike in your second paragraph - that most art in game books is strictly for marketing, rather than having any greather point.

(Of course, I am a collector as well as a player. Art devalues a book, in my eyes. But that's why, I guess, I'm the anti-Raven. Or you're the anti-Lxndr. Or something. We're opposites, anyway.)

Lxndr wrote: Raven> That really wouldn't be a horribly clashing case of signal (text) to noise (art)?

IT sounds like you're agreeing with Mike in your second paragraph - that most art in game books is strictly for marketing, rather than having any greather point.

Lxndr,

To me it seems fairly obvious - from this thread, from game reviews, etc - that people have very different views of why art is important/not important in a game. A lot of people think it is, for one reason or an other. Some people think it isn't. And a very few think it's actually bad for the game. All in all, that would probably mean that the best choice for commercial purposes would be to include art, even if you personally don't care much for it.

My view on art in gaming books is that it has a strong signal effect. It tells you a bit about 1) how serious the product is (good, professional art is often accompanied by good, professional text), and 2) the authors' view of their product. If there's a lot of drawings of half-naked barbarians of either sex, well, you know what the game is about. If the art is mostly dark, brooding, good-looking people with fangs, done in stylish black and white, hey, once again you hardly have to read the text to know whether you'll like the book.

But WRT (what I believe to be) your main point: Does art in any way help you understand how to play the game? Well, it won't clarify rules questions. But it will help a lot of people understand the "spirit" of the game, and make decisions that fit the game better.

A game that depicts player character types standing on top of dead monsters, or slashing their way through hordes of humanoids, will tell players that they'll probably win most fights; just get in there and start hacking; tactics aren't important. A game that depicts heroes with severe bruises and wounds, being forced back by realistically depicted human opponents, will tell players that, hey, perhaps we should think twice before attacking if the odds are against us.

- Matthijs

Hello,

This thread is getting dangerously close to a list of more-or-less individualized reports or self-descriptions. Matthijs is right - no "centralized tendency" seems to be emerging.

I also think some of the points I made in Dying Earth and covers might be of interest.

So Alexander, if you can think of a way to focus the discussion a little more, that's great and we can keep the thread going. If not, then it's probably time to hold your nose, make whatever choice you'd like, and close the thread.

Best,
Ron

As an artist, I should probably be weighing in heavily on the "more art, art is good" side of the discussion. But I'm not going to. Not exactly.

Art in a game book should be considered a tool. Just as the text should be considered a tool. They both have their uses, but each performs a slightly different function.
Here's an analogy...
Let's say text is a wrench and art is a hammer. Let's say the game is a piece of machinery. If you want to get a bolt out, you NEED the wrench. You can probably get by without the hammer, and in fact the hammer alone will be worthless to you. Heck, using the hammer badly could even break the machinery. But if it's a good tight bolt, then using the hammer to assist the wrench might make it break loose easier. Of course not every bolt on the engine will be tight enough to warrent the hammer.

What am I getting at? Art can help the text if used properly. But art does not need to be used simply for art's sake. Ideally it should have a reason for being there.
For instance....
Art doesn't convey game mechanics all that well, if there's a lot of art in the mechanics section, it's probably there as filler. (Which is ok if you want it, but hardly neccessary) But where art pulls it's weight is in setting. The proper art can convey the feel of the setting in a way that text alone cannot, or at least not as fully.
It won't effect play as far as the mechanics go, but it will often effect the flavor of the setting.

(I should note that some games are so integrated between setting and mechanics, as opposed to flavor being relegated to a setting "section", that art is useful all the way through to maintain the feel. Where the setting is presented will vary from game to game)


I don't know if that'll help clarify anything, but I though I'd offer my opinion.

Ron Edwards wrote: This thread is getting dangerously close to a list of more-or-less individualized reports or self-descriptions. Matthijs is right - no "centralized tendency" seems to be emerging.

For my particular focus, I'm still wondering if Matt (or anyone) can answer the specific question I put forth on the bottom of the first page. To quote myself:

Lxndr wrote: 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 (and furthermore, could 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.

I can't even remotely understand art as "noise"...even logically, heck, mankind was creating complex cave paintings and decorated pottery before he even had a fully formed language.

Hmmm, I tried to give a pretty concrete example using Pendragon, but you weren't familiar with that one...so let me invent one.

You're reading a new game book...call it any one of many pseudo medieval fantasy RPGs. You're likeing the mechanics, they seem straight forward and interesting by whatever standards you hold for those and you're starting to think...hmmm, I might want to try running this game.

Now you come to a piece of art. Lets call it a full page line illo. Lets also assume for the sake of arguement that you actually stop to look at it rather than brush it off as noise and move on.

Its a picture of a warrior. He's wearing piecemeal armor, with lots of spikes and skull heads. He has a spikey mohawk with a chain running from nose to ear. He's leaping through the air with an improbably big sword with lots of cut outs and serrations. There are visible "swoosh" lines from his swing. His eyes are glowing brightly and he's exposing a mouth full of sharpened teeth.

That picture is telling you what the author's vision of a typical warrior in this fantasy setting looks like.

Now rewind. Same game. Different picture this time.

This time its also a picture of a warrior. He's standing solemnly with long free flowing uncut hair and a full mustache that extends below the jaw. He's wearing tartan blousey trousers and his bare chest is covered with swirling spiral tatoos. He's leaning on a sword with a long hilt, simple unadorned cross guard and straight blade. A round wooden shield sits on the ground at his feet with a deep hack taken out of it.

That picture is telling you what the author's vision of a typical warrior in this fantasy setting looks like.


Now, can you honestly say that this conveys no information to you? Can you honestly say that looking at the picture doesn't give you a sense for the type of world you'll be playing in? One over the top fantasy punk. The other a much more historical world.

I'm not sure I could even comprehend a "yes" answer to this.

Alright, here's my point, and what's telling me I may indeed be on to something is the following:

Lxndr wrote: I have to admit, I rather like the idea of audio dramas

That you see and remember gaming books according to their art is really so totally baffling...I cannot comprehend that way of thinking.

Similarly, wasn't mankind grunting long before he created the spoken language? Grunting, while it still manages to communicate, is still noise. Once we managed to get some sort of written, textual language, it became dominant. There's rather practical reasons for that.

Oh, boy first time post. Be gentle.

Lxndr, I'm not sure you've got a fair challenge there. I'm a little color-blind. There's a chunk of spectrum including some blues and some purple that I see as more or less all the same thing. I have to take other people's word for it that THIS is blue and THAT'S purple. If I get really good lighting and otherwise ideal conditions, I can kind of sort of tell the difference. Sometimes.

There's no way for someone to satisfy me if I say "I dare you to come up with some blues and purples that anyone, even me, can easily tell apart." They can come up with shades that satisfy most people most of the time, and that's as good as it gets. It's not their fault, either. Biology happens to be against me.

I also dislike big orchestras. I'm really good with chamber music, where I can pick out each individual instrument as well as following the overall results. Put more than a dozen or so instruments on stage and get them all going, and it just kind of dissolves into noise for me. The same thing goes with most choral music, too. This is a shame, because I like classical music and opera a lot. I just can't manage to make sense of some kinds of input. If I tell someone to write a symphony that caters to my limitations, they're going to end up using a lot of rests and basically turn the symphony back into a chamber group, which is a waste. The right thing to do is for me to say "I'm sorry, I know I'm not going to much fun out of that" and leave it for others.

If art really doesn't stick with you, then it's probably not possible for the rest of us to produce examples of art that stick with you. Because by definition it doesn't for you. and if art doesn't, for whatever reason, signify the kinds of thing about the world and play that text does, then it just doesn't. But they do for a lot of people. If I were designing a game, I'd feel okay having an artist use those shades of blue and purple on the cover because I know that they're fine for most folks and I'd appreciate the rest. If I were programming a season of concerts, I'd include some symphonies and choral numbers because I know that they mean a lot to other people.

When I see game designers talk about their work, it seems like they pretty much all spend some time on things that they may not be most wild about themselves but that will help others get enjoyment out of the game. Maybe this is just one of those things.

Raven -> Yeah, I've taken those tests and scored phenomenally high on auditory, with kinesthetic (what you called tactile) coming in second, and visual barely making an impression at all. I'm with you on systems being understood best when one gets their hands dirty and play around with them. (Art not being a part of system).

I think A.B.W.'s point is rather spot on w/r/t me - I'm effectively "colour blind" when it comes to art and how it could impact the majority of individuals. (Does that put me at a disadvantage? I don't know. In exchange for that, I "glom" rather quickly to the important parts of a game book - the mechanics and setting, as Paganini would put it.)

In a related test I took that was trying to consider the validity of a fourth style of learning, "abstract", my abstract score was even higher than the auditory. Not sure if that theory ever went anywhere, but it rung true with me.

On the other hand (and this is getting a bit tangential) it somewhat surprises me that the population of "gamers" would encompass a high number of visual learners, since what the player sees is the least important part of any game, in terms of Actual Play. All a player gets to see is the other players sitting around the table. Conversely, players get to do things tactily (rolling dice, manipulating the character sheet) and audially (listening to the speech of, well, all the players).

For my part this thread is done, with the answer being: "Apparently, Art Does Matter, But Not In Any Way That Can Be Adequately Explained To The Questioner." I can accept that. I do want to answer Ralph though.

Ralph> I can quite honestly say that the amount of information I would get from those pictures, as it relates to my later interpretation and understanding of the game, would be next to nil. In point of fact, if I managed to notice the picture, I'd look at it, either appreciate it or deride it, then turn the page and the picture would all but immediately flee my consciousness, leaving no impression. Five minutes later, someone could ask me about the picture in that section and I'd go "huh? what?" and flip open the book to check.

Heck, from how you've described the two pictures, I can easily see them being in the same game without any sort of cognitive dissonance.

The only game that's ever really used art in a way that I can truly understand it being there is Everway. And even in Everway, the art in the actual rulebook(s) is extraneous - only the vision cards are what matter.

(And at least on my part, this thread is closed. Thank you all for your valiant efforts, but I think I've reached my threshold in terms of how much I'll be able to internalize this - it is an alien reaction)

Hello,

Thread's closed!

I'm mainly posting to say "Welcome!" to A.B.W., and to confirm Alexander's authority to close this thing.

Best,
Ron

Oh, a brief coda (I hope this isn't stepping on any toes; I'd edit my post but Ron has already posted):

If anyone wants to further discuss this (or tangential topics such as ways-people-learn) in private messages, I welcome them.[/code]

Lxndr wrote: On the other hand (and this is getting a bit tangential) it somewhat surprises me that the population of "gamers" would encompass a high number of visual learners, since what the player sees is the least important part of any game, in terms of Actual Play.

Really closed now!

Best,
Ron

Design is the word when talking about Layout. Any gamer knows that any text offset by a different colored - or differently shaded - box, or if one column is wider than another, which is the main text and which is supplimental information.

This is all visual design, and an important part of layout.

Now, art on the other hand, can be design or it can be art. And you're right, art has nothing to do with the text. When the art starts to INTERACT with the text, then it becomes design.

-- Funksaw