Jonathan Walton wrote: 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.

Heya,

I dunno, John. It sure seems to me like you aren't looking for Art or sport or entertainment at all in RPGs. Heck, it doesnt even seem like you're looking for a hobby. By reading your posts, it looks like you're looking for a religion. Or maybe a philosophy. Something greater than yourself that you can put your faith into and either have it impact your way of life or give you a new one.

I havent been roleplaying all my life, but in the many years I have been doing it I've found that one cant self actualize in roleplaying, or find salvation in roleplaying, or find some sort of Buddhist like enlightenment through it. I've never been in nor ever heard of a roleplaying session being anything like the discourses between Plato and Socrates. You just arent going to find personal and/or spiritual fulfillment in RPGs. Would you have GMs called ministers or philosophers? Players to be called followers? Newcomers named converts? Should a gaming session be filled with meditation or moments of silence to contemplate the meaning of "orkbashing"?

RPGs are games. They just are. Everyone now-a-days is very label conscious and you may not like the label "game", so call it what you will. The writings can be art. The acting involved can be art. The enjoyment can be entertainment. But the rules structure and the nature of the group involvement in most cases fits the definition of game. If it's not a game, what is it? A toy? Maybe storytelling, but with a set of rules and guidelines with a focus on "fun", it becomes a game in my mind.

I also have a hard time buying the fact that your girlfriend couldnt conceptualize what a "GM" was. Does she only do improv? I doubt that. She should definitely be familiar with playwrights, directors, stage managers, and producers. As an actor, she has very little if any control over the plot of her production. Having a person in charge of making the plot and creating the setting would seem to make complete sense to an actor.

Anyway, these are just my observations. May be way off, but I dont think so. What you're expressing is just part of a general feeling among people today. They are searching for meaning to everything they do. They look for a grander purpose to their lives and their actions. But you know, sometimes we just do things cause they're fun. And for those who search for something deeper, RPGs can satisfy that need to a small degree but not completely. There is so much more in this world that is deeper and possesses much greater meaning and feeling than role playing games.

Peace,

-Troy

Hello,

The above two posts were split from the thread When can we stop making "games?".

Everyone please review the sticky at the top of the Site Discussion forum about Forge policies, regarding avoiding resurrecting older threads by posting to them. Instead, please begin a new thread which includes a link to the older one.

Best,
Ron

I have to disagree with Troy here and agree with Jody and Jonathan.

What Jody, and to a lesser degree Jonathan, seem to want here is a way of life or "Do" in Japanese. A method for cultivating pure awareness or Spirit.

Now this may seem screwy to most people, (heck, I posted about it on rpg.net and got the same basic response that Jody got) but I believe it's perfectly plausible. Heck, I'm trying to base my major in Philosophy on the link between writing/RPGs, martial arts, and philosophy. One of the common themes among them is the cultivation of awareness.

Jody seems to approach RPG-Do in a Simulationist sort of way: cultivating awareness through immersion in the fantasy world. Jonathan seems to approach RPG-Do in a Narrativist sort of way: immersion in the story. And I seem to have come up with a Gamist way of doing it: a simple, elegant mechanic that encourages use of pattern recogniztion, a.k.a. awareness.

-----
A brief summary of my mechanic for those who are curious:

Signature 4.0a relies upon a simple, elegant system. It is summarized thusly:

Cause:"I [spend X Wild Points and] (description [tone, detail]) relying on my (Trait.)"
Effect:"(description [success, detail, scale] (affects [Trait.])"

The system works like this:

1. The acting Player first decides if he wants to spend any Wild Points. Wild Points determine how "cinematic" a Setting is. The more Wild Points started with, the more cinematic the setting. The Wild Points spent cannot exceed the Max Wild Points Spendable given in the Setting.
2. The acting Player then describes his characters action and what Trait of his character the Player is relying on to complete the action. The GM notes the tone of the action and the degree of detail involved. If the Player is spending Wild Points, the description should be appropriately cinematic.
3. The GM then determines the degree of sucess or failure as expressed in number of Successes, as influenced by the difficulty of the description, and then describes it. The level of detail in the GM's description should be roughly equal to that in the Player's description. The scale of effect should also be appropriate to the scale of the Trait being used.
4. Finally, the GM decides what Traits are gained, lost, etc.

For Successes, 0 is failure, 1 is minor success, 2 is major success, and 3 is complete and total success. The modified degree of success may not be lower than 0 or higher than +3.

The neat thing about this mechanic is that is used not just to resolve actions, but to generate characters, handle character experience and growth, create and manage the setting, and manage the story. If anyone is still curious, we can start a separate thread.
-----

Okay, back to the discussion.

Another way the three tie together is in the use of metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics. For RPGs this boils down to system (metaphysics), mechanical elegance (aesthetics), and reward system (ethics.) For martial arts, this boils down to internal cultivation (metaphysics), mind-body harmony (aesthetics) and moral use of force (ethics.) And of course, philosophy already encompasses metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics.

I fully believe that this is the next step in RPGs once the current emphasis on Narrativism passes.

Now the big question is, how do we develop RPG-Do?

I like my system from the Gamist aspect, and I feel it does a fair Simulationist job as well. But I'd like to hear from Jody how to go about developing a RPG-Do Sim setting, in general, abstract terms. I would also like to hear from Jonathan on how exactly he would construct Narrativist RPG-Do.

Palaskar wrote: I have to disagree with Troy here and agree with Jody and Jonathan.

How I disagree with Troy:

Troy wrote:I havent been roleplaying all my life, but in the many years I have been doing it I've found that one cant self actualize in roleplaying, or find salvation in roleplaying, or find some sort of Buddhist like enlightenment through it.

I believe that you can self actualize and find enlightenment in RPGs. It's just that no-one's really tried until now.

This is a little blunt, but if you want it to be recognised art, then make it act like art.

I mean, they sound like games because, just like games, they amuse a little group of five or so people and anyone who was just watching would be bored.

You need to make them accessable to outsiders. I mean, has anyone made a RPG that sounds like a radioplay...and I don't mean to the participants, but to other people. And interesting like a radio play. Then you might record it and get tapes swapped or even played on public radio stations briefly. You might get an underground movement.

Or an RPG which builds something like a epic poem (and I don't mean just taking what happened and trying to make a poem...I mean the system actually helping create it).

This makes something tangible others can appreciate.

As is, we have insular little groups who produce somthing only they can enjoy. Artists work in insular little groups, but their hoping to share their work with lots of other people. Difference, yes?

Edited in add on: I mean, this is probably where we get the game hang up from. We get excited by the RPG, but when we try to explain it to a non gamers it sounds silly, a lot of us feel silly and thus we say to get out of it 'Of course, its just a game to me' so we look somewhat mature. If it were more accessable to those non gamers, a lot of people would be more proud.

Edited in add on: I mean, this is probably where we get the game hang up from. We get excited by the RPG, but when we try to explain it to a non gamers it sounds silly, a lot of us feel silly and thus we say to get out of it 'Of course, its just a game to me' so we look somewhat mature.

IMO the only way RPG could be perceived as some sort of art - and, I think it does qualify, I am relaly only addressing perception - is if it appears in some form as an externalised entity from the player. Otherwise the best it can be is a "you had to be there" moment. RPG has a tough time appearing in a manner in which it can be 'appreciated'.

To make RPG so appreciable, weither a game would have to be structured succh that the recollection of its events does produce a narrative with entrancing qualities to an audience. RPG at the moment is a lot like hearing about how much someone else enjoyed a book you have not yourself read. I don't think theres likely to be much hope in this direction.

Another way might be a sort of provocative art; that is, there is a sort of challenge to the audience to pick up the game and play. But this then requires both a clear vision that is NOT in the hands of the player (else the player is not appreciating, but creating). This act would then be pariticipation in the game for the purpose of exposure to the topic. If a structure which reliably produced simialr effects in game were also developed, then different percievers would be able to compare notes and perform analysis.

Palaskar wrote: But I'd like to hear from Jody how to go about developing a RPG-Do Sim setting, in general, abstract terms. I

Jody wrote:

Anyway, that's basically it. I detail a closed-environment as much as possible beforehand in prose. I add additional detail during the sim session if it is requested by the players. If the players need to spend a little while visualizing everything, that's cool, too. No need to rush everything.

Hello, this is the first time I'm posting here.

contracycle wrote: IMO the only way RPG could be perceived as some sort of art - and, I think it does qualify, I am relaly only addressing perception - is if it appears in some form as an externalised entity from the player. Otherwise the best it can be is a "you had to be there" moment. RPG has a tough time appearing in a manner in which it can be 'appreciated'. To make RPG so appreciable, weither a game would have to be structured succh that the recollection of its events does produce a narrative with entrancing qualities to an audience. RPG at the moment is a lot like hearing about how much someone else enjoyed a book you have not yourself read. I don't think theres likely to be much hope in this direction.

I've omitted the definitions here, and the concepts that have already been exhaustively discussed in The Forge.

...For RPGs, a Tool is a mechanic that can be -creatively- and -spontaneously- applied to many situations. One calls to mind "universal mechanics," but really, a Tool is more than this. Implictly, a Tool allows Player input to change or vary the output of the mechanic, often through Color or Narrative Control, but possibly in other ways. It is also implied that Tool is spontaneous, that is, it has a low handling time and is Transparent, or better yet, Coherent.

Applied to RPGs, an RPG becomes Art or Style when it is used to express the views or feelings of one or more of the players and/or GM. I have yet to see an RPG that explictly does this. I'm not even sure about how to begin designing one.

An RPG becomes a Methodology when it is viewed as a process that can be applied to any Style or System. To me, this implies a process of design (top-down or bottom-up, frex) and a process of play (design before play vs. design in play.) The most obvious candidate here is Universalis.

An RPG becomes a Way when it is assimilated into the individual to such a degree that it becomes a worldview, a way of conduct, a way of approaching the Spirit, i.e., a way that develops selflessness through one method or another. A Way is a Methodology whose goal is the Spirit. Like RPG as Art, I have yet to see an RPG do this, excepting Jody Butt's "Fantasy Simulations." I'd be interested if anyone could come up with other Ways. Presumably, one would have a Premise akin to "What is the meaning of life?" (and no, don't say "42") or "Why am I here? What am I supposed to do with my life?"

neelk wrote: Hello, this is the first time I'm posting here.

contracycle wrote: IMO the only way RPG could be perceived as some sort of art - and, I think it does qualify, I am relaly only addressing perception - is if it appears in some form as an externalised entity from the player. Otherwise the best it can be is a "you had to be there" moment. RPG has a tough time appearing in a manner in which it can be 'appreciated'. To make RPG so appreciable, weither a game would have to be structured succh that the recollection of its events does produce a narrative with entrancing qualities to an audience. RPG at the moment is a lot like hearing about how much someone else enjoyed a book you have not yourself read. I don't think theres likely to be much hope in this direction.

I threw together a little roleplaying game called Lexicon, that leaves behind an artifact when the players are done playing it. I was wondering how worldbuilding could be turned into a collaborative process, and got the idea that the setting document could be turned into an artifact that is constructed through play. So on each turn the players write a bit more about the background, and at the end you have a setting glossary in which each person's entries all cross-reference each other and the other entries that the other players have written.

The game rules:
http://www.20by20room.com/2003/11/lexicon_an_rpg.html

An in-progress example of play:
http://www.respectstartstomorrow.com/oceanwiki/LexiconOfTheSecondAge

Noon wrote:

neelk wrote:
I threw together a little roleplaying game called Lexicon, that leaves behind an artifact when the players are done playing it. I was wondering how worldbuilding could be turned into a collaborative process, and got the idea that the setting document could be turned into an artifact that is constructed through play. So on each turn the players write a bit more about the background, and at the end you have a setting glossary in which each person's entries all cross-reference each other and the other entries that the other players have written.

Interesting concept. But personally I'd prefer something more in line with, ah, the fighty fighty type game. [...] I also stress that the system does help create it. Otherwise the game's relevancy is reduced as its more something anyone could have made on their own by imagining it. It should be tied to the system, which helps tie it to that game world and sort of helps make it a porhole looking onto that world. More value there, IMO.

Fighty fighty = Killing things and taking their stuff, to be honest.

Its just that I think that's a lot easier to sell to my friends and possibly a larger audience if needed. I'm not putting the game idea down, its good.

BTW, to anyone, this question: Are RPG's already creating an artifact? Has it been an unconcious desire to do so, with every character sheet ever made? They are somewhat like sculptures of meaningful numbers and opportunity.

No to the last, IMO. I think charsheets are more akin to instruments, employed in the creation of the work not in the appreciation of it.

You couldn't have another group who does lean that way? Given the amount of time people put into their characters design and advancement, it reminds me of sculptors. I've heard some sculptors, like those who would carve, basically examine the block, see its potential for a certain creation and then start working there. It sounds familiar.

Besides, what else is left after the campaign ends? Even ephemera is reveared and collected by some museums. What once was a cheap bit of printed advertising designed to be thrown away in a day is stored and cherished because latter its a signpost of culture in those times.

Not to mention things like doctors bags, etc, being stored and on display in various museums and archives. Tools, yes. But they are also an artifact.

Callan, I think RPGs are creating artifacts; in most cases, these are ephemeral--the memories of the players. However, in many (perhaps all) of my games, there have been character journals, party histories, written letters to NPC family, filed reports to superiors, all fixing the memories in a lasting form for the future.

I think character papers might be part of that; I've saved many that might have been discarded, from characters in many games, in a sort of character morgue--not just dead characters, but characters who outgrew the old sheets. I stopped to a significant degree when I started using word processing for character papers, because there were just too many copies, but sometimes I regretted not having the old ones around.

--M. J. Young

It's possibly worth distinguishing between artifacts that are adjuncts to play and those that are part of the play itself. For example, transcripts of "blue-booking" sessions are clearly artifacts arising from the play itself. But things like character portraits or a well-designed custom character sheet are artworks inspired by the game.

A digression: some of the most memorable moments of gaming for me came up when I or one of my friends were compelled to sing for the other players. Of course, singing usually reduces the other players to helpless laughter (we are not professional musicians), but oddly this never seems to weaken the emotional impact of the play. Typically, I find that laughter is a distancing device, such as the classical example of players who start cracking wise in a horror game. I speculate that the sort of laughter that having to sing produces is a kind of bonding laughter, where it's funny, yes, but it's also an acknowledgement that it's okay to take the game seriously enough to be silly in front of your friends. Has anyone else has seen things like this happen?

Hmm, I'd even suggest blue booking and character journals are artifacts inspired by the system and not of the system, much as a frustrated players 50 page PC history isn't part of the system. The system had no effect on these...its numbers and rules are like brush and paint, and they weren't employed in their contstruction. You might look at the pot of paint to see the right color to use, but if your using the same color from another source, its inspired by the system, its not a product of the system.

I'm not sure if it's art, but like I've said in other threads, I don't care. It's close enough for me, and I can self-actualize via RPGs. In fact, if I didn't via RPGs, I wouldn't at all.

Keep in mind Maslow's Heirarchy. To get to Self-Actualization, you have to first have all the other levels satisfied. That includes the one below it, social. So, yes, ghetto-ization of RPGs is very problematic for them to ever become a consistent source of Self-Actualization for anyone. It makes for social barriers that have to first be overcome before the next level is achieved.

Mike