The Forge Archives

I have been thinking recently about RPG design, and something struck me about the nature of the process itself.  It consists of human beings devising concepts, which they put into a form for other human beings to see and look upon.  So by such logic, should not RPGs be considered an art such as literature is an art of opera is an art?  I do not mean that it is a form of either of these, an RPG is a qualitatively different thing than either.  But I  believe an RPG can be viewed as the product of a distinct form of artistic expression, one that is very young but has already developed distinct genres, traditions and notable individuals within the field.

Emote,

Welcome to the Forge.  I know you've probably been welcomed before, but not by me, and I hope I'm getting it in before redundancy sets in.

The question of RPGs as an art-form has been raised on numerous occasions, quite recently in some ongoing threads about aesthetics.  I would also point you to http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6526" target="blank">this very long post which I wrote quite recently, as well as http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5151" target="blank">this post from some time ago.  I feel sure that others will soon point you to older threads and ones that have simply slipped my mind.

There is no question in my mind, at least, that RPGs have no intrinsic limitations from achieving major artistic goals.  There are a number of historical reasons why they have not as yet been accepted as such, but I think there are two especial reasons arising from the medium as it stands.

1. The art-object has no audience.  Insofar as it can be said to have an audience, that audience is sufficiently constricted (only experienced RPG players) that outside criticism cannot see the value or achievement.  (See the Confused Agendas post.)

2. Very few RPGs have taken this goal seriously, or attempted to do more than entertain and sell some copy.

I do not think it is necessary for good RPGs to strive at major artistic achievement; any that do have a rather long row to hoe, given the youth and lack of recognition of the form in general.  But the danger of saying that RPGs can be artistic is that there is a tendency to see the better games as significant works of art as they stand.  If that is the case, the form is so constrained that it can never be accepted by the larger public; I doubt this.  But while Sorcerer is one of the very best games I for one have ever seen, I would not make a serious pitch for putting Ron Edwards side by side with Michelangelo or Mozart, and I very much doubt that Ron would either.

I don't mean to be a nay-sayer -- just a note of caution.

Quote from: clehrichI think there are two especial reasons arising from the medium as it stands.

1. The art-object has no audience.  Insofar as it can be said to have an audience, that audience is sufficiently constricted (only experienced RPG players) that outside criticism cannot see the value or achievement.  (See the Confused Agendas post.)

2. Very few RPGs have taken this goal seriously, or attempted to do more than entertain and sell some copy.

I completely agree with Chris that these are important reasons, but I would add in some hope.  Robin D. Laws has an excellent article comparing RPGs to early film in terms of critical theory.  Early film was certainly considered a gimmick, and was not really recognized in either visual arts or narrative theory.  It is worth noting, though, that as film theory matured, it looked away from professed "art films" and grew to recognize the work of directors like Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, and others.  These are directors who strove for popular, commercial entertainment.  

In general, my (amateur) impression is that there has been growing recognition among many theorists that even if someone entertains, makes money, and doesn't smoke clove cigarettes, their work can still be recognized as art.  However, it still takes a long time for recognition to develop, especially given that (as Chris says) the audience for RPGs is extremely small.

[Editted to add link for Robin's article:]
http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/hiddenart.html

Quote from: John KimIn general, my (amateur) impression is that there has been growing recognition among many theorists that even if someone entertains, makes money, and doesn't smoke clove cigarettes, their work can still be recognized as art.

Absolutely; I certainly don't want to go on record as requiring poverty and a beret.  I do think, however, that the presence of early art films did a great deal to make it possible for the medium to be taken seriously.  Once that had happened, it was only natural that the gifts of Hitchcock and Ford would be recognized in due time.  My point is merely that we don't have (1) the audience, and (2) the hard-core artsy stuff to make it work just yet.  I see lots of talk about finding #1, in threads about popularity, indies, and so forth.  As yet I see relatively few about #2.

Quote from: clehrichAbsolutely; I certainly don't want to go on record as requiring poverty and a beret.  I do think, however, that the presence of early art films did a great deal to make it possible for the medium to be taken seriously.  Once that had happened, it was only natural that the gifts of Hitchcock and Ford would be recognized in due time.  My point is merely that we don't have (1) the audience, and (2) the hard-core artsy stuff to make it work just yet.  I see lots of talk about finding #1, in threads about popularity, indies, and so forth.  As yet I see relatively few about #2.  

Good point.  I hadn't thought of it in those terms.  Well, the RPG that springs to mind as being intended as art rather than entertainment is "Power Kill".  There is also Greg Costikyan's "Bestial Acts" (http://www.costik.com/brecht.html).  But clearly they are vanishingly rare.  Liz was wondering about making a "Left Hand of Darkness" RPG after analyzing it in her Narrative Theory class.   Do you have any ideas for a good "art RPG" concept?

Emote, I'm going to agree with you that RPGs can be, and perhaps are, art forms; but I'm going to say that your reasons aren't adequate.

Quote from: Emote ControlIt consists of human beings devising concepts, which they put into a form for other human beings to see and look upon. So by such logic, should not RPGs be considered an art such as literature is an art of opera is an art?

Certainly that describes art; however, I think it also describes technical manuals, instructionals, and most other forms of communication.

I certainly am not saying that games are not an art form; I'm only saying that you need a narrower definition of "art form" that excludes some sort of communication before you can demonstrate that RPGs are in the same category.

--M. J. Young

In retrospect, my initial post was badly worded.  I don't know what art *is*, but I do know it isn't limited to things that I like.  The art form of poetry certainly includes "Do not go gently into that good night."  But it also includes the countless tens of thousands of verses at poetry.com, three of which are mine.  *And* it includes various limericks that begin with "There was an old man from Nantucket".  To me painting is not just oil on canvas, it includes fingerpaints and spray-paint pictures as well.  And any true definition of "literature" must include David Weber as much as it includes William Faulkner.  I class art by what it is, not by whether I like it or not.

And as for the issue of commercialism, countless primitive tribes have no money and no critics either, but they still have rich folk art traditions.  And the Egyptian heiroglyphics were painted inside tombs which were then sealed off, supposedly forevermore.  And Shakespeare was a *professional* playright, that was how he literally made his living.

To me, there is no doubt that RPGs are an art form.  But I also include interactive computer games and website design as art, because they are created.  But I also think that computer games are a part of literature rather than a truly separate art form.  Website design is part of architecture.  But the more I think on it, the more convinced I become that RPGs are form of creative expression which is qualitatively distinct from anything else I know.  And I wanted to know if others had felt the same way.

Just to be contrary...

While RPGs can be art, I tend to think of them as utilitarian products.  An RPG is an object that is meant to be used for something like a hammer or a computer - not like a painting or poem.

This isn't to say you can't merge art and functionality.  You could have a gold-plated hammer with whimsical engravings.  You could have colorful gumdrop-shaped computers (oh, wait, we do!).  

But in my mind RPGs still have to be held up to a standard as a tool.  How well do they assist people in learning to play?  Are they conducive to an enjoyable evening?  Do they solve a problem other games have suffered from?  Only after a game satisfies those elements do I start looking at issues like artwork, layout, originality, message and other elements I'd look for in a painting or movie.

Now, admittedly, which of those elements fall under "utility" and which fall under "art" depend on our ultimate definitions of the two.  And, as with various standards for movies, it's likely that future generations will see things differently than we do now.

I disagree that things such as assisting new players and being enjoyable are utility rather than art.  In fact, they are perhaps the most important artistic aspect of an RPG.  What makes RPGs a whole new art form is that they actively work to assist the consumer to create a new world within the author's world, and indeed that is the very assumption.  Originality and message are also very important, I'd put artwork and layout further down because those are more easily mutable.  But the system is to the RPG what the language is to literature.

Quote from: Emote ControlI disagree that things such as assisting new players and being enjoyable are utility rather than art.  In fact, they are perhaps the most important artistic aspect of an RPG.  What makes RPGs a whole new art form is that they actively work to assist the consumer to create a new world within the author's world, and indeed that is the very assumption.  Originality and message are also very important, I'd put artwork and layout further down because those are more easily mutable.  But the system is to the RPG what the language is to literature.

Well, that's where we obviously disagree about the definitions of utility vs. art.  I'm pretty much working with art as "The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium." (as my dictionary defines it)

To me, RPGs fit that definition about as well as stereo instructions do.  Both exist primarily to instruct and educate, facilitating the user's enjoyment of something else (the actual play in an RPG's case).  Instructions that help the user have an enjoyable evening or help them understand the game are just as utilitarian as knowing how to set levels or where to connect stereo cables.

Anyway, we can certainly agree to disagree on this.

Uh, we're talking text vs. play here, I think. That is, text is tool, play is art. The RPG is the brush with which we paint our sessions of play. Make sense?

I think that another analogy similar to the film one is that of pulp fiction (no, not the movie). Sci-fi was, in it's early forms, usually less art, and more cheap entertainment. I think that Robin Laws is the Assimov of Game design. His works are still sorta trashy, but they've got elements of art in them as well. Who will play the part of Arthur C. Clarke and write the equivalent of Childhood's End? I'm waiting.

(Ron's sort of a Heinlein, incorporating philosophy in a powerfully pop way; and I guess to really extend the analogy that would make Gygax = H.G. Wells. )

Mike

BTW, this would explain the popularity of HP Lovecraft amongst gamers, no? Maybe we should keep our "pulp" sensibilities.

Where does this put interactive art?  This is basically art that doesn't deliver unless the viewer physically interacts with it. Ok, short story. I went to this 'underground' erotic art show, many of the pieces were fairly standard as far as artistic mediums go but there were a few pieces I remember very well. Two of these were interactive pieces.

One was a 'painting' of a female model that was 3-dimensional, curves and what not were raised above the surface of the rest of the painting. Viewers were supposed to use the lotion that sat on a pedestal in front of the piece and rub it onto the painting.

The second item was encased in what used to be a stand-up video game cabinet. There was a sort of curtain partition hanging in front that shielded the screen and made it kind of like a photo booth. It was very dark inside. This particular piece of art didn't function unless you played with the joysticks. When you gave the sticks a twist or yank crazy images involving cows and other stuff that's been blocked from my memory twisted and flashed on the screen. Doing different things with the joysticks would cause the images to appear in different ways.

Now, if that's not analogous to RPGs I don't know what is. The item itself can be art, from layout, physical materials, actual illustrations, whatever. But when you interact with an RPG, when you play it, you reach a whole different level. To some degree, what made the RPG art before the interaction carries over once play begins.

-Chris

Interactive pieces are part of their original genre, though distinct from "static" forms.  That's why computer games are literature -- they are interactive reading, with illustrations.  But I can't fit RPGs into a category like that.  The system and design of an RPG is experienced in a different way than anything else, as the audience actively becoming the authors, and so to me they are unique.

I don't know what committee got together and decided what went in which box, but I disagree with their categorizations. So, that's me saying "I agree to disagree". :)

-Chris

I'm not claiming anyone agrees with me on this, but I've given the matter plenty of thought and these are the options that struck me as best.  All art is fundamentally interactive -- the viewer looks at it, and sees it in a way, then looks at it again, and sees it in a different way.  That the art changes in response to those perceptions is, to me, an elaboration on the initial form.