PDA

View Full Version : DMing styles: Setting versus Story



BRC
2011-06-16, 06:43 PM
This may be my personal perspective, but as I see it, there are two primary styles of DMing, Setting based and Story based.

A Setting-based DM begins his campaign by building the world of the game. Maybe it has some unique concept that differs it from the standard swords-and--horses fantasy, maybe it has steampunk elements, or the world is half desert and half tundra, or an Undead empire rules everything. Maybe it is standard swords-and-horses, but it has a well-detailed cast of factions and major characters. In this style, the DM is primarily trying to explore their setting. Each adventure is an opportunity to experience a new face of the world, the PC's go to the desert to experience the world of the warring desert tribes, they go to the bustling coastal city to discover it's seedy underbelly, to chase down thieves in it's busy marketplaces and battle corrupt nobles onboard their Palatial yachts.
Setting-based DM's tend to prefer monster-of-the-week style adventures, which better allow them to explore a new part of the setting without feeling obligated to advance an overarching plot.
At it's best this style of DMing means that the DM has created a fascinating, dynamic setting for the players to experience, and the players look forward to see what is hiding behind the next rock. At it's worst, the DM is so obsessed with their creation that they spend each session force-feeding their players exposition and historical background. A trip to the ancient ruins is nothing more than an opportunity for the DM to lecture them on the history of the empire that built them.

A Story-based DM tends to begin building his campaign around the story he and the players will tell. This doesn't mean he writes the entire story, merely the beginning. He decides he wants to tell the story of a demonic invasion of the material plane, or of a succession crisis within a kingdom and builds the game around that. For the story-based DM, each adventure is an opportunity to advance the plot and see where things lead. A story-based DM can build a detailed setting, but the focus is not on experiencing that setting, but on telling the story of the characters and the challenges they face.

At it's best, you have a DM who works hand-in-hand with the players to create a great story. At worst, you have a railroader who drags the players into the story he wants to tell.

Now, obviously, the ideal DM tells a great story within a fascinating setting, but in my opinion, no matter how great the DM is, the focus will always be on one or the other, either the story will serve as a vehicle for exploring the setting,or the setting will serve as a backdrop for the story.

Personally, I consider myself a Setting-based DM. I tend to focus more on telling small stories within the context of a setting (Like the Western campaign I ran recently), and when I do decide to create an overarching plot, I feel constrained by an obligation to somehow advance it each adventure, rather than simply basing adventures around smaller ideas within the setting. An overarching plot inevitably means some repetition, and frequently I find myself seeing any repetition as a wasted opportunity to do something new.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-16, 06:45 PM
I'm both, actually.

Whoops?

valadil
2011-06-16, 08:13 PM
There are also combat based GMs who see the campaign as an ordered list of monsters for the PCs to overcome. If a story is present, it is minimal at best. Just a formality until the good part starts, not unlike the story in your average porno.

BRC
2011-06-16, 08:22 PM
I'm both, actually.

Whoops?
Nothing whoops about it, but I am going to ask for clarification.

Really, everybody uses some of both styles, you can't tell a story without a world to set it in, and unless you make every session a one-shot, you are going to have an overarching story (even if it's just "A group of adventurers wanders around having adventures").
However, I believe that DM's focus more on one aspect or the other, existing somewhere on the spectrum between setting and story just as exist somewhere between non-interactive storytelling and total free form sandbox gameplay.

So when you say "I'm both", do you mean you have both a setting and an overarching story, because everybody has that. Do you mean you have an equal interest in exploring your campaign setting and in creating an overarching narrative?




There are also combat based GMs who see the campaign as an ordered list of monsters for the PCs to overcome. If a story is present, it is minimal at best. Just a formality until the good part starts, not unlike the story in your average porno.
You know, that's an aspect I totally forgot to consider, probably because I was thinking in terms of campaigns rather than adventures. I couldn't see the trees because the forest was in the way.

Each adventure in a campaign does three things. It advances the overarching plot (even if that plot is nothing more than wandering around fighting monsters), it further explores the setting (Even if the setting is nothing more than a generic tolkien-rip-off fantasy so predictable that players know exactly what to expect as soon as the DM says "Dwarves"), And, of course, there is the content of the adventure itself.

You describe what I'm calling the worst form of this aspect, but you could have a DM who sees each adventure as nothing more than that, a new adventure. They have no interest in exploring the world of the game or furthering an overarching story. This dosn't need to be a simple list of monsters to fight.

A DM could have an adventure based around fighting a dragon, a dragon that was never mentioned before that will never be mentioned again. This dragon reveals or reflects nothing about the setting except the fact that this specific dragon exists.

Now, I was focusing more on philosophy in terms of campaign design, which the above dosn't really cover. But it is entirely possible for a DM to be motivated entirely by individual adventures rather than the setting or the story.

Name_Here
2011-06-16, 08:34 PM
Actually tried to do a setting based campaign with my last campaign. Was frustrating as hell when the group would overlook my clues as to what they could be doing to find adventure and advance themselves and of course the flow of people in and out of the group was a monstrous headache.

Still it was a rewarding experience that I'll definitely work into my more plot driven games.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-16, 08:43 PM
Nothing whoops about it, but I am going to ask for clarification.

Really, everybody uses some of both styles, you can't tell a story without a world to set it in, and unless you make every session a one-shot, you are going to have an overarching story (even if it's just "A group of adventurers wanders around having adventures").
However, I believe that DM's focus more on one aspect or the other, existing somewhere on the spectrum between setting and story just as exist somewhere between non-interactive storytelling and total free form sandbox gameplay.

So when you say "I'm both", do you mean you have both a setting and an overarching story, because everybody has that. Do you mean you have an equal interest in exploring your campaign setting and in creating an overarching narrative?

I mean both because I am almost exclusively focused on the story, but the only thing that makes a story worth it in my view (the necessary condition that makes me actually care about the story) is the setting in which it takes place. The setting alone does not suffice. Something must happen or else the setting is utterly useless, like rich soil without vegetation. However, a story in a vacuum is utterly boring to me. If I don't know who these people are, where everything takes place, what's the context in which the story takes place, I find myself wondering, "Why should I care?"

The reason I think I'm equal parts both is because I can't imagine doing away with either. If you do away with the setting, my interest in the story withers and dies. If you do away with the story, the setting cannot hold my interest. I must have them both in equal measure or else I can't get involved in the game. As a DM, I create both more or less at the same time. If I am designing or fleshing out a location within Faerun for the campaign to take place, I find myself coming up with an overarching plot as the setting details begin to take form. And in homebrewed settings, plot hooks, story seeds and hints of a campaign arc dot the lore details because I can't stop myself. I can't create a setting without imagining a way to use it to sustain a story (well, actually, multiple stories), and I can't create a plot for a game without imagining the setting around it.

BRC
2011-06-16, 08:54 PM
I mean both because I am almost exclusively focused on the story, but the only thing that makes a story worth it in my view (the necessary condition that makes me actually care about the story) is the setting in which it takes place. The setting alone does not suffice. Something must happen or else the setting is utterly useless, like rich soil without vegetation. However, a story in a vacuum is utterly boring to me. If I don't know who these people are, where everything takes place, what's the context in which the story takes place, I find myself wondering, "Why should I care?"

The reason I think I'm equal parts both is because I can't imagine doing away with either. If you do away with the setting, my interest in the story withers and dies. If you do away with the story, the setting cannot hold my interest. I must have them both in equal measure or else I can't get involved in the game. As a DM, I create both more or less at the same time. If I am designing or fleshing out a location within Faerun for the campaign to take place, I find myself coming up with an overarching plot as the setting details begin to take form. And in homebrewed settings, plot hooks, story seeds and hints of a campaign arc dot the lore details because I can't stop myself. I can't create a setting without imagining a way to use it to sustain a story (well, actually, multiple stories), and I can't create a plot for a game without imagining the setting around it.
So you create the setting and the story simultaneously? Interesting, but I wouldn't say that necessarily means that your style can't be called one or the other. Setting and story are of course interdependent, but that dosn't mean you don't emphasize one over the other.
As I see it, in order to be, as you put it, Both, you would have to be just as excited about exploring the campaign setting as you would about furthering the story. Whether you start with the story or the setting is an important indicator, but it's hardly the only factor.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-16, 09:15 PM
So you create the setting and the story simultaneously? Interesting, but I wouldn't say that necessarily means that your style can't be called one or the other. Setting and story are of course interdependent, but that dosn't mean you don't emphasize one over the other.
As I see it, in order to be, as you put it, Both, you would have to be just as excited about exploring the campaign setting as you would about furthering the story. Whether you start with the story or the setting is an important indicator, but it's hardly the only factor.

As a player, I pay more attention to the story. I explore the setting, but the story is more "urgent," so to speak. It takes precedence in my mind. And if the story isn't keeping me hooked and eager to pursue it, it's not really doing its job.

As a DM, I focus on the setting first and foremost. I can't create a story without a good foundation for it, something that explains where it comes from and where it can go. The setting is the most important thing I have to do, with the story (or stories) arising spontaneously from that without any effort on my part.

dsmiles
2011-06-16, 09:34 PM
Well, I build a setting. (Which I am working on with some very good homebrewers here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200953). Yes, that's a shameless advertisement for more homebrewers. :smallwink:) But then, I start the characters into a story, and let them have at it. If it has to be a binary choice, I'm probably more story oriented, though building the setting is my favorite pastime. If it's a sliding scale, as I see it, I'm probably about 65% story, 35% setting.

The issue, as I see it, is that I don't even create a story, I let the players do it. I just give them the initial plot hooks to choose from. I work on my settings endlessly, with the setting's timeline progressing as the characters do things in the world. But, to me, the story is more important than the setting. To me, the story is more important than the dice, even.

Though there aren't just two concrete, be-all-end-all, styles of DMing. It's a sliding scale from one end to the other. If there even are only two ends.

Raum
2011-06-16, 10:17 PM
This may be my personal perspective, but as I see it, there are two primary styles of DMing, Setting based and Story based.There's at least one more style - I'll term it "player oriented".

That's where the GM runs like ### to stay one step ahead of the players! Wondering if they're actually going to follow up on the researching those mysterious glyphs this time...or if they'll go back to the pirating they gave up on in favor of dragon killing which they left to confront an army of undead...or grab one of the other "plot devices" from the bag full they carry!

I need a breath. :)

Kaun
2011-06-17, 01:58 AM
This may be my personal perspective, but as I see it, there are two primary styles of DMing, Setting based and Story based.



Yeah i wouldn't say these were the two primary styles at all.

I personally would have leaned towards the two primary styles as either;

Proactive or Reactive.

or

Storyteller or combat driven.

But in all honesty i doubt you could put all DM's into one of two groups regardless of what the groups are called.

Eldan
2011-06-17, 03:57 AM
I'm not sure what to say here. I mean, I tend to put quite a bit if effort in my settings, but I always also have some potential big plots in mind when writing them, pretty much from the beginning.

Example? Etherworld. What happens when the Nathri barbarians decide to unite under a single leader again, this time with all the knowledge of the layout of the core worlds and the garden people's technology? Where did the Shipwright's guild get the plans for the first navigation engines, and why are they so paranoid about anyone finding out? What happened to the prime material plane? Who are the Faceless, and where do they come from? Will the Courts of Daydream and Nightmare ever go to war against each other? Is the Well of Souls running empty, and will new children be born without souls?

So, where does that put me?

Mastikator
2011-06-17, 04:14 AM
I'm a setting kind of DM.
I set out the factions, give them history, purpose, motives and traditions, they have goals and attitudes to the players. They will act independent of the players, and depending on the players will put them on the factions's various radars.
A story will unfold as time goes and the players do their part, a story I don't know the end of.

I usually try to multiple "stories" occur at the same time, each beginning and ending at different times, so that the players will never think "ok, so now what?".

Tyndmyr
2011-06-17, 05:26 AM
I'm both, actually.

Whoops?

This. A story needs a setting, and its a pretty threadbare setting if it doesn't contain at least the beginnings of a story or three.

The Big Dice
2011-06-17, 07:23 AM
I don't think roleplaying games are a good medium for telling stories in the slightest. They are full of the wrong kinds of conflict, if you try following rules of drama or narrative, players either kill the story dead or ignore it completely in favour of interrogating the NPC who was giving them directions to where the story was supposed to be for the next 40 minutes.

In a story based RPG, you can't really have a beginning, middle or end because your protagonists are prone to going off on tangents, forcing you to either railroad or ditch your initial ideas completely.

So in my book, story is a waste of time. The story comes after the event, not before it.

Setting is important to a point. The setting gives flavour and colour, providing a backdrop in front of which events take place. Of course, players are prone to ignore this as well. Like that one person in the group who is playing a Druid with a Dire Wolf Animal Companion and that Wild Shapes into a bear. In a tropical jungle/pirates at sea campaign. Or the one that insists on playing a Wild Elf in a setting that you have made it abundantly clear that there are no Wild Elves.

That's why, rather than story or setting, I concentrate on situation.

So the orcs attack the frontier village, how are you going to deal with it? You find out that the orcs are attacking villages because the baron's soldiers are raiding their territory. So the orcs step up their attacks and the baron increases taxes and starts a forcible recruitment drive. Do you want to find out why the baron is picking a war with the orc tribes, do you want to go all Robin Hood and protect the people from this cruel leader? Do you want to go fight a war against the orcs?

Season with NPCs appropriate to the direction that the players choose to go in and you've got a campaign that can sustain you to 7th-8th level, easy. And then you reveal another layer to the onion. The cruel baron is doing what his head advisor, a wizard, tells him to do. Except the wizard is a lich and he's got an agenda of his own...

And keep on going, peeling off layers of the onion as you go.

Like I said, situation, not story.

Tengu_temp
2011-06-17, 11:06 AM
I don't think roleplaying games are a good medium for telling stories in the slightest. They are full of the wrong kinds of conflict, if you try following rules of drama or narrative, players either kill the story dead or ignore it completely in favour of interrogating the NPC who was giving them directions to where the story was supposed to be for the next 40 minutes.

In a story based RPG, you can't really have a beginning, middle or end because your protagonists are prone to going off on tangents, forcing you to either railroad or ditch your initial ideas completely.

So in my book, story is a waste of time. The story comes after the event, not before it.

This goes completely against my experiences. Running a story-based game is not only possible, but it's also a great experience for everyone involved. Yeah, it feels different from a book or a movie, but different doesn't mean worse.

I have a heavily story-based DMing style. I establish various facets of my settings as they become relevant. What's the point of spending a lot of time and effort creating a large, complex setting, if your players are not going to see most of if anyway? That's just wasteful for me.

SleepyShadow
2011-06-17, 11:27 AM
I am definitely a Story-heavy DM.

Whether it's taken place in the trackless wastes of Dark Sun, the intrigue-filled Sword Coast in the Forgotten Realms, the steam punk setting of Ebberon, or the PCs' madcap adventures in Spira (I wish I was kidding), the story has always taken precedence over the setting.

I use the setting to determine what foes, allies, and other challenges the PCs face, but at the heart of it, the story always feels more important to me than the place that the story takes place.

The Big Dice
2011-06-17, 11:45 AM
This goes completely against my experiences. Running a story-based game is not only possible, but it's also a great experience for everyone involved. Yeah, it feels different from a book or a movie, but different doesn't mean worse.
Dramatic structure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramatic_structure) doesn't work well in RPGs. Narrative structure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_structure) tends to fall apart under RPG conditions, too.

Your protagonists might have very different ideas about the story they want to tell. Or simply not be interested in storytelling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storytelling). The fact that the very word used to describe a style implies passive acceptance of events on the player side of the screen doesn't bode well for storytelling in RPGs.

The whole storytelling thing is really an out of date paradigm in RPGs. It became something of a blockage in the development of the hobby, because in 20 or so years since the term was coined, nobody has tried to move past it. And that's a huge tragedy in terms of the growth of the hobby. And it's also the source of the same elitism that led to the 'narrativism' aspect of GNS.

Ultimately, to my way of thinking, storytelling in RPGs is putting the cart before the horse. Instead of telling a story around and about the characters, put those characters in a situation. Let them play their roles, then tell stories about it after the fact.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-17, 11:54 AM
The whole storytelling thing is really an out of date paradigm in RPGs. It became something of a blockage in the development of the hobby, because in 20 or so years since the term was coined, nobody has tried to move past it. And that's a huge tragedy in terms of the growth of the hobby. And it's also the source of the same elitism that led to the 'narrativism' aspect of GNS.

Ultimately, to my way of thinking, storytelling in RPGs is putting the cart before the horse. Instead of telling a story around and about the characters, put those characters in a situation. Let them play their roles, then tell stories about it after the fact.

You have an extremely narrow definition of "story" and "storytelling." A story need not be preplanned by the DM. It's true that if the DM has strict sequence of scenes that he wants the players to follow, all of the things you've said hold water and are perfectly valid and true.

That's not the only way to tell a story in an RPG. In fact, that's the worst way of telling a story in an RPG and you are quite correct in all your affirmations as to what the potential consequences for such a goal can be.

Another way to tell the story is to have a rich setting, a plot idea (not a sequence of scenes, but an idea, such as "mad wizard wants to summon eldritch horror from the Far Realms") and then have the character craft their own story. Something that has been excellently expounded upon in this video (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3555-The-Role-of-the-Player) is the fact that a game is not like a movie or a book. You cannot apply the same definition of storytelling to games because they do not quite fit. A player is as much of a storyteller as the DM. The DM does not say "Okay, this is what's going to happen: The Big Bad is going to summon an eldritch horror, but you guys are going to sweep in at the last moment and kill him!" he says "The Big Bad is trying to summon an eldritch horror. What do you all do?" and everyone begins to pitch in, much like a bunch of painters working on a communal mural.

kyoryu
2011-06-17, 12:16 PM
Ultimately, to my way of thinking, storytelling in RPGs is putting the cart before the horse. Instead of telling a story around and about the characters, put those characters in a situation. Let them play their roles, then tell stories about it after the fact.

How incredibly old school. I agree completely.

Down with DragonLance!

(not being sarcastic.)

Tyndmyr
2011-06-17, 12:31 PM
Everything kyoryu just said. Hell yes.

Ill admit to a twinge of concern whenever as GM describes themselves as story focused or the like. That self description has preceded some pretty terrible railroading and the like.

Tengu_temp
2011-06-17, 12:43 PM
Dramatic structure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramatic_structure) doesn't work well in RPGs. Narrative structure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_structure) tends to fall apart under RPG conditions, too.

And why are those structures necessary for an RPG? Not all fiction even follows them.


Your protagonists might have very different ideas about the story they want to tell. Or simply not be interested in storytelling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storytelling). The fact that the very word used to describe a style implies passive acceptance of events on the player side of the screen doesn't bode well for storytelling in RPGs.

Guess what? I DMed many games, and I've yet to have a player complain that they don't like my story or that I'm railroading them or anything like that. So either I'm such a genius DM that nobody minds the flaws of my DMing style, or storytelling is less restrictive than you think. I'd like to think both, because I'm not a very humble person.
Also, why are you assuming that a storytelling DM does not communicate with his players, ask them what they'd like in the game and such? Most good DMs do that.


The whole storytelling thing is really an out of date paradigm in RPGs. It became something of a blockage in the development of the hobby, because in 20 or so years since the term was coined, nobody has tried to move past it. And that's a huge tragedy in terms of the growth of the hobby. And it's also the source of the same elitism that led to the 'narrativism' aspect of GNS.

From a look at storytelling-based games such as Fate, Weapons of the Gods or Burning Wheel... Yeah, if this mindset is supposed to be blocking the growth of the hobby, then don't let it stop! Beats plotless dungeon crawling any day for me.


Ultimately, to my way of thinking, storytelling in RPGs is putting the cart before the horse. Instead of telling a story around and about the characters, put those characters in a situation. Let them play their roles, then tell stories about it after the fact.

Putting the cart before the horse is clearly wrong. Are you saying that people who play RPGs in different ways than you are wrong? For me, the only wrong way to play RPGs is when people at the table are not having fun.

The Big Dice
2011-06-17, 01:04 PM
And why are those structures necessary for an RPG? Not all fiction even follows them.
if 90% of fiction follows a certain pattern, perhaps there's a reason for that.


Also, why are you assuming that a storytelling DM does not communicate with his players, ask them what they'd like in the game and such? Most good DMs do that.
Ahhh, here we have it with the No True Scotsman thing. Because no good GM would do such a thing.


From a look at storytelling-based games such as Fate, Weapons of the Gods or Burning Wheel... Yeah, if this mindset is supposed to be blocking the growth of the hobby, then don't let it stop! Beats plotless dungeon crawling any day for me.
You can't find Fate or Burning Wheel on Amazon.co.uk and Weapons of the Gods is £94 from a dealer. I'd hardly call them pushing the boundaries of successful gaming if I can't get them from the biggest online distributor of books in my country.


Putting the cart before the horse is clearly wrong. Are you saying that people who play RPGs in different ways than you are wrong? For me, the only wrong way to play RPGs is when people at the table are not having fun.
Why is story after the event wrong, but story first is the only possible right? Because that's what you're saying. Completely ignoring my qualifiers in the process, I might add.

Just because in 1991, Mark Rein-Hagen said his way is the One True Way doesn't make it so. All he really did was put elitist names to things that games like Warhammer FRPG, Cyberpunk and Call of Cthulhu were doing anyway. Except he did it in such a way that he invalidated something that was already happening. And, of course, he paved the way for arrogant claims that story is the best, the right and the True Way, courtesy of Ron Edwards and the Forge.

To which I say, in two years time we'll be in the very year that the first edition Cyberpunk game was set. We don't have to be constrained by ideas from a guy who doesn't even write RPGs anymore. The so-called storytelling paradigm has been in place for longer than the things it was allegedly a reaction against. It's time to change things up.

Tengu_temp
2011-06-17, 01:18 PM
if 90% of fiction follows a certain pattern, perhaps there's a reason for that.

Yeah, but RPG is not ordinary fiction. It's interactive, and as such it handles some things differently.


Ahhh, here we have it with the No True Scotsman thing. Because no good GM would do such a thing.

I have no idea what are you saying here. Are you saying that a good DM shouldn't have to listen to his players?


You can't find Fate or Burning Wheel on Amazon.co.uk and Weapons of the Gods is £94 from a dealer. I'd hardly call them pushing the boundaries of successful gaming if I can't get them from the biggest online distributor of books in my country.

You know what is the only big storytelling game? WoD and its spinoffs. Or are you saying DND is a game that focuses on storytelling? In either case, you need to decide - either storytelling games are small and hard to get, or their predominance is holding the industry back. You can't have both at once.


Why is story after the event wrong, but story first is the only possible right? Because that's what you're saying. Completely ignoring my qualifiers in the process, I might add.

No. I'm saying I prefer a story-based campaign. Me. Other people can play their games different ways, I don't really care much. Just because they're having fun in different ways doesn't mean they're wrong.


Just because in 1991, Mark Rein-Hagen said his way is the One True Way doesn't make it so. All he really did was put elitist names to things that games like Warhammer FRPG, Cyberpunk and Call of Cthulhu were doing anyway. Except he did it in such a way that he invalidated something that was already happening. And, of course, he paved the way for arrogant claims that story is the best, the right and the True Way, courtesy of Ron Edwards and the Forge.

I don't really care about any of those people. All I know is that most people who like story-based RPGs are not as arrogant as them. Very few actually are, in fact.


To which I say, in two years time we'll be in the very year that the first edition Cyberpunk game was set. We don't have to be constrained by ideas from a guy who doesn't even write RPGs anymore. The so-called storytelling paradigm has been in place for longer than the things it was allegedly a reaction against. It's time to change things up.

Once again, give me an example of a big RPG company other than White Wolf that actually consciously follows the storytelling paradigm. I don't think if anyone is constrained by anything here.

kyoryu
2011-06-17, 01:31 PM
I think you two need to agree on a definition of "storytelling in games." I suspect that you're arguing against extreme positions that neither has.

While Rein-Hagen only made a few games, they were a massive influence on the hobby, even on games not written by White Wolf. You could easily argue that he finished the paradigm shift that DragonLance started.

And that paradigm shift has influenced just about every game out there. Including D&D.

BRC
2011-06-17, 01:32 PM
"Storytelling" probably isn't the right word when discussing RPG's. Storytelling implies that the story already exists.
What you do with an RPG is Create a story. The DM and the players work together to create a story, this means that, unless the group is linked by some sort of hive-mind, nobody knows how the story is going to turn out unless the DM is railroading.
This is part of why RPG's are fun, they can combine the joy of reading a book for the first time, with the creative expression of writing a story yourself.

The Big Dice
2011-06-17, 01:36 PM
Yeah, but RPG is not ordinary fiction. It's interactive, and as such it handles some things differently.
And those differences are what makes it a dreadful medium to tell a story in. Play to the strengths of the medium. Don't try and make a guitar sound like a tambourine.


I have no idea what are you saying here. Are you saying that a good DM shouldn't have to listen to his players?
You said, "ask them what they'd like in the game and such? Most good DMs do that." The implication being that a GM that doesn't do that is a bad GM. That's a logical fallacy right there, a No True Scotsman fallacy.


You know what is the only big storytelling game? WoD and its spinoffs. Or are you saying DND is a game that focuses on storytelling? In either case, you need to decide - either storytelling games are small and hard to get, or their predominance is holding the industry back. You can't have both at once.
WoD is the Storytelling (TM) game. But try games like L5R, Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, Dogs in the Vineyard and so on. They are all storytelling games. L5R even goes as far as to say if you're not using it to tell stories, you're playing it wrong.


No. I'm saying I prefer a story-based campaign. Me. Other people can play their games different ways, I don't really care much. Just because they're having fun in different ways doesn't mean they're wrong.
Have you ever tried the alternative I'm suggesting? My idea actually came from reading an interview with Mark Millar back when he was working on The Flash comic books. To sum up, he said he didn't always know where a story was going, past having a vague goal in mind. Each issue was written as the next step in a run with the actions of the characters guiding the way.

The net effect being, when you look back over it, there's a coherent story there. But it wasn't there at the start.

Situation, then story, as I call it.


I don't really care about any of those people. All I know is that most people who like story-based RPGs are not as arrogant as them. Very few actually are, in fact.
You should care about them. They are the two people that I'd say have the biggest influence on where the non-D20 gaming world is today.


Once again, give me an example of a big RPG company other than White Wolf that actually consciously follows the storytelling paradigm. I don't think if anyone is constrained by anything here.
AEG.

Tengu_temp
2011-06-17, 01:57 PM
And those differences are what makes it a dreadful medium to tell a story in. Play to the strengths of the medium. Don't try and make a guitar sound like a tambourine.

What makes you say that? I love my games, my players love them, and I love the story-driven games I'm playing and not DMing too. If I'm not playing to the strengths of the medium, then I don't know who is. If you only encountered dreadful storytelling games then that's just your experience, by mine is very different.


You said, "ask them what they'd like in the game and such? Most good DMs do that." The implication being that a GM that doesn't do that is a bad GM. That's a logical fallacy right there, a No True Scotsman fallacy.

But that's not a fallacy, it's the truth. Good DMs listen to what their players have to say. There might be some exceptions (which is why I said "most"), but generally this is the case.


WoD is the Storytelling (TM) game. But try games like L5R, Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, Dogs in the Vineyard and so on. They are all storytelling games. L5R even goes as far as to say if you're not using it to tell stories, you're playing it wrong.

And none of those games are big and popular enough to be the movers and shakers of the industry. They have their dedicated fandoms, but those fandoms aren't significantly large even when added together.


Have you ever tried the alternative I'm suggesting?

Yeah. I actually played much more open games when I started, and shifted to more story-driven games with time. The reason for this shift was because the story-driven games were much more fun for me, and I found their deeper, more interesting plots to be much more enjoyable. My more recent experiences with more open games only further reinforce my opinion.

kamikasei
2011-06-17, 02:44 PM
You said, "ask them what they'd like in the game and such? Most good DMs do that." The implication being that a GM that doesn't do that is a bad GM. That's a logical fallacy right there, a No True Scotsman fallacy.
No it isn't.

No True Scotsman would be:
"No DM would fail to ask their players for their input!"
"Lots of DMs do."
"No proper DM would, though."

What you're objecting to is simply the statement "I think doing this is a mark of a good DM". That's not a fallacy by any stretch of the imagination.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-17, 02:54 PM
You can't find Fate or Burning Wheel on Amazon.co.uk and Weapons of the Gods is £94 from a dealer. I'd hardly call them pushing the boundaries of successful gaming if I can't get them from the biggest online distributor of books in my country.
Did... you just mix an argumentum ad populum with an argument regarding the obvious lack of innovation?

How does that even make sense? "It clearly wasn't good and didn't try anything new because nobody liked it" is.. good lord.

Eos Press, the producers of WotG, has always been niche. That's why if you've heard of Nobilis, you probably know nothing of it beyond maybe the fact that it has flowers. Being niche doesn't mean yo'ure bad. It means you're niche. They're different things.


You said, "ask them what they'd like in the game and such? Most good DMs do that." The implication being that a GM that doesn't do that is a bad GM. That's a logical fallacy right there, a No True Scotsman fallacy.
No, No True Scotsman is if Tengu_Temp said "no DM does X" "But I've seen X done by a DM" "No REAL DM does X". After defining a member in a class Y as X, preferably by a nonessential (But typically positive or negative) trait, someone presents someone who is demonstrably a member of the class,, and is not-X, and you then equivocate and redefine Y to include PROPER Y. It has nothing to do with qualifiers. It's not "No True Scotsman" to say a good lawyer actually wins a non-zero number of their cases, it's describing how an adjective applies to a class. A good DM listens to players, but whether or not you listen to players you're still a DM.



Just because in 1991, Mark Rein-Hagen said his way is the One True Way doesn't make it so. All he really did was put elitist names to things that games like Warhammer FRPG, Cyberpunk and Call of Cthulhu were doing anyway. Except he did it in such a way that he invalidated something that was already happening. And, of course, he paved the way for arrogant claims that story is the best, the right and the True Way, courtesy of Ron Edwards and the Forge.
Do you really want to play argumentum-ad-yoursideestjerkum when you're arguing against story? I've seen absolutely, truly appalling things from setting-happy in the name of 'setting', and it's not like arrogance and One True WAy doesn't happen to folks who just want to kick down the door and loot the room.

Yhynens
2011-06-17, 03:04 PM
if 90% of fiction follows a certain pattern, perhaps there's a reason for that.

I'm not entirely sure 90% of fiction follows the dramatic structure or narrative structure in terms of like, a three-act play or anything, it's more that we can force the three-act structure onto basically everything with a story. Every story has a narrative structure, so you can't really say any percent of fiction follows a narrative structure, and every play has dramatic structure, since plays are just subsets of fiction and dramatic structure is just a sort of narrative structure. The whole "rising action/climax/falling action" thing is not really a hard and fast rule by any means, but if you really want to you can force it on there.

Besides... I don't really think you can't follow the rising action/climax/falling action structure in an RPG, assuming a campaign of finite scope. The players find out about the big bad, they kill the big bad, they mop up after what the big bad did. Sidequests along the way would just, if being led by a good DM, expand the characters and elaborate on the plot. Let your players go where they want in the game-world, but make sure that the events they experience all tie in to one coherent narrative. I mean, it's not even that hard.

That's the way setting and story really tie-in, though. The setting you build enables different stories to happen. If you've got a world with five potentially Existence-threatening macguffins, like the OotS world, which are spread out over basically every region, no matter where you go or what you do you're bound to run into people who are interested in the Gates/Crystals/macguffins. And I seriously doubt any player would complain about the fact that all the badguys seem interested in the same thing as long as you make the badguys interesting. Anyway, that's the way I DM. If the setting's smaller, like a single town, then the macguffins are more centralized, and the story's inherently tighter. If the setting's a world or multiverse, you better have a reason for making it so egregiously large, and the players are going to want to come in conflict with enemies that have world-shattering powers anyway. I guess that would be setting-based, but it's not like I don't have a coherent narrative in mind. It's just a lot looser than what I develop when I sit down to write.

Edit: I'm preempting an argument about railroading here. The key difference to me is, like someone already said, about having a reactionary style. If the players really want to spend two sessions in a small resort town, I'm not going to be like "leave the flipping town and get back to the plot," I'm just gonna make up a plot that's more or less related to the main narrative, in hopes of getting them to willfully choose to go back in. But if they don't, maybe my narrative was just bad, and I'll make a new one up out of whole cloth based on their more recent experiences (which will probably be related to the original story, anyway, because like I said: you can't just leave the gates untended.)

Vladislav
2011-06-17, 03:07 PM
There are two types of DMs:

1. Those who say there are two types of DMs
2. Those who don't.

The Big Dice
2011-06-17, 07:45 PM
Do you really want to play argumentum-ad-yoursideestjerkum when you're arguing against story? I've seen absolutely, truly appalling things from setting-happy in the name of 'setting', and it's not like arrogance and One True WAy doesn't happen to folks who just want to kick down the door and loot the room.
I've seen more abuses in terms of jerking players around, railroading in negative ways, taking the freedom to make their own choices away from players and generally trying to control how people around the table think in the name of story than I care to remember.

And yet, story is claimed to be the better way. So good in fact that anyone who suggests that there might be alternatives that haven't been looked at yet gets derided and ignored because obviously story is better.

So let me ask this, why is putting the story as the prime concern better? What is better about it? In what way does it make for a better, more compelling gaming experience than putting the characters in a situation and letting them respond to it, while it responds to them?

What I'm talking about is, NPCs with motivations acting according to their desires and planning to acheive their goals. Then the PCs are put in a situation that has come about because of this NPC or group of NPCs. How do the players react? What do the NPCs do about it?

I'm not talking about a sandbox, nor am I talking about a linear adventure. I'm not talking about an if-or-and type flowchart structure either. Though I am drawing elements from all three. What I'm talking about is a GM setting the scene, the players responding to that scene setting and the setting responding to the players in a feedback loop.

In other words, the game becomes a dialectic, to borrow from Hegl. The GM presents a thesis, the settting and the events that take place in that setting. The players give a response to that, providing an antithesis. Between the two comes a synthesis.

Once events have reached a conclusion can be looked back on in terms of a story. And in some ways there are similarities to the way a more typical story driven RPG might work. But the purpose is not the story. The purpose is the moment, the immersion, the experience.

It's a search for something new, a different way to approach gaming. It's searching for the Grand Unifying Theory of Roleplaying, if you want to be pompous about it. Trying to build bridges that 20 years of divisive, elitist writing has broken down.

Yhynens
2011-06-17, 08:05 PM
See, I'm starting to think we're all on the same side, here. What Big Dice is responding negatively to looks like GM-forced storytelling, while what I (and Tengu, I think) seem to be talking about is group storytelling, which is more or less what Big Dice outlined in his last post. Unless you're playing with people who don't like the actual roleplaying aspect at all, it's likely they have some designs for their character, too: intended goals, backstory that can be worked in, rivals, etc. The DM handles the world and the way the world responds to what the players do while trying to realize these designs, both in character and ideally out of character, so everyone's on the same page at least a little. Railroading DMs aren't just trying to tell a story and forcing their players to work within that, they're just... bad storytellers.

I don't have any complaints if at the first session of a short campaign my DM's like "Okay, you guys are looking for an airship in the north" (from an Exalted campaign) because that still lets me make up my character's own reasons and motivations for doing so, or at least trying to think up an alternative way to solve my long-term goals or the long-term goals of the whole party. And I don't think my DM, or I as a DM, would mind if one of the players wants to "break the story" as long as they're still interacting with the world in a method that's interesting. More to the point, I'm pretty sure this is the way a lot of groups run, since it's the way every group I've been in has gone. Maybe not. Maybe I'm just lucky. Maybe I haven't been in enough groups, because I haven't been in that many.

Either way, my point is that you seem to be arguing against the DM writing a strict story and then forcing the party to follow it exactly, and not actually arguing against using the rules of an RP system to tell a story. That's why you say you're more of a setting DM, and why I said that setting and story are highly interacting forces at basically all levels.

The Big Dice
2011-06-17, 08:19 PM
Either way, my point is that you seem to be arguing against the DM writing a strict story and then forcing the party to follow it exactly, and not actually arguing against using the rules of an RP system to tell a story. That's why you say you're more of a setting DM, and why I said that setting and story are highly interacting forces at basically all levels.
I'm neither a setting nor a story GM. When it comes to the setting, I tend to be more of an impressionist, letting the players fill in the blanks. What they imagine will always be better than what I describe, so why waste the effort trying to describe things? All the setting is to me is the colour palette.

And nor am I a story GM. I'm not trying to tell a story, I'm running a game session. It's not art, it's not performance. It's Let's Pretend with funny shaped dice and big heavy books.

What I am is someone who thinks too much. And I'm thinking that the last 20 years have been very damaging to the roleplaying hobby, even if they've been fairly good for the industry. There's a big split between story and action games. And that's cool, roleplaying has been a spectrum since Traveller opened up space opera and RuneQuest opened up lovingly detailed settings.

And so I ponder the things that are the same, no matter how extreme the differences. What has the most mainstream and corporate game go in common with the most avant garde independent one?

That single common thread that resonates through the hobby is what I want to find. The harmony that joins us all together, if you'll forgive my flowery pomposity. And quite frankly, story is one of the most divisive issues there is. It's only a hop from story to GNS style narrativism. And that's not a good path to go down.

dsmiles
2011-06-17, 08:30 PM
That single common thread that resonates through the hobby is what I want to find. The harmony that joins us all together, if you'll forgive my flowery pomposity.
I do it in order to spend time with friends, eat good food, and drink good beer. (Fun Fact: There was a study done fairly recently, I'll have to see if I can find it though, that showed that TTRPGers are more socially competent than the average person these days. The only social interaction they get is on their XBox or the internet. Quite a change from 20 years ago, eh? :smallwink:)

Yhynens
2011-06-17, 08:39 PM
I'm neither a setting nor a story GM. When it comes to the setting, I tend to be more of an impressionist, letting the players fill in the blanks. What they imagine will always be better than what I describe, so why waste the effort trying to describe things? All the setting is to me is the colour palette.

I'm not trying to tell a story, I'm running a game session. It's not art, it's not performance. It's Let's Pretend with funny shaped dice and big heavy books.

Of course it's not art, but the drizzt books and dragonlance and record of lodoss war aren't art either. They're exploitative literature with only the vaguest sense of themes and depth. Storytelling doesn't have to be art, it just has to be fun. If you want art, go to a ballet, read Ulysses, whatever. Storytelling doesn't inherently have to be art or a performance or anything. You probably tell stories every day without ever thinking of them as art, since storytelling is just a natural part of conversation.

Also I don't understand your first graph at all. I thought setting here wasn't referring to mundane details like what color the walls were, but, you know, worldbuilding. "Putting the characters into a situation" as you were saying. I guess describing things is an aspect of that, but it's certainly not something I ever think about, while I would consider myself more of a setting DM than a story DM.

Raum
2011-06-17, 08:44 PM
For the most part, I agree with The Big Dice. Games require some amount of player agency - choice. The story stems from the choices made. The more that's reversed, the more limited the game portion of the experience.

Kaun called it "reactive", TBD called it "concentrating on situation", I called it "player oriented". I suspect all of us would agree it means letting the story unfold from the events and choices occurring in play.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-17, 09:49 PM
I've seen more abuses in terms of jerking players around, railroading in negative ways, taking the freedom to make their own choices away from players and generally trying to control how people around the table think in the name of story than I care to remember.

When I said 'Appalling', I didn't mean annoying, obnoxious, or unfun. You witnessed inconveniences and unfun. That's bad, don't get me wrong. It shouldn't be done by DMs or players.

I have seen setting-obsession turn into hours long grinds through racism, or sexism, and other such horridness. I have seen sexual assault survivors have their wounds poked open because of GMs who considered the sanctity of 'setting' more important than the mental health or just comfort of players. If that's what you have to complain about, nothing you've seen compares. You do not want to play this game, it doesn't end well for your argument.

I mean, that's putting aside that it's fallacious in the first place, which I would think was made clear by referring to it with a dog latin construction. Specifically, it's a combination of ad hominem and association.




So let me ask this, why is putting the story as the prime concern better? What is better about it? In what way does it make for a better, more compelling gaming experience than putting the characters in a situation and letting them respond to it, while it responds to them?

It isn't, and I don't care. It's to different people's tastes. Play as you will, as long as 'as you will' doesn't inflict horrible travesties on people.


It's a search for something new, a different way to approach gaming. It's searching for the Grand Unifying Theory of Roleplaying, if you want to be pompous about it. Trying to build bridges that 20 years of divisive, elitist writing has broken down.
If you think it's only flowed in one direction, you're fooling yourself. It's not new, it's not innovative, it was popular before and if it comes into vogue again, fine, I don't give a wooden nickel. It's not going to erase my group or games off the map, and we can both play what we want still. Do what you will, just stop this pretentious 'salt of the earth' nonsense about how the poor elites are always picking on you while you're simultaneously insulting everyone who plays for story. You're doing the same thing with a different choice of insults.


Of course it's not art, but the drizzt books and dragonlance and record of lodoss war aren't art either. They're exploitative literature with only the vaguest sense of themes and depth. Storytelling doesn't have to be art, it just has to be fun. If you want art, go to a ballet, read Ulysses, whatever. Storytelling doesn't inherently have to be art or a performance or anything. You probably tell stories every day without ever thinking of them as art, since storytelling is just a natural part of conversation.
FTR, roleplaying can be art. Which is something I strive for, sometimes. And sometimes, I just want fun.


For the most part, I agree with The Big Dice. Games require some amount of player agency - choice. The story stems from the choices made. The more that's reversed, the more limited the game portion of the experience.
Of course players should have agency. It's everypony's story, regardless of the focus. It requires back and forth. The two aren't opposed; agency and plot can go perfectly well together, if the GM is remotely decent. Just like propriety and a strong focus on setting can go together, if the DM is not a complete fool.

The Big Dice
2011-06-18, 12:09 PM
I have seen setting-obsession turn into hours long grinds through racism, or sexism, and other such horridness. I have seen sexual assault survivors have their wounds poked open because of GMs who considered the sanctity of 'setting' more important than the mental health or just comfort of players. If that's what you have to complain about, nothing you've seen compares. You do not want to play this game, it doesn't end well for your argument.
I've seen games turn into fistfights over things that are still unresolved now that it's 20 years later. I've seen more than my fair share of horror stories, so please stop trying to get some sort of tape measure out, because it just makes both of us look smaller.

I mean, that's putting aside that it's fallacious in the first place, which I would think was made clear by referring to it with a dog latin construction. Specifically, it's a combination of ad hominem and association.
I consider dog latin to be a way to try belittle the other person in a debate while claiming some sort of intellectual high ground.


If you think it's only flowed in one direction, you're fooling yourself. It's not new, it's not innovative, it was popular before and if it comes into vogue again, fine, I don't give a wooden nickel. It's not going to erase my group or games off the map, and we can both play what we want still. Do what you will, just stop this pretentious 'salt of the earth' nonsense about how the poor elites are always picking on you while you're simultaneously insulting everyone who plays for story. You're doing the same thing with a different choice of insults.
This attitude is exactly what I'm referring to. Exclusive rather than inclusive language. You go do what you want to do, I'll do what I want to do and ne'er the twain shall meet.

To which I say, that's exactly the problem with gaming today.

Sure, some people don't know any different. They've never looked outside their own experience. But that is more often than not simply a matter of education. I'm currently engaged in educating a D&D player that there's more to roleplaying than barbarians with big axes. Eventually, I hope to move away from D&D and on to something a bit more sophisticated.

The walls that need to be kicked down are the ones built by people who should know better.


FTR, roleplaying can be art. Which is something I strive for, sometimes. And sometimes, I just want fun.
Exactly how is roleplaying art? There's no audience past the participants, so it's not a performance art in the same way that a private jam session is not performance art. There's no lasting creation to share with others. There's no reinterpretation of the creator's intent in the mind of the observer.

Sure, there are certain artistic talents that can be brought to bear as part of the larger roleplaying experience. But I've yet to see anyone who is able to say more than "Well I think it's art" when asked why roleplaying should be considered an art form.

I'd say, strive for having fun all the time. Because if you're not then why are you doing it in the first place? Forget the pretentious garbage that came from the 90s.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-18, 12:22 PM
This attitude is exactly what I'm referring to. Exclusive rather than inclusive language. You go do what you want to do, I'll do what I want to do and ne'er the twain shall meet.

To which I say, that's exactly the problem with gaming today.

And what exactly is the problem with this? Surely you're not saying that there should only be one way to play, and that we should all adhere to it.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-18, 01:43 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Cealocanth
2011-06-18, 09:31 PM
I'd say I have aspects of both, but I tend to lean towards setting.

-The entire idea of me beginning my own D&D campaign started with the idea and brainstorm for a backstory to my campaign world.

-I spent weeks, even months, designing an entire continent on the planet, re-working mechanics in the game and creating new aspects from scratch in order to match the campaign world to the setting.

-Every single time my party is lead to a new area, I type up a 3 or 4 page description of every town and important area.

-A map containing detailed descriptions of the local land and surrounding area has been handed out to each of my players, in order for them to know what the places I'm talking about are.

-But-

-The plot of the story has evolved around the players, changing as the players do certain things, reacting to them and their actions actively.

-The campaign does not look to explore the world. Certainly they are sent to far off places in order to successfully be a neutral party in a political battle between a CN politician who would poison his own father to get power, and a CE dragon who would destroy an entire town to get revenge on one person.

-The plot changes with the player's backstories, becoming more complicated with each new character.

-But-

-The entire plot focuses around a well developed setting town known as Midnight Shore, who's geographical locations allow diversity to the campaign.

-And so on and so forth.


In the end, plot and setting are not the only aspects of the story. Many other types of DM exist, and no amount of basic charting or testing can categorize them all. Sure, you may touch on a few types, or maybe even most, but since media changes, you can be sure that the DMing inspiration changes as well.

Tyndmyr
2011-06-18, 11:31 PM
Did... you just mix an argumentum ad populum with an argument regarding the obvious lack of innovation?

How does that even make sense? "It clearly wasn't good and didn't try anything new because nobody liked it" is.. good lord.

Eos Press, the producers of WotG, has always been niche. That's why if you've heard of Nobilis, you probably know nothing of it beyond maybe the fact that it has flowers. Being niche doesn't mean yo'ure bad. It means you're niche. They're different things.

While correct, availability of products is something fairly important. I mean, I've bought 7th Sea books off Amazon recently, and it's a bit of a niche thing(Magical Historical Pirates), and it's also been out of print for about a decade now. It's a good game though, so it's remained popular among the people who like such things, and thus, available, even if a few books are expensive due to demand.

Now, if a game has a lack of people who care about it, it might be good, sure...but odds are a lot better that it's not. I've sampled a ridiculous number of systems, and there is certainly a solid correlation between popularity and quality...After all, systems have to have some attraction to become popular, and popular games tend to get a lot more love and support.

You're correct on the fallacy issue, though. Big dice is using the term incorrectly. I sometimes wish that people on the internet be required to pass a college level logic class before being allowed to use the term fallacy. Pet peeve of mine.



I don't think D&D is a storyteller system, though some people try to mash D&D into that role. Hell, D&D is popular, so people try to mash it into any role they like, really. Personally, I like picking a system with a design that matches my DMing style and game goals instead of hacking D&D to fit, but not everyone shares this preference.

Also, I think the biggest problem with story-focused games is that they tend to be GM-focused games. In short, the GM is the one responsible for inventing the big plot, and narrative control is given out at his discretion, mostly. Now, this isn't true for everything...consider the drama die system of 7th Sea, for instance. 7th Sea has a lot of ways for the players to drive the story.

Dammit, I almost sounded like I was agreeing with GNS people for that.


DSmiles, I agree with that. One of the biggest problems my group has had recently is that we kept showing up for games, and a party would break out. We eventually had to select one home for the parties and one for the games to keep them separate. Everyone who plays has a pretty large and varied circle of friends. Hell, I've picked up a girlfriend playing D&D. Roleplaying's a social game, and even if it still has a nerd rep, and many of the players of it are certainly on the nerdy end of the spectrum....they're social nerds. It makes sense.

Tvtyrant
2011-06-19, 04:16 AM
I like to build worlds with a lot of stuff going on in the background and let the party decide what to do with it. For instance Little Dark Island effectively had three stories running in the background: a recent conquest by humans who forced the indigenous Kobold and Gnome chiefdoms into serfdom which creates a series of rebellion plots, an effort by the last black dragon to hatch its clutch of eggs, and the efforts of the humans to open a door into the underdark in search of a lost city.

This also had little things like political intrigue, village politics and problems, and one party members efforts to replace the cities baron with an electoral system (without ending serfdom). Eventually the door was opened by the party, who were fleeing the dragon because they had the gem it needed and they planned to hide in the lost city (which was filled with Mindflayers).

Infernalbargain
2011-06-19, 04:26 AM
How I came up with the material for me latest campaign was through coming up with a really cool scene. From there I deepened the actors, then built a story, then created a world for it to take place. Once I did that, I go in reverse order to create more cool things.

The Big Dice
2011-06-19, 07:21 AM
{{scrubbed}}

RPGuru1331
2011-06-19, 12:21 PM
And who won't let it go now?
Still you. I was willing to drop it from the start. What I will not let you do is pretend you were an innocent in the matter, and that poor little The Big Dice didn't WANT to engage in a one-upping contest of fallacy, but that mean ol' RPGuru1331 FORCED 'em to. If you had *ACTUALLY* let it slide without incident, you would have received no further comment. You chose to try to pin the blame for your mistakes on me. And you're still doing it. Try ceding the point. Or actually saying nothing if you just can't bring yourself to. Then you'll actually be dropping it, not trying to score cheap points by appearing to drop it while in fact you continue to bring it up indirectly.


It looks to me like my point about arrogant and elitist games belittling and demeaning anything that challenges their ivory towers of perfect play and attempts to be more inclusive of different approaches is right on target. Because I'm not seeing anything from you that challenges that initial assertation.
I've been nothing but kind to your play style. I wish you the best of luck in it. I want nothing more than for you to have fun however you want. You've engaged in fallacy to try to 'prove' your point. I couldn't care less what argument you were arguing for; I will not let fallacy stand. That your argument is aligned against my playstyle helps too, but that's what actually got me posting, not an attempt to 'fix you' by telling you to play other people's styles. Do as you will, as long as you're not actively making life worse for folks.


Any use of a dead language outside of legal or scientific use is an attempt to show intellectual superiority in an attempt to claim a moral high ground. It's not clever, it's trying to put down the other person to make yourself look clever.
No, the actual terms for most logical fallacies really are often in latin. Dog latin was to hearken to it, but was also obviously fake. Seriously, if it falls to me to tell you to be more secure about yourself something has gone drastically wrong with the natural order of things, but.... get a freakin' sense of security about your intelligence and stop conjuring phantoms to strike at like some sort of modern Don Quixote.

Besides, Harry Potter tried to evoke a latin feel with its spell names. You are clearly in error that "ANY" use is EXACTLY that.


I'm not the one trying to claim that my position is inherently superior.
lolwut. You've been doing exactly that from the start. That's why you invoked argumentum ad populum to try to say story is wrong, because it's not popular. That's why you mixed argumentum ad hominem and an association fallacy to try to say that everyone who plays for story is an elitist jerk who doesn't want anyone to have fun any other way, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11228260&postcount=23) and are sticking to those guns even now, despite me and Tengu Temp specifically saying "No seriously it's all good just have fun your own way, really". It is in fact, actually you trying to say their playstyle is superior. Nobody else here is even making the attempt. Does one of us need to hire a skywriter to spell it out in huge print for you to see it? Are there even still skywriters? Google says yes, interesting. Guess I just don't look up enough.


I'm arguing for a more inclusive approach to roleplaying
Tried that. Got burned repeatedly. No longer trying that. It was distinctly not remotely entertaining. It was a little bit like that Seinfeld episode, the one where htey all go to that restaurant they all hate because nobody was willing to speak out for what they wanted.


Because you know what? It's all the same thing. There is a commonality that certain game designers and certain people who write about game design don't like. And because they don't like it, they demean it. And because they put things down in with a tone that suggests authority, people who should know better believe them.
You keep asserting commonality. I'm not really buying it. You should probably try explaining how, indeed, vast differences in intent aren't actually differences, because asserting it as a basic fact ain't gonna cut it. You're also going to need to explain why roleplaying is special in this disconnect of intent while every other fun time activity has it.

In fact, that would do your position far, FAR more good than literally anything else you've done. Please, explain.



I'm suggesting that it's time to look for a different pardigm. And yet I'm being shouted down. Why is that, do you think?
Well, it's partially because you're insulting me whenever you can, however you can, and you've shown naught but vitriolic contempt for my style. I wonder why indeed that might cause people to 'shout you down'. The truth of the matter is that you haven't actually made an argument for or explained your position. You've used airy rhetoric to position yourself above everyone as some kind of grand unifier, but you haven't actually shown in what sense there would be unification, you've just insulted people who play for plot. Pretty sure that's not how unification works.

And again look for a different paradigm. I really, really, really don't care. If you don't actually try to involve me, or insist that I get involved, I'm going to continue not to care in the slightest, and you can keep looking for your paradigm. I'll wish you luck, even. But you keep insisting that htis is *MY* problem too, and it's not.


Everything you just mentioned is all about the interaction between performer and audience.
Yes. Regarding emily dickinson, the fact that she didn't want one, and that her work was made without one in mind, is significant after you've asserted it's all about the audience because... well, you say so. I have to point out that it isn't the case.

I said nothing about the poor street artists and their audience. I didn't even say there was one. There is, but I didn't make it about that, you chose to pretend that I did.


That interaction might not take place until after the artist's death. Look at people like Emily Dickinson or Vincent Van Gogh. The old adage that an artist's work is worthless until after their death is there in no small part because of people like them.
And? It was still about the art work and the artist, not about the audience. Whether it's 'worthless' or not is besides the point. I'll certainly grant that nobody will hear the truths your work speaks to without an audience. It doesn't make a difference. It's art. The audience's interpretations might themselves be their own art, come to think of it, as they may be creative expression. This requires ponderance.

And if it is an art, it would also be an example of art that requires no audience. You don't have to speak your thoughts on a work of art out loud to be trying to piece together what you feel it's saying.

Of course it may not be creative expression. as I said, ponderance.


Except there is no interaction between artist and audience in roleplaying. Like I said, it's a closed door jam session. I doesn't matter how great the material was, or how ephemeral a live performance can be. If there is no audience, there is only self indulgence.
I'm sorry, the guy who whined to me about how I should 'just play for fun' is now whining that I'm being self indulgent? Just having fun is self indulgent too. Yeah, collectively what we're doing is self indulgent. What's your point? We don't exist as entertainers for you. Bystanders might be, and that's fine, but you're not why we're doing it. how is it less self indulgent than what you're doing, where you indulge in your own sense of fun? Besides, a closed door jam session is still art.

Put in a way you might understand, we're doing it for our own fun. Our fun is sometimes in making art. And sometimes it isn't.


And exactly who is the audience involved in reinterpreting your choice through the filter of their own perspectives?
There is none. Meaning doesn't require an audience. See: Dickinson, Van Gogh (apparently).


Because reading PbP forums when you're not involved in the game is usually a painful experience. Sure, if you're in the thick of things as they unfold, it can be a powerful experience. But to an outside observer, it's usually nothing more than gibberish.
It's not for you.


As for angsting about character choices, I've done it myself. It takes me about a month of turning over ideas for a character before I even settle on things like race or class, let alone where to allocate whatever resources the game uses to build characters. The thing I hate most is to be told "We're playing X tonight. Make a character by 7 so we can start."
You've sailed under the point quite expertly.

It's not about the angst. It's about the care chosen to convey meaning. That care is indicative that what is being worked on is art.


Ever feel like you're the only one marching out of step?
No. I feel bad for the guy, but that's not why I play RPGs. It literally never was.

Besides, aren't RPGs all about pretense?
Not in that definition, no.


While correct, availability of products is something fairly important. I mean, I've bought 7th Sea books off Amazon recently, and it's a bit of a niche thing(Magical Historical Pirates), and it's also been out of print for about a decade now. It's a good game though, so it's remained popular among the people who like such things, and thus, available, even if a few books are expensive due to demand.
WotG was expensive due to supply/demand which, as you say is fine.

The others *ARE* available. Just not through amazon. If he wanted to make an attempt to actually acquire it, 2 seconds on google would have produced...

http://www.burningempires.com/store/

http://faterpg.com/dl/FATE2fe.pdf

But he didn't want to seriously check their availability. He wanted to assert that they weren't popular (and therefore were bad) because he couldn't find them on amazon (Except for the one he could, which he dismissed anyway. Because you know, after 6 years every RPG is still in print, especially w hen the company in question doesn't live by producing 40 books for each game).


Now, this isn't true for everything...
I've never seen a game that specifically set out to make it true. Quite the opposite. I generally see folks in RPG companies say "Don't do this, include the players, it's their plot too".

Now, most DMs probably screw that up. But most DMs seem to run DnD as an uninteresting plotless dungeon crawl. Doesn't mean the DMG explicitly tells folks to do it over player objections. It just means sturgeon's law is one of the hardest metaphysical workers on the planet. You can't blame the tools for the crafter's error.

dsmiles
2011-06-19, 12:43 PM
What was that argument about, again? Just let it go, guys, before it turns into a flame war, and somebody starts reporting posts. People shouldn't bash other peoples' gaming styles. There is no one, true way. Unless that way is: Having Fun. It doesn't really matter how you do it, as long as everyone is doing it, you're doing it right.

There really is no unifying thread that ties all gamers together, except that we all like to game. We all do it for different reasons. One of my players likes the tactical wargame aspect of DnD, another loves to roleplay his character, another does it because her husband does, another does it for the same reason I do, social interaction with friends we normally wouldn't get to see that often.

What ties us together? We all like to game.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-19, 01:06 PM
What was that argument about, again? Just let it go, guys, before it turns into a flame war, and somebody starts reporting posts. People shouldn't bash other peoples' gaming styles. There is no one, true way. Unless that way is: Having Fun. It doesn't really matter how you do it, as long as everyone is doing it, you're doing it right.
I know. I am trying to point out that this is the case. And he keeps bashing my style. I'm not trying to assert superiority in method. It's a waste of time. All that matters to me is that the style I'm in jives with my friends'.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-19, 02:05 PM
What was that argument about, again? Just let it go, guys, before it turns into a flame war, and somebody starts reporting posts. People shouldn't bash other peoples' gaming styles. There is no one, true way. Unless that way is: Having Fun. It doesn't really matter how you do it, as long as everyone is doing it, you're doing it right.

Some people have a certain way of thinking that compels them to get involved in other people's affairs. It might be with the best of intentions, but they're still convinced that it would be better for everyone if everyone did X. This is assuming, indeed, that they have the best of intentions and that they really believe that everyone else is just not playing right, that they could be having so much more fun if they just did X. Another interpretation is that they're jealous and/or angry that their way of thinking is not as prevalent as they believe it should be. It doesn't matter. The end result is the same. They have an agenda, and they will pursue it with tenacious determination. Almost admirable, really.

As an aside, I would intervene, but RPGuru is doing a fine job on his own. Kudos to you, good sir, and keep on rockin'.

Sillycomic
2011-06-19, 04:09 PM
I'm don't really want to get into the debate of what sort of role playing is right or wrong, but I would like to address role playing as art.

I think Big Dice is right on that part. Role playing can be considered a lot of things, but it should not be considered art.

While there can be a lot of artistic styles and integrity that come into role playing, everything from choosing the right sort of name to acting out interactions with other NPC's in the campaign world, that alone doesn't make the media an artform.

The definition of art is hard to pin down. Even the best of artists and philosophers haven't been able to do it yet, but the general consensus is that in order for something to be art, it requires 2 things.

1. The object (or craft or skill) must evoke some sort of emotional response.

2. An audience to have and share that emotional response.

Without the audience it isn't art.

I see that one question raised would be, since Emily Dickinson wrote her poetry without an audience in mind, why are her poems considered art?

My response to that would be, when her poems were up in the attic and no one had read them but herself, were the poems still considered art? No. Because no one had read them and had some emotional response to them.

If I told you there was an amazing artistic poem in my attic, but you couldn't see it because I didn't write it for you, is that considered art? No. Unless you perceive it and unless it creates some response in you, it's not art at all.

Dickinson's poems became so popular because the audience that got to see them and love them and pass them down to others. We wouldn't be having this conversation if Emily Dickinson's poems were still bundled away in some random room.

Any sort of street performance still has an audience. In fact, that's half the point of street performances, the surprise audience that is getting to see some beautiful craft that the performers created. People out in public become a surprise audience, receiving art on their way to Starbucks is a beautiful thing.

If anything I would say that roleplaing is actually Anti-art. Instead of trying to evoke an emotional response in others, the point of role playing is to evoke some sort of emotional response in yourself. You have created and invested in a character (or in a GM's case, a world/setting/clan of bad guys) and you emotionally respond depending on the good and bad things that happen to this fictitious character of yours.

There are artistic choices that go with role playing, elements of acting and writing, but again those are meant mostly for you. It is helping to create an inclusive world where you are able to evoke the best emotional response for yourself.

But, role playing can inspire actual art.

Numerous stories, pictures, even movies have stemmed from the creative process of role playing in a campaign. These can be considered art because they do break down that artistic emotion from self... to audience. Once a creator goes, "This is such a cool idea, I need to share it with others," he uses the creative process from working inward to sharing that response with others.

So, at best role playing is a muse of actual artistic expression in people, but I would never argue the media itself is art.

Artistic, yes, but not art itself.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-19, 04:23 PM
What consensus, where? Seriously, Sauce? I have never heard such a concern insisted upon until this thread. It's possible I'm merely missing out from the opinions of artists, but I usually see folks discuss the genius and skill of the artist as the one thing that counts. Their art may go to waste without being viewed by others, but it's just not part of a definition I've seen elsewhere. A cursory glance through wikipedia would seem to agree with me. While you may be right that a consensus feels this way, a source for this empirical claim would be greatly appreciated.


So...the other player's aren't there possibly having an emotional response to your roleplaying? (Not to start any arguments, but if there are other people around, they aren't considered an audience?)
Put bluntly, although this is a valid point I could make, it would be intellectually dishonest of me to do so. I don't consider art dependent on an audience. Therefore, even if I considered the other roleplayers the audience, rather than my peers and compatriots in the act, the argument would be a cheap attempt to be right, rather than a reasoned argument towards my position (Which isn't just that roleplaying is art). If you think art requires an audience, but still feel roleplaying is an art, that is a completely valid point for you to make.

dsmiles
2011-06-19, 04:23 PM
So...the other player's aren't there possibly having an emotional response to your roleplaying? (Not to start any arguments, but if there are other people around, they aren't considered an audience?)

Poison_Fish
2011-06-19, 05:24 PM
Exactly how is roleplaying art? There's no audience past the participants, so it's not a performance art in the same way that a private jam session is not performance art. There's no lasting creation to share with others. There's no reinterpretation of the creator's intent in the mind of the observer.

I'm jumping in here just to respond to this. You are claiming (I was going to say constructing, but you actually fail to provide any sort of construction so far) roleplaying as only performance art, and then stating it isn't art because it does not have passive observers. I do hope you see what is wrong there.

I'd like to echo dsmiles sentiment. It seems to me that those who believe roleplaying isn't art is due to the simple lack of an audience. I question what you define as an audience, as the only interpretation I can come up to support your statement is one where the audience must play passive in all respects save for simply observation. So I ask you this, to be an audience for art, must you have no agency within the art itself? Or am I interpreting your message wrong here, because what I've stated above truly seems like a strawman argument.

Sillycomic
2011-06-19, 10:05 PM
Really?

Hmm. Well, I will grab a bunch of random quotes off of the Wiki page for you if that helps.


Britannica Online defines art as "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others."



Fine art means that a skill is being used to express the artist's creativity, or to engage the audience's aesthetic sensibilities, or to draw the audience towards consideration of the finer things


The nature of art has been described by Wollheim as "one of the most elusive of the traditional problems of human culture".[3] It has been defined as a vehicle for the expression or communication of emotions and ideas, a means for exploring and appreciating formal elements for their own sake.


Martin Heidegger has interpreted art as the means by which a community develops for itself a medium for self-expression and interpretation.[7]


"[Art is a set of] artefacts or images with symbolic meanings as a means of communication." -Steve Mithen


Art may seek to bring about a particular emotion or mood, for the purpose of relaxing or entertaining the viewer.


Art for social inquiry, subversion and/or anarchy. While similar to art for political change, subversive or deconstructivist art may seek to question aspects of society without any specific political goal. In this case, the function of art may be simply to criticize some aspect of society.


Art is often utilized as a form of propaganda, and thus can be used to subtly influence popular conceptions or mood


I could go on. This is just quoting from various references in the Art Wiki page. I suppose I could pull out my Philosophy as Art college book and start quoting from there as well. But it is late Sunday and I would much rather watch Netflix this evening.

While, I do agree with you not every philosopher or artist believes that art needs an audience* it does seem to be the general consensus of most artists and philosophers. Art needs to provoke emotion in an audience for it to be considered art. Who the audience is and what that emotion should be is more or less up to debate of the philosophers/artists/critics and whatnot.


*Philosopher Richard Wollheim believes there are 3 ways to view art, one of them is void of an audience, the second is void of an artist and the third is encompassing artist, audience and society in which the art was created



While you may be right that a consensus feels this way, a source for this empirical claim would be greatly appreciated.

There is no empirical claim. I never said there was. I just said it's the general consensus of artists/critics and philosophers. If anyone ever tells you they have the empirical definition of art, you have my permission to hit them upside the head.



So I ask you this, to be an audience for art, must you have no agency within the art itself?

Pretty much. If you create a fun and artistic character and you play him in an artistic way, you might want to say, "Well the GM and the rest of the players are enjoying my role playing, therefor I have an audience and it is art."

The problem with this is, the GM and the other players are creating with you. They are actively part of the game just as you are. An audience must be a separate agent.

If... however, you do open up your garage sessions to participating audiences or perhaps throw sessions up on podcast or Youtube than I can see how you could argue this as being art. And, at that point I would realize that we're wading way too far into something that even the best of modern philosophical minds have never really answered, so I doubt I could do it in one afternoon on the internetz.

Poison_Fish
2011-06-19, 10:25 PM
Pretty much. If you create a fun and artistic character and you play him in an artistic way, you might want to say, "Well the GM and the rest of the players are enjoying my role playing, therefor I have an audience and it is art."

The problem with this is, the GM and the other players are creating with you. They are actively part of the game just as you are. An audience must be a separate agent.

If... however, you do open up your garage sessions to participating audiences or perhaps throw sessions up on podcast or Youtube than I can see how you could argue this as being art. And, at that point I would realize that we're wading way too far into something that even the best of modern philosophical minds have never really answered, so I doubt I could do it in one afternoon on the internetz.

And why must they be separate agents? You've given no reason for this beyond "well, others in the group are creators as well, so that somehow means it can't be art". I'd further say, the 'best modern philosophical minds' can't even agree on what art is, but that functions as a convenient cop out in the first place. So where is it that your dictation on audience non-agency is a fact of art? You can't just claim roleplaying is non-art with the audience argument, or else you invalidate numerous plays that involve audience participation, active improvisational meet ups, etc. I suggest you undergo some operationalization before attempting to cover your argument with cherry picking terms and assumed meaning.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-19, 10:30 PM
Britannica Online defines art as "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others."
Can be. Not is. Can be. Roleplaying COULD be shared with an audience.


Fine art means that a skill is being used to express the artist's creativity, or to engage the audience's aesthetic sensibilities, or to draw the audience towards consideration of the finer things
'Nuff said.


The nature of art has been described by Wollheim as "one of the most elusive of the traditional problems of human culture".[3] It has been defined as a vehicle for the expression or communication of emotions and ideas, a means for exploring and appreciating formal elements for their own sake.
'Nuff said.


Martin Heidegger has interpreted art as the means by which a community develops for itself a medium for self-expression and interpretation.[7]
Ambiguous at best.


"[Art is a set of] artefacts or images with symbolic meanings as a means of communication." -Steve Mithen
Nothing in this quote seperates or defines art as seperate from communication, from the perspective of symbology. All communication is art? Then even the communication between compatriots (IE no audience members) is itself an art. So roleplaying is STILL art, and art STILL needs no audience.


Art may seek to bring about a particular emotion or mood, for the purpose of relaxing or entertaining the viewer.
'Nuff said.


Art for social inquiry, subversion and/or anarchy. While similar to art for political change, subversive or deconstructivist art may seek to question aspects of society without any specific political goal. In this case, the function of art may be simply to criticize some aspect of society.
*Facepalms* You had political change right in front of you. That would actually have advanced your argument. It is a purpose of art that does legitimately require an audience. None of this requires an audience.


Art is often utilized as a form of propaganda, and thus can be used to subtly influence popular conceptions or mood
So, it can be done. Agreed. Doesn't mean it must be to be art.


I could go on. This is just quoting from various references in the Art Wiki page. I suppose I could pull out my Philosophy as Art college book and start quoting from there as well. But it is late Sunday and I would much rather watch Netflix this evening.
Oh, so you have a single textbook. I suppose that would be evidence of consensus, in that it isn't.


There is no empirical claim. I never said there was. I just said it's the general consensus of artists/critics and philosophers. If anyone ever tells you they have the empirical definition of art, you have my permission to hit them upside the head.
Claiming consensus is itself an empirical claim. If you feel that certain, you should have a source that seriously backs it up and would be trivial to find.

Sillycomic
2011-06-19, 11:18 PM
Most of your counter arguments actually do make sense. No one can say what art is, so most of my quotes are from people who say what art can be, or may be, rather than what it is.

My point still remains valid though. They all believe the best way to define art is by saying there is an audience.

All of your counter arguments are to them and how they defined their concepts. If you want to counter how they define art that's fine, but that doesn't dismiss my original claim.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-19, 11:33 PM
My point still remains valid though. They all believe the best way to define art is by saying there is an audience.
No, they don't. That was the point of most of my counter arguments. They're not saying that. You're misappropriating their words. You're declaring what they all say without any support from them in the matter.

You haven't produced any but one quote that may even remotely be taken as agreeing with your claim. That isn't actually evidence that 'everyone' says any one thing about art, let alone that they all say what you say.

Sillycomic
2011-06-19, 11:53 PM
Well, I believe most of the quotes say that an audience is needed. If you feel they leave enough wiggle room to get out of saying an audience is absolute, then I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

Ravens_cry
2011-06-20, 02:26 AM
I need to get better at story. I enjoy world building, making little details that add that special something, but I suck at actually finding a narrative to tell in these worlds I craft with words.

Xanmyral
2011-06-20, 04:49 AM
I suppose I'm more setting then story, but that doesn't mean I'm terrible at stories. I like to build worlds, and write about stuff so that's, aside from video games and random goofing off, is what I usually do in my spare time. With story, I'm more inclined to has a thin, breakable skeleton outline, so I can shift and rewrite it to suit the players. While I may write something that is interesting story wise, I would probably wait until it become relevant to actually include it, if it even comes up at all. If not, just tuck it away for later. Chances are though, they will probably stockpile up, with only one or two being used every now and then.

Yora
2011-06-20, 04:57 AM
I come up with a setting with certain story concepts in mind. A setting that is not tailored to certain types of stories most likely turns into kitchen sink setting that is not really sure what PCs should do once the game starts.
Instead I think of a couple of kinds of stories I'd like to play and then create the setting in a way that it has already a couple of roles the players can take up.

The Big Dice
2011-06-20, 06:49 AM
No, they don't. That was the point of most of my counter arguments. They're not saying that. You're misappropriating their words. You're declaring what they all say without any support from them in the matter.

You haven't produced any but one quote that may even remotely be taken as agreeing with your claim. That isn't actually evidence that 'everyone' says any one thing about art, let alone that they all say what you say.

See, here's the problem. You're not debating or discussing. You're just shooting down other people with no opposing point of view. Well, no point of view other than to shoot them down. All seemingly just for the sake of shouting them down.

You don't like the idea that roleplaying games are a poor medium for storytelling and that it's time to look for a new, more inclusive and less elitist paradigm on roleplaying, that's your prerogative. But coming up with a reason why there's no point in doing that would be much more constructive than doing the internet equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and simply shouting.

On the is roleplaying art or not question, you don't give an answer one way or the other. Again, you just shoot down someone who expresses an opinion and supports their position. As it happens, I agree with Sillycomic, that while roleplaying games encourage certain types of artistic activity and encourage creativity, they are no more art than me getting together with some friends to play some music in my garage.

Unfortunately you're just coming across like the guy in the bow tie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLEV2cXagNg). Surely a rational exchange of viewpoints is better than simply shouting the other guy down.

Terraoblivion
2011-06-20, 09:16 AM
Excuse me if I ask, but at what point has RPGuru made an elitist statement? From what I can tell having read this thread, he isn't the one telling others that their way of playing is inherently wrong. He hasn't even mocked the favorite punching bag of elitist gamers, dungeon crawling. You on the other solely based on his stated preference in games he personally play have gone on to extrapolate that he's an elitist who looks down on everyone else, even when he's said that he wants others to play whatever they prefer. So unless a mere preference for narrative as part of your personal enjoyment is elitist, and then you'd how to explain how that is, then he has done nothing of the sort and you're the one telling him how he ought to be enjoying himself, not the opposite.

To me it just seems like you have a sore spot and are blaming everyone who likes stories for your own personal experiences, even if they might not actually apply. Storyfocused games can work, I have been a player in plenty that worked absolutely excellently, without forcing anybody to go along with something they didn't feel comfortable about or wanted to do. I can gather the players from several of those games too for them to voice their agreement with me should you feel the need for further proof. This is not to say that you can't do it wrong and hurt the enjoyment of the players in the process, just that it is not a law. Similarly, elitist sentiments for it are certainly possible, early White Wolf was quite guilty of it though in general they have mellowed out since then. However, it is hard to make the logical connection from that to all people who like story being elitists. For one thing you just need one counterexample to prove that is not the case, for another it's inductive reasoning based on a very small sample size, so it isn't even good for a general estimate.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-20, 09:34 AM
See, here's the problem. You're not debating or discussing. You're just shooting down other people with no opposing point of view. Well, no point of view other than to shoot them down. All seemingly just for the sake of shouting them down.
I pointed out that you had not actually explained the commonality you claim is so obvious, that it was indeed not obvious to me (at least; possibly others too, since nobody else is explaining and/or mocking me for not seeing this obviousness), and after this, invited you to explain, pointing out it would do your argument loads of good. If that's "just shooting people down" then, yes, guilty as charged.


You don't like the idea that roleplaying games are a poor medium for storytelling
I dislike a lot of ideas. It's usually because they're wrong. You're asserting reality rather than supporting your case again.


But coming up with a reason why there's no point in doing that would be much more constructive than doing the internet equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and simply shouting.
Okay; the premise (Roleplaying is bad for storytelling) you are basing your conclusion (and we must therefore search for new ways to play) on is in factual error. As it is wrong, I have no motive to assist you. You are, of course, free to search out a new thing anyway. If it's interesting to me, I may use it. If it's not, you can still have fun with it.


On the is roleplaying art or not question, you don't give an answer one way or the other
Um, yes, yes I did. Long, loud, and repeatedly, actually. It's art, without qualifiers. All creative expression is art, roleplaying is almost entirely about creative expression. Therefore, roleplaying is art. I've been arguing in favor of my position in more than half of the posts on the matter, and the other half are sillycomic's assertions being challenged.

Look, it's right here, see?


I don't consider art dependent on an audience. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11241905&postcount=53)

I'll certainly grant that nobody will hear the truths your work speaks to without an audience. It doesn't make a difference. It's art. The audience's interpretations might themselves be their own art, come to think of it, as they may be creative expression. This requires ponderance. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11240711&postcount=48)


If you set out to evoke emotion or speak to a higher truth through creative expression, you've made art. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11235039&postcount=42)


FTR, roleplaying can be art. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11231507&postcount=39)

This whole conversation STARTED because I stated my position outright, and you claim I 'don't have an answer'? How does that even work?

Really, I don't care if you think I'm like the guy in the bowtie. The amount of concern I can have for your perception of me is dwindling rapidly as you make this kind of statement.

kamikasei
2011-06-20, 09:52 AM
See, here's the problem. You're not debating or discussing. You're just shooting down other people with no opposing point of view. Well, no point of view other than to shoot them down. All seemingly just for the sake of shouting them down.
Hold on. This is simply nonsense.

If you make a claim or advance a position, it's entirely legitimate for others to point out that your claim is unsupported or your position is untenable. They don't have to construct competing positions to do it. If you say stuff that doesn't hold up, expect it to be torn down.

Leaving aside the conflation of "shooting down" with "shouting down" in case that's just a typo, there is nothing wrong with shooting down arguments if they can be shot down. It's not somehow "not debate or discussion" to point out the flaws in your arguments. Your post just comes off as asking to be let make whatever claims you want without having to support them.

dsmiles
2011-06-20, 09:54 AM
~snip~
I may not agree with all of your points, but I do agree that not all Story-Based-GMs are elitists (though there are some out there, along with some Setting-Based-GM elitists), and the fact that roleplaying can be art. Though I disagree about not needing qualifiers. IME, some gamers do not roleplay. They just come to roll dice and not pay attention when it's not their turn. That's not art, IMO.

Yukitsu
2011-06-20, 02:45 PM
I'm more a setting DM. I make the world, the players write their story in it. I pretty much view your average DM as a poor story teller, or at least, I wouldn't read their novel with much interest if they made one.

Poison_Fish
2011-06-20, 02:52 PM
I may not agree with all of your points, but I do agree that not all Story-Based-GMs are elitists (though there are some out there, along with some Setting-Based-GM elitists), and the fact that roleplaying can be art. Though I disagree about not needing qualifiers. IME, some gamers do not roleplay. They just come to roll dice and not pay attention when it's not their turn. That's not art, IMO.

I'd point out the whole "roll-playing vs. roleplaying" discourse that has existed since time eternal.

Anyhow, It'd be quite nice if Sillycomic or Dice could answer for why they still insist roleplaying isn't art based on a claim that's on pretty shaky ground to begin with in that audiences can't be agents in art (Which is demonstrably false if you look to many plays, etc.). Or are you two wanting to drop that argument? I'd suggest so or at least adjusting your parameters. It's not really a valid statement as it is.

Sillycomic
2011-06-20, 03:13 PM
I'm not dropping or adjusting my argument. It still stands, and in my opinion I made my point very well with some evidence of opinion and quotes to back it up.

The only way I could further prove my point would involve way too much research. I mean, we're all just voicing our opinions here, I feel like one side saying, "My opinion is better because your opinion doesn't have enough facts to sway me," isn't really enough of a push for me to go and do more research.

If I haven't proved my point to you, then I'm fine with you disagreeing with me.

Poison_Fish
2011-06-20, 03:22 PM
I'm not dropping or adjusting my argument. It still stands, and in my opinion I made my point very well with some evidence of opinion and quotes to back it up.

The only way I could further prove my point would involve way too much research. I mean, we're all just voicing our opinions here, I feel like one side saying, "My opinion is better because your opinion doesn't have enough facts to sway me," isn't really enough of a push for me to go and do more research.

If I haven't proved my point to you, then I'm fine with you disagreeing with me.

You actually haven't provided anything about audience agency and art other then "Nu uh", so no, you really don't have a point. It can be fine if it's just an opinion, but you have literally nothing backing the argument. As I said, it's not a valid argument, because you have provided merely a claim without anything and are taking it as a fact.

Edit: And as I said earlier, by your statements you invalidate audience participation in plays as a form of art, along with public art because you seem to believe an audience must be a passive actor in all cases. If this not what you mean, then you need to adjust why you think Roleplaying isn't art based purely on audience.

Further edit: I think you may be confused over what I was saying and what RPGguru was saying.

Sillycomic
2011-06-20, 03:35 PM
Oh, I see your problem.

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audience

If an audience stops spectating and actually contributes to the work of art, they are no longer an audience and become actual participants in the artwork itself (such as the GM and other people playing characters in the game)

Aside from clapping or other venues of criticism, (which is itself the spectator commenting on the art, not participating in it) the audience is passive.

So, all of my arguments to prove that art needs an audience is based on the common definition of audience as spectator.

I'm sorry, I thought we were going with this definition of audience, so I didn't feel a need to comment further on it.

Poison_Fish
2011-06-20, 03:40 PM
Oh, I see your problem.

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audience

If an audience stops spectating and actually contributes to the work of art, they are no longer an audience and become actual participants in the artwork itself (such as the GM and other people playing characters in the game)

Aside from clapping or other venues of criticism, (which is itself the spectator commenting on the art, not participating in it) the audience is passive.

So, all of my arguments to prove that art needs an audience is based on the common definition of audience as spectator.

I'm sorry, I thought we were going with this definition of audience, so I didn't feel a need to comment further on it.

You do know that doesn't actually provide for an audience being a passive player, nor does it say that an audience that contributes to the art invalidates them from being the audience. Audience participation is still art, public art is still the audience contributing to the art.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-20, 03:43 PM
I'm sorry, I thought we were going with this definition of audience, so I didn't feel a need to comment further on it.

Question: What happens when an artist creates art that he actively does not want an audience to ever perceive? What if he is a being of such jealous selfishness that he creates solely for himself, so that only he can enjoy his own work? Is that not art, because there is no "audience"? And if it is art, then where's the audience? And if the artist is the audience... then isn't that what Poison_Fish has been saying all along?

Sillycomic
2011-06-20, 04:14 PM
Really? The Wiki link seems pretty clear to me what an audience is versus what it isn't.

Everything in there shows me an audience is a passive participant. I'm not sure where you get it says that the audience is part of the artwork itself.

The audience participates in the art, but this participation is merely clapping or other forms of commenting on the artwork itself.

If you have a better source of how you feel audience should be defined, please feel free to submit it. Cause, right now I can say the same thing about your argument as you said about mine.

You are just going "Nuh huh" without providing any fact against your claim.

Oh, but you do address public art.

This public art?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_art

I don't see how that deters my argument. Just because the art is done outside doesn't make the audience any more or less passive than if it were done inside a theatre or art gallery.




What happens when an artist creates art that he actively does not want an audience to ever perceive?

Then it's not art. Actively stopping an audience from perceiving something that you find artistic is your choice, but it can never be considered art by anyone but yourself.

How can anyone else consider it art if they don't even see it or experience it?

If you want to say, "I roleplay, and I think what I do is art," That is fine. You're allowed to do that because that is your opinion.

But by saying, "I roleplay and roleplaying is art," You have to purposely prove that the art is providing an emotional experience. If no one else is able to see the work except people participating in it, no one else is able to provide that emotional experience.

So, then art just becomes what you tell me it is.

"I had an emotional response from my own role playing, so it is art. You can't dismiss it, because I said so, and I know what art is... because I do it."

Without me (an audience) ever experiencing that for myself, I can never claim if it is art or not. I either have to take your word for it, or dismiss it until you are able to provide a way for people to experience your art and decide for themselves.

Terraoblivion
2011-06-20, 04:18 PM
An audience is a group of people who participate in a show or encounter a work of art, literature (in which they are called the "reader"), theatre, music or academics in any medium. Audience members participate in different ways in different kinds of art; some events invite overt audience participation and others allowing only modest clapping and criticism and reception.

Notice the bolded part in the very first paragraph of the wikipedia article you linked. It does make room for active audience participation, it isn't just silent about it, but rather explicitly states that it happens. It's kinda hard to get around that.

The article also goes ahead to discuss various form of theoretical, implied and imagined audiences, including the creator themselves. This seems to imply that at least according to the writer of the article, audiences aren't just a number of physical people sitting down and paying attention, but rather than abstract concept that is simply most often manifest that way. Also, by allowing for the creator themselves to be an audience, it means that art can be created without anybody else witnessing it and still be art per your demand for an audience, as there would be according to this.

Sillycomic
2011-06-20, 04:25 PM
True, but my only response to that would be to see what kind of overt audience participation is part of the artwork itself.

They go on to say that overt audience participation is something like Rocky Horror Picture Show, people dressing up and throwing random props at the screen at appropriate times.

While that is more overt than merely clapping or booing during certain times in the movie, it's far from the audience creating alongside the actors, director, writers and the like.

Edit: I would argue against the audience as self. That seems to only imply, as the wiki article says, to rhetoric or times of persuasion within yourself. It in no way alludes to any sort of art form that is being presented to self.

Now, if you want to go so far as to say role playing is art because on some level there is an imagined audience watching, I would say there is a valid point in that, and it could be discussed further.


Ironically, if you do create a work of art in your basement and tell everyone it's a work of art but they can never see it... I would call that in itself art.

Not the thing in your basement, but telling people about it. Because telling them about it would be communicating and they would use their imagination on what it is that is in your basement that you must think is art.

You are creating art by sharing the story that there is art in your basement because it invokes an emotional response and does have an audience.

I find that amusing. By telling people they can not see your art, you are creating a random piece of art in and of itself.

The Big Dice
2011-06-20, 04:44 PM
I pointed out that you had not actually explained the commonality you claim is so obvious, that it was indeed not obvious to me (at least; possibly others too, since nobody else is explaining and/or mocking me for not seeing this obviousness), and after this, invited you to explain, pointing out it would do your argument loads of good. If that's "just shooting people down" then, yes, guilty as charged.
Let me put this in simple terms. We are all playing the same kind of games. There's your commonality right there. From the most basic of dungeon bashes to the most sophisticated tapestry of intent and subtle shows of hidden depth, they are all the same style of games.

If you don't like that or want to build bridges based on that, then there's really nothing more to say to you.


I dislike a lot of ideas. It's usually because they're wrong. You're asserting reality rather than supporting your case again.
You haven't built any sort of a case as to why roleplaying games are a good medium for telling stories. I maintain that protagonists that can (and often do) act in such a way as to go off plan several times per session, combined with difficulties with things like introducing antagonists at such a time as they aren't going to be attacked immediately make for problem. Add in the problems with narrative structures and inevitable arguments about railroading and you have a less than ideal medium for telling stories.

Other than the "I like it" answer, what exactly about RPGs makes them good for telling stories?

Okay; the premise (Roleplaying is bad for storytelling) you are basing your conclusion (and we must therefore search for new ways to play) on is in factual error. As it is wrong, I have no motive to assist you. You are, of course, free to search out a new thing anyway. If it's interesting to me, I may use it. If it's not, you can still have fun with it.
Not new ways to play. People didn't change how they played when White Wolf got all pompous about acting troupes and calling a campaign a chronicle. New was to look at playing is what I'm talking about. When Vampire: the Masquerade went big, gamers at my (late lamented) FLGS started doing things like dressing like their characters and talking in slightly different terms about their characters. Like, angsting about how they had to rip into a crowd of mortals to get that one, or wondering if ripping that cop's head off because he pulled a gun was a bad idea or not.

Of course, this was nothing new. Cyberpunk players had been doing it for a couple of years, but they didn't get the magazine space that White Wolf was getting at the time.

In other words, people played in the same ways, but they thought about things in slightly different terms. And that was 20 years ago. To put that into perspective, roleplaying as a hobby wasn't 20 years old when that paradigm shift happened. But since then, the hobby has steadily become more and more divided between those who think story is the be all and end all, and those who don't.

So I ask again, why is it not a good time to look beyond established boundaries? What is there to be afraid of? At worst, it's a futile intellectual exercise.


Notice the bolded part in the very first paragraph of the wikipedia article you linked. It does make room for active audience participation, it isn't just silent about it, but rather explicitly states that it happens. It's kinda hard to get around that.
Pantomime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantomime) wouldn't be the same without audience participation. Of course, there's very few people who would call it art, but that's a different story for another time.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-20, 04:48 PM
Then it's not art. Actively stopping an audience from perceiving something that you find artistic is your choice, but it can never be considered art by anyone but yourself.

How can anyone else consider it art if they don't even see it or experience it?

So Emily Dickinson's works are not art? If a talented painter spends his life secluded and painting without wanting any other audience but himself, he dies and his paintings are discovered later on, they stop being art? Or do they suddenly become art when another person lays eyes upon them? What matters, the artist's intentions or whether or not another human being besides the artist experiences the work? Where is the line drawn, exactly?


If you want to say, "I roleplay, and I think what I do is art," That is fine. You're allowed to do that because that is your opinion.

But by saying, "I roleplay and roleplaying is art," You have to purposely prove that the art is providing an emotional experience. If no one else is able to see the work except people participating in it, no one else is able to provide that emotional experience.

So, then art just becomes what you tell me it is.

I was under the impression that it was extremely hard to pinpoint what art is, which is why there are entire courses, classes and schools of thought dedicated to making such a determination. If the answer was so simple, those people would ostensibly find something better to do with their lives, rather than arguing about something that is so clearly obvious. After all, you don't see entire schools of thought debating on what gravity, sodium or Escherichia coli are, do you?


"I had an emotional response from my own role playing, so it is art. You can't dismiss it, because I said so, and I know what art is... because I do it."

Without me (an audience) ever experiencing that for myself, I can never claim if it is art or not. I either have to take your word for it, or dismiss it until you are able to provide a way for people to experience your art and decide for themselves.

So, again, a painting, a sculpture, a theatre play or a song are not art unless someone experiences them?

The Big Dice
2011-06-20, 04:55 PM
So Emily Dickinson's works are not art? If a talented painter spends his life secluded and painting without wanting any other audience but himself, he dies and his paintings are discovered later on, they stop being art? Or do they suddenly become art when another person lays eyes upon them? What matters, the artist's intentions or whether or not another human being besides the artist experiences the work? Where is the line drawn, exactly?
I would say, if there's no audience other than the participants and the moment can't be shared in any meaningful way, it's not art.

I keep coming back to the jam session analogy, because it is the perfect fit. The people taking part might be artists of the highest calibre. BUt if the moment is gone and there's nobody other than the people participating to experience it, there's no art. Just jamming.

Sillycomic
2011-06-20, 05:14 PM
So Emily Dickinson's works are not art?

It wasn't until it was published and the world got to take a look at them. You claiming Emily Dickinson's poems were art before you got to read them?

Are you just going by general consensus they are art?

How could anyone claim anything is art without ever having experienced it? That's my biggest concern honestly.

The go to example in this scenario always seems to be, "Well, what about an amazing piece of art in someone's basement that no one is ever able to see."

I just can't get behind a theory that, in some random basement there is a pile of poems and I'm just supposed to say they are art because someone else is telling me they are.

Unless I'm able to view the piece in question, I can't say it's art.

This isn't to say I'm the be all and end all of art critic, but I think it goes along with the true definition of art. Art is something that provides an emotional response.

If you are never able to experience it, how are you ever able to have an emotional response with it? Then how can you ever say it's art... unless you just agree when someone else tells you that it is?


Or do they suddenly become art when another person lays eyes upon them?

Yes, precisely. Or, more specifically they become art when someone sees them and gets an emotional response from them. Because art isn't the physical object, it's the emotional response that object gives you. The actual poem or painting isn't as important as the emotional response itself. That is what art truly is.

Art isn't a poem. Art is the emotional response you get to the poem. So, unless you're able to see the poem you can never tell if that poem is art or not.


So, again, a painting, a sculpture, a theatre play or a song are not art unless someone experiences them?

Again, I say yes. Without someone experiencing the emotional response from the craft, it is not art.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-20, 05:44 PM
I would say, if there's no audience other than the participants and the moment can't be shared in any meaningful way, it's not art.

I keep coming back to the jam session analogy, because it is the perfect fit. The people taking part might be artists of the highest calibre. BUt if the moment is gone and there's nobody other than the people participating to experience it, there's no art. Just jamming.

Why? Who says that? Who deems it so? Is there some official ruling amongst art experts that I'm unaware of? Because last I checked, "What is art?" was actually a hotly debated question.


It wasn't until it was published and the world got to take a look at them. You claiming Emily Dickinson's poems were art before you got to read them?

I'm claiming that it's not possible to tell that they're not art.

My stance is not "A is X." My stance is "A might or might not be X." There's a difference.


Are you just going by general consensus they are art?

Yes. Because I'm not an art expert, or even an aficionado, and I refuse to presume to know more than the people who deem it art.


How could anyone claim anything is art without ever having experienced it? That's my biggest concern honestly.

Um... because the artist experiences it? And because nothing disqualifies him from being artist and audience simultaneously? Because, objectively, he is no different from any other random human who regards the same piece of art? And therefore there's no tangible quality that impedes him from appreciating art just like any other person?

What if the aforementioned selfish artist suffers brain damage from a car accident and he has no memory of having produced any of his art? When he regards the pieces of art he produced, do they become art then? Or does the universe still remember that he was the artist and therefore deems that "not art" despite the fact that the only thing that separated him from any other human (his intimate knowledge of the piece of art he created) is now gone?


The go to example in this scenario always seems to be, "Well, what about an amazing piece of art in someone's basement that no one is ever able to see."

I just can't get behind a theory that, in some random basement there is a pile of poems and I'm just supposed to say they are art because someone else is telling me they are.

Unless I'm able to view the piece in question, I can't say it's art.

But you are aware that things are deemed art via consensus, right? Like the fact that some video games have been deemed "art" recently in the United States by the government? And that there's a movement in the video game industry to get video games recognised as an art form, like cinema and literature?

And that you need consensus to determine the difference between a pop singer and a classical music composer, and whether the former is just as much of an artist as the latter, and whether or not someone whistling a made-up tune has just created art or not?

It's not clear-cut. Seriously, you can't just point your finger and say "that's art. That's not art." It doesn't work like that.


This isn't to say I'm the be all and end all of art critic, but I think it goes along with the true definition of art. Art itself is so hard to define and pin down that the best way to describe it is just, "I don't know what's art, but I know what I like."

If you are never able to experience it, how are you ever able to definitely say anything is art?

"True definition of art." Are you aware that it's debated if such a thing even exists?

I am able to say that something is or is not art based on the consensus of people who have dedicated their lives to the study of such a subject. I have my opinions on whether something has any artistic value to me, but I do not declare things "art" and "not art" because that'd be hilariously presumptuous of me. Not everyone finds artistic value in all things deemed art. That's okay. Not everyone finds scientific value in all things deemed science or entertainment value in all things named entertainment. However, it is presumptuous and arbitrary to say "that's science," "that's not science," "that's a sport," "that's not entertainment," and so on.


Yes, precisely. Or, more specifically they become art when someone sees them and gets an emotional response from them. Because art isn't the physical object, it's the emotional response that object gives you. The actual poem or painting isn't as important as the emotional response itself. That is what art truly is.

Art isn't a poem. Art is the emotional response you get to the poem. So, unless you're able to see the poem you can never tell if that poem is art or not.

No. Art is the action or the object. The emotional response and judgement that the subject realises upon perceiving the art is the artistic value they derive from it. There's a distinction between both concepts. The same piece of art has different artistic value to different people. That doesn't make it any less art.


Again, I say yes. Without someone experiencing the emotional response from the craft, it is not art.

Again, that's artistic value. Not art. Expose a piece of art to a bunch of people under the effects of strong sedatives and it will continue to be art.

Ravens_cry
2011-06-20, 05:55 PM
Pen and Paper role playing games, like video games (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3555-The-Role-of-the-Player), are interesting because they are more extreme extreme form of the phenomena agreed on by many for all art, that the audience is also a creator. If anything, the emphases is reversed, the creators are also the audience. The DM, GM, Storyteller, or whatever you call them, runs a greater or lesser portion of the game/story/world, but everyone has a part. Together we paint a canvas, each adding detail and richness to this act of collective creation together.

Sillycomic
2011-06-20, 06:04 PM
And because nothing disqualifies him from being artist and audience simultaneously?

Except for the definition of artist and audience.


But you are aware that things are deemed art via consensus, right?

Oh, that is very true. However, again, I would like to point out if no one ever sees the art how can there ever be a consensus on whether or not something is art?

Again, the pile of poems in the basement. No one ever sees them except for the artist, so how can there ever be a consensus that the poetry is art?


What if the aforementioned selfish artist suffers brain damage from a car accident and he has no memory of having produced any of his art? When he regards the pieces of art he produced, do they become art then?

That is actually a really good question. I can't give a definitive answer on that. But, it's worth looking into. I would imagine it leads to the artist becoming an audience member merely by distancing himself from the art (no longer aware it is his art, but that it is simply a work of art) By this he would be more of an audience member than an artist himself.

But, I'm not really sure.

Although, it would be funny to see someone role play, get amnesia and then see himself role play and be his own audience. That's definitely something I would like to see.


It's not clear-cut. Seriously, you can't just point your finger and say "that's art. That's not art." It doesn't work like that.

But, isn't that what you're doing when you say, "The pile of poems in my basement is art. Just trust me on this... you don't need to go read them."

Or... "I role play. It is art."

Being the only person experiencing the art means no one else can experience it and there can never be a general consensus of whether or not it actually applies as art.

So, either I just trust you when you say role playing is art, or I get a general consensus on art critics and whatnot.

I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion on role playing once the art critics and aficionados come to a general consensus on whether or not role playing is considered art.

Yukitsu
2011-06-20, 06:11 PM
I'm more interested at this point, precisely what an RPG as art would actually entail, and why I'd want it in a game. Normally, games are more fun when they don't have to worry about also being art.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-20, 06:15 PM
Except for the definition of artist and audience.

And nowhere in the wikipedia page you quoted is explicitly stated that a person cannot be both at the same time. In fact, by the simplest definition ("An audience is a group of people who participate in a show or encounter a work of art"), an artist must be part of the audience, for he is encountering his own art as he creates it.


Oh, that is very true. However, again, I would like to point out if no one ever sees the art how can there ever be a consensus on whether or not something is art?

Again, the pile of poems in the basement. No one ever sees them except for the artist, so how can there ever be a consensus that the poetry is art?

Because the consensus is not on the individual piece of art, but on the medium. If the artist follows the rules that declare as art the medium in which he is producing his work, then anything he creates is automatically art, precisely because they fit those definitions.


That is actually a really good question. I can't give a definitive answer on that. But, it's worth looking into. I would imagine it leads to the artist becoming an audience member merely by distancing himself from the art (no longer aware it is his art, but that it is simply a work of art) By this he would be more of an audience member than an artist himself.

But, I'm not really sure.

Although, it would be funny to see someone role play, get amnesia and then see himself role play and be his own audience. That's definitely something I would like to see.

Well, at least you're admitting that you don't know. That's good, because that is indeed the type of hotly debated questions that not even experts are able to answer with absolute certainty.


But, isn't that what you're doing when you say, "The pile of poems in my basement is art. Just trust me on this... you don't need to go read them."

Or... "I role play. It is art."

Being the only person experiencing the art means no one else can experience it and there can never be a general consensus of whether or not it actually applies as art.

Um, yes? My point is precisely that you can't say "no, they're not art!" because they might well be. Granted, they might not be, but you can't make such sweeping declarations. Of course, the person making the definite assertion that they ARE art is just as wrong, unless he is sure to have followed the guidelines that experts have set forth to deem it art. If that's the case, he doesn't have to show you them because he's indirectly backed up by a higher authority.


So, either I just trust you when you say role playing is art, or I get a general consensus on art critics and whatnot.

I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion on role playing once the art critics and aficionados come to a general consensus on whether or not role playing is considered art.

Then wait for it. Once the discussion on video games is wrapped up, RPGs are sure to follow.

EDIT:


I'm more interested at this point, precisely what an RPG as art would actually entail, and why I'd want it in a game. Normally, games are more fun when they don't have to worry about also being art.

You do realise that for a lot of people, the fact that it is art is actually an improvement, right? That some people paint, write or sing because what they're doing is art? If the idea troubles you, dismiss it. Nobody forces you to accept it. Goodness knows that the notion that cinema is art has never stopped the porn industry.

Sillycomic
2011-06-20, 07:16 PM
Ok, that's fine with me.

I feel like we're both arguing the same thing on different sides. You are saying that I can't say role playing isn't art and I'm saying you can't say role playing is art.

So, again, I'm willing to agree to disagree on this one.

And we can both wait for the consensus of the art world once they wrap up video games and move onto D&D.

dsmiles
2011-06-20, 07:25 PM
And we can both wait for the consensus of the art world once they wrap up video games and move onto D&D.
As if that will ever happen. Most people, outside of gamers, probably assume that roleplaying games are headed the way of the dodo.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-20, 07:27 PM
Ok, that's fine with me.

I feel like we're both arguing the same thing on different sides. You are saying that I can't say role playing isn't art and I'm saying you can't say role playing is art.

So, again, I'm willing to agree to disagree on this one.

And we can both wait for the consensus of the art world once they wrap up video games and move onto D&D.

Well, yes, but I'm of the personal opinion that there are practically no downsides from considering RPing an art form. Like I said before, if that displeases you, you can ignore it (because, as you know, people who make home movies, hum to themselves or write silly stories are ignoring the fact that cinema, music and literature are art forms), and if it pleases you, it can inspire you to be more creative and improve yourself. Engaging in artistic activities has been proven to have positive effects on one's health (both physical and mental).

I agree.

Sillycomic
2011-06-20, 07:28 PM
I agree, I am not holding my breath on the "role playing is art" consensus by the likes of the art world. But who knows, stranger things have happened.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-20, 07:41 PM
Let me put this in simple terms. We are all playing the same kind of games. There's your commonality right there.
Yes, we also share a similar body structure. Your trumpeted commonality is no more meaningful than that.


they are all the same style of games.
No, they're not. They share superficial similarities, but too much differs in intent, execution, setup, intended play groups...

Next you'll be telling me that because they're all roleplaying games, console, computer, MMO, and tabletop RPGers are *really* all playing the same games, I trust? I'm all for solidarity amongst nerds, but let's not obscure basic facts. Basic facts like extremely large, very real differences in style.


You haven't built any sort of a case as to why roleplaying games are a good medium for telling stories.
.....

Are you familiar with the whole oral tradition through which stories were passed down through a millennium or more? My ancient greek's a little rusty but I'm sure I can slam out a few verses for you.

Seriously, there's nothing about getting together and telling a story that weakens the idea. That's why it was done for ages. It's the basis for The Adventures of Baron von Munchausen. Modernizing it by, say, adding the internet doesn't change that basic setup, and it's one we've followed since there was language. That, along with plays, are close fits for what roleplayers do as storytellers, and I trust you don't doubt that a play can tell a story.


I maintain that protagonists that can (and often do) act in such a way as to go off plan several times per session,[Are a problem]
You do that.

2 points tot his:
1: You're assuming the plan is highly diverted frequently. When players and DMs talk about the plan together, things actually tend to stick to it much more than when they expect the players to magically go along with it. That's because the DM alters it if they hate it, and if they like it the players have more incentive to go along with it.

2: Just because you don't know how the story ends when you set out doesn't mean it isn't good.


combined with difficulties with things like introducing antagonists at such a time as they aren't going to be attacked immediately make for problem
Look, just because you play with people who instantly want to try to kill the antagonist doesn't mean we all do. It's usually much more fun to play along, so the people I play with do. And some systems are set up so that you can attack the antagonist and things still go fine for the plot. For instance, in Mutants and Masterminds, provided the DM comes up with a plausible reason, villains can more or less auto-escape, with hero points granted to the player characters for this setback.

Yes, if you specifically set out with goals in mind that make storytelling unpalatable, storytelling won't work out well. that's fine. Just because you can, and can do so well, doesn't mean you have to, yeah? But it doesn't change that you can do so well just because you choose not to.


Add in the problems with narrative structures
Self asserted and unsubstantiated. Nobody actually fought you on this, and I let it slide because it was old, but if you're going to seriously stick to this claim, it's time for you to substantiate it. The problems that come up with dramatic structures in roleplaying games are the exact same as those found in long-running series of any sort that has multiple substories. The three-act play isn't unsatisfying because you're roleplaying; it's unsatisfying because it only lasts for one shot. Within a one-shot game, it's perfectly acceptable. There are many, MANY dramatic structures, and they serve different purposes.


and inevitable arguments about railroading
Inevitable whats? You mean those things I haven't had with fellow players in all of ever? I literally only have to argue about railroading with folks on the internet who insist that I have to argue about railroading to get anything done. Folks on the internet I'm not playing with, to boot.



So I ask again, why is it not a good time to look beyond established boundaries?
I have no motive to. But you can, if you want. Have at it.


I'm more interested at this point, precisely what an RPG as art would actually entail, and why I'd want it in a game. Normally, games are more fun when they don't have to worry about also being art.
Well, they're more fun that way if you hate or are otherwise not inclined to art. I don't know why you would want it in a game. I'm not you. I don't know your tastes. If you don't really like art, then there's no reason for you to want to specifically set out to make art.

I can't give you an inclusive list of what you can do to make roleplaying more of an art. I can tell you what I do with my friends, and it's tell stories that we find interesting. But as long as you roleplay (Actually roleplay, not *just* play a tactical wargame, although you can do that *in addition* and it would still be art), you will make something that is art. Unpolished, and unintentional, perhaps not something that will be remembered for posterity, but it's creative expression to roleplay at all, and that makes it art.

Yukitsu
2011-06-20, 09:03 PM
You do realise that for a lot of people, the fact that it is art is actually an improvement, right? That some people paint, write or sing because what they're doing is art? If the idea troubles you, dismiss it. Nobody forces you to accept it. Goodness knows that the notion that cinema is art has never stopped the porn industry.

Art is better simply because it's art. Wasn't that more true back when we didn't just let anything and everything be art? I mean, starry night is good because it's good, not because it's art. The sistine chapel is good because it's good, not because it's art. I think the postmodernists basically abolished any notions that just because it's art, it's good, or at least better.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-20, 09:32 PM
Art is better simply because it's art. Wasn't that more true back when we didn't just let anything and everything be art? I mean, starry night is good because it's good, not because it's art. The sistine chapel is good because it's good, not because it's art. I think the postmodernists basically abolished any notions that just because it's art, it's good, or at least better.

Completely misinterpreted my point.

I said that for a lot of people (meaning, not everyone) the fact that it is art is an improvement. "Good" is not an objective term. It's subjective. For you, knowing whether it is art or not won't change your appreciation of the activity. That's fine. You can keep on playing, then, and whether it is considered art or not will have no effect on your life.

For other people, knowing that what they're doing is art improves their enjoyment of the activity, or makes them see it in a new way. And that makes it better for them.

dsmiles
2011-06-20, 09:39 PM
For other people, knowing that what they're doing is art improves their enjoyment of the activity, or makes them see it in a new way. And that makes it better for them.
Yeah. Before this thread, I never looked at roleplaying as "art." Not because it isn't art, but just because the correlation never crossed my mind. But it's really just as much an art as acting, if you're really into it. It does make it seem...better. More enjoyable. More...interesting, I think is the word I'm looking for here.

Yukitsu
2011-06-20, 10:17 PM
Eh. Maybe if my DM is a good artist, but just as most that I know make better game masters than novelists, most DMs I know would make fairly bad art. I'd much rather have a fun game as a game, than an art game that wasn't much of a game, or that was a game with bad art tacked on.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-20, 10:27 PM
Eh. Maybe if my DM is a good artist, but just as most that I know make better game masters than novelists, most DMs I know would make fairly bad art. I'd much rather have a fun game as a game, than an art game that wasn't much of a game, or that was a game with bad art tacked on.

I think there's a disconnect here you're not quite getting. It's like you're assuming that when/if RPGs are declared art, an Art Police will be created to monitor that ALL RPGs are handled as per the guidelines and regulations they will set forth in order to be considered art. That won't happen. Nobody will make your DM treat the game like art. If your DM says "HEY GUYS GUESS WHAT? WE HAVE TO ART IT UP!" you'll kindly say "Bob, that's not a law. Art is not for everyone. No offence, but I'd rather we did what we've been doing all this time. No hard feelings, okay?" and you shall be safe from all those things you dislike about the notion of it being art.

Really, it's as simple as talking things out like mature adults. Not hard at all. I mean, surely you have a way of peacefully and amicably handling disagreements among the people on the table, right? You can use that to inform others that you don't want the game to be considered art. Presto, problem solved!

Yukitsu
2011-06-20, 10:40 PM
I mean I wouldn't want to play in any campaign by most DMs that are art. I'm aware it would be a small fraction of games, much like only a small fraction of video games are considered art. What I'm worried about, is that it would mostly be bad art, or that it would be less a game. The balance between art and mechanics and gameplay is tough enough in a medium like video games where you can fall back on the aesthetic, let alone one like RPGs that rely on ambience and vocalization that it'd have to be an absurdly talented DM to actually make it artistic and enjoyable as a game. I'd probably have to find those guys that made Limbo, get them to DM and play their game before I felt it was a good chance of being well thought out.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-20, 11:02 PM
I mean I wouldn't want to play in any campaign by most DMs that are art.

Then don't play in one.


I'm aware it would be a small fraction of games, much like only a small fraction of video games are considered art.

Good, you understand this.


What I'm worried about, is that it would mostly be bad art, or that it would be less a game.

Okay, listen, and please, do listen carefully: It would be bad art in your opinion. It would be less a game in your opinion. If you have those preconceptions before even sitting at the table, then clearly you need to stay away from that kind of game, because you are negatively predisposed against them and it's unlikely you'll have fun.

Since you have admitted that the percentage will be small, and you don't seem to be compelled, forced or bound in any way to partake in that kind of game... you can avoid them. Live and let live. You play your games, they play their games. If you think that they're engaging in "bad art" then let them engage in "bad art." You should care only about yourself. Don't concern yourself with the affairs of others.


The balance between art and mechanics and gameplay is tough enough in a medium like video games where you can fall back on the aesthetic, let alone one like RPGs that rely on ambience and vocalization that it'd have to be an absurdly talented DM to actually make it artistic and enjoyable as a game. I'd probably have to find those guys that made Limbo, get them to DM and play their game before I felt it was a good chance of being well thought out.

I'm sorry, but I honestly have no idea how you fail to get this simple concept. Okay, it would be very hard to meet your standards for a good artistic game. That's fine, you're entitled to have high standards. Why is that a problem? Nobody will force you to play artistic games, good or bad. If you say that you'll have to stay out of artistic games and will therefore miss out on the Limbos of RPGs... sorry, but that's the price you pay for the right to avoid the "bad art." For those who do partake in artistic games, their reward for enduring "bad art" is the occasional Limbo. It's the way the world works.

Some people don't like to learn gourmet cooking because it's too much work and it's really hard to cook a great meal. That's fine, nobody says you have to cook gourmet meals. But for those who do, their reward for all their failed tries and subpar results is the occasional truly sublime dish or dessert.

Or writing. If you're familiar with the world of fan fiction, I need not say another word.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-21, 08:09 AM
What I'm worried about, is that it would mostly be bad art, or that it would be less a game.
Oh I'll be fair, it probably is mostly bad art. Most everything is terrible, it's called Sturgeon's Law. Most DnD games suck. Most Vampire games suck. Most *Everything* sucks. If you're gonna let that deter you from anything you're not going to get a whole lot done.

All that said, in my book, if you're roleplaying, you're making art. And that's every session that isn't a complete wargame and dungeon crawl. And I mean a *Complete* one. If you have intra-party banter IC, then even if the structure is a dungeon crawl, it's roleplaying, and in my estimation, art.

Welknair
2011-06-21, 08:56 AM
Uh... I think I may be a "Both" as well. Before we started the campaign I wrote something like ten pages of world-building, followed by five or six of raw storyline. I made sure that said storyline involved a number of locations so that my players could explore the world (Setting DM) but at the same time had plenty of interesting plot-elements to keep the story moving along (Story DM). Between the two though, I guess I side a little towards Story? The Setting needs to be fun and interesting, but shouldn't be the focus of the game.

Yukitsu
2011-06-21, 01:25 PM
Oh I'll be fair, it probably is mostly bad art. Most everything is terrible, it's called Sturgeon's Law. Most DnD games suck. Most Vampire games suck. Most *Everything* sucks. If you're gonna let that deter you from anything you're not going to get a whole lot done.

All that said, in my book, if you're roleplaying, you're making art. And that's every session that isn't a complete wargame and dungeon crawl. And I mean a *Complete* one. If you have intra-party banter IC, then even if the structure is a dungeon crawl, it's roleplaying, and in my estimation, art.

Well, why isn't the dungeon crawl art? It seems that it can be just as much art by postmodern conventions, which seem to be what we're going by here.


Okay, listen, and please, do listen carefully: It would be bad art in your opinion. It would be less a game in your opinion. If you have those preconceptions before even sitting at the table, then clearly you need to stay away from that kind of game, because you are negatively predisposed against them and it's unlikely you'll have fun.

Since you have admitted that the percentage will be small, and you don't seem to be compelled, forced or bound in any way to partake in that kind of game... you can avoid them. Live and let live. You play your games, they play their games. If you think that they're engaging in "bad art" then let them engage in "bad art." You should care only about yourself. Don't concern yourself with the affairs of others.

Look, you can keep saying that nothing is truly bad, but go make yourself a piece of art, defend that it's not "bad" because nothing is bad when the critics roll in and you won't be taken seriously at all. There are certain definite techniques within any artistic medium that when done carelessly completely eliminate the point of the piece. There's a reason they teach art instead of just selling whatever for whatever and calling it all art, and that's because there is a firm theory about when and where certain artistic techniques can or cannot be used to good effect. Even anti-art like the stuff by Duchamp had certain compositional awareness that backed the message he was trying to convey and he wasn't even making art (according to himself anyway). You can hold on to that belief, but if you take any art course in any art, the teacher will tell you you're doing certain things wrong, or that certain things in your composition are bad, and if you tell him that "it's not actually bad, it's just bad in your opinion" you'll probably just get a failing grade unless you have something else to make up for it.


I'm sorry, but I honestly have no idea how you fail to get this simple concept. Okay, it would be very hard to meet your standards for a good artistic game. That's fine, you're entitled to have high standards. Why is that a problem? Nobody will force you to play artistic games, good or bad. If you say that you'll have to stay out of artistic games and will therefore miss out on the Limbos of RPGs... sorry, but that's the price you pay for the right to avoid the "bad art." For those who do partake in artistic games, their reward for enduring "bad art" is the occasional Limbo. It's the way the world works.

Some people don't like to learn gourmet cooking because it's too much work and it's really hard to cook a great meal. That's fine, nobody says you have to cook gourmet meals. But for those who do, their reward for all their failed tries and subpar results is the occasional truly sublime dish or dessert.

Or writing. If you're familiar with the world of fan fiction, I need not say another word.

My problem is, when you say you're creating art, you are holding yourself to different standards than if you were making a game. There's an inherent difference between saying "this is a gourmet meal" and actually making a gourmet meal that I think this "games are art" misses, that being technique. Good artists aren't artists just because they're making art, it's because they also know about the techniques and theory of art.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-21, 02:13 PM
Look, you can keep saying that nothing is truly bad, but go make yourself a piece of art, defend that it's not "bad" because nothing is bad when the critics roll in and you won't be taken seriously at all.

The reason I will not be taken seriously is because I lack the training and experience the critics possess. A critic's opinion is that, an opinion. His opinions is, however, more educated and knowledgeable than a layman's, which is why it carries more weight. Challenging a critic's opinion is like challenging a runner to a footrace. If you want to avoid ridicule, you better be prepared.


There are certain definite techniques within any artistic medium that when done carelessly completely eliminate the point of the piece. There's a reason they teach art instead of just selling whatever for whatever and calling it all art, and that's because there is a firm theory about when and where certain artistic techniques can or cannot be used to good effect. Even anti-art like the stuff by Duchamp had certain compositional awareness that backed the message he was trying to convey and he wasn't even making art (according to himself anyway). You can hold on to that belief, but if you take any art course in any art, the teacher will tell you you're doing certain things wrong, or that certain things in your composition are bad, and if you tell him that "it's not actually bad, it's just bad in your opinion" you'll probably just get a failing grade unless you have something else to make up for it.

You are speaking of schools of thought and classifications. Indeed, if one wants to follow a certain school of thought and fit within certain classifications, one must follow the guidelines presented by the experts. Not doing so and intending to fall within those schools of thought or classifications will be, indeed, wrong. And telling a teacher that he is wrong in pointing this out will result (rightly) in a failing grade.

However, no such definitions and classifications exist as of yet. There are no guidelines to tell us when something can and cannot be called "art" or "artistic" in an RPG. We only have the standard definition that applies to such diverse media as books, cinema, music and painting.


My problem is, when you say you're creating art, you are holding yourself to different standards than if you were making a game.

You are correct. The crux of the matter is that nothing forces you to say that you're creating art (and therefore holding yourself to different standards) when making a game. Photography is an art. That does not mean that you need to hold yourself to higher standards when you're taking a family photo. Cinema is an art. That does not mean that you need to hold yourself to higher standards when you're making a home video. Literature is an art. That does not mean that you need to hold yourself to higher standards when writing a journal. And so on and so forth.

It is a choice. An option. Nothing is being removed from the pool of options that were already in place. No restrictions are being added. What we're adding by saying that games can be art is more options. Which are not, by their very definition, compulsory.


There's an inherent difference between saying "this is a gourmet meal" and actually making a gourmet meal that I think this "games are art" misses, that being technique. Good artists aren't artists just because they're making art, it's because they also know about the techniques and theory of art.

Yes, there is a difference between both things. However, you are confusing the analogies. Gaming would not be a gourmet meal. Gaming would be cooking in general. The gourmet meal would be the subset of games in the vast universe of gaming that holds itself to higher standards than most, that follows a certain set of rules and guidelines set forth by experts in order to be termed "artistic," with all the risks and rewards it implies.

And as I've been saying before, you need not be part of that subset of games. Just like you do not need to make a gourmet meal every time you cook, you do not need to play an artistic game every time you sit down to game.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-21, 02:27 PM
Well, why isn't the dungeon crawl art? It seems that it can be just as much art by postmodern conventions, which seem to be what we're going by here.
My definition is simple. "All creative expression is art." I don't think there's anything creative or expressive about a complete dungeon crawl wherein everything is run by numbers. I'm not setting a high bar here, I think.

Edit for clarity: The structure of a dungeon crawl does not preclude roleplaying. Therefore, it doesn't preclude the dungeon crawl being art. If the dungeon crawl is being done by characters with any thought given to them in play to anything that isn't their statistics and how to use them, even a rough, cliche'd appearance, then that dungeon crawl would also, per my definition, qualify as art.

I'm trying to preclude the most absolutely mechanistic sessions as a what I am reasonably sure is a theoretical exercise. I strongly suspect that literally every single real world game has at least workmanlike attention to roleplaying itself, and thus, is a creative expression and art.

Yukitsu
2011-06-21, 05:29 PM
You are correct. The crux of the matter is that nothing forces you to say that you're creating art (and therefore holding yourself to different standards) when making a game. Photography is an art. That does not mean that you need to hold yourself to higher standards when you're taking a family photo. Cinema is an art. That does not mean that you need to hold yourself to higher standards when you're making a home video. Literature is an art. That does not mean that you need to hold yourself to higher standards when writing a journal. And so on and so forth.

It is a choice. An option. Nothing is being removed from the pool of options that were already in place. No restrictions are being added. What we're adding by saying that games can be art is more options. Which are not, by their very definition, compulsory.

You're equivocating something here. I'm talking about being in a game, where another person is claiming that they are making art. I am going to hold that DM to a different standard than a DM that is not. It's my choice whether or not to be in the game, but it is not my choice to determine that it is depicted as art instead of a game without the art. I personally would never run an art game, because I'm honestly confused as to what exactly that means, but if I were a participant to one run by someone else, I would hold them to different standards than another DM who was simply running a game.


My definition is simple. "All creative expression is art." I don't think there's anything creative or expressive about a complete dungeon crawl wherein everything is run by numbers. I'm not setting a high bar here, I think.

Edit for clarity: The structure of a dungeon crawl does not preclude roleplaying. Therefore, it doesn't preclude the dungeon crawl being art. If the dungeon crawl is being done by characters with any thought given to them in play to anything that isn't their statistics and how to use them, even a rough, cliche'd appearance, then that dungeon crawl would also, per my definition, qualify as art.

I'm trying to preclude the most absolutely mechanistic sessions as a what I am reasonably sure is a theoretical exercise. I strongly suspect that literally every single real world game has at least workmanlike attention to roleplaying itself, and thus, is a creative expression and art.

I'm not certain that structure discludes dungeon crawls inherently. A slab of numbers inherently lacks even abstract meaning until a creator decides on the meaning they are supposed to have (that a certain number set applies to dogs for instance). The numbers behind the end resultant charts are as much a part of a creative process as writing a story. Insofar as it's an abstract representation, I don't see why the contents of a dungeon crawl with 0 RP are not a creative exercise.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-21, 05:55 PM
I'm not certain that structure discludes dungeon crawls inherently
It doesn't. That's what I said


Insofar as it's an abstract representation, I don't see why the contents of a dungeon crawl with 0 RP are not a creative exercise.
They are a creative exercise. They aren't creative expression. Good tactics require creativity; but they don't say anything about you, about what you're doing, what you're saying, about what you're feeling. Good tactics, and the numbers behind a session, are a part of the story, but they're not the whole of the story. If that's literally all you have, you don't have one.

This is more or less the same reason why sports aren't art. The end zone dance is, the pageantry associated with sports is, the announcing probably is, but the actual competition is not.

Again, I'm fairly certain this is a theoretical exercise. Even the most mechanistic games I've been in have still had some description.

Yukitsu
2011-06-21, 05:58 PM
It doesn't. That's what 'preclude' means.


They are a creative exercise. They aren't creative expression. Good tactics require creativity; but they don't say anything about you, about what you're doing, what you're saying, about what you're feeling. Good tactics, and the numbers behind a session, are a part of the story, but they're not the whole of the story. If that's literally all you have, you don't have one.

This is more or less the same reason why sports aren't art. The end zone dance is, the pageantry associated with sports is, the announcing probably is, but the actual competition is not.

Again, I'm fairly certain this is a theoretical exercise. Even the most mechanistic games I've been in have still had some description.

I mean the creation of the dungeon itself is probably art. The decisions and choices are an expression of the creator's opinion on how dangerous, intelligent, tactical certain creatures are, and his interpretation of the myths.

On a more literal note, the design of the dungeon itself is probably art, unless you somehow randomly generate P&P paper maps, but that seems needlessly complex.

Yeah, the play itself may not be art at that point, but it is interaction with art, which at least those guys at the escapist think is part of the artistic process.

kyoryu
2011-06-21, 06:03 PM
I'm not certain that structure discludes dungeon crawls inherently. A slab of numbers inherently lacks even abstract meaning until a creator decides on the meaning they are supposed to have (that a certain number set applies to dogs for instance). The numbers behind the end resultant charts are as much a part of a creative process as writing a story. Insofar as it's an abstract representation, I don't see why the contents of a dungeon crawl with 0 RP are not a creative exercise.

By RPGuru's definition, I'd agree. How that character is used to creatively approach the problem seems to fit the definition, unless you're limiting creativity to "acting in character," which seems more like evidence of bias than anything else.

That's the issue I have with statements like "anything creative is art." Unless you allow for bias in your definition of "creative," you end up quickly in the scenario where almost *anything* qualifies as art, diluting the term of meaning.

Personally, I say let games be games. I don't need to justify my fun-time hobby by trying to claim it is a higher creative ideal. It's fun. Childish, maybe. And maybe at 38 I should care, but I don't.


They are a creative exercise. They aren't creative expression. Good tactics require creativity; but they don't say anything about you, about what you're doing, what you're saying, about what you're feeling. Good tactics, and the numbers behind a session, are a part of the story, but they're not the whole of the story. If that's literally all you have, you don't have one.

Really? It is often said that playing Go, for instance, reveals much about the player.


This is more or less the same reason why sports aren't art. The end zone dance is, the pageantry associated with sports is, the announcing probably is, but the actual competition is not.

Really? I've seen some awfully creative hockey plays. I've seen the personality of individual players come through in their style of play. I've seen players change the game by thinking about it in different ways.

I'm going to guess you don't play sports. There is certainly creativity involved. And I see no reason, based on your definition, to discriminate based on personal preferences as to the type of creativity being displayed.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-21, 06:50 PM
I mean the creation of the dungeon itself is probably art. The decisions and choices are an expression of the creator's opinion on how dangerous, intelligent, tactical certain creatures are, and his interpretation of the myths.
Although I suspect you lend too much credit, yes, it probably is just the same (even with my suspicions being accurate)


That's the issue I have with statements like "anything creative is art." Unless you allow for bias in your definition of "creative," you end up quickly in the scenario where almost *anything* qualifies as art, diluting the term of meaning.
I only need a definition of art that permits literature for roleplaying to possess the possibility to be art. I have an extremely permissive definition for a reason, but never you mind that.


Really? It is often said that playing Go, for instance, reveals much about the player.
Adages aren't a good indicator of reality on their own. That's why you get contradictory ones like "Opposites attract" and "Birds of a feather flock together".

For that matter, even if true, your posture can say a lot about you as a person. But standing isn't you expressing yourself or your thoughts in a creative manner.


Really? I've seen some awfully creative hockey plays.
Problem solving is not, by itself, art, although it can be creative. I chose my words carefully, and you apparently read into them something I did not say. "Creative expression" entails a very small amount more than "Being creative", but it does entail more.

Could you make a sport that was art? I imagine so. I don't care to think of what it would look like, but I imagine it is possible. No sport I'm familiar with is, though (only speaking on the ones I have heard of, it's more than possible there's one I'm not familiar with or thinking of). It's a question I imagine is less theoretical than "Is a completely, 100% mechanistic dungeon crawl art", because I don't think there has ever been a 100% mechanistic dungeon crawl, but you could at least play the sport.

kyoryu
2011-06-21, 07:14 PM
I only need a definition of art that permits literature for roleplaying to possess the possibility to be art. I have an extremely permissive definition for a reason, but never you mind that.

Sure. You have an extremely permissive definition in ways that support your point.



Adages aren't a good indicator of reality on their own. That's why you get contradictory ones like "Opposites attract" and "Birds of a feather flock together".

This one also matches my experiences. Dismissing it out of hand is not very open-minded.



For that matter, even if true, your posture can say a lot about you as a person. But standing isn't you expressing yourself or your thoughts in a creative manner.

It could be, couldn't it? What's the barrier?



Problem solving is not, by itself, art, although it can be creative. I chose my words carefully, and you apparently read into them something I did not say. "Creative expression" entails a very small amount more than "Being creative", but it does entail more.

Then please elaborate.



Could you make a sport that was art? I imagine so. I don't care to think of what it would look like, but I imagine it is possible. No sport I'm familiar with is, though (only speaking on the ones I have heard of, it's more than possible there's one I'm not familiar with or thinking of). It's a question I imagine is less theoretical than "Is a completely, 100% mechanistic dungeon crawl art", because I don't think there has ever been a 100% mechanistic dungeon crawl, but you could at least play the sport.

I'm again guessing that you don't have a lot of knowledge of playing sports. I would bet that most artists that know of roleplaying games would dismiss the idea that they could be art, based on lack of familiarity.

Terraoblivion
2011-06-21, 07:35 PM
The problem is that art is already a term devoid of meaning. The closest definition of what art is that is possible to make is "something authorized art critics proclaims to be so", which is hardly a satisfying or useful answer. However, how else can you find a definition of art that can include things like paintings painted solely on commission for wealthy people who wanted to brag, furniture designed for comfort and efficiency of production, short stories intentionally written to not have a point and not revealing insight and even esoterica like defecating in a can and then sealing it. Art covers many diverse fields and the only thing that really binds them together is that they're authoritatively declared art by art critics. That generally isn't a hallmark of a term that has strong backing.

Art is essentially an instrument of power used by an elite to give its taste and preferences precedence over that of others. It's just reached a point where the inmates are running the asylum to the point where the elite defining art doesn't coincide with any other elite in society. Unlike originally where art was simply the entertainment and decoration that the upper class found pleasing.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-21, 08:30 PM
Sure. You have an extremely permissive definition in ways that support your point.
To argue roleplaying is art, I only need a definition that permits literature and drama as art. As nearly everyone agrees that literature and drama are art, if I just wanted to win, I had low hanging fruit available that would serve my purposes. It would in fact be easier, as I would not have to argue about my definition much; any 'credible' definition of art has to include them because they have the culture's good blessings as art. Explaining the reason for the definition I *actually have*, and not the bare minimum needed to 'win', would break forum rules regarding srs bsns topics. PM me if you want, or don't. I don't really care.


Incidentally, and what I *can* say within forum rules, is that you will not succeed in convincing me to a more restrictive definition. If I am wrong, my response will bear out in other ways. The reasons I have for my permissive definition aren't going to be tackled with art philosophy, or indeed without rather large alterations to reality. This discussion has made it painfully aware to me that Roland Emmerich's 2012 and Independence Day count as art. That was not easy for me to admit to myself. I'd rather be wrong, that thought makes me cringe.



This one also matches my experiences. Dismissing it out of hand is not very open-minded.
I don't really care whether or not it's 'open minded'. It's nice that it matches your experience, but hence came the second bullet point.


It could be, couldn't it? What's the barrier?
I can see ways how it could be, but they play into other things; how a person holds themselves to broadcast a certain image, for instance. It's even possible for that to be your default. An unconscious message isn't expression on your part though; it's inference on the part of any bystanders. You're not saying anything at all. Other people are learning about you, though.


Then please elaborate.
In a sentence, "You have to try to say something". You can try and fail, but without an intent to say anything, even if it's not to anyone in particular, you're not expressing yourself.


I'm again guessing that you don't have a lot of knowledge of playing sports. I would bet that most artists that know of roleplaying games would dismiss the idea that they could be art, based on lack of familiarity.
Actually, I already said they probably could be, and that indeed that was much less theoretical a question than whether or not a 100% mechanistic dungeon crawl was. But none of the competitive sports that occur to me, such as football, softball, or american football, are (And those are three I do in fact know something about) are. I should also add one more further consideration to what I said before, when I listed the things about sports that are an art.

"The narrative as a whole". I mean it'd be easy to say professional wrestling, but every participant on the field is participating in creating art. That the sports players (And umpires) are not creating art when separated from the whole does not mean that the whole is not art, and they are participants in that whole.

I can, and have, elaborated on ways roleplaying is art, under a more restrictive definition already. If pressed I could explain it in terms that don't require you to already be a roleplayer. If you'd like to elaborate, feel free.


Art is essentially an instrument of power used by an elite to give its taste and preferences precedence over that of others. It's just reached a point where the inmates are running the asylum to the point where the elite defining art doesn't coincide with any other elite in society. Unlike originally where art was simply the entertainment and decoration that the upper class found pleasing.
Oh, I guess it is possible to explain why my definition for art is so permissive within forum rules. Brava.

Yukitsu
2011-06-21, 09:09 PM
Art is essentially an instrument of power used by an elite to give its taste and preferences precedence over that of others. It's just reached a point where the inmates are running the asylum to the point where the elite defining art doesn't coincide with any other elite in society. Unlike originally where art was simply the entertainment and decoration that the upper class found pleasing.

This is an interesting view. Do you have something that supports it? I'd be interested in reading a history that views it this way.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-21, 09:22 PM
You're equivocating something here. I'm talking about being in a game, where another person is claiming that they are making art. I am going to hold that DM to a different standard than a DM that is not.

You are going to hold them to a different standard, correct. You have the choice, however, of not participating in such a game.


It's my choice whether or not to be in the game, but it is not my choice to determine that it is depicted as art instead of a game without the art.

By that token, it's not your choice to determine any aspect of the game. If you have a way of solving conflicts that arise in the game (a DM who is into heavy RPing when you want to hack and slash, a player who doesn't take the dramatic and dark campaign seriously, etc), you have a way of solving the conflict of whether the game is depicted as art or not.


I personally would never run an art game, because I'm honestly confused as to what exactly that means, but if I were a participant to one run by someone else, I would hold them to different standards than another DM who was simply running a game.

But you don't have to participate in such a game. If you like a certain kind of game (let's say, heavy RPing with very little combat and lots of political intrigue; or a game where every single aspect is perfectly balanced with every other), you stick to that. You develop ways to determine if a given game will be the kind you like or not, and if not, whether you can convince the other players and the DM to give your way a try. If you have developed these social tools, you'll do fine. Your life will not change in the slightest, except perhaps that now you will ask one more question when meeting with a potential DM. If you haven't developed them, then the "art" aspect is truly the least of your problems.

EDIT:



Art is essentially an instrument of power used by an elite to give its taste and preferences precedence over that of others. It's just reached a point where the inmates are running the asylum to the point where the elite defining art doesn't coincide with any other elite in society. Unlike originally where art was simply the entertainment and decoration that the upper class found pleasing.

I cannot help but notice the negative tone, yet I can't find anything wrong with what you're saying. Where's the problem? Where's the harm in this behaviour? Who is being damaged by this?

Terraoblivion
2011-06-21, 09:26 PM
A history? From my, hopefully not insubstantial, knowledge of English grammar I cannot think of a single example or context in which history is a countable noun without specifying what it is a history of. Not just that I'm not quite sure what you're aiming at. Do you mean story? A work on art history? A work on general history? A philosophical argument about the nature of art?

As for whether I have anything to back it up. The arbitrary way something is labeled art is something I should need. Simply put, nobody has yet managed to find a definition for art that is capable of including Dutch paintings of rich merchants who wanted to show off their wealth, Panton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verner_Panton) chairs, Moby **** and goldfish in blenders (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/goldfish-in-blenders-cause-outrage-724729.html), while excluding Epic Movie, Big Rigs Over the Road Racing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rigs:_Over_the_Road_Racing)or the decoration on a pizza box. However, this distinction is being made by people every day and at its core it comes down to two things: Personal taste and belief in what authoritative art critics state. Not just that, there is considerable benefit to having something labeled as art. People will treat it seriously no matter how wretched their personal opinion of the product is and probably more important, a lot of money is involved. As such, holding the power to label something as art or not provides an influence over entertainment, decoration and related fields that should not be underestimated. So as long as the term is a vehicle for power and it is undefined it is solely an instrument by which a privileged group maintains its own privilege and creates a cultural preeminence of their taste.

EDIT:
And to answer your question Shadowknight, the problem lies in the way labeling or failing to label something art can make or break the career of others and the way it shapes public discourse and perspectives of good and bad. I have no problem with qualitative statements. Big Rigs is an awful game because it fails in the technical aspects needed to actually achieve its supposed goal, which is to be an entertaining racing game using semi-trailer trucks. On the other hand Doom is a great game because it pulls of what it sets out to achieve well using the tools at hand. Neither are considered art and thus neither gets grants, the makers of neither get easy access to the press to give their views on current topics the way artists are often asked their opinion on political topics. Not just that, both find their work scuffed at as mere entertainment of a most likely immature kind and in general they don't get treated with the respect accorded canonized artists. In short, having something labeled as art holds considerable benefits, but there is no real standard for labeling something art meaning that a privileged class exists to serve as gatekeepers while being answerable to no one but each other. The problem in this should be quite obvious.

Yukitsu
2011-06-21, 09:29 PM
I'm not certain that you're understanding that if they are using the game as "art" rather than as a game, there are a pretty wide set of conventions for the medium of story telling about what makes one good or bad. My being in it or not has no real bearing on the fact that it's still going to be hack art instead of anything of quality, and that "bad" can indeed apply to it with a greater degree of objectivity than a game.

Ninjad.


A history? From my, hopefully not insubstantial, knowledge of English grammar I cannot think of a single example or context in which history is a countable noun without specifying what it is a history of. Not just that I'm not quite sure what you're aiming at. Do you mean story? A work on art history? A work on general history? A philosophical argument about the nature of art?

I left the word following history blank, as I'm not sure if you're talking about the history of art, aristocracy, artists, politics or what. I'm also not sure if you saw that theory in a book, a film, a class or what. Unless you're talking about a view of what art is right now, in which case I'd just question the view that art targets the elite, since the lowest common denominator is today's most profitable market for art.

Edit: Looking at all your examples, those are all postmodern or newer, so yes, artistic merit is shot by now, but I'm not sure that your assessment as to the point of art holds true prior to about the early 1900s. And I definitely wouldn't consider those works as targeting the elite.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-21, 09:35 PM
I'm not certain that you're understanding that if they are using the game as "art" rather than as a game, there are a pretty wide set of conventions for the medium of story telling about what makes one good or bad. My being in it or not has no real bearing on the fact that it's still going to be hack art instead of anything of quality, and that "bad" can indeed apply to it with a greater degree of objectivity than a game.

You are assuming that the same conventions that are applied to story telling will be applied to roleplaying, while disregarding that those conventions vary according to the medium. Story telling in literature does not follow the same conventions as story telling in cinema or story telling in theatre, and will not follow the same conventions that arise if/when RPGs are considered art. Not to mention that some RPGs are not about story telling at all, and they might be considered art all the same. That means that they most certainly will not be following the conventions of story telling.

So? If you are not in it, it should not concern you. That's what I'm trying to say. You have no reason to care about what other people do when you're not around. If their art is, indeed, "bad," let it be as it is. If it bothers you, don't be a part of it. Go engage in activity that fits your preferences better. You'll be happier that way.

EDIT:



EDIT:
And to answer your question Shadowknight, the problem lies in the way labeling or failing to label something art can make or break the career of others and the way it shapes public discourse and perspectives of good and bad. I have no problem with qualitative statements. Big Rigs is an awful game because it fails in the technical aspects needed to actually achieve its supposed goal, which is to be an entertaining racing game using semi-trailer trucks. On the other hand Doom is a great game because it pulls of what it sets out to achieve well using the tools at hand. Neither are considered art and thus neither gets grants, the makers of neither get easy access to the press to give their views on current topics the way artists are often asked their opinion on political topics. Not just that, both find their work scuffed at as mere entertainment of a most likely immature kind and in general they don't get treated with the respect accorded canonized artists. In short, having something labeled as art holds considerable benefits, but there is no real standard for labeling something art meaning that a privileged class exists to serve as gatekeepers while being answerable to no one but each other. The problem in this should be quite obvious.

You're quite correct, but I fail to see how the notion that art is the elite's preferences is bad in any way. The way I see it, the problem is that the elite is unregulated, which is a problem that arises in other areas, including politics, education, science and healthcare. The answer, as it has always been, is to regulate the elite so that they cannot abuse the power they hold (or to remove the power from them), not to blame art because it is used as a tool for control. Many, many things have been used as tools for control in the history of mankind, and most of them were not bad things in and of themselves.

Terraoblivion
2011-06-21, 09:46 PM
You mean that, say, Rembrandt is post-modern? Or that notably modernist designer Verner Panton is? And is the early 19th century post-modern now? In fact the blender goldfish was the only example of canonized art made after the 1960s and two of the examples are more than 150 years old.

As for what I was referring to, it was the current concept of art. The concept as distinct from entertainment and decoration favored by the nobility and rich merchants did not exist prior to the Romantic period. During this period the concept of the artist as a uniquely gifted individual with insight into a higher, more real world that is expressed through his art. We are still to some degree working under that paradigm, but a major change has come by the relaxation of formal requirements to art. Naturalism is no longer expected in figurative art, nor is the unity of time, plot and setting required in drama any longer. Similarly the number of possible media that can serve as vehicles for art is fundamentally infinite.

This creates a situation where old, utterly arbitrary definitions of art has given way to a situation where it is purely based on personal judgment whether something is art or not. However, with the institutionalization of art criticism, art grants and so on, this personal judgment is put in the hands of an elite in charge of deciding whether something is art or not. No criteria other than their judgment has been put down, meaning that what is labeled real art is a rather jumbled mess with little internal coherence in what is and isn't art. Such as commissioned Rembrandt paintings and blender goldfish sharing this classification with an argument that ultimately boils down to "because we say so". Being able to wield this kind of power to define human expression is by definition to be part of an elite.

Still, this doesn't change the fundamental fact that the distinction between art and not art within a given medium has always rested with an elite, the nature of this elite has simply changed over time.

Edit: The problem isn't that somebody defines art. It is that they define it solely to their personal taste without being accountable or having any set of criteria. However, the big difference between art and health care or politics, is that there are external criteria by which the latter two can be judged. Good health care generally works and reasons for why it works can be explained through our knowledge of human biology. Good policies achieve what they set out to do in the cheapest, fastest way they can without going against other policies set, at least when viewed in a purely technocratic manner. Ideologically the quality depends on your ethical and ideological beliefs.

However, unlike these the criteria by which art is judged is not obvious. It isn't just the technical quality of a piece, something can easily be technically inferior and be labeled art or of high technical quality, but not qualify as being labeled art. I hopefully shouldn't need to provide examples, but if I do medieval paintings tend to be technically quite inferior to the ones in more recent centuries in terms of both brush skill, color choice, composition and so on, but are still considered art. Similarly, things can be technically of high quality, but not be considered art due to genre or medium, Doom is a good example of that as I mentioned above. As such the distinction between art and not-art is rather fluid and has never actually been defined in a way that can be used to actually tell if a given piece is art or not, even by the most strident proponents of the existence of such a distinction.

Yukitsu
2011-06-21, 09:54 PM
So? If you are not in it, it should not concern you. That's what I'm trying to say. You have no reason to care about what other people do when you're not around. If their art is, indeed, "bad," let it be as it is. If it bothers you, don't be a part of it. Go engage in activity that fits your preferences better. You'll be happier that way.

No, I'm a Socratic, I'm happiest arguing.

More seriously, I'm sort of curious as to what the heck people are saying when they say their game is art. It seems that when Guru says it, what it means is he's playing a game and that that is art, which doesn't seem to me to be overly relevant, since he may as well have just said all gaming is inherently art. If I were to say it for instance, I'd demand that it fit a particular artistic style and narrative convention, and that it be assessed on things like composition rather than entertainment (and therefore emphasize those elements instead of gameplay)

At any rate, the more I learned about why people wanted their game to be art, the less appealing art as they saw it became, since it's basically just everything ever created. That's fine, but I'm more into classical art, rather than dada art.


You mean that, say, Rembrandt is post-modern? Or that notably modernist designer Verner Panton is? And is the early 19th century post-modern now? In fact the blender goldfish was the only example of canonized art made after the 1960s and two of the examples are more than 150 years old.

You didn't mention Rembrandt. Unless you mean he painted for a commission, but that's the same as saying he got paid, I don't really see why that indicates the remainder of the negatives you associate with art. And the early 1900s is the 20th century. Postmodernism emerged in the late 19th, not in 1960. Verner Panton was definitely working in the postmodern age, even if he himself wasn't a post-modernist.


As for what I was referring to, it was the current concept of art. The concept as distinct from entertainment and decoration favored by the nobility and rich merchants did not exist prior to the Romantic period. During this period the concept of the artist as a uniquely gifted individual with insight into a higher, more real world that is expressed through his art. We are still to some degree working under that paradigm, but a major change has come by the relaxation of formal requirements to art. Naturalism is no longer expected in figurative art, nor is the unity of time, plot and setting required in drama any longer. Similarly the number of possible media that can serve as vehicles for art is fundamentally infinite.

This creates a situation where old, utterly arbitrary definitions of art has given way to a situation where it is purely based on personal judgment whether something is art or not. However, with the institutionalization of art criticism, art grants and so on, this personal judgment is put in the hands of an elite in charge of deciding whether something is art or not. No criteria other than their judgment has been put down, meaning that what is labeled real art is a rather jumbled mess with little internal coherence in what is and isn't art. Such as commissioned Rembrandt paintings and blender goldfish sharing this classification with an argument that ultimately boils down to "because we say so". Being able to wield this kind of power to define human expression is by definition to be part of an elite.

Still, this doesn't change the fundamental fact that the distinction between art and not art within a given medium has always rested with an elite, the nature of this elite has simply changed over time.

Oh, I thought you meant "elite" as in the social elite, and not the cultural elite. Well, yeah, artists determine what art is, and therefore who gets paid among them. Though that's far less interesting than the societal elite having control over the medium as a thesis.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-21, 10:14 PM
No, I'm a Socratic, I'm happiest arguing.

Glad to have official confirmation. :smalltongue:


More seriously, I'm sort of curious as to what the heck people are saying when they say their game is art. It seems that when Guru says it, what it means is he's playing a game and that that is art, which doesn't seem to me to be overly relevant, since he may as well have just said all gaming is inherently art. If I were to say it for instance, I'd demand that it fit a particular artistic style and narrative convention, and that it be assessed on things like composition rather than entertainment (and therefore emphasize those elements instead of gameplay)

And that's fine, because artists hold themselves to different standards. Some of them spray a bunch of colours on a canvass and call them art. Others spend years detailing every square inch with the patience and care of an obsessed lunatic.

I don't know about Guru, but to me, a game being art means that I am challenged to give more than I was giving to the game already. The notion that I am creating art makes me try harder to give my roleplaying more depth, to craft a more meaningful game. It makes me want to sit with the DM to learn more about the setting, so that I can incorporate that in my character's background, it makes me work harder on my character, it makes me want to sit down with the other players to trade bits of info so that we can develop that familiarity with each other's characters that help us roleplay better.

In short, to me, an artistic game is a game where I try harder.

I admit beforehand that I need not consider it art to try harder. That's true. However, my personal preferences state that if the game is not tied to what I consider a higher purpose (in this case, the creation of art), I will only invest a modicum of effort and care.


At any rate, the more I learned about why people wanted their game to be art, the less appealing art as they saw it became, since it's basically just everything ever created. That's fine, but I'm more into classical art, rather than dada art.

I think that the point is not that everything is art. The point is that anything can be art, if it follows the guidelines set forth by art experts.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-21, 10:17 PM
Edit: The problem isn't that somebody defines art. It is that they define it solely to their personal taste without being accountable or having any set of criteria. However, the big difference between art and health care or politics, is that there are external criteria by which the latter two can be judged. Good health care generally works and reasons for why it works can be explained through our knowledge of human biology. Good policies achieve what they set out to do in the cheapest, fastest way they can without going against other policies set, at least when viewed in a purely technocratic manner. Ideologically the quality depends on your ethical and ideological beliefs.

And art can be said to work by the external criteria of psychology and biology. We must investigate further, surely, but I would not be so quick to dismiss art as lacking external points of reference.


However, unlike these the criteria by which art is judged is not obvious. It isn't just the technical quality of a piece, something can easily be technically inferior and be labeled art or of high technical quality, but not qualify as being labeled art. I hopefully shouldn't need to provide examples, but if I do medieval paintings tend to be technically quite inferior to the ones in more recent centuries in terms of both brush skill, color choice, composition and so on, but are still considered art. Similarly, things can be technically of high quality, but not be considered art due to genre or medium, Doom is a good example of that as I mentioned above. As such the distinction between art and not-art is rather fluid and has never actually been defined in a way that can be used to actually tell if a given piece is art or not, even by the most strident proponents of the existence of such a distinction.

Currently the distinction is fluid. In the future, after more research has been done on he biological and psychological effects of art on the human being, distinctions will be less fluid.

Yukitsu
2011-06-21, 10:35 PM
Glad to have official confirmation. :smalltongue:

It's why I ask more questions and use more analogy than use formal structure which most people don't actually understand anyway.


And that's fine, because artists hold themselves to different standards. Some of them spray a bunch of colours on a canvass and call them art. Others spend years detailing every square inch with the patience and care of an obsessed lunatic.

I don't know about Guru, but to me, a game being art means that I am challenged to give more than I was giving to the game already. The notion that I am creating art makes me try harder to give my roleplaying more depth, to craft a more meaningful game. It makes me want to sit with the DM to learn more about the setting, so that I can incorporate that in my character's background, it makes me work harder on my character, it makes me want to sit down with the other players to trade bits of info so that we can develop that familiarity with each other's characters that help us roleplay better.

OK, this is where you can call me out for having impossibly high standards, because I generally expect this of myself in each and every game, even silly ones like paranoia.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-21, 10:46 PM
It's why I ask more questions and use more analogy than use formal structure which most people don't actually understand anyway.

Yeah, I had an inkling. You might want to advertise it in your sig or something like that. Even if one suspects it, this is the internet. Nothing is readily apparent.


OK, this is where you can call me out for having impossibly high standards, because I generally expect this of myself in each and every game, even silly ones like paranoia.

Well, I've encountered a lot of people like you, and they have usually been unable to understand how it's possible for someone to turn on and off the "caring mode." Whether the game is tied to a higher purpose or not is extremely important to me. If I'm playing to indulge someone else, I won't put as much care as I would if I knew that there was, for example, an altruistic reason behind the game.

Yukitsu
2011-06-21, 10:50 PM
Well, I've encountered a lot of people like you, and they have usually been unable to understand how it's possible for someone to turn on and off the "caring mode." Whether the game is tied to a higher purpose or not is extremely important to me. If I'm playing to indulge someone else, I won't put as much care as I would if I knew that there was, for example, an altruistic reason behind the game.

I know that about other people. I'm just pointing out that I don't feel my baseline standard of gaming is very artistic, or at the very least, it doesn't have much artistic merit.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-21, 10:58 PM
I know that about other people. I'm just pointing out that I don't feel my baseline standard of gaming is very artistic, or at the very least, it doesn't have much artistic merit.

This is merely my opinion, you will not find it written on a textbook or spouted by an expert: My definition of art is that it is supposed to inspire you. It's supposed to evoke an emotional response in you of such intensity that it moves you to action or reflection. To me, things of daily life, not touched by a human's hand, can be art. A beautiful view, natural sounds, a starry sky, and so on. If you can't think of a way for gaming to evoke those things in you, then gaming can never be art for you. If gaming already does that for you, then congratulations, you've been doing art all along.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-22, 06:06 AM
Oh, I thought you meant "elite" as in the social elite, and not the cultural elite. Well, yeah, artists determine what art is, and therefore who gets paid among them. Though that's far less interesting than the societal elite having control over the medium as a thesis.
It's both. The societal elite wielded more power over it in the past, but they still do wield a great deal of influence based on who they'll be patron to (Though the terms changed slightly). However, artists have become less dependent, and that weakens things, although "What the upper class likes" still molds the general conception of art. The fact of the matter is that the 'cultural' elite, as you divide it, hasn't been nearly so successful as the 'social' elite in defining what's art, which is why you're disparaging things that hold at least as much 'artistic value' (as the term is generally used) as the Mona Lisa and the Sistine Chapel (Which da Vinci and Michelangelo friggin' HATED as they were just 'crap we make to pay bills for our REAL work').


Currently the distinction is fluid. In the future, after more research has been done on he biological and psychological effects of art on the human being, distinctions will be less fluid.
Statement assumes facts not in evidence.


don't know about Guru, but to me, a game being art means that I am challenged to give more than I was giving to the game already.
Not really for me. That I give more to the game than some others perhaps do is what produces something that is HOPEFULLY of quality, but the drive to produce art isn't itself why I work so hard and do what I do.


However, this distinction is being made by people every day and at its core it comes down to two things
This is the problem I'm arriving at, yes. Yes, roleplaying is art, but why should I, or indeed, anyone, care? The term, used with any sense of fairness, includes friggin' Clash of the Titans and 2012, and has always included "Crap made to pay ofr the bills" when that crap was specifically made with the rich in mind (Incidentally, Yukitsu and Shadowdragon, you will be hard pressed to hear someone call the toucan on the front of fruit loops art, but it was made for the same reason as the Sistine Chapel). So yeah, roleplaying is art, but I have no reason to care about the term art. Which doesn't really change that the games me and my friends play are interesting, and we like what we're doing, it just means the term art isn't worth sweating. Wouldn't say it's meaningless, just, not an ideal.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-22, 06:41 AM
Statement assumes facts not in evidence.

Assumes previous tendencies will repeat themselves in the future. No more, no less.


Not really for me. That I give more to the game than some others perhaps do is what produces something of quality, but the drive to produce art isn't why I work so hard and create what I do.

And that's perfectly valid. I'm sure I will not be the only person to which "games can be art" will have those effects.


(Incidentally, Yukitsu and Shadowdragon, you will be hard pressed to hear someone call the toucan on the front of fruit loops art, but it was made for the same reason as the Sistine Chapel).

Yes, that's true once you think about it, but really, is that such a bad thing? Money being the reason something exists doesn't devalue the meaning or purpose of its existence. In fact, we should be glad that money is such a reliable reason for something's existence, and not, instead, random chance.

Terraoblivion
2011-06-22, 09:30 AM
Oh, we certainly have plenty of research into the psychological and sociological effects of creative expression. It's just that this research doesn't really coincide with definitions of what is and isn't art, sociologically speaking opera and power metal are far more similar than opera and sonatas, for example. It's basically the same segment of the population that listens to the two, with age being the only differing variable. Not just that, we know that entertainment and visual decorations can shape the opinions of people, that's the basis of propaganda and advertising, but I doubt many people would consider cornflake commercials art.

The art/not-art distinction also doesn't follow along lines based on these effects. Several works that can barely even attract enough attention to elicit yawns from people outside narrow artistic circles get canonized as art, while works that get frothing, fanatic support gets brushed aside as mere pablum for the masses. On the other hand, it isn't possible to make an inverse proportionality either, Ode to the Joy is a widely used, highly recognizable piece that quite a few people enjoy even without having any particular interest in classical music, while relentlessly boring pop songs rightfully tank thanks to being relentlessly boring. In general, the distinction simply doesn't follow lines based on how a given work influences people and indeed, many classics that are considered high art are quite similar to works that get ignored by the artistic community as being derivative, uninteresting and lacking in artistic merit that are made today.

We doesn't have a solid distinction and since the object of research into art isn't concerned with wider effects of art, but rather the art as an end onto itself, it is still just a self-perpetuating elite patting each other on the back. That does not mean that we could not develop a meaningful use of the term, but that would require a complete paradigm shift in both the study of art and how something gets accepted as art. I would be all for that since I believe that entertainment and visual decoration are too vital and essential parts of human culture to just ignore. I simply think that the way it has traditionally been done and still is being done is meaningless navelgazing that perpetuates a set of power structures blocking any meaningful research into the topic. I also believe that killing the idea of art as something higher, truer and more meaningful than anything else is a needed step towards reaching such a goal.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-22, 09:47 AM
Assumes previous tendencies will repeat themselves in the future. No more, no less.
Which isn't in evidence, as Terraoblivion correctly points out from her post giving out the basics of comparison between different kinds of art. Art, as a term generally used, isn't really that fluid. It's just "What pleases me" because it calls The Lord of the Rings art, but not Eragon. If you just want the effects, the quality of the work as a technical and aesthetic manner can't actually be judged. But that's the manner by which it's done.


Yes, that's true once you think about it, but really, is that such a bad thing? Money being the reason something exists doesn't devalue the meaning or purpose of its existence. In fact, we should be glad that money is such a reliable reason for something's existence, and not, instead, random chance.
I'm perfectly fine with Michelangelo, da Vinci, and the unnamed artist who made Toucan Sam needing to eat, and choosing to fill this need by making art. But Terraoblivion is correctly pointing out that for all of these things to count as art, the idea that art is higher, or truer, or more meaningful than not-art must be false. Which is fine.

Poison_Fish
2011-06-22, 03:02 PM
Well, I'm glad you finally settled on how the audience argument was faulty due to poor operationalization in the first place.

As for art being determined by those in power. Pierre Bourdieus The Rules of Art specifically explores this, along with many decades of research into the nature of cultural production.

Yukitsu
2011-06-22, 05:13 PM
Well, I'm glad you finally settled on how the audience argument was faulty due to poor operationalization in the first place.

As for art being determined by those in power. Pierre Bourdieus The Rules of Art specifically explores this, along with many decades of research into the nature of cultural production.

I'm not sure it was settled. I think there are just more theories on the table that are just as useless as the audience one, which is to say, just about as useless as modern art itself. Although I don't think artists ever intended their art to be useful come to think of it.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-22, 08:19 PM
Although I don't think artists ever intended their art to be useful come to think of it.

The "ever" in that statement is what makes it completely wrong. Some artists don't care if their art is useful. For others, the sole driving concern behind their art is that it is of use to someone. For yet another group, their intention is to take something that is already useful and add a new ontological dimension to it by making it also art.

Yukitsu
2011-06-22, 08:37 PM
The "ever" in that statement is what makes it completely wrong. Some artists don't care if their art is useful. For others, the sole driving concern behind their art is that it is of use to someone. For yet another group, their intention is to take something that is already useful and add a new ontological dimension to it by making it also art.

I'm really straining trying to remember an artist were they wanted their art to be useful. I'm really, really trying to think of an artist that thought the art itself was useful, as opposed to making something that is useful artistic.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-22, 08:50 PM
I'm really straining trying to remember an artist were they wanted their art to be useful. I'm really, really trying to think of an artist that thought the art itself was useful, as opposed to making something that is useful artistic.

*Blinks*
You can't be serious. Everyone who works on propaganda, for one. Remember that the term doesn't mean anything wrong. If Rosie the Riveter uplifted the work force and helped women on the assembly line while they toiled for the war effort, then their job was done and the work was itself useful.

The fairy tales of old were crafted to instruct. That's a use, and one recognized by the storytellers, as it was the point.

Fashion, at its best, can convey meaning and personality while also fitting well and being comfortable, and if needs be, climate appropriate.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-22, 08:59 PM
I'm really straining trying to remember an artist were they wanted their art to be useful. I'm really, really trying to think of an artist that thought the art itself was useful, as opposed to making something that is useful artistic.

Literature. Cinema. Even if they're not out to "teach something to the audience," entertaining is a valid use. Humans have a need to be entertained, and both examples satisfy that need, thereby having a use.

Yukitsu
2011-06-22, 09:05 PM
True, but that's pushing into everything being useful for something. Definitely not what I was referring to. Nor do I think the OSS and similar organizations thought of their work as art.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-22, 09:10 PM
True, but that's pushing into everything being useful for something. Definitely not what I was referring to. Nor do I think the OSS and similar organizations thought of their work as art.

It depends on your definition of useful. A lot of art is useful because it is decorative, and you could argue that humans might have a need for decoration. Define useful and you will still find art that has been created with such a purpose in mind.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-22, 09:29 PM
True, but that's pushing into everything being useful for something. Definitely not what I was referring to. Nor do I think the OSS and similar organizations thought of their work as art.

No, it isn't. That's specific manifestations of art having the exact uses they were intended to have on creation.

I don't really care whether or not they think what they're doing is art. They're dead. If you don't actually have their words on the matter, you have no earthly idea what they were thinking, so don't pretend otherwise. Whether that's what they thought they were doing or not (And it's very possible they didn't; see what Terraoblivion said about how successfully it has been established that 'art is what rich people like'), they were making art, and they *DEFINITELY* thought what they were making had a use. There's literally no other reason to make the attempt.

Stop trying to shoehorn everything you disagree with into a poor understanding of postmodernism, and stop trying to blame 'modern art' on everything you dislike. Even the worst caricatures were trying to do something for art or communication (Tied up though it is in pretense, self serving garbage, and other such nonsense). The Mona Lisa is a painting of a noblewoman; it was almost certainly done to buy da Vinci nice clothes. Why should that get more credit as 'art' (assuming for a moment, art is an ideal, something higher, that is worthy of respect) then Rosie the Riveter? Or indeed, the pretentious modern artist who hammered a nail into drywall and hung a slashed photograph of H.R. Giger on it (If this actually happened, I will eat one of my non-Nice Hats)? Why should something done to pay the bills, however well done technically, receive more credit as art (assuming art is an ideal, yada yada) than something legitimately done to send a message (However poorly or wrapped in pretense)?

For chrissakes, you assumed art from prior to the 20th century was 'Modern Art' as a pejorative just because you didn't like hearing about it. Shouldn't that maybe key you in that you're being too hasty, and that your assumptions are overreaching?

Yukitsu
2011-06-22, 10:06 PM
You do realize I never said I dislike post modernism or modernism. I don't like how people take their reclassification of art seriously now that they're considered just art, partly because that rather misses what they were doing, and if you were to try something they did back then, you're not expressing or asking anything anymore, you're just putting stuff in a pile and arguing.

That aside, it's rather self serving to assume I'm talking about what you define as art when I'm talking about art not having uses beyond being art. You already know I don't view anything that is creative as art, so when I'm talking about art not being useful, I'm not talking about it in the context of everything that is creative. Nor do I view causing a generally unspecified emotional response as useful, there's no real practical purpose to causing that (save the propoganda one, but again, I don't view that as art.) unless you can point out art as causing specific emotions. It doesn't, it evokes "an" emotion, which doesn't really have a purpose beyond itself.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-22, 10:35 PM
It doesn't, it evokes "an" emotion, which doesn't really have a purpose beyond itself.

Food gives you nutrients. Nutrients are needed to keep you alive. Being alive has no purpose beyond itself.

X is art. Art evokes an emotion. An emotion has no purpose beyond itself.

I can keep using that logic to render many, many things as "having no purpose beyond itself."

RPGuru1331
2011-06-22, 10:53 PM
You do realize I never said I dislike post modernism or modernism.
You invoke the same tropes, have the same reactions, and make the same arguments....


I don't like how people take their reclassification of art seriously now that they're considered just art, partly because that rather misses what they were doing, and if you were to try something they did back then, you're not expressing or asking anything anymore, you're just putting stuff in a pile and arguing.
This is tangled and difficult to understand. Please rephrase.



That aside, it's rather self serving to assume I'm talking about what you define as art when I'm talking about art not having uses beyond being art.
You haven't presented a definition at all. If you'd like for me to read your mind I must ask that you offer me Spice first, I'm quite out.

You have said you prefer 'the classics', but that's not really much of a definition, now is it?


You already know I don't view anything that is creative as art, so when I'm talking about art not being useful, I'm not talking about it in the context of everything that is creative.
But I don't know what you do view it as.



Nor do I view causing a generally unspecified emotional response as useful, there's no real practical purpose to causing that
You don't think evoking, say, joy, has a practical purpose?


(save the propoganda one, but again, I don't view that as art.)
Unless your definition of art is so narrow as to be laughable in the reverse, I promise you that at least some things you consider art are also propaganda.

also, Propaganda isn't a 'generally unspecified emotional response'.


unless you can point out art as causing specific emotions. It doesn't, it evokes "an" emotion, which doesn't really have a purpose beyond itself.
Guernica. To Kill a Mockingbird. No reaction is universal but artists often have a specific intent to provoke a particular kind of one, even by more restrictive definitions of art.

Terraoblivion
2011-06-23, 07:10 AM
Also, several famous pieces of art were propaganda of some kind. The Nightwatch, generally considered the fourth greatest painting of all time, was propaganda for the independent Dutch militias and the arrangement of the Dutch Republic they protected, for example.

Yukitsu
2011-06-23, 10:06 AM
You invoke the same tropes, have the same reactions, and make the same arguments....

Because you make the same wierd assumptions.


This is tangled and difficult to understand. Please rephrase.

Postmodern art itself is fine. The artists who created it had a point, they were trying to convey a message, ask questions about society, art and art's place in society. Now that they are a recognized form of art, they aren't challenging anything anymore. There's no more question "is this art" when they shove a pencil into an eraser and call it "murder" and put it in the Louvre. The definitions and assumptions they eliminated with their art made for fantastic pieces for their time, but it's time to go past those assumptions and find new ones, since they are no longer relevant. Or at least, if we keep doing what they were doing, art is stagnant and what's worse, rather ugly.


You haven't presented a definition at all. If you'd like for me to read your mind I must ask that you offer me Spice first, I'm quite out.

You have said you prefer 'the classics', but that's not really much of a definition, now is it?

That's fair. I go by the encyclopedia britannica one. I would use Webster, but given the enormity given to the term, I don't think Webster would be sufficient. Part of the core assumptions granted there are that it be aesthetic in some sense, and it be shared with others (going back to that audience bit).

I don't feel a particular need to try to create my own definition of art, since there are professional definitions out there. The one I picked happens to be rather narrow and dated, however, I think that as we move in to contemporary art and new mediums (games for example) if we want new medium art to be a step forward from post modernism, we need to re-evaluate what art is for, and for that the post-modern view of art for art's sake, art not being anything etc. are rather deficient. At any rate, it's why I think the Stuckists aren't doing anything relevant, and why new modern media needs to be careful what they bring with them.

I like art from 1800 backward, because at least they believed art was supposed to be aesthetic back then.


You don't think evoking, say, joy, has a practical purpose?

No. A lot of Socratics are stoics.

More seriously, I don't actually view many art pieces as succesful if that is the purpose of their art, since pretty much any you can point to will have mixed emotional responses from the audience, even if there is a general concensus of the quality, and even worse, most people just don't care about art. Show the average rube the three musicians he's not going to feel anything in particular (though I get the feeling Picasso's cubism wasn't really meant to anyway).


Unless your definition of art is so narrow as to be laughable in the reverse, I promise you that at least some things you consider art are also propaganda.

Given the broad strokes you like your definitions to have, I think Encyclopedeia Brittanica would indeed be "laughably narrow" in your opinion, much as I view your, and the post modern definition, to be trivial due to its breadth.


also, Propaganda isn't a 'generally unspecified emotional response'.

Yes, but as I said, I don't view it as art.


Guernica. To Kill a Mockingbird. No reaction is universal but artists often have a specific intent to provoke a particular kind of one, even by more restrictive definitions of art.

Having the goal of trying to provoke a response of some sort doesn't seem to me to be all that useful, knowing that most people just don't automatically feel the same emotional connection to the piece the artist would want you to feel.


Also, several famous pieces of art were propaganda of some kind. The Nightwatch, generally considered the fourth greatest painting of all time, was propaganda for the independent Dutch militias and the arrangement of the Dutch Republic they protected, for example.

I think this is somewhat pushing the boundaries of what propoganda is. I don't think Rembrandt created the piece solely, or at all because he wanted to draw in militia, I think he legitimately held the historic event as relevant to himself, his life and to the Dutch, as did the people who commissioned it. Nor am I certain that it could have been seen by enough lower class men to really act as incidental propoganda in that sense, as it's not as though a gigantic canvas like that one could possibly be stamped out in mass quanitites and given good exposure. Certainly where they were keeping it would only inspire people already in their army to join the army, so I'm not sure if it could have fulfilled that role in any practical sense.

The closest I'd get to considering functionally propoganda and art are those terrible paintings done by tyranical dictatorships of their "glorious" leaders being better than they were that were created en-masse everywhere, like that portrait of Stalin that was supposed to portrary him as healthy and non perpetually angry. How useful that was is up for debate him my mind, since it seems to have been commonly known that the man had a bit of a temper, and wasn't exactly the pinacle of health.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-23, 11:17 AM
Because you make the same wierd assumptions.
The same as what?

Oh, to expand: "You make the same arguments, tropes, etc, as someone who hates modern and postmodern art".




That's fair. I go by the encyclopedia britannica one. I would use Webster, but given the enormity given to the term, I don't think Webster would be sufficient. Part of the core assumptions granted there are that it be aesthetic in some sense, and it be shared with others (going back to that audience bit).

"the arts, also called fine arts, modes of expression that use skill or imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others."

Specifically.

Now, tell me in what manner this discards Rosie the Riveter, Fairy Tales, and Fashion (That last one is probably your easiest bet, but all possible examples of art made to be useful must be nullified to prove that no artist has considered their work to be useful. Difficult position you've taken there, since proving a negative is extraordinarily difficult).


I don't feel a particular need to try to create my own definition of art, since there are professional definitions out there.
And those definitions are used as a cudgel by the wealthy and now, to some extent, the artistic. The definitions you're using are almost as broad as my own; they're just not applied to things that are low class, apparently.




I like art from 1800 backward, because at least they believed art was supposed to be aesthetic back then.
....
Excuse me while I take a wicked wag. Aren't you a stoic?


Given the broad strokes you like your definitions to have, I think Encyclopedeia Brittanica would indeed be "laughably narrow" in your opinion, much as I view your, and the post modern definition, to be trivial due to its breadth.
I don't mean to me. I don't really laugh. I mean to very nearly everyone. If it doesn't include literature and music, it can be and is going to be wholly disavowed. Those won that particular cultural war.

They won it so hard that Britannica, which is apparently not making this explicit in its article on the arts, acknowledges it.

"For historical treatment of various literatures within geographical regions, see such articles as African literature; African theatre; Oceanic literature; Western literature; Central Asian arts; South Asian arts; and Southeast Asian arts." - From http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/343579/literature

"Music is an art that, in one guise or another, permeates every human society." - From http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/398918/music


More seriously, I don't actually view many art pieces as succesful if that is the purpose of their art, since pretty much any you can point to will have mixed emotional responses from the audience, even if there is a general concensus of the quality, and even worse, most people just don't care about art. Show the average rube the three musicians he's not going to feel anything in particular (though I get the feeling Picasso's cubism wasn't really meant to anyway).
You're *really* going out of your way to equivocate, aren't you? You never said it had to succeed. You said it had to have a purpose. Just because you fail to accomplish a goal doesn't mean you didn't have a goal.


Yes, but as I said, I don't view it as art.
You declared it by fiat. Your definition says you have to view it as art though. Seriously, look at this again;



"the arts, also called fine arts, modes of expression that use skill or imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others."
Explain to me in detail how that kills off propaganda.

In fact, this is almost as broad a definition as mine and Wikipedia's, I'm just consistent in its application (And from that consistency, have come to the realization that art is not an ideal). If you're not going to play your definition, you really have no right to expect *me* to.


Having the goal of trying to provoke a response of some sort doesn't seem to me to be all that useful, knowing that most people just don't automatically feel the same emotional connection to the piece the artist would want you to feel.
"an emotional response of some sort"? Do you even have the remotest idea which works of art I just referenced? They were going for specific responses to get people to agree to their ideals. They specifically engineered and received from broad audiences the response they wanted, advancing their goals. You may, as a stoic, believe it's ethically wrong to play on emotions, or to evoke them, but that's completely aside from the point at hand. You said, and I quote:


unless you can point out art as causing specific emotions. It doesn't, it evokes "an" emotion, which doesn't really have a purpose beyond itself.
And Guernica and To Kill a Mockingbird collectively did. Specifically, pity and sorrow for the former, and righteous indignation for the latter.

Yukitsu
2011-06-23, 03:55 PM
The same as what?

Oh, to expand: "You make the same arguments, tropes, etc, as someone who hates modern and postmodern art".

Oh. Yeah, sure I do. They're perfectly valid. In the context of people trying to create postmodern art today, and not 60 years ago. For example, I can appreciate that Warhol was doing something with his can of soup, but if you told me your painting of a can of soup was worth umpteen dollars, I'd call you a hack and a tell you to go find someone else to sucker. There's a historic and revolutionary context that makes it historically relevant that postmodernism lacks today.


"the arts, also called fine arts, modes of expression that use skill or imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others."

Specifically.

Now, tell me in what manner this discards Rosie the Riveter, Fairy Tales, and Fashion (That last one is probably your easiest bet, but all possible examples of art made to be useful must be nullified to prove that no artist has considered their work to be useful. Difficult position you've taken there, since proving a negative is extraordinarily difficult).

The word "aesthetic" in the foremost case. That and I've admitted there are cases where something that was art could be useful, but that's because it was something useful already made aesthetic. Clothes and fashion are a good example of this, the art itself isn't really useful, but people appreciate aesthetics in their clothes. This doesn't make the art itself useful.


And those definitions are used as a cudgel by the wealthy and now, to some extent, the artistic. The definitions you're using are almost as broad as my own; they're just not applied to things that are low class, apparently.

I'm not sure I buy this constant elitist accusation. If I go to my freinds house and play the 9th symphony by Beethoven, he'll probably like it, even though he's as cultured as a fresh tomato. Unless you mean culturally low class, in which case hell no it doesn't apply to them.


....
Excuse me while I take a wicked wag. Aren't you a stoic?

Might want to brush up on them. They don't believe you should never have emotions, should never enjoy art. They just hold that those things should never influence judgment, which I happen to agree with.


I don't mean to me. I don't really laugh. I mean to very nearly everyone. If it doesn't include literature and music, it can be and is going to be wholly disavowed. Those won that particular cultural war.

They won it so hard that Britannica, which is apparently not making this explicit in its article on the arts, acknowledges it.

"For historical treatment of various literatures within geographical regions, see such articles as African literature; African theatre; Oceanic literature; Western literature; Central Asian arts; South Asian arts; and Southeast Asian arts." - From http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/343579/literature

"Music is an art that, in one guise or another, permeates every human society." - From http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/398918/music

This is a bit of a strawman, as I'm not arguing against use by stating it must be visual art (so I'm not sure where all this is coming from), I'm stating is must be aesthetic.


You're *really* going out of your way to equivocate, aren't you? You never said it had to succeed. You said it had to have a purpose. Just because you fail to accomplish a goal doesn't mean you didn't have a goal.

I'm not certain you know how to use that term properly.

That aside, "having a goal" must generally accomplish that goal for the "tool" in question to be useful. A hammer that can't pound nails, isn't a useful hammer. Intending for your art to evoke an emotion that it doesn't, isn't useful art.


You declared it by fiat. Your definition says you have to view it as art though. Seriously, look at this again;

Explain to me in detail how that kills off propaganda.

Aesthetics.


In fact, this is almost as broad a definition as mine and Wikipedia's, I'm just consistent in its application (And from that consistency, have come to the realization that art is not an ideal). If you're not going to play your definition, you really have no right to expect *me* to.

I don't particularly care about constancy, since when I talk about art, it's the way I see it, and honestly if you can't understand that I in no way share your view, then you'd best tell me why I should absolutely accept yours as complete fact. Hence why I'm not screaming at you every time you refer to something creative as art, that's fine, I don't care, I just won't go by that definition when I'm talking about art.


"an emotional response of some sort"? Do you even have the remotest idea which works of art I just referenced? They were going for specific responses to get people to agree to their ideals. They specifically engineered and received from broad audiences the response they wanted, advancing their goals. You may, as a stoic, believe it's ethically wrong to play on emotions, or to evoke them, but that's completely aside from the point at hand.

And Guernica and To Kill a Mockingbird collectively did. Specifically, pity and sorrow for the former, and righteous indignation for the latter.[/quote]

To reiterate a point from before, and including your examples of "to kill a mockingbird" and "Guernica", the literary aim of a piece rarely coincides with the interpretive judgment the audience will have, those stories included. Hence, it isn't a useful tool in invoking those responses, since it's not a reliable tool, and since everyone will look at it in a different light, creating different responses.

Terraoblivion
2011-06-23, 04:45 PM
Ummm, you do know that pop art is a branch of modernism and not postmodern at all? Postmodernism as an artistic movement didn't begin until the 1970s, though it grew out of various modernist traditions including the pop art that Warhold represents, wikipedia has a fine overview of the artistic traditions that postmodern art grew from, even if they weren't postmodern themselves.

RPGuru1331
2011-06-23, 06:07 PM
The word "aesthetic" in the foremost case.

It's an "Or". "Or" is not "And". Any of those 3 is valid. I could just as easily claim that they're attempts to create an experience of an emotion.


Clothes and fashion are a good example of this, the art itself isn't really useful, but people appreciate aesthetics in their clothes. This doesn't make the art itself useful.

Cynically, if it makes someone want it, then it has a use to the person trying to make money off of it, and is thus useful. 'purpose' is human-ascribed, you know.

Less cynically, if it makes people feel better, that's a legit use.


I'm not sure I buy this constant elitist accusation.
Mona Lisa. Toucan Sam. You're pretending one falls under art and hte other doesn't. Your definition disagrees. You're equivocating nonetheless. I grow weary of this. Produce a new definition that will actually discriminate while accepting what is commonly known as art, and does not include "what I like", concede the point, or I am going to stop wasting my time.


Might want to brush up on them. They don't believe you should never have emotions, should never enjoy art.
Irony isn't always steeped in accuracy.


This is a bit of a strawman,
It's a pre-emptive claim against hedging.


I'm stating is must be aesthetic.
They are.

Oh look, you're going to hide behind another definition again. No, I grow weary of this tapdance.


That aside, "having a goal" must generally accomplish that goal for the "tool" in question to be useful. A hammer that can't pound nails, isn't a useful hammer. Intending for your art to evoke an emotion that it doesn't, isn't useful art.
You're conflating your own arguments together. Either you mispoke earlier, or you're dodging now. The original point was that you didn't think the *artist* thought it had a use. The artist did. Their goal indicates that they think it will do something. It may not, but that failure doesn't change what the artist had in mind in making it.

Separately from this, you made the assertion that art has no use.


Aesthetics.
If I may predict your NEXT dodge, it is to beauty.


I don't particularly care about constancy, since when I talk about art, it's the way I see it, and honestly if you can't understand that I in no way share your view, then you'd best tell me why I should absolutely accept yours as complete fact.
Because if you're not going to consistently apply your own definition, you might as well just admit that art is what suits your tastes, and that anything that steps outside those tastes is not art in your estimation. You might as well not pretend you have a definition at all, and just admit it to the rest of us and save us the time.

Oh wait, you just did that. Good night.

Lord Raziere
2011-06-23, 06:10 PM
..........weren't you people talking about DMing styles?

Shadowknight12
2011-06-23, 06:20 PM
..........weren't you people talking about DMing styles?

The conversation drifted and it wasn't stopped. If nobody wants to talk about the original concepts that were being debated, that's actually their fault. If off-topicness bothers anyone, they ought to start posting in-topic to foster the dialogue they want.

averagejoe
2011-06-26, 10:05 AM
The conversation drifted and it wasn't stopped. If nobody wants to talk about the original concepts that were being debated, that's actually their fault. If off-topicness bothers anyone, they ought to start posting in-topic to foster the dialogue they want.

The Mod They Call Me: Not driving the thread off topic is courteous, even if it isn't anyone's duty. I think the discussion has petered out, but in case it hasn't: if you have the urge to discuss anything else here, make sure it's on topic.