RPGs Sound Like Jazz?

 

No I'm not talking about Scatman Crothers. I'm talking about how RPGs can exist as an art form.Have you ever asked yourself why you play RPGs? I'm sure you have. And I'm sure your garden variety of answers go something like: I play games to have fun. I play games to kill orcs. I play games as a hobby. I play games because I'm bored with watching NYPD Blue. I play games because I like to show-off how well I know the White Wolf rules set. I play games because I can't get a date. Et cetera.

No I'm not talking about Scatman Crothers. I'm talking about how RPGs can exist as an art form.

Have you ever asked yourself why you play RPGs? I'm sure you have. And I'm sure your garden variety of answers go something like: I play games to have fun. I play games to kill orcs. I play games as a hobby. I play games because I'm bored with watching NYPD Blue. I play games because I like to show-off how well I know the White Wolf rules set. I play games because I can't get a date. Et cetera.

I admit some of those reasons factor into why I play RPGs. I've got other reasons, too. In fact, I was talking about this very topic a few days ago with a good friend of mine. In our bailiwick, our love of RPGs is probably unparalleled. We've devoted vast hours of our quasi-young lives talking about games, the in's and out's of RPGs, and the reasons why we maintain our beloved pastime. We talked about RPGs as though they were Jazz.

Am I saying that RPGs are jazz? Yup. That's exactly what I'm saying. Let me explain why.

Jazz, when done right, is a unique experience. First and foremost, it's a creative process. With jazz, you start by following a pattern, but as things progress you start to go with the flow. You ad lib. There are some rules and guidelines you tend to abide by, but it's usually better if you stay in key, maintain a good timbre, and keep beat. To a large extent, however, you make things up as you go. You adapt. You can follow a path for a bit, see where it goes, and then decide if you're going to keep following it or return to where you were. Jazz is as much about exploration as it is music.

Secondly, jazz is a group effort. . . most of the time. If you go into a bar or to a club, you usually don't see a lone jazz player. There's often a guy on piano, a gal at the microphone, some dude on drums, a trumpet player, maybe a trombone player, and maybe a few more guys doing their thing. In jazz, you have others there to help out. They can show you a new path to take, or help you along the way. With the right combination of creativity and imagination, you and your fellow players can take your jazz to new levels and turn it into an art form. Only a good band can make good jazz.

RPGs, essentially, are very much like jazz. You've got a GM who designs the layouts of the game. The GM knows the paths available and knows the general direction in which the game will progress. The GM shows the players the paths, but it's up to the players to decide which paths to follow. The GM can ad lib a moment, but so can the players. The initial creative process rests mostly on the GM, but as the game commences, the creativity is shared. Like jazz, RPGs are a creative and imaginative process. Like jazz, RPGs can be an art form.

I'm met a lot of gamers in my day and most of them don't consider themselves to be artists. The common take I hear on RPGs is they're just a game. A pastime. For some, it's like watching a movie or listening to a CD. Most people I met don't really care that much about the RPGs they play. It's just their something-to-do.

I don't think like that. I think of myself as an artist. Oh I can't play jazz, and no band worth it's salt would have me. I'm a lousy musician. But, I�m not a half-bad gamer nor am I a lousy GM. It's not because I have a gift or anything. The only reason I'm good with RPGs is because I approach them as though they were an art form. I can spend hours with a stack of resource books poring over the contents while I scribble down notes. I can spend hours thinking about some guy's PC and what kind of scenarios would get his juices pumping. I can spend hours drawing the map to a new structure for my PC's to explore. I can spend hours upon hour working on games because I love doing it and I love to create things. I love exercising my imagination. I love RPGs.

It may sound silly to some, but RPGs are an artistic outlet for me. I'm fortunate in that I have a great group of people who (for the most part) are of like mind. Are the goals of the game important? Sure. . . on some level it matters whether we save the princess or not. But, it's not the outcome that I'm interested in, rather, it's the process. I don't play RPGs so I can become a Level 18 Gygax Eater. . . I play RPGs to hone my artistic energies. In that regard, the hours that I spend designing, revising, and playing games are far from wasted. Musicians, authors, painters, sculptors, and their like spend hours perfecting their craft. In that respect, I'm no different.

It may sound corny. . . but, I play RPGs because they are my jazz. If you haven't learned to treat RPGs like jazz. . . maybe you should.

This article reminds me of Nephandus' stories about his friend Jeff. This guy apparently viewed everything about his role-playing experience as 'art,' and he was such a tool about it and tried to monopolize the game to such an extent that the other players really had a terrible time. It was bad enough that Nephandus practically has a conniption every time somebody tries to compare RPing with art.

He has a valid point, I think, in that taking a fantasy gaming experience too seriously can lead to all kinds of trouble. Nothing lends itself to pretentious, taking-myself-far-too-seriously BS than trying to pass yourself off as an artist.

But I have a looser view of the matter. To me, the One Commandment of gaming is this: Thou Shalt Have A Great Deal of Fun. If you don't--for WHATEVER REASON--then why do you keep playing the game, unless you're a masochist or a martyr or something? But if you and your group are having the time of your lives, and spending the week obsessing about the Saturday night game, and writing reams and reams of paratext, then I say whatever gets you there is a good thing. If you can get your game to that level by calling it art, do so!

Just so you don't think I'm picking on you, Rogue Githyanki, I share your view that a good game is a form of art. I wanted to relay Nephandus' point of view, which I think has valid components, to try and present a balanced opinion of the subject.

And thanks for keeping the articles coming...most of the rest of us have been letting this community down of late, myself included!

Yeah – I enjoyed the article, and I agree that the fundamentals of a jazz ensemble - a range of improvisational freedom surrounded by a context of guiding constraints – is an apt comparison. In a good game, there is certainly a creative spark that isn’t really centered on one person, but rather is fueled by all the participants.

I do have a few problems with the word Art though, as it applies to RPG’s.

1. An artist tends not to compromise his or her vision, and compromise is an essential for good role-playing.

The question of “what happens next” isn’t really the choice of any single person – and the people I’ve played with – most notably “Jeff” – are willing to ride rough-shod over that notion to justify nearly anything to satisfy their vision of how “their art” should turn out. Granted, if Jeff applied the same principles to playing in a Jazz quartet, he’d be jumping around and playing every instrument – so this is largely focused on the player, not the principle. Still, it bears mentioning if only for the reason that the Jeff's of the world cite Art as their excuse for their behavior.

2. Art often implies a quality that appeals to more than its participants, and it usually describes the entire work throughout, from beginning to end, not just moments of it.

Can we say as much of our RPG’s? I think that RPG’s differ from a jazz ensemble in this case.

Some people use the word Art to describe what they do, I think, to justify the amount of time they spend on it, and others use it to justify a kind of dominance over the game or players that supercedes any other participlant.

That’s why I tend to prefer the word “craft” when I discuss playing or especially DMing. A craftsperson can make something that has elements that are artistic, but that has first a practical purpose. In the case of RPG’s we have a system and a story that are designed to facilitate play.

Too often, I see frustrated or lazy artists at the D&D table, mistaking their play for art, or mistaking an attempt at art for play. In infamous case of Jeff, we have a person who recognizes in the D&D game the familiar elements on would use to create art. The difference is the artist – the novelist or screenwriter takes all those elements he introduces and prepares, and whittles them down and puts them into some kind of sequence. This is the real hard work - it's more than daydreaming or playing with trainsets.

So we are faced with the frustrated artist who isn’t satisfied with the story, and so tries to exceed the limits of the game. Or we see frustrated artists who write 50 page characters, plots, or settings without any actual places in them for players to access the richness or melodrama they provide. It never makes it into the game.

In our case, Jeff’s adventure became so massive and conceptual that he finally realized he’d lost his way and couldn’t finish the story. It ended with a 3 hour narrative explaining what our characters did, and what it all meant.

By focusing on craft and play instead of “art” we remain humble, and that’s very important. We remember first that this is a game, and that none of that other crap matters at all if it never makes it to the table in some form. When I’m constructing or fleshing out a setting, plot, or character – I make sure I spend the most time on what’s actually going to be played. Because 90% of the time, this game is about what’s on the other side of that door. The 10% of richness in the rest of it will flavor and contextualize everything else.

Nephandus said :

"In our case, Jeff’s adventure became so massive and conceptual that he finally realized he’d lost his way and couldn’t finish the story. It ended with a 3 hour narrative explaining what our characters did, and what it all meant."

He actually made you sit through a 3 hour narrative ????!!!

Did he think it rude when some of you started snoring ?

I ran a 7 year game of WoD and had several different players over those years. One of those players eventually left, frustrated that he couldn't realise his "vision" of the "Art of RPGing". True RPGing, he insisted, involved being free to do anything and everything that he pleased without either overt or subtle influence from the GM. He also happened to prefer playing insane characters (as I eventually discovered when seeing him play in other games run by other GMs).

The "Artiste" can be a royal pain in the butt by almost inevitably insisting that their "vision" be played out and that they be given a forum within which to express their "talent". This Jeff person sounds just like that.

The "Crafter" (to borrow Nephandus' term) is someone who adds to the flavour of the game without detracting from the play. Another player (also in the WoD) game, was a crafter. He came up with strong characters, interesting goals and, importantly, plausability within the framework of what we, as gamers, were sharing. Some of his character's had selfish goals, but none of his characters were designed selfishly.

Maybe that's the difference between a crafter and an artiste. One is selfish and one isn't.

OK - slight exagerration - not 3 hours. But it was bloody well 1 hour, after about 2 of playing that night. We politely listened- since this really was very important to him, and he didn't want his work to go to waste. Most of us passed a spliff and a few more beers.

Slight exaggeration?

Paul, it's been over two years. Past time we talked, obviously. My number hasn't changed and I'm home Sunday afternoon if you want to give me a call.

To the rest of you good folks: fiat veritas pereat vita.

Jeff

Oh, yeah?

Well, to you I reply: Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero.

Craftsman - someone who works to make objects whose primarily function is to be used for a practical purpose.

Artist - someone who works to make objects whose primary function is to be appreciated esthetically.

Its hard to say where the DM is under these definitions. They are not completely exclusive in any case.

Anyway. This is getting a bit too existential for me. I always thought that I was a bit too self absorbed, but I see that I am a mere dabbler compared to some of you. I leave you with a final thought:

" The world is made for people who lack self awareness "

Cocytus,

I agree whole-heartedly that the whole point is to have a great deal of fun.

Everybody has to take their own approach...what's fun for me and my gang won't necessarily be fun for other groups. Trust me...I understand that. We've tried to bring others into the fold in the past, and we're about even on our hit-miss ratio. Some people get what we're trying to do...other don't...and others get it, but don't go for it. To each their own.

Nephandus,

Well, I don't really want to get bogged down in semantics. My definition of "art" probably differs from your definition...and I'm sure it differs from Webster's too. I don't have any concrete views on what "art" is. If I run a game where everything seems to click, everybody has their juices pumping, and we end up spending years talking about that game...then I call that an artistic moment...and I also see it as a shared moment, 'cause it wasn't just me that made it happen...I was only responsible for X percent of it.

When I was 16, I was a player in a "bug hunt" game. We were ripping off Aliens in a big way...but we were 16 and having the time of our lives. There was a moment in the game where our "tank" was at the end of a 3 mile long service tunnel...and aliens starting coming for us. I was the driver and found out that the tank was stuck in reverse. So, I had to drive backwards for 3 miles at high rates of speed with aliens crawling all over the tank. We were loosing NPC's left and right and at one point I was steering with one hand and shooting out the windows with the other. That was one of the greatest natural highs I'd ever had -- call it what you will, but I call it art. And I strive to make games that give players that kind of rush -- it doesn't always have to be action related...I just want to make games that will resonate with players for years to come.

My only "artistic" frustration with RPG's comes when I don't think somebody enjoyed the game -- that means I didn't do my job as well as I could have.

I don't use the term art to justify anything I do. I love making games. I love detailing every possible aspect about an NPC -- if the PC's decide to kill or fire that NPC within 10 minutes of meeting him...oh well, at least I had fun making him.

Maybe I spend too much time making my games...but, I have fun doing it. It's cheaper than pot and a lot healthier. The main reason I call it "art" is because it flexes my creativity.

I offered up this article to give a different POV on how games can be done / approached. Like I said, it may not be some folks' cup of tea. That's cool. I'm just here to say that it can be done, and it can be done without all of the bad blood that has been suffered by some.

I think Mo is right...it's hard to solidify where a Game Master falls between the Artist / Craftsman DMZ. It's not completely exclusive. But, me, I gravitate towards the artist end of the spectrum.

Rogue, I agree with much of what you said, as I indicated before - especially about a jazz ensemble with everyone reading cues and focusing on their contributions. I've just responded mainly to Cocytus's remarks, citing examples didn't work out as well - which seemed to frustrate the 'artist' as much as anyone else. It's one thing to push the envelope to expand or enhance the playing experience. These people aren't criticizing that at all. We are criticizing the players who shred the envelope - who try to fight the setting instead of enhancing it. One is helpful - and those players are a gift. The other is disruptive, and just never ends - because those players can get very righteous about what they do.

I certainly agree that RPGs contain elements of art - be it performance, improv, story, and others. I've certainly incorporated artistic elements in my games. Even the worst examples I've offered were actually very successful in achieving "artistic moments" approaching performance art, whether or not they were ultimately successful in designing something that could be played, or playing a character that fit within the parameters or the story or game.

And I absolutely agree that it doesn't matter what you call it - If it works, it works; if it doesn't, it doesn't. But if we are to indulge semantics, the "craftsman" creates practical things that may have artistic elements - art and craft are not mutually exclusive in the craftman's labor. It's easier, I think to agree on what a craft is than it is to agree on what art is. A quilt, for example, or a navajo blanket, both have a recognizable purpose, whether or not they are hanging on a wall instead of covering a bed. Change them too much though (ie, make a quilt out of crepe paper), and they lose that practical connection and become something else. This is not a criticism - unless of course you wanted something beautiful that will also keep you warm. In RPGs, most of us want something that captures our imagination, but also that we can play.

I think it's fantastic to aspire to artistic moments in a game - to capture the imagination, to engage the players (and the ref), to share in the RPG buzz that sometimes just settles on the table - where everyone is leaning forward, forgetting about the Cheezies for a while. That's what you are talking about, and I'm right there with you.

Cocytus just raises a common point about what happens when one participant focuses too closely on this aspect and disregards the social atmosphere, or forgets that it has to be interactive - that players must be able to engage it as a game, or that there are other players at the table. That's for RPGs such as D&D3e, with a rich fantasy storybase welded to an efficient player/game interface.

In other games or activities (LARP, improv drama games, pure communal storytelling without dice or rules, a screenwriting partnership, RPGs with a very loose or even ill-conceived player/game interface), less care or attention need be focused on these practical considerations. An artist can be more focused on creating a story, or in creating an experience to give to the audience. For the kind of heady buzz you've described above, I think the mistake that apparently many ambitious GMs make is to focus on *giving* the experience to participants, rather than *facilitating* an experience in which they will participate. Both can be entertaining, but only one is actually interactive.

Okay, first off, I agree. As a writer both by preference and by profession and an avid gamer both by preference and by profession I think of gaming as an art form.

Now, to Neph's point, the story of his frind Jeff* seemed to imply that this individual was being pretentious. Pretentious just pisses me off to no end and is something that I have to put up with from some of the art students I go to school with.

I approach writing a game just like I approach writing a novel. My writing I consider art and I feel that my gamie related writing should not be excluded from that.

*This is Neph's friend Jeff, not mine. My (ex)friend Jeff wouldn't know art if it came up and bit him on the ass. And he's got alot of ass to bite.

Mmm, I don't know if I'd call it ‘pretentious’. A lot of it was entertaining or engaging - just not interactive, or cooperative – not a game, not something that is played, or that is made playable easily. The problem wasn't that it was summarized by narrative and wrapped – other factors retconned the source of my frustration there.

The point was that steady focus on conceptual ideas that catered only to artistic sensibilities eventually left the "game" far behind. This is a common problem for DMs and players (me too, guilty) spending too much effort or attention on aspects of a character or setting that will never make it into play, or neglecting to tie the narrative to some kind of player interface or access point. These are the nuts and bolts of the game. For the ambitious DM, the challenge is in keeping the game personal, grounded, and actionable.

Rogue Githyanki said :

"When I was 16, I was a player in a "bug hunt" game That was one of the greatest natural highs I'd ever had -- call it what you will, but I call it art."

You have a RoleGasm. I still remember my first one too....

Nephanus said :

" It's one thing to push the envelope to expand or enhance the playing experience. These people aren't criticizing that at all. We are criticizing the players who shred the envelope - who try to fight the setting instead of enhancing it. One is helpful - and those players are a gift. The other is disruptive, and just never ends - because those players can get very righteous about what they do."

Ditto and agreed wholeheartedly. An artiste can become just another distraction/disruption in a game and several kill both mood and flow. It can be "as bad as" the beer drinking buddy who shows up at games to tell his friends the latest blonde or big tit joke (not that it's a bad thing, but it can be disruptive when the rest of the group aren't as interested in the beer and more interested in the gaming fun).

Nephandus said :

"I think the mistake that apparently many ambitious GMs make is to focus on *giving* the experience to participants, rather than *facilitating* an experience in which they will participate. Both can be entertaining, but only one is actually interactive."

Ditto and agreed again. Glad you articulated what I was thinking but not conveying well. RPG as a collaborative art form ? Maybe, so long as the experience is shared and not dictated.

EaterOfTheDead said :

"I approach writing a game just like I approach writing a novel. My writing I consider art and I feel that my gamie related writing should not be excluded from that."

I think I'm too "conventional" when it comes to art. I think of it as something to be created and put on display, not something that a group will collaborate on and bless the world with. No doubt the buzz described by artists can be a similar buzz to that felt by RPGers during a particularly good RPG experience, especially by a GM who comes up with a "masterpiece" of RPGing.

art is anything that is called art by anybody at all. the designation is completely arbitrary. it doesn't even have to be called "art" by its creator, it simply needs to be thought of as art by anyone who experiences it.
roleplaying itself is a form of acting, and dungeon mastering isn't too many shades away from being classified as performance art. it certainly involves many aspects of writing, drama, design, acting, and a host of other things.
when the "right" people start considering RPing an art, rather than a hobby, mebbe then it'll get some respect.

look up the word "catharsis" if you don't know what it means.

but, to avoid sounding like a ninny, the only thing you really have to do is have fun. if you don't, then there's no point. unless its being recorded.

"the only thing you really have to do is have fun"

---

We do often come back to this point, but isn't it a bit "pie in the sky?"

Nobody intentionally goes in to piss people off - well, ok a few might play for the sole purpose of proving the game is inadequate and that they can break it. I have a friend right now who is poring through the 3e manual, expressly looking for exploits. But even the most narcissistic players and DMs are having fun in their own way - they just don't really notice how the other participants are reacting.

Or they do notice, but they believe their 'art' is important or sublime enough to justify continuing it, with the belief that they'll eventually win over or inspire the others in the group, or that their ‘work’ is more important than a positive and casual social atmosphere.

That said, either of those approaches can be a valid approach or response to an RPG session if that’s what the participants signed up for. I might see shades of this if I was playtesting a game or some new technique, or if my players really didn’t mind a more passive role. I can think of two instances where I’ve gone heaviest on narrative with less ‘game’ participation – both with Whitewolf games, and both where I was introducing a brand new setting, character array, and rules set to a group of newbies. In drama, we call it “the terrible scene” where the rules, goals, desires, and basic framework of the setting is laid down in which the players will play. We’ve also discussed ways of introducing new drama techniques into the game – bluebooking individual stories outside of the adventure and sharing them via email, or acting out dramatic vignettes from each characters’ lives with improv- rather than just reading a tedious history. I think in these cases we did a fair amount of consultation on these things – they were somewhat experimental, and we had an open-minded group that way.

For experienced DMs and groups, a reasonable way to ‘have fun’ is to set the parameters of the game at the beginning and stick to them. What kind of game are you going to play? What setting? What style of arbitration? What sort of challenges? Dynamic or static setting?

There is a tendency in many groups to leave the DM to figure it out on her own, and also a tendency of many DMs to simply assume that because they are DMing, that they have carte blanche over the playing field. But if the goal is for everyone to have fun, I favor a more democratic set-up period where people can state their preferences if they have them, and decide whether or not they wish to opt in to the game that the rest of the group wants to play.

Neph said:
"For experienced DMs and groups, a reasonable way to ‘have fun’ is to set the parameters of the game at the beginning and stick to them. What kind of game are you going to play? What setting? What style of arbitration? What sort of challenges? Dynamic or static setting? "

I think we've been over this one a few time allready.

On a related point. Just because I say that I consider my games art does not mean that I dictate what happens to my players or even heavily emphasise the roleplaying. Sure I've run and played many a session where we may never even pick up our dice because we were interacting with the environment or playacting our parts.

But then I've had sessions where the action never stops. Bith can be art. Blowing shit up is artistic. Just look at afilm as sophisticated and artisticly crafted as The Terminator for proof of that.

Nephandus,

I understand a lot of your concerns -- I, too, have experienced some of them...as both a GM and a player. I've seen games go wrong because one person got too much control of the pie slices.

In my experiences, however, these scenarios are usually un-intentional. I ran a series of games back in 95 that were mostly story related. At that point, I considered them to be the best games I'd ever made. In terms of detail, description, raw energy, and over-all fun factor...they were. But, I didn't give my Player's as much to do as I should have. I didn't force their hand, necessarily...but the games were too rigid for them to truly act freely.

Okay...mistake made, lesson learned. After that campaign was finished, I tried to make sure that the Player's had more options open to them...

...but I also strove for the best of both worlds. I didn't want to loose the strong story elements that I had before...I didn't want to loose the artistic moments...but I didn't want to short-change the players. By no means was my "art" so important that I felt the need to force the Player's hand...nor did I want them to sit around and listen to be describe Ragnarok (or whatever) to them. In this aspect, I thing Eater and saying similar things.

Neph...one thing I dont' agree on is the way you seem to pigeon-hole a DM who takes the "artist" approach. You've suggested that such people try to justify the importance of their approach...that the "artistic" approach is less democratic...that the "artistic" approach is not as open to true gaming aspects...that the "artistic" approach is more suitable for story-telling...and so forth.

I hear your concerns...I've been through some of them...but I maintain that it's possible to have an "artistic" game without tripping over any of the concerns that you've listed. Like anything else, it just takes some practice and time...and a few folks of similar mind.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting it or not...but, for the record, I also disagree that the GM who takes the "artistic" approach is more likely to screw up a game. I've seen plenty of bad GM's in my day and they come from all over the map.

I will agree that the most common trait of a bad GM and Player is an over-stuffed Ego...but I deny that the desire to implement "artistic" elements always facilitates an over-stuffed Ego.

It's possible to be "artistic" and humble at the same time.

^
If that's what you are saying, then I agree completely.
At no point have I said that the result I've laid out is the only option - I've just used it as a cautionary tale. You've had the same experiences, as have others in this thread - everyone knows exactly what we are talking about.

Sounds like we're all in violent agreement - aspire to an epic and intimate game, while never losing sight of the fact that it is a game.

"aspire to an epic and intimate game, while never losing sight of the fact that it is a game."

Beautiful summary, man.

Paul, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I gave you cause for your anger. You deserved better.

Believe it or not, I understand your gamist values and have for some time now. I respect them. I'm collaborating on a campaign with the bunny woman, who's helped me see things from your point of view. The two-DM experiment is fascinating: our values and talents are different but they complement one another. The games are better experiences than either of us could engineer alone, in part because our players aren't uniform in their values and taste. Tomorrow we're running the climax to a cavern adventure, using an enormous, gridded, 3-dimensional, 3-level miniature map we've constructed with foam board, 1" graph paper, glue, scissors, knives, tape, velcro, wine, grass and music. It's a functional metaphor.

For the record, here's my edit of the beautiful summary:

"Aspire to an epic and intimate game, while never losing sight of the fact that it is play."

As a DM, given a choice between playing a player's creative expression and over-ruling a player's creative expression, I'll cheat the system, as elegantly as possible, so everybody can experience what our friend is imagining. That's a more accurate reflection of what I'm about.

To the rest of you good folks: fiat veritas pereat vita. If you're looking for a definition of art, that's not a bad place to start. Best of luck to you all in your exploration of this revolutionary, exciting, hybrid medium.

Take care Paul.

Jeff

^
I appreciate the sentiment, but I won’t delve deeply into non game-related matters here. The damage was more severe than hurt feelings – it affected my wife as well, and it has accrued for years. Perhaps we’ll settle matters if we return to Canada later this summer.

This BBS covers topics we both enjoy, and to which you can bring a great deal of insight. When you see your name written in caricature, keep in mind that it isn’t actually about you, it’s about selective aspects of my experiences with you that illustrate the point I’m making (sometimes seasoned by a personal grudge). Several positive game experiences have been ‘ret-conned’ upon later reflection, and likely some of them have been mixed with experiences with other players in other games. It’s not a biography.

Says Jeff:
“As a DM, given a choice between playing a player's creative expression and over-ruling a player's creative expression, I'll cheat the system, as elegantly as possible, so everybody can experience what our friend is imagining.”

Says Neph (Paul):
What the player appears to want in the moment may only be a proxy toward his real source of engagement– to play, to have fun. What makes it fun?

Is it fun to present an accurate articulation of a scenario as one of several players imagines?
Or is the fun in testing oneself by working toward a goal, weighed against the risk of failing – where the outcome is not assured?

What’s the worst that can happen if you don’t cheat the system to bring about your perception of their creative expression? When your players arrive at Endor and the shield ISN’T down as they imagined, and the battlestation is, to their surprise, fully armed and operational, has the story been ruined?

A DM’s most difficult challenge is to let a scenario play when the short-term results are not what anyone desires. The degree to which a DM personally orchestrates the outcome is correlated inversely with the amount of player participation possible.

The act of a DM selecting one outcome over another based on what she believes is appealing, rather than trusting the players to use their brains and their interface to play it out, has the opposite of its intended effect. It removes “play” from the activity, leaving only a narrative to be enjoyed from a distance rather than engaged directly.

Now would probably be a good time to NOT say stuff like "rather than trusting the players to use their brains."

Shut the fuck up and kiss me. Let me tweak your nipple.

Jeff

Please guys, take this personal conflict elswhere. At first it enhanced the discussion, but now it's getting ridiculous.

Maybe "art" is too pretentious a term for it, and "craft" too mechanical. I tend to think of RPing as "cooperative creative writing," myself. There are stories to be told and that's what we do. The DM initially provides the setting and the beginning of the story, and then everyone authors one or more characters' parts in it, and the end (in the group I game with's case, at least) is uncertain until it comes. Looking at it from that point of view, it seems to me, strikes a good balance between the art and the craft. Engaging drama and visceral action come along, and are taken seriously enough for some great high points, but the DM and players keep in mind that it is a cooperative effort and nobody is the sole author that may hijack the game. Sometimes there is friction, but with everyone having some influence on where the game goes, as a co-author, things are generally harmonious and fun. Which is the point, isn't it?

Also, I've found that the term "cooperative creative writing" is much easier to explain to non-gamers than "roleplaying game," when the gamer is asked what he's doing every Friday night with all those weird people. ;-)

There can be art within crafts. I think "product" sounds mechanical, but a craftsman or artisan can make something useful that also has beauty. "Craft" already IS the balancing point between art and strictly utilitarian products.

I've been in "cooperative writing" workshops, and my wife has led "collaborative process writing" workshops for drama. They lack a "game" aspect, and do not resemble D&D, at least as most people define it.

The difference we return to is the distance the participants maintain from the narrative. A "cooperative writer's" interest lies mainly in creating a narrative, while a role-player's interest is in taking action - in being or "playing" - within that narrative.

The writer is about creating the artifact, whereas the player is about creating the experience.

To use the running Jazz analogy - the writer is in a produced studio session - his "art" resulting in a perfect CD that he can listen to later (but which performance never actually existed). The player, on the other hand, is in a live quartet, doing a performance that is unique and is immediate - there's no rewind, no distance from the song. It's as much about being in the song as it is about making it, maybe even more.

Further thoughts:

The writer is more about creating the artifact, whereas the player is, to a greater degree, about being in the experience.

The “writer” maintains distance from the narrative, and has a sense of prescience over what will happen next. Collaborative writing (ie polishing a script) is more often subject to starts, stops, and rewinds, anticipation and negotiation, to get the “best take” in the result – but at the cost of spontaneity, novelty, and immediacy.

The “player” cares less about whether the overall story "will be good enough" and focuses more on what her character does next. In this case things go wrong – the plan may be good, but the villain’s might be better, or he might just be lucky. Ironically – this is key for creating a good story – reversals where either side will get the upper hand at any point, and where things don’t go as the protagonist imagined. The drawback, if you call it that, is that the story may go where you don’t expect it to go, and that at least some conflicts will end in defeat.

One method more product focused, the other is more process focused.

I do like the "cooperative creative writing" notion, and I've used a similar phrase to describe it to my mom (she still doesn't get it, though).

I knew one Player who sacrificed his PC to fight off a squad of drow so that the other Players could move on to the main bad guy. They could have all taken out the drow, but he thought it would be a dramatic flair and would make that particular game more interesting as a result. I was the GM and made double-sure that he was willing to do go out in a blaze of glory...but he stuck to his guns. The survivors went on to commerate him and he's still spoken of fondly by the PC's and the people who play them...10 years after the fact.

That's a case in which one guy offers up something to help make the overall story more interesting. And they way we handled his final stand in the game...the way we tossed dice and played it out...was fun too.

Another example...

More recently, I had a player get struck in the head by a flail. The guy wielding the flail had giant like strength, so there was a lot of damage done by the blow. The Player asked if it'd be okay if his eye was knocked out. Eh? Well, he thought it would be cooler if his guy was maimed as a result and that it would be a good thing for character development and that it'd add potential plot points down the road (the attacker lived and escaped, btw). Okay...sure...I went along with it. This guy now closes his eye when he's talking in character and plans to hunt down his attacker and settle up with him at some point. It's also fun to hear him relay his wound to new PC's / NPC's...partially because it's not told the same way each time...like any good fishing story, it grows more exaggerated with age.

These are not extreme examples, but they don't have to be. Having players do simple things like this help enrich the story of the campaign...and I've also found that people feel more involved if they contributed something more than opening a door, checking a trap, and slaying an neo-othyugh.

It's also more fun for me as a GM. I enjoy not knowing where the story is going, especially when I'm the GM. I like it when players keep me on my toes by doing un-expected things.

If I make a game...and everything goes as I fore-see...then it's not a lot of fun for me. I'd already read the book, so to speak. But...if they do something I'm not expecting...then it's new and fun for both the players and me.

As a result, I keep certain aspects of my game open-ended prior to play and do a little ad-lib on the fly. If a dungeon has 10 rooms, I know what is in each room. But...if the player's convince the Slaad in room 4 to join them...well, that's a surprise for me and it might be a fun turn of events to have a Slaad along for the ride -- so, the Slaad gets written into the story.

If the players survive the dungeon and keep the Slaad...I can then plan the Slaad's background and maybe plan for him to chaotically eat NPC X two games down the road...but, if the Slaad gets killed before then...oh well, if was fun and interesting while it lasted.

Some won't agree with me, but I don't think this is a X versus Y kind of thing. I think the lines are very nebulous. No offense, guys, but I don't find the art / craft thread particularly relevant.

Are game mechanics important? Sure. Are story / artistic moments important? Sure. Can they co-exist? Sure? Is it a shake-n-bake process? No...it takes work to get it right, just as most things do.

Is it worth it? Absolutely.

"Some won't agree with me, but I don't think this is a X versus Y kind of thing. "

Who won't agree with you? I don't see any participants saying it is an x or y thing. Am I missing your point?

Neph,

Okay...being new to the boards here, maybe my word choice lacks clarity. When I say "some won't agree" all I mean is that "some won't agree." That's it. I'm not complaining, just stating. It really doesn't matter who agrees with me and who doesn't. I tend to add prefaces such as "some won't agree" to keep people from thinking that I EXPECT people to agree with me. I don't expect people to agree with me, per se. I expect people to think for themselves...if they happen to agree with me, cool.

Okay...having said that...my X versus Y comment was in regards to all of this classification of "art" and "craft" that seems to be going on. You replied to my remark, but you only pasted in part of the comment. I also said that the lines are nebulous. What I mean is that I don't think you can hard-code a defintion for the subject material presented in this article...it's just too abstract. Plus, I don't think it's particularly relevant. The focus has shifted from things you can do to enrich your gaming experience to how we classify them. That's all well and good, and fun for some, but...personally...I'm more interested in hearing about people's gaming experiences rather than what they think the word "art" means.

If people agree with my approach, I'd like to hear an example. If people disagree...I'd like to hear an example (and, Neph, you've done that already). Or, if somebody has a different spin on how to incorporate artistic moments...I'd like to hear about that.

But, no offense guys, I don't care as much about how you want to define art. I care...just not as much.

No worries Rogue. I’m asking because I’m wondering if you see a disagreement between our two approaches. I don't see it: I'm not that interested in defining “art” either (except as an ingredient in an activity – which everyone here seems to agree with to some degree), and as I’ve stated earlier a couple of times, I don’t see it as an X vs Y thing either.

My contribution of “writer” vs “player” is relevant to the base metaphor of the article though, pertaining to a live jazz performance (immediate, improvisational within a set framework, a group activity), as opposed to a “studio” performance which is heavily produced, but where the “original performance” never actually existed.

This may be due to the binary nature of this medium, which tends to overemphasize disagreements while ignoring agreements. Or maybe you don’t see a disagreement at all. I’m asking because I’m unclear.

Also, while I know you wrote the article, I've read it a few times - and I don't see it as really being about soliciting or offering tips on how to enrich your gaming experience. Your article is pretty clear:

"Am I saying that RPGs are jazz? Yup. That's exactly what I'm saying. Let me explain why."

I agree.

I read the article and some comments. Now I'd like to humbly suggest a few articles by Ron Edwards, who was the first person relate the music/rpg analogy to me.

For the GM as a bass player, check out:
http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4988

and:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/25/

and moreover:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/

All of the articles and more are located on The Forge:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/