gamegrene.com

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!

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.

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

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 "

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

^
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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.