City of IF

[PopeAlessandrosXVIII]

Due to the recent fluctuation in the RPG forum, I decided that this month IF Quirer debate should be about RPGs. So, here we go!


The question this month is about the view you personally take on RPGs. First off, a quick run down of just what an RPG is. RPG stands for Role Playing Game. Now there are many forms of these including, but not limited to, Video games (Such as the Final Fantasy collection), Live Action Role Playing (Or LARPing as some people call it), the more traditional Role Play (Like Dungeons and Dragons), and what is know as the Forum Role Play (Such as we have here in IF).

The type I would like to discuss here is the Forum Role Play. In a Forum Role Play there are several different types, but I'll just go with the broad concepts. Basicly, two or more people come together on one thread with a common idea, such as an action adventure set in Camelot, or a science fiction set on a space station. With that idea in mind, the “Players” either create one or more characters, or if set in a particular fandom (Such as Harry Potter, or InuYasha), choose characters from the fandom for them to “Play”. Now, the point of each RP is up to the players, but in general, they set a goal such as “Get Married”, “Save the world”, “Find the lost ___” and so on, and from there they “Play”.

Playing consist of posting back and forth actions and reactions of your characters. Posts go from as short as “I punch you” to pages long detailed passages of time depending on the preference of the players. This is how the story unfolds in an RP, and again, depending on the layers, it can be as short at a page to an epic novel of adventure.


Alright, sorry for the long explanation, but I felt I had to throw it in there. ON to the questions!


In my relatively short history in Online Role Playing I have noticed a huge gap between how people view RPGs. Some insist they are childish and are simple banter between two people who don't know how to have a simple conversation, while others say they are the true melding of two writers' talent. Others still insist that unless it is live action (Like in a chat room) it's not really an RP seeing as each player has far too long to think about responses thus they are unrealistic.


So, what do YOU think? Where do you rank Role Playing Games in the realm of artistry? What is Forum Role Playing to you?

[Masterweaver]

It's art. It can tell a story, therefore it is art.

[HalfEmptyHero]

Masterweaver wrote: It's art. It can tell a story, therefore it is art.

That's an absurd thing to say. That's like saying "You make a picture, it's art." I disagree one hundred percent. Just because something exists, doesn't make it art. I'm not saying that a RPG could never be art, but I certainly have never seen one. I also don't participate in them so I don't have much subject matter to talk about. But I will stand strong on my opinion that just because something tells a story doesn't make that something art. By you're definition almost anything could be classified as art.

And to answer Pope's question, I would say that Role Playing Games, per typical usages, are not artistic. I do not enjoy role playing; that does not make me any better or worse than those that do, as it is simply preference. But I cannot classify any of the RPGs that I have seen as art. They may exist, but I have not seen them.

[Masterweaver]

Oh I never said good art. The fact is, in every medium you will have your fair share of bad art. But you agree that RPs can be a form of artistic expression.

And yes, I do tend to have a broad definition of art.

[HalfEmptyHero]

Masterweaver wrote: Oh I never said good art. The fact is, in every medium you will have your fair share of bad art. But you agree that RPs can be a form of artistic expression.

And yes, I do tend to have a broad definition of art.

I have a much narrower view of art. Let's take some definitions easily found on the internet:

From Merriam-Webster: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects

From Wikipedia: Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect.

According to both both of these sources, RPGs (excluding possible outliers) is not art. It is no more art than this post is.

And yes, as I previously said, it could potentially be artful given the right participants, but arguably so could anything. My playing the air guitar and attempting to sing could be considered art, but it shouldn't be. ;)

[Vishal Muralidharan]

Well, it is my opinion that every individual post in a Forum RP is not art, but the RPG taken as whole is a story, which is told via the concious use of the skill (writing) and creative imagination of two or more different people, and can affect senses, emotions and intellect. Then, it becomes art.

[Tikanni Corazon]

I personally think it depends upon the participants, and how seriously they take the quality of writing. If the same care is taken in it's creation as with any other form of creative writing, then I think it could be considered art. Like I said, depends upon the players themselves. I don't think just any RPG can be considered so though. Someone who's merely typing any inane crap clearly isn't trying to create art.

Quote: My playing the air guitar and attempting to sing could be considered art, but it shouldn't be. ;)

Lol, HEH!

[Masterweaver]

HalfEmptyHero wrote: My playing the air guitar and attempting to sing could be considered art, but it shouldn't be. ;)

...why not? You are creating a virtual instrument based off a real one with tools at your disposal; is there a practical reason behind this or are you merely expressing yourself?

[Kalanna Rai]

When writing a story we are supposed to make our characters believable or if not believable at least something that a reader may become emotionally invested in and thus follow the story because of. In a forum role-play you have two or more people exercising the function of character building by assuming the qualities of these characters themselves and narrating out the story through their actions as they see these characters would. Thus, forum rp could, in a loose sense, be considered a low form of script based acting and therefore art.

Could not a forum roleplay, where the participants have time to plan out and think over their actions, be just as easily turned into a screenplay or short film as it could a book? Perhaps even easier as role-plays tend to be far more character centered. The roleplay itself may not be art. It may very well simply be the fun creative process that leads to it. Just as adding water to clay and squishing it around to make the consistency one needs is fun but only the finished product molded from the clay is art.

In the end, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I would assume that if the story is well told, entertaining, and has characters you can become emotionally invested in, then it becomes an art in and of itself. Because what is a roleplay but a more personal form of storytelling and we've long held storytelling to be an art.

[HalfEmptyHero]

Kalanna Rai wrote:
Could not a forum roleplay, where the participants have time to plan out and think over their actions, be just as easily turned into a screenplay or short film as it could a book?

That doesn't make it art, that just makes it published. There are many published books and screenplays out there that I wouldn't consider art. ;)

Kalanna Rai wrote:
Because what is a roleplay but a more personal form of storytelling

I am a little bit confused by this statement; how is a group activity more personal than something that you do by yourself?

[Shillelagh]

I can't help but feel like there are two separate issues here. The first is how narrrow or broad your definition of 'art' is, and the second is whether or not you respect RP writing.

As for the first point, I think my views align closest with HEH. People are quick to call just about anything art these days, and it's seriously watering down the meaning of the word. It's the Modern Art movement that drives me the most insane. I'm all for pushing the boundaries of what is or is not art- but by doing so, you admit that such a boundary exists, and therefore that it is possible to end up on the other side of that boundary. John Cage's 4:33 is not art. It is noise.

For the second point... well, that depends on any number of things. The biggest concern is the writing quality, of course. Too many grammatical errors, and it's over. Pope has a point when he says too much delay makes it less of an RP experience, because you have time to think it over... but that also makes it a better read. It depends if you want the story or the improv experience more. I'd say it also depends on what is being roleplayed. I have more respect for original characters in a canon world than I do for people who who use the canon characters to RP scenes they wanted to see- doubly true for ship stories.

On the whole, I don't think of RP as art. It's fun, it's useful- it can create a lot of ideas, it's good for making you think outside of the box... but it's not any more a piece of art than outlines, notes, and rough drafts of a novel are pieces of art. Can you make art using those tools? Yes. Does that mean those tools are art? No.

[Kalanna Rai]

I'm lightly confused HEH. Which of the two activities, role-playing or storytelling, do you do by yourself?

To role-play you need multiple participants. To storytell you need an audience. Neither of those are solitary acts.

And I suppose I have a broader definition of art than most. For me art needs to be something I can connect to emotionally that charges my imagination and provokes thought. It's easiest done with stories although film, music, paintings, sculpture, and photographs have also managed it.

[Vikas Muralidharan]

HalfEmptyHero wrote: Kalanna Rai wrote:
Could not a forum roleplay, where the participants have time to plan out and think over their actions, be just as easily turned into a screenplay or short film as it could a book?

That doesn't make it art, that just makes it published. There are many published books and screenplays out there that I wouldn't consider art. ;)


That's the point isn't it? Those storywriters or screenplay writers would STILL be artists, no matter how bad they are and how much their work sucks.

Storytelling is Art. RPing is storytelling. RPing is Art.

[HalfEmptyHero]

Vikas Muralidharan wrote: HalfEmptyHero wrote: Kalanna Rai wrote:
Could not a forum roleplay, where the participants have time to plan out and think over their actions, be just as easily turned into a screenplay or short film as it could a book?

That doesn't make it art, that just makes it published. There are many published books and screenplays out there that I wouldn't consider art. ;)


That's the point isn't it? Those storywriters or screenplay writers would STILL be artists, no matter how bad they are and how much their work sucks.


Who told you that? Being published is not a determining factor for something's artistic value. This is the problem that me and Shillelagh are talking about; people have too broad a definition for art. The act of telling a story is also not art—it can become art, but it does not have to be. I honestly don't know where you guys are coming up with that argument. People do say "the art of storytelling" but that is using a different meaning of the word art; that denotes the skill of storytelling and should not be confused with art as we are using it.

@Kalanna Rai

When talking about oral story elling, yes an audience is required. But the written word requires no such thing. You could claim that writing for no one but one's self is not able to tell anything, arguing that a person can not tell himself anything, but that becomes an entirely different argument involving philosophy of both language and thought.

[Kalanna Rai]

I was talking about oral tradition yes. Much like the definition of art, the definition of Storytelling can also be broadened to include other than the original meanings.

[Crunchyfrog]

I think the key word in RPG is the G - Game.

A game is a game. It can have excellent artwork, have a great plot etc. but its main function is a game. Any artistic element is second to that.

Take architecture. Is it artistic? Yes it can be, but few buildings are built purely to show off as a work of art. Buildings are built for a specific function - the aesthetics are integral usually, but ultimately secondary. That's how I see forum RPG.

When I bought and played Myst/Riven/Exile games when they came out, I was stunned by the sheer beauty of the graphics, IMO the graphics were works of art. But I didn't buy them because they were art. I bought them because they were games I wanted to play.

From my experience the stories that are crafted in forum RPGs are sketchy, disjointed and almost always from multiple POVs depending on who's playing and if there is any order of play. I don't consider that art in the true sense of the word.

At the end of the day - (IMHO at least) RPG is exactly what it says on the tin - a Role Playing Game. If that Role Playing Game happens to throw up the most seamless and beautifully crafted story that can be translated to a short story or a novel, then that's a bonus, in a similar way that can be said for the beautiful graphics of the Myst series of games.

If this post isn't making any sense, then there's a 'Storygame' called The Hangover over in the Tales of IF forum that spans three seperate threads. One is the RPG version (the working thread) . One is a discussion thread. The third is the final version, edited into something that resembles a real story. Hopefully by comparing the RPG version with the last few chapters of the final version (once the contributors had got their act together!) you'll get an idea of what I'm trying to say. :)

[PopeAlessandrosXVIII]

Last day to add your thoughts! Paper comes out tomorrow! Make sure your thoughts are heard!