GNS Theory: Good, Bad, or Ugly

[Bigode]

Art is: "the creation of beautiful or significant things" amongst other things.

This is generally defined based on how society, or other people view it.

Why do you think that you playing an RPG game is somehow beautiful or significant? Why do you think that we other people should have to recognize the intrinsic worth of you playing a game? I can think the way you play is stupid, retarded, and deserving of nothing but scorn. Tough shit, deal. Your game isn't fucking art.

The fact that I could say the same about Finntroll or Trivium doesn't actually mean anything.

Though I happen to hate WoD players as well, and for roughly the same reasons.

[Koumei]

"beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

Bullshit. The following are in the eyes of the beholder:
-Charm Monster
-Charm Person
-Disintegrate
-Fear
-Finger of Death
-Flesh to Stone
-Inflict Moderate Wounds
-Sleep
-Slow
-Telekinesis
-Antimagic Cone

I do not see beauty listed there!

Yes, I know what you mean. But I consider the conversation to have become stupid enough that this post can only be an improvement.

[Bigode]

I agree, Koumei. But fix this crap.

[Talisman]

Fuinny though that is, Koumei, your broken spoiler tag has warped the laws of time and space.

[Kaelik]

Since last I checked, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", your point fails to make his gaming less artistic than he claimed it is.

Art means having value to others. His gaming isn't artistic. If I claim that the way I eat is beautiful, that doesn't make it art, or even true.

I behold shitty gaming, therefore not art. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, aka me, not in the eye of the biased supposed artist.

You playing a game is not fucking art.

[Talisman]

Does anyone really care if playing a game is art?

If it makes you happy to call it art, go nuts. If your game crew is okay with that, good for them.

It's when you insist that I respect your game as being "better" than mine, or some weird shit like that, that I begin to take offense.

[Kaelik]

Does anyone really care if playing a game is art?

If it makes you happy to call it art, go nuts. If your game crew is okay with that, good for them.

It's when you insist that I respect your game as being "better" than mine, or some weird shit like that, that I begin to take offense.

I get upset as soon as they claim that I have to recognize their game as equal to mine. Mine is fucking better as far as I am concerned, and if I thought yours was better, I'd kidnap you and your group, tie them up in my basement, and force you to D&D whenever I want.

So be damn glad that I hate you game (or that you live overseas from me, making kidnapping slightly more difficult.)

[Koumei]

There we go, I fixed my tags. I'm just too tired, and it's only midday. Stupid sugar-free drinks. I should go get energy drinks... AND INJECT THEM INTO MY SPINE!

[Absentminded_Wizard]

The way I see it, art is a form of communication. It's always created with an awareness of conveying a message to an audience (even if that message is, "This is what I think art should be; take your half-assed ideas about that and shove them up your ass.")

Game rules aren't art, even though it is communication to an audience, because they're giving you instructions on how to complete a task (playing the game). Chess isn't a work of art, though an individual chess set might be if it's particularly well crafted.

Gameplay isn't an art because there is no audience outside the gaming group. Though a particular group might "play the game artfully" by incorporating high-falutin' literary themes, the lack of an audience means that the gameplay itself isn't art. Comparing something you do in a basement with a few friends to something intended for public consumption and possibly education is the height of narcissism.

And the real harm of this mentality has been mentioned by others. If RPG sessions are an art form, then it's imperative to purge all the Philistines who want to play virtual hack 'n' slash and eat Cheetos. Anything that divides the small RPG community or kicks people out of it is harmful to the hobby. Old-school WoD players do this by antagonizing those who aren't pure "roleplayers" in their eyes. GNS does this by trying to divide games into three types, each of which alienates some players.

[Calibron]

Gameplay isn't an art because there is no audience outside the gaming group. Though a particular group might "play the game artfully" by incorporating high-falutin' literary themes, the lack of an audience means that the gameplay itself isn't art. Comparing something you do in a basement with a few friends to something intended for public consumption and possibly education is the height of narcissism.

What of those who record themselves and make podcasts or whatnot out of their sessions? Many of them are entertaining, interesting, or, in some few cases, even thought provoking. Is that art?

[Talisman]

Kaelik:

The way I see it, art is a form of communication. It's always created with an awareness of conveying a message to an audience (even if that message is, "This is what I think art should be; take your half-assed ideas about that and shove them up your ass.")

...

Gameplay isn't an art because there is no audience outside the gaming group.

So "art" is defined by being intended for public consumption?
What if a master painter creates a small painting, hangs it on the wall of his bedroom, and never lets anyone see it? Art, or not? Explain.

Or, replace that with a musician who plays a unique piece form himself alone. It's ephemeral and private. Art? Why, or why not?

[shau]

Personally, I think the word "art" has been stretched beyond the breaking point and no longer means anything. Kinda like "munchkin."

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Gameplay isn't an art because there is no audience outside the gaming group. Though a particular group might "play the game artfully" by incorporating high-falutin' literary themes, the lack of an audience means that the gameplay itself isn't art. Comparing something you do in a basement with a few friends to something intended for public consumption and possibly education is the height of narcissism.

What of those who record themselves and make podcasts or whatnot out of their sessions? Many of them are entertaining, interesting, or, in some few cases, even thought provoking. Is that art?

I don't know. I never figured anybody would actually podcast their gaming sessions. I keep forgetting that the Internet makes people want to put their whole lives online. I figured I would end up defending this position against professional sports or televised chess championships, if anything.

So "art" is defined by being intended for public consumption?
What if a master painter creates a small painting, hangs it on the wall of his bedroom, and never lets anyone see it? Art, or not? Explain.

Or, replace that with a musician who plays a unique piece form himself alone. It's ephemeral and private. Art? Why, or why not?

You know, the biggest example of "private art" that I could think of was the poems of Emily Dickinson, which she held back because she knew how the public, especially in New England, would react to it. I'm not sure how to react to your examples, assuming they actually happened.

[Manxome]

Game rules aren't art, even though it is communication to an audience, because they're giving you instructions on how to complete a task (playing the game). Chess isn't a work of art, though an individual chess set might be if it's particularly well crafted.

Why should that matter?

1. I write a poem that contains the rules for a game. Art?
2. A composer writes down a series of technical instructions explaining how to play a song, i.e. sheet music. Art?
3. An artist carefully crafts a monster's attack animation to convey to the player the message, "this attack will kill you if you don't dodge it." Art?
4. A programmer designs and implements a computer game in which no instructions are given to the player, because it is assumed that they already know the rules. Art?
5. Frank writes some rules whose main purpose is to show you how shitty the rules for game X are, rather than to actually introduce you to a new game. Art?
6. I design a simple game as a commentary on politics/philosophy/culture/insert-topic-here. Art?

I'll readily admit that "art" has about a zillion different meanings and most of them are hopelessly vague, but this seems like a rather arbitrary distinction. I could understand the claim that listening to someone describe the rules of a game and then writing them down isn't producing art (that's like transcribing a song), but that hardly means that the rules themselves (or the song itself) can't be art.

Game design is a creative expression that produces a recreational experience; I'd say that fits the commonly-used definition of art.

[Fuchs]

Comparing something you do in a basement with a few friends to something intended for public consumption and possibly education is the height of narcissism.

You can call anything and everything art, if you use some buzzwords and blather to some idiot critic about the supposed meaning behind it.

Go and empty a can of tomato soup over your head in a supermarket while you sing the natinal anthem and have a friend record it. Then claim it's a work of art that portrays the blood that clings to western society as we exploit the third world to feed our appetites. Or say it's about the war in iraq, and how the tomato soup symbolizes the reception the war gets in the media, all canned. Bonus points for referring to Warhol somehow.

Somone will consider this art. Even if you, yourself, never wanted to create any art, just pull a prank.

[Draco_Argentum]

OK, once again you are conflating "things" with "themes". A Sorcerer and his Eunuch Henchmen are an element of play.

But RE said the eunuch sorcerer is a theme in the quoted paragraph. Specifically this: "So, their inclusion in the game, part and parcel as they are to the Dream, isn't Narrativist because no one is creating a theme that isn't already there."

Explain why a eunuch sorcerer and henchmen are a theme but a dinosaur riding knight and his retainers are not.

[Orion]

What would you say is the difference between a prank and art?

[bosssmiley]

What would you say is the difference between a prank and art?

The validity of art endures; that of a prank does not. A Rickroll != art. (YMMV)

[Bigode]

What would you say is the difference between a prank and art?

The validity of art endures; that of a prank does not. A Rickroll != art. (YMMV)

Except that music, e.g., often fails to endure, and throwing shoes at Bush's going to at least in Iraq.

[Shoggoth]

I re-read my last post, and I really come across as a WoD cooler-than-thou douche. Not my intent, at all.

I don't know that any of my gaming sessions would necessarily qualify as art. I'm sure that my DnD sessions don't, but the emotional response I got from my players and myself in my last SotC session were much stronger than you'd expect from something that is "just a game", and I'm not sure where to place that kind of experience. Same thing when I've played sessions of My Life With Master - that WASN'T "just a game" by any means, but was it art? I dunno.

I do know that there are game books that I would consider to be objects of art - Nobilis comes to mind, as well as some of the nWoD books. And while there isn't an outside audience during a game session (barring podcasts or other recordings), I would say that the players and the GM can be performing for each other, so in a sense the audience and the actors are one and the same. I'm not entirely sure what to call that, but it's not trivial and saying that it's "just a game, it's not art" ignores that.

[the_taken]

Comparing something you do in a basement with a few friends to something intended for public consumption and possibly education is the height of narcissism.

You can call anything and everything art, if you use some buzzwords and blather to some idiot critic about the supposed meaning behind it.

Go and empty a can of tomato soup over your head in a supermarket while you sing the natinal anthem and have a friend record it. Then claim it's a work of art that portrays the blood that clings to western society as we exploit the third world to feed our appetites. Or say it's about the war in iraq, and how the tomato soup symbolizes the reception the war gets in the media, all canned. Bonus points for referring to Warhol somehow.

Somone will consider this art. Even if you, yourself, never wanted to create any art, just pull a prank.

Sauce?

What would you say is the difference between a prank and art?

Exactly. Pranks is an art form. One that requires a concoction of timing, science (or several), social etiquette, luck, and guts. Just for Laughs has a spin-off series of just gags, which are pranks. Some of those are extremely funny.

[Shoggoth]

OK, once again you are conflating "things" with "themes". A Sorcerer and his Eunuch Henchmen are an element of play.

But RE said the eunuch sorcerer is a theme in the quoted paragraph. Specifically this: "So, their inclusion in the game, part and parcel as they are to the Dream, isn't Narrativist because no one is creating a theme that isn't already there."

Explain why a eunuch sorcerer and henchmen are a theme but a dinosaur riding knight and his retainers are not.

I went back and reread that quote, and you're right, the way that the emailer phrases it I can see the misinterpretation.

I receive a lot of emails like this one from Landon Darkwood:

I think I may have had a revelation.

... In your Simulationism essay, you have this: "'Story,' in this context, refers to the sequence of events that provide a payoff in terms of recognizing and enjoying the genre during play."

Is this the key to distinguishing the [Narrativist vs. Simulationist] play modes? My intepretation of this statement is that in Simulationist gaming, a long and complex story might come about and be part of play, but only for the express purpose of bringing about all the appropriate genre elements in the game as part of the internal consistency of the Dream. i.e., a Sim game Colored with elements from Chinese wuxia movies might have a multilayered story involving class conflict, people being trapped by their social position, repressed romance, heavy action, a sorcerer and his eunuch henchmen - but these are all trappings of the genre. So, their inclusion in the game, part and parcel as they are to the Dream, isn't Narrativist because no one is creating a theme that isn't already there. In other words, it's just played out as the Situation part of the Exploration; because the Dream calls for it, there just so happens to be a kind of intricacy involved.

In Narrativism, by contrast, the major source of themes are the ones that are brought to the table by the players / GM (if there is one) regardless of the genre or setting used. So, to sum up, themes in Nar play are created by the participants and that's the point; themes in Sim play are already present in the Dream, reinforced by the play, and kind of a by-product.

Am I on this now?

"In a word," I replied, "Yes."

So here's what I get out of this. Landon Darkwood is stating that in Sim, themes can arise in play but they are a byproduct of the genre or the story, as opposed to the FOCUS of the story, so they become just another element in the simulation. When he lists those elements, including romance, social position, a socrerer and his henchmen, he's including themes that are intrinsic to the Chinese setting (romance) as well as story elements (the sorcerer). What he is asking is, "Are these equivalent in importance from a Sim position?" The answer from Edwards is that, yes, they are equivalent. So it's not that the sorcerer is a theme in play, it's that the sorcerer is an element of play, and the themes are also just elements. Of course, by mixing themes and character types together, he's created a point of confusion which Edwards didn't correct, probably because he didn't notice it.

[Talisman]

Is comedy a form of art?

If yes, than an RPG session can definitely be considered art.

And for the record, I was once with a group that recorded and podcast our play sessions. I'm not claiming they were art, but they were apparently entertainment, judging from the number of "Hey, that's cool!" and "I really like listening to you guys" responses we got.

[Username17]

Shoggoth, you're creating a distinction that is non-existent in the source material. While "theme" is an incredibly important concept for Ron's Narratavism concept (indeed, the concept is entirely dependent upon the idea of theme, since it boils down to "Narratavist play has each person at the table putting their theme into the story"), he doesn't make much of an effort to define it. But apparently a theme is just "something that provokes a response in the intended audience" (which is coincidentally also the player, because it's an RPG, not a canned performance).

So yeah, Eunuch Sorcerer is a "Theme" if it provokes a response from the player putting it into the game. And the entire point of Narratavist play is that each of the people at the table bring ther favorite themes in regardless of genre.

So if the cowboy riding dinosaurs provokes the response of "Holy shit! That's Awesome!" (and it should), then it is theme. And that makes it an acceptable, even desirable thing to include in any Narratavist gaming session, regardless of genre. At least, according to GNS theory; which as I've previously stated is fucking worthless.

theme: a judgmental point, perceivable as a certain charge they generate for the listener or reader.

"literary merit" of a theme is irrelevant.

-Username17

[Orion]

Seriously, regardless of whether the soup can prank is a political statement in the sense of corresponding to a specific policy recommendation -- it *is* a political act. regardless of whether the kid perpetrating it has thought it through, it's a public performance clearly intended to elicit a specific reaction, and in so doing, it reveals his assumptions about the nature of society, or at least the kind of society he wishes existed.