TSR Q&A with Gary Gygax

Lisa Nadazdy said:

Hmmmmm... since you're still bouncing around here like a bad check, let me ask you:

Do you consider roleplaying to be "art"?

Click to expand...

Playing a game can be done artfully by a superior player, but no game is an art form. Creating them might verge on being an art form but it is more a craft, IMO

Baraendur said:

This is not to mention that I already have more box sets than I know what to do with. I still have the original Greyhawk box set, the Forgotten Realms (1st and 2nd edition) and related box sets, Return to the Tomb of Horrors, the Rod of Seven Parts, etc. all taking up too much space. I would like to take the new adventure and be able to file it next to Necropolis, The Hermit, and the Slayer's Guide to Dragons.

Click to expand...

Those aren't boxed sets.

Real boxed sets had 3 booklets and a reference (DM cheat sheet)

plus dice or the promise of dice.

i still use my chits.

Boxed Set HOMP Presentation

Baraendur said:

Is there any chance you and TLG will reconsider the whole box set thing?

Click to expand...

With a ms. over 500 pages in length, some maps and hand-outs not included, there will need to be two books for the module. A boxed set seems the best answer. Maybe a book-sized one, a sleeve that could accommodate the volumes and loose-page material would be better received than a large box...?

Cheerio,
Gary

Col_Pladoh said:

Playing a game can be done artfully by a superior player, but no game is an art form. Creating them might verge on being an art form but it is more a craft, IMO

Click to expand...

I've wondered about this for some time and here's my take (since I know you want to hear):

Games and art are fundamentally different things. Art is an expression of someone's (or several someone's) ideas about something. Whether it's a story or a painting, it's somebody SHOWING you something. Art is not participatory. The APPRECIATION of art is participatory, but the artwork itself exists without the audience. It may not have any meaning but it still exists.

Games are problems to be solved, where the solution must fit into previously-determined rules. Nobody has to show anybody anything. Nothing has to be said. All that has to happen is the problem (get the puck into the net, capture the king, etc) has to be solved.

People like to watch both. Both are entertaining to a greater or lesser degree.

A role-playing game is a weird mishmash of both. On the one hand, the rules and support materials clearly provide the problem-solving context of a game. However, the fact that the problem being solved isn't always known (a campaign can go in vastly different directions than anyone expects) makes it hard to say firmly that it's strictly a game.

My feeling is that a game session can be art. Sometimes everything comes together, and everyone works in harmony and something fantastic and memorable happens. Sometimes it's just a couple of moments in a game session. But it can be art. There's something being presented (the actions and imagined situation) and there's an audience (the players, who are also the creators).

I always have a hard time expressing this notion. But it's those moments, frankly, that keep me playing.

Greetings Gary,
Back a ways in the thread you were speaking about reading material. I just wanted to offer a fiction selection: "The Book of the New Sun" by Gene Wolfe. I consider it to be the finest sf/fantasy novel(s) I have ever read... very inspirational!
Take care, Duglas

G'day Gary!

Wow... the thread continues!

It occurred to me the other day that you've told many stories about your players and yourself going into great danger to get treasure...

...what happened to the treasure?

What did you spend it on?

Or does Mordenkainen have a great pile of gold and platinum underneath his stronghold that a new generation of adventurers can seek to obtain?

Cheers!

Col_Pladoh said:

Actually, any medieval history book is useful to the designer-suthor. The "See Inside" an "Everyday Life" series are generally excellent additions of solid material from C.W.C. Oman and Violette Le Duc, Burtons Book of the Sword, and Stone's Golssary of the Construction, Decoration and Use (etc.)

Click to expand...

I have to add a big "heck yes!" to Stone's book. It was out of print for a long time (may still be, dunno), but if you want only one book on arms and armor, this is probably the one for you.

joe b.

Col_Pladoh said:

Playing a game can be done artfully by a superior player, but no game is an art form. Creating them might verge on being an art form but it is more a craft, IMO

Click to expand...

heh, seems to be my day of being a yes man to gary.. oh well....

yeah, whenever i stand next to a real piece of art, i can feel how small much of what my life is. real art always seems to beat me over the head. guess art's more like a mace than a sword.


joe b.

Well, I'm going to interject an opinion about the whole art vs. trade where it regards RPG's. The rules have to be functional as a system, which would suggest that the design of them is a trade. On the other hand, different designers have their own style, and people will make purchasing decisions based on the name on the cover. Books with the names Monte Cook, Gary Gygax, Sean K. Reynolds, and Chris Pramas (among others) tend to outsell the ones by lesser known designers. This suggests art. I think that a game can be both art and a trade. A carpenter who is known to extremely nice nightstands will be viewed as both, so why can't a game designer?

barsoomcore said:

I've wondered about this for some time and here's my take (since I know you want to hear):

Games and art are fundamentally different things. Art is an expression of someone's (or several someone's) ideas about something. Whether it's a story or a painting, it's somebody SHOWING you something. Art is not participatory. The APPRECIATION of art is participatory, but the artwork itself exists without the audience. It may not have any meaning but it still exists.

Games are problems to be solved, where the solution must fit into previously-determined rules. Nobody has to show anybody anything. Nothing has to be said. All that has to happen is the problem (get the puck into the net, capture the king, etc) has to be solved.

People like to watch both. Both are entertaining to a greater or lesser degree.

A role-playing game is a weird mishmash of both. On the one hand, the rules and support materials clearly provide the problem-solving context of a game. However, the fact that the problem being solved isn't always known (a campaign can go in vastly different directions than anyone expects) makes it hard to say firmly that it's strictly a game.

My feeling is that a game session can be art. Sometimes everything comes together, and everyone works in harmony and something fantastic and memorable happens. Sometimes it's just a couple of moments in a game session. But it can be art. There's something being presented (the actions and imagined situation) and there's an audience (the players, who are also the creators).

I always have a hard time expressing this notion. But it's those moments, frankly, that keep me playing.

Click to expand...

In general i can't disagree with most of the above. however, i don't believe that a play session can be art. By the definition you give art is participatory, and most anything of that nature done in memorable fashion and satisfying all the participants then fits into the art category. As I mentioned, play can be artful, but I don't believe that raises it to an art form, even of the performing arts category, that being group participatory and usually with an audience to view the performance.

Cheers,
Gary