Forked Thread: D&D needs to grow up (ala scifi in the mid-20th century?)

[Aloïsius]

Chain mail bikinis, WAR scowling monsters (and scowling everything), big swords, spiked armors, Tiefling with mega-horns...

Well at least there is no more "detect evil".

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

The difference between role-playing games in general and those recent super-hero movies is that movies are something you can consume. You don't need to work to enjoy The Dark Knight - you just visit the cinema for a few hours.

In contrast to that, to truly enjoy role-playing games you have to put a lot of effort into them. D&D, as the most popular role-playing game, needs to represent a "common denominator" that's easy to get into (and 4E is a step in the right direction), and thus can't be too abstract or conceptual.

If you want to have some more "mature" or "grown up" role-playing games, take a look at various Indie games - or at Transhuman Space (for settings). But since many of those require more work to play and run, don't expect them to replace D&D any time soon.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

Mercurius, thanks for forking this thread. I was thinking of doing it myself when I had the time!

My point is more about artistic quality and legitimacy. That doesn't necessarily tie into any sort of public acceptance. There's a lot of art in the Guggenheim that is not only accepted publicly but lauded. Yet it is bad art.

The point about comics is right on, I think. Although, forgive me, I do not have time to read the whole post right now. I just noticed this post as I was running out the door to work.

But about comics. They grew up, I think, with the Stan Lee revolution. Stan latched onto the idea, among others, that a hero's powers are just as much a burden as a way-cool-neato thing. He matched that idea with the storytelling power, diction, and overall craftsmanship worthy of good art. It just took the movies a while to catch on.

I have to run but I will come back to this thread later!

 

[Pseudopsyche]

I believe that much of the scorn heaped on role-playing games stems precisely from the perception that they are for adolescents, not grownups. For better or for worse, I suspect that the best hope for change will come on the coattails of larger industries, such as video games, which have the potential to convince people that games in general are not just for children. If nothing else, I can now read video-game reviews in the New York Times, in the same section as the movie and book reviews. The influx of "Euro games," which demonstrates that board games aren't just for playing with the kids, may also help.

I wonder if the bigger problem isn't the role-playing half of the equation. Sure, we have professional actors playing roles in movies, television, and on the stage, but most people outside our hobby undoubtedly see what we do as closer to playing cops and robbers than acting out a piece of art. In this sphere, I don't see as clear a route to social acceptance. I enjoy improv theater, but outside of the occasional television show, this art form is still little appreciated. Those murder mystery dinner parties might have exposed other grownups to role-playing, but to my knowledge they never really caught on. Probably the most common form of adult role-play is as confined to the bedroom as our hobby is to the (figurative) basement.

With regard to artistic integrity (as opposed to social acceptance), I have absolutely no doubt that several campaigns enjoyed by members of this community have explored adult themes and topics in what we would call an artistically valid manner. One issue is that most of these performances are private, intended only for their participants, not for a wider audience. Of course, some of these campaigns have public reflections in story hours, which can certainly strive to be art.

 

[Umbran]

I assume that you at least partially mean that D&D needs to reach out of its ghetto, become socially relevant or at least legitimate in the eyes of the non-gaming public.

We have in this discussion a bit of a mix between seeing "growing up" as meaning becoming critically acceptable, and becoming mass market acceptable.

Consider - while Asmiov and friend may have "brought sci-fi out of the literary ghetto", my web-searching revealed that Scifi/Fantasy sales (total about $495 million) accounted for 7.8% of all consumer dollars spent on books in 2006. So, the entirety of sci-fi book sales for a year could be beaten out by a blockbuster movie or two.

Make of that what you will in this context.

 

[Mallus]

So yeah, I am interested in the idea that D&D could "grow up" out of its (adolescent) ghetto, both in terms of social acceptance and artistic legitimacy.

I'm interested in the question of D&D's artistic legitimacy too, and I'll try to answer it here and now...

...D&D is not an art form, legitimate or otherwise, nor is anything gained by attempting to frame discussions of D&D as if it were. D&D, considered as a form, offers no special tools for investigating human experience, unless, of the course, the experience in question is the disposing of a troll corpse with fire oil. Then again, most games aren't suited for the task of the illuminating the human condition in and of themselves. Not even chess.

Taken as a whole, D&D better considered as a platform for delivering problem-solving/tactical challenges, not as a particular set of tools for artistic inquiry.

Which isn't to say D&D isn't a creative outlet (it is), nor is it to say that D&D can't be art. Sure it can be, in isolated cases (heck, I think a pile of Brillo boxes can be art, so why not a few D&D campaigns?). Of course, the same can be said about SF novels, literary novels, paintings, poems, and once in a blue moon, dance. The sad fact is most art forms aren't art, outside of isolated cases...

What's gained by attempting to brand D&D, or RPG's in general, as an art form? Is it a prestige thing?

 

[bramadan]

I can not believe that you think that a group of people pretending to be different individuals interacting with an imaginary world envisioned by yet another person does not bring any new tools to exploring the human condition.

I agree that most of RPG (or for that matter fiction, movies, music, etc...) is not particularly deep, but it seems to me beyond obvious that the basic premise of RPG is as much of an art form as theatre or a novel.

It does not mean that we have to actually focus on trying to make "art" in order to enjoy our games. (Quite to the contrary, some of the best art in history got created by attempting to create something for people to enjoy, not the other way around).

 

[Ycore Rixle]

But I think you are pointing to something more than just social acceptability, or at least my mind starts thinking in terms of artistic sensibility and, while still connected to D&D's publich persona, its place as a valid form of art, whether we're talking game design, role-playing, campaign creation, or any other aspect of table-top gaming.

Yep. In my original post, I wasn't concerned with social acceptability or mass market popularity. I was (and am) concerned with artistic quality.

 

[Mallus]

I can not believe that you think that a group of people pretending to be different individuals interacting with an imaginary world envisioned by yet another person does not bring any new tools to exploring the human condition.

Believe.

Think about the nature and quality of those interactions with an imaginary world (and the nature and quality of the worlds themselves) typically found in D&D, then revisit my statement. I freely admit some D&D can be art. But a few corner cases do not a form make. In the same way Warhol's Brillo boxes don't make shelving a supermarket an artistic discipline.

I agree that most of RPG (or for that matter fiction, movies, music, etc...) is not particularly deep, but it seems to me beyond obvious that the basic premise of RPG is as much of an art form as theatre or a novel.

It's not obvious to me. Why do you think so?

D&D's basic premise is most concisely stated as 'kill things/take stuff/power up/repeat'. Now people may add a great deal to that premise, sometimes even push it far into the background, but that doesn't change said premise. And that premise isn't conducive to artist inquiry. For example, D&D is more concerned with smiting evil than exploring the idea of evil and of moral behavior. It's designed to pose and answer tactical problems, not ethical ones or aesthetic ones.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

I freely admit some D&D can be art. But a few corner cases do not a form make. In the same way Warhol's Brillo boxes don't make shelving a supermarket an artistic discipline.

But it does make sculpting and painting and arrangement an art. Warhol didn't create his art by stocking supermarket shelves. He did it by sculpting and painting and arranging.

You're confusing topic with form. Same thing with the argument that D&D is about killing monsters and taking their stuff, and therefore it's not an art form. Personally I think there can be good art about killing monsters and taking their stuff. But even if there couldn't, it doesn't mean that the method used to create that non-art is not itself incapable of being an art form.

Just because I scribble nonsense with a pencil doesn't mean that drawing can't be an art form.

Actually we probably agree. I think we just have different ideas what an art form is. I think what you're saying is that RPGs can be good art, but usually they're not, so therefore they're not a "form." Me, I would say that RPGs can be good art, but usually they're not, so therefore there's not a "large body of great work in the form."