Is D&D Art?

[Sammael]

I'd say it's equal parts art and game.

It's a game because, well, it's played like a game. It has rules and possible outcomes, but it is highly atypical in the regard that every other game out there has a clear ending, which a role-playing game most decidedly does not. There is no true "win" or "lose" because there are no clear goals defined by the rules.

It's an art because it emulates performance arts (role-playing the characters... funny accents have nothing to do with it), visual arts (beautiful illustrations, hand-painted miniatures), and literature (flavor and stories).

Theater can also be a game, and theater is undeniably art. There is a very thin line here.

 

[S'mon]

No - it's a game, not art. The conscious focus is not on aesthetic creation. Things that work for art often don't work for gaming, and vice versa. Eg in an RPG I find cliches & stereotypes are often BETTER than subtle & deep characterisation & plots, because the game needs stuff to be immediately and easily identifiable by the participants.

 

[Greylock]

D&D is not designed or set up in such a way that it can be enjoyed by those outside the game observing one in progress. I would wager that an observer wouldn't necessarily enjoy a storyhour fully unless they are in the game, or unless the writer transcends the genre.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well, since that's me being quoted in the OP, I'm going to go with no.

Yes, stories come out of playing D&D. And it is possible to play that way. But, for me, I am with Stormonu on this, I play D&D to play a game.

If I want to play something where I'm creating stories, I'd rather choose a system without quite so many fiddly bits wrt combat and other non-essentials. To me, D&D is about playing D&D.

Apologies for not attributing that quote. I put it in because it's a statement that jumped out at me as being a complete aberration, but when I thought about it I wondered if it might not be the prevailing opinion. It's certainly not wrong, I just honestly don't know what you're playing D&D for if not to create a story. The circular statement at the end there didn't really satisfy my curiosity.

***

[RAMBLE]Personally, I was exposed to a great deal of creative training as a child, but this was later taken away from me. When I first came to D&D, I looked at it as a sort of strategy game you played with friends; sort of a step up from the Pokemon TCG that was all the rage at the time.

However, as I learned the rules, I realized that even though I had essentially given up on becoming a dramatist professionally, the game provided a wonderful avenue for creative expression. I kicked off my DMing career with epic plots loosely inspired by favorite books and movies, but I look at my current games more like episodic television.

I listen to a lot of director's commentaries and I base my preparation on them. I include a variety of references and allusions at various levels of depth. I narrativize and post reviews after every session. Everything I run has a philosophical "point".

I don't dress up or even do particularly good voice acting or otherwise roleplay specific characters in detail (as some here might); for me it's more about the intellectual aspect. So I certainly see D&D as being a game and being artistic, but I see the creative, right-brain aspect as being more fundamental than the tactical rules or the visceral aspect of combat. To me, D&D has more in common with storytime around the campfire or other forms of impromptu, improvisational art than with a tactical miniatures game.

So why play D&D? Why not some rules-lite or narrativist game with less combat?

Despite my artistic aspirations, I do still see the fun in combat.

For instance, when reading LotR (source material for most of us) I didn't pay much attention to any of the war aspect. It was basically about Frodo, Sam, and Gollum or about dramatic tension building as you waited for Aragorn and Gandalf to shut up so the ring and its party could return to focus. However, when people came in to watch the movies, they expected big battle scenes. The visual medium is better suited to such thrills, and the big special effects scenes punctuated the films in a unique way, without overshadowing the human drama. Thus, I didn't even remember the name "Pellinor Fields" from the book, but was able to appreciate what it added to the film.

I view combat in D&D the same way. The medium, instead of allowing for hordes of computer generated orcs, allows for characters to have detailed and powerful abilities at the control of the players, and using those grants a certain visceral thrill that punctuates the drama. So my sessions have fights, but they're like a condiment that I'm adding to the main meal.[/RAMBLE]

It's a game because, well, it's played like a game. It has rules and possible outcomes, but it is highly atypical in the regard that every other game out there has a clear ending, which a role-playing game most decidedly does not. There is no true "win" or "lose" because there are no clear goals defined by the rules.
...
Theater can also be a game, and theater is undeniably art. There is a very thin line here.

This is a key point for me. There are exceptions, but in general, games have winners and losers and I play to win. D&D, however, is not adversarial and has no defined outcomes. The free-form aspect of D&D as compared to a tactical wargame I find more "artsy".

Certainly, art and game are not mutually exclusive.

I would say yes its an art form, afteral l its just extended creative writing. On the other hand I don't play to create a work of art, so d&d is an unintentional piece of spontaneous group art.

Illustrative of the low barrier of entry to be considered art.

Well, going by Roger Ebert's standard:

"do we as their consumers become more or less complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, empathetic, intelligent, philosophical (and so on) by experiencing them?"

Then yes, absolutely.

Interesting alternative definition. Hadn't thought about it that way. But D&D certainly has an effect on people that mirrors the more traditional experience of art.

No - it's a game, not art. The conscious focus is not on aesthetic creation. Things that work for art often don't work for gaming, and vice versa. Eg in an RPG I find cliches & stereotypes are often BETTER than subtle & deep characterisation & plots, because the game needs stuff to be immediately and easily identifiable by the participants.

I'm not sure that one has to create art through conscious effort. Some people might casually break into song, for example, without artistic aspirations, but the results are still music. As far as cliches over deep plot, there are many movies in theaters right now that make the same choice in order to be easily identifiable to the viewers. Michael Bay films are art, for example (although critics don't seem to think they're very good art).

I do, however, understand the point being made. While the goal of D&D is not to win, it also does not generally involve an effort to produce art or a concrete product that could be described as such.

There is no way in which D&D is art. There may be elements that are artistic, but the whole is not compatible with art because the mechanic elements are cannot be described having art as their product, and that product is integral to what D&D is.

Ditto.

D&D is not designed or set up in such a way that it can be enjoyed by those outside the game observing one in progress. I would wager that an observer wouldn't necessarily enjoy a storyhour fully unless they are in the game, or unless the writer transcends the genre.

There are people out there who podcast live play recordings, so someone outside the game is consuming them. However, I agree in principle that unlike most art, D&D is generally for the participants, not for an audience.

***

Keep it coming, folks.

 

[DragonLancer]

I voted no. It's just a game.

 

[wedgeski]

There is an art to playing D&D, but it is not art.

 

[nedjer]

It's a game, so whether or not it's art is maybe secondary to whether or not it's fun.

As a medium for art it's pretty much second to none. It blends elements of drama, suspense, improvisation, creativity . . . in an open-ended/ player choice format that the traditional fixed narratives we're spoon-fed rarely manage.

Using transmedia and ARGs at work, then adapting these to RPGs with the on-going Renegade is IMO making it all the more clear that RPGs are as valid as most other 'artforms'. This has been kind of illustrated over the last couple of weeks by feedback and design all pulling towards building the 'drama' of RPG gameplay and challenges; in preference to the more cryptic and technological side of ARG gameplay.

Overall, my favourite D&D art remains a GM or player pulling off a piece of improvisation or novelty which leaves the room hushed, dumbfounded or gobsmacked. And, thankfully, for all the computery bells and whistles, the art of GMing doesn't require wall sockets.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

It's a game, albeit one with a lot of artistic potential (in adventure design & publishing, improv theatrics at the table, story creation & write-up, map drawing & prop making, and so on).

 

[Mallus]

*When you play D&D, are you creating art?*

Yes.

Mind you, this is the exact opposite of what my position was over the past few years, but... whatever... consistency is the 2 HD hobgoblin of little minds.

When this question gets asked as "Are RPG's art, or an art form?", I'd usually answer "no, RPG's undeniable contain art, but they aren't themselves art, or a form, and anyway, it isn't particularly illuminating to consider them in that light".

But the more I questioned my position, the less tenable it seemed. I started asking...

... what about interactive fine art art installations where the audience is meant to "play with" the art object? If these art-toys are art, why not games, or the product of using game-like formal processes?

... what about art that's created using a series of rules, essentially algorithms, like the process-oriented paintings that my own wife makes? The presence, or even priority of, "rules" doesn't disqualify something from being art.

... why is the (implied) existence of an external audience for the art required? A play performed only for the players is still art. Ditto anything created solely for the creator, like the work of outsider artists like Henry Darger's collages, or this guy. It's the flip side of Duschamp taking a piss out of the art world with his urinal; art is still art even when you remove it from the gallery or performance venue.

... and finally, and perhaps most obviously, how can an activity based around creating fictional characters and moving them through stories --be they heavily scripted, lightly scripted, completely emergent, and/or solely based around killing things and taking their stuff-- not be a kind of art? If you decide certain modes or subjects of storytelling disqualify a work from being art, then quite a lot fiction and film would also cease being art.

So yeah, tl;dr version: role-playing gaming creates art.

(it's positively awful art most of the time, but find me a discipline where that isn't true)

 

[Umbran]

Well, going by Roger Ebert's standard:

"do we as their consumers become more or less complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, empathetic, intelligent, philosophical (and so on) by experiencing them?"

Then yes, absolutely.

I like Mr. Ebert's standard.

I think the division between game and art is a false dichotomy - being a game does not preclude it from also being art. One can make a game out of art (like with dance competitions), and art out of games.

I think I've yet to meet a gamer that doesn't engage in reviewing old campaign "war stories". We are constantly looking back at past play and saying, "Yeah, that was cool!" or "Oh, gods, that stank" or what have you - so we do discuss aesthetic value of what we produce, on a regular basis.

Is the audience that finds the art accessible severely limited? Yes. But the same can be said for a lot of "modern art".

Ultimately, Mr. Ebert is using a practical definition - if it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. If it makes you think and feel like art makes you think and feel, then it is probably art.