Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CleverNickName" data-source="post: 9016314" data-attributes="member: 50987">I think it's mostly semantic.Art is largely considered subjective rather than formulaic.&nbsp; So people who want RPGs to be described as &quot;art&quot; want it to remain subjective: open to broad interpretation, with many different styles presented and a freestyle set of rules (if they can even be called 'rules') to separate different categories.&nbsp; Like oil painting, or modern dance:&nbsp; there is no 'good' or 'bad,' just different styles and presentations.&nbsp; Yes, ballet is different from swing, and East Coast swing is different from West Coast swing, but nobody can say which one is better.If something isn't considered to be &quot;art,&quot; it is expected to be formulaic rather than subjective.&nbsp; It is expected to have specific inputs and outcomes and purposes.&nbsp; Even when there are many different designs for the same thing, there will always be a such thing as a &quot;good design&quot; and a &quot;bad design.&quot;&nbsp; This is the difference between architecture and engineering:&nbsp; one is an art, the other isn't.So I suspect that people who don't want RPGs to be considered &quot;art&quot; want it to be less subjective and more rigorously defined: they probably want more rules, and more specific rules, and lots of different codified options and variables already defined and ready to use.&nbsp; 5E is pretty fast and loose with that sort of thing, and relies on the DM to add/change/remove rules as needed, so it's probably more art than anything else.&nbsp; Heck, just the other day I was reading a post on ENWorld about how Challenge Ratings are more art than science.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CleverNickName, post: 9016314, member: 50987"] I think it's mostly semantic. Art is largely considered subjective rather than formulaic. So people who want RPGs to be described as "art" want it to remain subjective: open to broad interpretation, with many different styles presented and a freestyle set of rules (if they can even be called 'rules') to separate different categories. Like oil painting, or modern dance: there is no 'good' or 'bad,' just different styles and presentations. Yes, ballet is different from swing, and East Coast swing is different from West Coast swing, but nobody can say which one is better. If something isn't considered to be "art," it is expected to be formulaic rather than subjective. It is expected to have specific inputs and outcomes and purposes. Even when there are many different designs for the same thing, there will always be a such thing as a "good design" and a "bad design." This is the difference between architecture and engineering: one is an art, the other isn't. So I suspect that people who don't want RPGs to be considered "art" want it to be less subjective and more rigorously defined: they probably want more rules, and more specific rules, and lots of different codified options and variables already defined and ready to use. 5E is pretty fast and loose with that sort of thing, and relies on the DM to add/change/remove rules as needed, so it's probably more art than anything else. Heck, just the other day I was reading a post on ENWorld about how Challenge Ratings are more art than science. [/QUOTE]

Verification