# Games In A Museum?



## delericho (May 30, 2013)

> Do games belong in museums?




Of course not. Games are meant to be played. This isn't the Ark of the Covenant that we're talking about here!



Seriously, though, if Glasgow's Transport Museum can contain a bunch of Star Wars toys, and a bunch of Transformers, and a ZX-81; and if old stately homes can preserve the libraries than their owners once collected and put those on display; and if Banburgh Castle can have a feature about games that children might have played a couple of hundred years ago, I see absolutely no reason why something like D&D shouldn't be preserved in exactly the same way.

And yes, those are all real-world examples I've visited in the last year. (Except the Ark of the Covenant. Sadly, my dreams of becoming Indiana Jones are no closer to fruition.)


----------



## Radiating Gnome (May 30, 2013)

In my days as a literature and creative writing grad student, I had some classes in what they called "cultural studies" -- a strand of literary study that looks at, among other things, popular books (dime novels, pulp adventures, genre fiction, graphic novels) with the same sorts of literary consideration that would be given to the grand works of literature. 

A work was considered "good" if it could reveal something interesting under that sort of lens. 

I don't see any reason why you couldn't do the same sort of study of game design.  But I also think there are a lot of different arts that we are talking about. 

Game design, to me, is closer to playwriting or musical composition.  The game designer creates a blueprint -- the composition, the script, etc.  But then each individual group -- DM and players -- make their own performance, their own interpretation of the plan laid out in the blueprint.  

If we stick with the musical analogy, the game designer is the composer, the DM is the conductor, and the players are the individual musicians.  Some conductors make arrangements of the original composition for their particular group -- minor changes to adjust for the strengths and weaknesses of the ensemble, etc -- in the same way that DMs often make large or small adjustments to the adventure or game created by the Game Designer to fit the strengths and weaknesses of the game group. 

And I think that's a key differences in comparing RPGs and Video Games.  There's very little room for reinterpretation when you play a video game. The creative process is not so mutable and collaborative. 

-rg


----------



## Shayuri (May 30, 2013)

Roleplaying games are interesting...they're as much performance art as anything else. But if they can put scripts for plays and movies in a museum, I don't see why a really good RPG rulebook can't be. Both are pieces of design that inform performance art. Both are creative exercises that reveal the author and the participants. Both can make statements, evoke emotions, and so on.

A roleplaying game is performance art, but not JUST performance art. There is an interaction between the written work and the people who execute the performance. In that interaction, the potential for art exists.


----------



## Mike Eagling (May 30, 2013)

delericho said:


> Seriously, though, if Glasgow's Transport Museum can contain a bunch of Star Wars toys, and a bunch of Transformers, and a ZX-81; and if old stately homes can preserve the libraries than their owners once collected and put those on display; and if Banburgh Castle can have a feature about games that children might have played a couple of hundred years ago, I see absolutely no reason why something like D&D shouldn't be preserved in exactly the same way.



I'm reminded here of The Cumberland Pencil Museum, which isn't as ridiculous as it sounds...




Radiating Gnome said:


> If we stick with the musical analogy, the game designer is the composer, the DM is the conductor, and the players are the individual musicians. Some conductors make arrangements of the original composition for their particular group -- minor changes to adjust for the strengths and weaknesses of the ensemble, etc -- in the same way that DMs often make large or small adjustments to the adventure or game created by the Game Designer to fit the strengths and weaknesses of the game group.



I'd never really thought about it from that perspective before. That's a really good analogy 



Seeing as how RPGs are part of social history they certainly deserve to be preserved somewhere along the line.

It's entirely possible to view RPGs as works of art. I recently bought a hard copy of Lamentations of the Flame Princess primarily as such. I doubt I'll ever play the game itself but as a set of objects it's simply beautiful. Grisly--and in many ways awful--but nonetheless a "thing" I wanted to own. If I could afford the exorbitant postage I'd do the same with Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea too.


----------



## Razjah (May 30, 2013)

I like  [MENTION=150]Radiating Gnome[/MENTION]'s analogy to music compositions. I think table top games, of many different types, could be in museums. 

A history of board game development in various countries could easily exist along side some video game displays in a museum. They are a part of our culture, and to look back on a time while intentionally omitting known activities seems odd. We already have dice in museums, or at least reporting of finding ancient dice for various games in the world. Isn't this just an evolution of that?


----------



## Umbran (May 30, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Do games belong in museums? Can rolling a d20 and critting a gnoll be socially relevant?




Note that you are asking two different questions here.  One is about whether the game product is a work of art.  The other is whether the _act of playing the game_ can constitute a work of art.

Can a copy of the DMG be a work of art?  Sure, I suppose.  As much as any other physical object could be.  Can the content be a work of art?  Similarly, sure.

But really, the game is not the book.  The game is the playing.  Can the game play be art?  

Well, it doesn't have to be.  I would be hard pressed to consider the play of a tactical game to be 'art'.  A particular round of Advanced Squad Leader is unlikely to communicate anything of social or emotional importance to the players or any audience.  But, a game that explores not only the tactical issues, but also explores the personalities, societies, and emotional states of the characters, could well be a performance art.  It is a slow performance, admittedly, but still qualifies.

Before anyone comes down on me with, "Don't put your highfalutin 'art' in my game!" note that I think everyday people commit acts of artistry on a daily basis.  It doesn't have to be the Mona Lisa, or Royal Shakespeare Company, to be art.


----------



## Mallus (May 30, 2013)

Radiating Gnome said:


> A work was considered "good" if it could reveal something interesting under that sort of lens.



Everything can be considered to be a "text". And every "text" can be subjected to critical analysis. My favorite David Foster Wallace essay does a close reading of stuff including an episode of old hospital drama St. Elsewhere and the Joe Isuzu car commercials -- I *think* the essay's called "E Unibus Pluram".



> If we stick with the musical analogy, the game designer is the composer, the DM is the conductor, and the players are the individual musicians.



I'd say the game designer is person who made the _instruments_. The DM and players are the rest, who do some surprising things to said instruments when left to their own devices. 



> There's very little room for reinterpretation when you play a video game. The creative process is not so mutable and collaborative.



What about builder-sim games where the rewards are largely aesthetic -- Sim City, Minecraft, or even wargame-y ones like Civilization? Or RPG's which allow the player to shape the identity of the protagonist --like Mass Effect, where a big part of the game involves *who* the protagonist is, ie what kind of person and what kind of relationships they have? 



Umbran said:


> Note that you are asking two different questions here.  One is about whether the game product is a work of art.  The other is whether the _act of playing the game_ can constitute a work of art.



This is an important distinction. I think the answer,  in the case of both pen-and-paper RPGs and video games is: yes (sometimes... well, at least it's not a categorical "no"). 



> Can the game play be art?



Sure! My gaming sessions are art. Specifically, improv theater (or absurdist sketch comedy). Bad art, to be sure. But the term carries no inherent judgment regarding quality.    



> I would be hard pressed to consider the play of a tactical game to be 'art'.



For me, *this* is the most interesting question. Are rules & mechanics art? It's easy to see how a chess set with beautifully carved pieces are be art object -- in fact I own a reproduction of the Karim Rashid chess set that's in the Philadelphia Museum of Art's collection. 

But is *chess* itself --the rules of the game-- art? Are some algorithms art? I used to think the question was, well, nutty. Now I'm not so sure. I've seen/played with interactive artworks in fine art museums that differ from certain kinds of software-toy video games only in their respective media. I've spoken with my wife about the process-focused abstract paintings she did in the 90s, which were essentially paintings of algorithms -- heck, I could probably code them. 

Anything can be art these days (or so critics like Arthur C. Danto say). Been that way since the 60s (70s?). Why not formal rule structures/games?   

(note -- I'm not sure I entirely *believe* this, but my internal arguments against this idea keep getting weaker). 



> ... I think everyday people commit acts of artistry on a daily basis.  It doesn't have to be the Mona Lisa, or Royal Shakespeare Company, to be art.



This can't be stressed enough. Bad art is art. "Art" isn't a statement of worth/quality -- it's a super-broad category for a certain kind of human-made artifacts (including information/non-physical ones).


----------



## Radiating Gnome (May 30, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Well, it doesn't have to be.  I would be hard pressed to consider the play of a tactical game to be 'art'.  A particular round of Advanced Squad Leader is unlikely to communicate anything of social or emotional importance to the players or any audience.  But, a game that explores not only the tactical issues, but also explores the personalities, societies, and emotional states of the characters, could well be a performance art.  It is a slow performance, admittedly, but still qualifies.
> 
> Before anyone comes down on me with, "Don't put your highfalutin 'art' in my game!" note that I think everyday people commit acts of artistry on a daily basis.  It doesn't have to be the Mona Lisa, or Royal Shakespeare Company, to be art.




I think it's important to remember that art does not require an audience to be art -- and need not appeal to an audience.  Especially an audience contemporary with the creator.  

AND art doesn't have to be saying something socially significant. When the art is about a message it's really propaganda, not art.  Of course, we can draw cultural insights out of games, but if the author's primary intent is to deliver a message, it's propaganda.  

Back to old, imperfect grad school memories.  Talking about writing -- there was a progression they talked about with writing.  Four levels of writing:
1- Writing for expression.  Just writing to get your ideas and feelings out.  
2- Writing to inform -- explaining an event, a concept -- news, etc. 
3- Writing to persuade -- essentially propaganda or writing to change people's minds
4- Writing for the sake of writing -- literature. Writing whose primary intent is a self-conscious effort to write well. 

Obviously, most pieces of writing have some elements of multiple levels -- and the idea of the breakdown is sort of artificial -- but it's an interesting rubric I think about in these sorts of conversations.  It's especially interesting at that top level -- what does it really mean to be writing for the sake of writing? 

As I understand it, it's the stage at which the writer is paying attention not just to what he or she writes about, but the way he does it -- and that could be expressive, informative, or persuasive writing, but the writer's efforts is not just to get the words down, but to do it as well as he or she can. 

How would that translate into a game design context?  MAYBE something like this:

1- Game design to create competition
2- Game design to create simulation
3- Game design to create narrative
4- Game design to create good games

There's tons of room to quibble in there -- and I'm not even sure I like that final list.  

The real point of all of this crap is just to say that I think something goes from utility to art when the focus shifts from "doing it" to "doing it artfully" -- where "artfully" includes both ideas of craft and innovation. 

-rg


----------



## Mike Eagling (May 30, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Well, it doesn't have to be [art].  I would be hard pressed to consider the play of a tactical game to be 'art'.  A particular round of Advanced Squad Leader is unlikely to communicate anything of social or emotional importance to the players or any audience.  But, a game that explores not only the tactical issues, but also explores the personalities, societies, and emotional states of the characters, could well be a performance art.  It is a slow performance, admittedly, but still qualifies.




Given that the TED talk video emphasised the difference between 'Art' and 'Design' it would be interesting (to me, at least!) to discuss design in RPGs too. Discounting for the moment the possibly semantic differences between wargames and RPGs, ASL could* be considered a good design of tactical combat. Dungeons & Dragons must surely be considered "good design" if, for no other reason, it was innovative and has spawned a host of imitators. I'd also argue Fudge or FATE might deserve a place in my hypothetical MoMA RPG Design exhibition too because it explicitly throws out much of the complexity in favour of a more narrative system. I'm sure there are many, many more.

At the risk of this being a can of edition-war worms exploding in my face, does any one have any other suggestions?

In an effort to defuse that can: I guess what I'm really requesting here are people's nominations for RPG systems that introduced a novel idea rather than just "I like/hate System X".

*I've never played it, so cannot really comment.


----------



## Umbran (May 30, 2013)

Radiating Gnome said:


> I think it's important to remember that art does not require an audience to be art




Eh.  If a tree falls in a forest, and there's nobody to hear it, do we really give a hoot if it makes a sound?  

Art is, as far as I am concerned, a form/style/mode of communication.  Communication always has an implied audience - even if it is only the self.



> and need not appeal to an audience.  Especially an audience contemporary with the creator.




With that I'll agree.  I might say that really good art *reaches* an audience, whether or not they like it.  A thing that is not good art today may become so as people and culture change to find that the piece does reach them.



> AND art doesn't have to be saying something socially significant. When the art is about a message it's really propaganda, not art.




True on the first.  Wrong on the second (in my opinion).  Propaganda is communication that attempts to sway public opinion on a topic, by way of presenting only one side of the issue.  A piece of art can be about the message, but show aspects of both/multiple sides of an issue, and thus not be propaganda.


----------



## Mallus (May 30, 2013)

Umbran said:


> A piece of art can be about the message, but show aspects of both/multiple sides of an issue, and thus not be propaganda.



I'd say a work of art can be shamelessly propagandistic in nature, and pieces of naked state propaganda can be beautiful works of art. The Soviets were really good at this -- think about the lovely futurist images they commissioned glorifying their space program.

edit: or Brutalist architecture!


----------



## Radiating Gnome (May 30, 2013)

Mallus said:


> I'd say a work of art can be shamelessly propagandistic in nature, and pieces of naked state propaganda can be beautiful works of art.




That's what I meant when I said "Obviously, most pieces of writing have some elements of multiple levels -- and the idea of the breakdown is sort of artificial -- but it's an interesting rubric I think about in these sorts of conversations" when I described those four levels.  Most pieces are not just one thing, but a blend of multiple.  But the effort to craft the message well is what makes it art. 

So, certainly, a well crafted political message is still a well crafted message. 

-rg


----------



## scott2978 (May 30, 2013)

One thing I carry over from my historical reenacting is that from the perspective of history, learning about what kinds of games people played tells you a lot about how they lived and what kinds of things they thought about. Take a question like "So what kinds of games did people play in 1340?" And it's easy to see what I mean. If you're a reenactor portraying someone from 1340 or if you're an anthropologist or even just a regular person who's curious, discovering that kind of "every day" knowledge of how people lived is beyond value in determining how things were different before and how much the same they are, and in how much things are likely to change in the future. So I think yes, without question games belong in a museum. If people had asked themselves that question 500, 700 or even thousands of years ago then we today would have a much greater understanding of how people lived and what made them happy and how they learned and what they taught themselves. From that perspective it's a no-brainer. 

Scott2978


----------



## scott2978 (May 30, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I would be hard pressed to consider the play of a tactical game to be 'art'.  A particular round of Advanced Squad Leader is unlikely to communicate anything of social or emotional importance to the players or any audience.  But, a game that explores not only the tactical issues, but also explores the personalities, societies, and emotional states of the characters, could well be a performance.




I would argue that it is. Imagine if you could sit down and read about a game of tactics and strategy being played by roman legionaries. Knowing the game existed and possibly some of the rules or the game's origin is weak compared to having a firsthand account of two soldiers actually playing it. Now imagine one of them is Julius Cesar. Now imagine the game, in some similar form, is still played hundreds of years later and you can read an account of medieval soldiers playing it with Sir William Marshall, widely accepted as the greatest knight to ever live. What moves does he make? What tactics does he use? What tactics does he not use? Why? How does the gameplay of Julius Cesar compare to William Marshall? You begin to see the sheer value of something as simple as what moves the man made during the game. It tells you something about more than just the game, it tells you about the man playing it, about the state of military thinking at the time, about things like how chivalry may have influenced players playing of the game. In fact, if such an account were actually extant, I guarantee it would be in a museum somewhere. 

Scott2978


----------



## Radiating Gnome (May 30, 2013)

scott2978 said:


> I would argue that it is.




I'm with you, Scott.  

Chess masters will talk about artful and creative play when they talk about some players.  And RPGs are nowhere near as rigid and structured as a chess board.  

The trick is that there are choices to be made, and potential for surprising choices.  Those surprising choices are an opportunity for creativity, and where that leads, you'll find some art going on. 

-rg


----------



## Umbran (May 30, 2013)

scott2978 said:


> I would argue that it is.




Well, first off, you're discussing a report of gameplay.  I'm talking about the gameplay itself.  The act of playing the game (say, for argument's sake, we're talking about checkers) is unlikely to me to qualify as a work of art.  

Second, there's many kinds of museum.  A report of Julius Ceasar playing chess would certainly belong in a museum of history.  But the account, though it tells us about people, does not necessarily qualify as something that ought to be in a museum of *art*.  




> You begin to see the sheer value of something as simple as what moves the man made during the game.




Sure, the information has value.  But, information of value != art.


----------



## Umbran (May 30, 2013)

Radiating Gnome said:


> Chess masters will talk about artful and creative play when they talk about some players.




Well, I'd say that might really be a misuse of the term - much like there's a difference between art and design, I'd say there's a difference between tactical gameplay and art. I'd say tactical gameplay has more in common with design than with art, honestly.  YMMV.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 30, 2013)

An interactive Board Game Museum has opened in Beaverton, OR, - 

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/982005/board-game-museum-opens-in-beaverton


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 31, 2013)

Can a game be art?  Yes.

Have I ever seen one that is?  No.


----------



## delericho (May 31, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Can a game be art?  Yes.
> 
> Have I ever seen one that is?  No.




Nobilis?


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 31, 2013)

I think a lot of the folks noting that "games are not art" really need to watch the video to get Paola's distinction between art and design. The MoMA has an impressive collection of chairs, tools, cars, and other works of excellent design, which is distinct from its collection of artwork. An item considered for design is considered under different criteria than art -- for one, there's no requirement for an intentionality or meaning beyond its function. Her description of the difference between a Beretta in one collection and in the other gives an important nuance to the conversation, I think.

Would I say that tabletop RPGs are art? In most cases, probably not. 

Would I say that tabletop RPGs can be examples of amazing design? Yeah, I can think of a few ways that works.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 31, 2013)

delericho said:


> Nobilis?




Has art in it, but I think it still falls short.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 31, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think a lot of the folks noting that "games are not art" really need to watch the video to get Paola's distinction between art and design. The MoMA has an impressive collection of chairs, tools, cars, and other works of excellent design, which is distinct from its collection of artwork.




Been though many of those exhibits virtually and through similar displays in other museums.  I have _zero_ problems with the idea that art is solely sculptures and paintings.  I've often pointed out the presence of Movodo's watch in a museum, and consider some of my guitars- and some which I hope to acquire- as exemplars of functional art.

But I still haven't seen an RPG that rises to that level.  Not to me.


----------



## Mike Eagling (May 31, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Been though many of those exhibits virtually and through similar displays in other museums.  I have _zero_ problems with the idea that art is solely sculptures and paintings.  I've often pointed out the presence of Movodo's watch in a museum, and consider some of my guitars- and some which I hope to acquire- as exemplars of functional art.
> 
> But I still haven't seen an RPG that rises to that level.  Not to me.




But are any of them good _design_?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 31, 2013)

Design in the sense of games that deliver good game play, of course.  My first choice would be HERO, followed by 3.5Ed D&D.

But in the sense of design raising an object to a level of elegance that sets it apart from other exemplars of its kind- like the Movado watch compared to my Seikos- that makes it worthy of inclusion into a museum's collection of art/design, no.


----------



## Mike Eagling (May 31, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Design in the sense of games that deliver good game play, of course.  My first choice would be HERO, followed by 3.5Ed D&D.
> 
> But in the sense of design raising an object to a level of elegance that sets it apart from other exemplars of its kind- like the Movado watch compared to my Seikos- that makes it worthy of inclusion into a museum's collection of art/design, no.




I disagree that there are no exemplars of RPGs that can be set aside from more "mundane" examples from the point of view of their styling and production. I'd cite the two I mentioned earlier, LotFP and AS&SH, for example.

Not that I'm claiming either are worthy of actually being in a museum, however!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 31, 2013)

Mike Eagling said:


> I disagree that there are no exemplars of RPGs that can be set aside from more "mundane" examples from the point of view of their styling and production. I'd cite the two I mentioned earlier, LotFP and AS&SH, for example.



You're disagreeing with something I never claimed.

Nobilis is another that had fantastic production values.

But I have yet to see an RPG with production values and presentation that are a cut so far above the rest that their design rises to the level of being museum-worthy.


----------



## Umbran (May 31, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But I have yet to see an RPG with production values and presentation that are a cut so far above the rest that their design rises to the level of being museum-worthy.




Well, that's physical production design, right?  The actual product you buy, the book - it's layout, typesetting, artwork, and such.

But, what about the content, the game design itself?  Divorce it from the physical tome, and think of the rules themselves.  Any of those that are exemplars of good design?


----------



## Mike Eagling (May 31, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You're disagreeing with something I never claimed.




My mistake


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 31, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Well, that's physical production design, right?  The actual product you buy, the book - it's layout, typesetting, artwork, and such.
> 
> But, what about the game design itself?  Divorce it from the physical tome, and think of the rules themselves.  Any of those that are exemplars of good design?



For me, HERO is the pinnacle.  I have yet to conceive of a PC I couldn't design in it.

But I also know its flaws quite intimately.  And they are bad enough that I can't grant those rules status as truly timeless design.  There where some improvements in 6th that erased some of them, but some excisions were misguided, and the worst remained.

IMHO, of course.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 1, 2013)

I look at those four criteria that the MoMA used for their inclusion of videogames, and, when applied to our little medium, I can see several examples of amazing aesthetic, temporal, spatial, and behavioral design. It's not so much a question of "best," I think, as it is a question of what tabletop games are doing here to contribute to a night of fun with friends in new and different and elegant and surprising ways?

Something like what _Dread_ does with a Jenga tower really gets at the psychological elements of fear and tension that the horror genre relies on is such a solid and wonderful element of design in all these four dimensions that, even if _Dread_ isn't my game of choice, I think I can recognize the genius there.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 1, 2013)

I can find genius in several RPGs, I just...well..._*broken record*_...


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 10, 2013)

Art is a label and can be applied to anything. Contemporary art has no definition at all beyond being a label, so I think games could definitely have that label applied to them.

The mistake would be assuming games have no actual identity other than as "art".


----------

