Where is the art in RPGs?
I've wanted to get these thoughts out for a while, at least to refelct on them collected all together, but the thing that catalyzed writing them down is the common refrain in conversations surrounding MÖRK BORG (2020) that "it's more of an art book than a game." Immediately, I wonder 'aren't all RPG books quote unquote art books?' While the specific reference to MÖRK BORG is most usually a criticism, meant to point to the ways the text is unconventionally integrated into the art and design (to put it objectively) and potentially a perceived lack of "game content",* the claim raises an interesting point: how many different types and instances of "art" are there in any given RPG? As in, how many discrete traditions[1] that are considered forms of art are integrated in to the things we call Role-Playing Games?
There is most obviously the illustrations in the books that we all read that we can agree fit in the tradition of things referred to as "art". So there is a first kind of art present. But the book-objects themselves fit in the tradition of bookmaking as an art, a copy of the world's most popular RPG is undeniably the same "kind of thing" as an illuminated manuscript like the ones in most European art history survey classes. So there, we could say there is a second, discrete "art" present. The book-object and the illuminations in the book can be analyzed discretely.
These being RPG books, there's another element at play: the game-event. We have a book full of rules, but most players/referees of these games would agree that the event that is playing the game is just as much a part of the game as the book-object. So here too is another kind of art, a unique participatory performance art that creates narratives.
Also of note is the massive community of people who take role-playing games and change/transform/challenge them with their own content, sometimes termed "folk" to get at the emergent, DIY/personally-crafted nature of the art. So here we might identify the "art" of making and changing these games.
There are more, but as a final "art" I'll point to the emergent thing that is the "Role-Playing Game", a relatively young form of art that wraps all of the above, illustrative arts/bookmaking and design/performance art/oral narrative arts, etc., together.
But who cares? Why does any of this matter? I can't help but notice what seem like common issues among people who run and play in popular tabletop RPGS that seem to stem from a dearth of analytical tools for talking about RPGS. And while RPGs are a nascent art, their composite elements have a wealth of analytical tools to draw from. If more tools are at the disposal of the prospective RPG-er that can help them find the experience that will resonate best with them, I want that to happen. Talking about RPGs-as-art might do that, it might not. There's only one way to find out.
*This is based on real conversations I've had with people, face to face. It may not reflect all invocations of this criticism, but it comes from experience.
[1]: I'm unhappy with this wording but couldn't find a better way to say it. Historically, things like sculpture and painting are considered different traditions. This kind of difference is what I mean to get at.