On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Marco Chacon wrote:
> 2. I disagree that RPG's aren't a medium--or, rather, I see your 
> point--but I have issues with it. You note (quoting Lisa?) that a 
> tape of an RPG session is not 'the text'--the 'text' of the session 
> exists only as shared information during the session, yes?
> 
> The voice (media) certainly does exist on tape--and therfore I 
> don't think it can qualify as the 'media' of the session.
> 
> If one looks at a dynamic RPG session as actual media
> then the act of constructing a game becomes the art.

	I think this is partly semantics.  You can define "media" 
differently than I do, but as I define it, it is the physical means of 
communication.  Thus, printed books and film are media.  Radio and 
voice are media.  These have very different forms, but they all still 
fit in the diagram that I provide of static media.  

	RPGs do *not* fit in that picture.  They are a fundamentally 
different activity from books, movies, and television.  You cannot 
substitute "role-playing" instead of "book" into the diagram and get 
anything coherent.  It makes no sense.  (i.e. The author creates 
a "role-playing" which is then understood by the audience?!?)

	I accept that role-playing is art, but it is a different 
kind of art than any of the above.  It has a different structure 
that has to be acknowledged as more than just substituting a 
different kind of communication.  

- John