Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Golroc" data-source="post: 9235856" data-attributes="member: 7042497"><p>I think the distinction between culture and design is important, and relevant. I feel that discussion about playstyles and the issues/opportunities inherent to various games can very easily become impossible if the people involved don't agree on what aspects are being discussed. I would perhaps suggest that it is important to consider that design is purely a matter of system design. </p><p></p><p>A game is an amalgam of setting, system, commentary and community. Explicitly or implicitly, the authors / game designers, will inject commentary and structure into their game, which will affect how the audience play the game. If the books are full of rich and detailed setting material, that tells players that the setting is important. If the books are full of crunch, clarifications and edge case rules, that tells players that the rules and their resolution is important.</p><p></p><p>I guess this means that I while I agree with your distinction, design does affect culture. The same system can be framed completely differently by different designers by their emphasis on various aspects of the game, and thus push players (who might not be aware of the cultures of plays) towards playing the game in a certain manner.</p><p></p><p>Something like the dreaded illusionist style is an example - the designers can, completely detached from the actual system, nudge players away or towards this kind of play. Players can of course do whatever they want in practice, and play anything as whatever variation of the original material. But we recognize this, then we should also recognize that any game has some level of intent in how it is played (which may or may not cover multiple cultures of play). So there is an interplay where it is a design decision how opinionated to be about the culture of play. </p><p></p><p>Given how much the intangible experience matters (something theorists tend to underestimate, in my opinion), I would say that the presentation, production values and intentional throwbacks to historical games really matter. I think the problem with describing everything in terms of culture is that it overlooks that not all game designs are equally opinionated. In fact some are explicitly not so in their design, telling players to make it their own and adapt it to their style and culture.</p><p></p><p>Inside a style (like OC) there is also the opportunity for a wide variety of design trends to manifest. An OC-opinionated game can appeal to varying levels of nostalgia. It can be more or less focused on setting. It might be presented in a format highly divergent from the classics (as an online resource, and not a book, for example).</p><p></p><p>And as always labels and categories are a model of reality. One possible way to delineate and describe. I do not believe it is useful to consider theoretical frameworks of RPG games as a discovery of an underlying structure of reality. It is an optic, and almost by definition a simplification and flawed in multiple ways. This does not make it useless. A model or theory can capture much that is valuable and make discourse more useful and accurate. </p><p></p><p>Does it add value to distinguish between culture of play and design trends? I believe it does.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Golroc, post: 9235856, member: 7042497"] I think the distinction between culture and design is important, and relevant. I feel that discussion about playstyles and the issues/opportunities inherent to various games can very easily become impossible if the people involved don't agree on what aspects are being discussed. I would perhaps suggest that it is important to consider that design is purely a matter of system design. A game is an amalgam of setting, system, commentary and community. Explicitly or implicitly, the authors / game designers, will inject commentary and structure into their game, which will affect how the audience play the game. If the books are full of rich and detailed setting material, that tells players that the setting is important. If the books are full of crunch, clarifications and edge case rules, that tells players that the rules and their resolution is important. I guess this means that I while I agree with your distinction, design does affect culture. The same system can be framed completely differently by different designers by their emphasis on various aspects of the game, and thus push players (who might not be aware of the cultures of plays) towards playing the game in a certain manner. Something like the dreaded illusionist style is an example - the designers can, completely detached from the actual system, nudge players away or towards this kind of play. Players can of course do whatever they want in practice, and play anything as whatever variation of the original material. But we recognize this, then we should also recognize that any game has some level of intent in how it is played (which may or may not cover multiple cultures of play). So there is an interplay where it is a design decision how opinionated to be about the culture of play. Given how much the intangible experience matters (something theorists tend to underestimate, in my opinion), I would say that the presentation, production values and intentional throwbacks to historical games really matter. I think the problem with describing everything in terms of culture is that it overlooks that not all game designs are equally opinionated. In fact some are explicitly not so in their design, telling players to make it their own and adapt it to their style and culture. Inside a style (like OC) there is also the opportunity for a wide variety of design trends to manifest. An OC-opinionated game can appeal to varying levels of nostalgia. It can be more or less focused on setting. It might be presented in a format highly divergent from the classics (as an online resource, and not a book, for example). And as always labels and categories are a model of reality. One possible way to delineate and describe. I do not believe it is useful to consider theoretical frameworks of RPG games as a discovery of an underlying structure of reality. It is an optic, and almost by definition a simplification and flawed in multiple ways. This does not make it useless. A model or theory can capture much that is valuable and make discourse more useful and accurate. Does it add value to distinguish between culture of play and design trends? I believe it does. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto
Top