Play styles (creative agendas) and artistic/literary movements

[niklinna]

In the thread Of Mooks, Plot Armor, and ttRPGs, I made a comment that Simulationism might better be called Naturalism or Realism, after the literary and artistic movements. Contrasted with these, of course, is Romanticism (among others). The fit is by no means precise, but I wonder how many people look at their role-playing in these terms, or, if you're inclined to go read up on those and other artistic movements (references aplenty in those Wikipedia articles!), what you think about how those relate to your play.

 

[bloodtide]

It comes up often enough.

So many gamers are set in what I call the Cinematic Circle. That is the false, soft semi reality you typical see in mainstream TV shows and movies. Things like everything being made for kids (pg 13), no character death, easy problems, dumb bad guys, massive plot holes, simple plots, the heroes always win and succeed and an easy button adventure. It's so overwhelming that most people think this fiction is how real life is for real.

And they bring this to the game. It's not even really that they want this soft fictional way of things, it's often worse that they think of the soft fictional way of things to be the only way of things.

My view is more harsh, nitty-gritty, and dark. The only name I might have is Gygaxian naturalism. A lot more cause and effect, I lot more like the real world. Though not exactly "reality", but a huge number of levels above the Cinematic Circle.

 

[Yora]

I am absolutely a big fan and proponent of romantic gamemastering.

When I look at a new rules system, what I am searching for is how the mechanics produce exciting scenes. Good mechanics make taking risks mechanically attractive and produce escalations instead of stopping the action when a roll fails.
I also prefer systems with quick action and conflict resolution mechanics because I am not interesting in playing "solve the math problem for the most efficient solution" because I see considering your turn option in light of what bonuses and penalties they will result in as an interruption of playing the game instead of playing the game.

PtbA is probably the most romantic of all game engines.

 

[pemerton]

In the thread Of Mooks, Plot Armor, and ttRPGs, I made a comment that Simulationism might better be called Naturalism or Realism, after the literary and artistic movements. Contrasted with these, of course, is Romanticism (among others). The fit is by no means precise, but I wonder how many people look at their role-playing in these terms, or, if you're inclined to go read up on those and other artistic movements (references aplenty in those Wikipedia articles!), what you think about how those relate to your play.

I don't think there is very much realism, in the literary sense, in RPGing at all. Or at least, I very rarely see it. The closest I've come in my own RPGing (that I can think of) is a one-shot of Wuthering Heights. And that is far from a simulationist RPG!

I'm not really sure about naturalism either. If we think of paradigmatically simulationist RPGs such as RQ, RM and C&S, the systems do have a certain deterministic logic to them. But the themes they deal with, and the sorts of outcomes they generate, don't seem particularly naturalistic.

Or consider the patron encounter chart in Classic Traveller. It supports simulationist RPGing, in that it makes system rather than metagame-influenced choice responsible for generating adventure opportunities for the PCs. But the whole notion that retired soldiers and merchants who hang out in starport bars will regularly be approached (like Sam Spade!) by shady characters wanting shady work done doesn't seem that naturalistic to me.

Stepping back a little bit, I would say that the key to purist-for-system is a certain sort of procedure for determining what happen next. Whereas these literary movements are more about content, I think. This is why I'm not seeing the suggested fit.

 

[Autumnal]

Alas, I slept too badly last night to do a deadpan riff arguing that gaming preferences should be evaluated as realistic or idealistic in the philosophical sense: do they give primacy to external objects and sources of sensation or to internal ideas and feelings? The more that game play involves objects that hurt when stepped on while barefoot, therefore, the more realistic they are. Shadowrun, Exalted, and Savage Worlds are very realistic, while Prince Valiant, Trail of Cthulhu, and Nobilis are very idealistic.

if anyone can do more with it, my blessing.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't think there is very much realism, in the literary sense, in RPGing at all. Or at least, I very rarely see it. The closest I've come in my own RPGing (that I can think of) is a one-shot of Wuthering Heights. And that is far from a simulationist RPG!

I'm not really sure about naturalism either. If we think of paradigmatically simulationist RPGs such as RQ, RM and C&S, the systems do have a certain deterministic logic to them. But the themes they deal with, and the sorts of outcomes they generate, don't seem particularly naturalistic.

Or consider the patron encounter chart in Classic Traveller. It supports simulationist RPGing, in that it makes system rather than metagame-influenced choice responsible for generating adventure opportunities for the PCs. But the whole notion that retired soldiers and merchants who hang out in starport bars will regularly be approached (like Sam Spade!) by shady characters wanting shady work done doesn't seem that naturalistic to me.

Stepping back a little bit, I would say that the key to purist-for-system is a certain sort of procedure for determining what happen next. Whereas these literary movements are more about content, I think. This is why I'm not seeing the suggested fit.

A lot about these various artistic and literary movements are about aesthetic and philosophic values held by the artists in their various Sitz im Leben. These exact artistic movements may not have direct correlaries with specific TTRPG circles, but this is not to say that there aren't similar currents of artistic movements within the wider hobby that reflect similar aesthetic and philosophic values of their respective communities.

 

[Haiku Elvis]

Alas, I slept too badly last night to do a deadpan riff arguing that gaming preferences should be evaluated as realistic or idealistic in the philosophical sense: do they give primacy to external objects and sources of sensation or to internal ideas and feelings? The more that game play involves objects that hurt when stepped on while barefoot, therefore, the more realistic they are. Shadowrun, Exalted, and Savage Worlds are very realistic, while Prince Valiant, Trail of Cthulhu, and Nobilis are very idealistic.

if anyone can do more with it, my blessing.

I'm just imagining an RPG where every time you fail a roll or get injured you have to step on Lego barefoot while the GM shouts "Real enough for ya?!"

 

[Autumnal]

You’ve got the groove.

 

[The Shadow]

I'm just imagining an RPG where every time you fail a roll or get injured you have to step on Lego barefoot while the GM shouts "Real enough for ya?!"

Legos, nothing! Real gamers use d4's! Or 'caltrops', as they are often affectionately known.

 

[Blue Orange]

It's a neat parallel. You could even accuse the OSR of Neoclassicism (though only etymologically as 'rulings not rules' is hardly the sort of thing rational Enlightenment philosophes would go in for).

The question of 'how real does my fantasy have to be?' is germane to many art forms. Realism often takes a backset to entertainment, emotional effect, or didactic goal in many artworks over the centuries. Then people say it gets too unrealistic and you bounce back--a lot of the major movements are reactions to the last one.

As far as I can tell, the RPG has always had one dominant exponent, so a lot of forms of creativity are in response to it--new games have to be 'not D&D'. So Call of Cthulhu has weak instead of strong characters and favors skill over brute force, Vampire has tragic dark characters instead of happy heroic ones, Savage Worlds has simple one-size-fits-all rules instead of complicated ones, Powered by the Apocalypse has rules focusing on personal relationships instead of leveling up your stats, etc.

It's also somewhat interesting that D&D was based on fantasy and pulp novels, which were the lower-status children of the Romantic movement after the 'high arts' had moved on to realism, modernism, and postmodernism. There's a sense in which Tolkien, Howard, Leiber, Vance, etc. were the last of the Romantics.