What is the point of GM's notes?

[Manbearcat]

FYI for users in this thread.

This extremely well-conceived and robust taxonomy of "cultures of play" (play priorties/styles) was just linked to in General. It looks absolutely great to me.

I'm in pretty robust agreement. My only quibble with it (as I put in the other thread) is "Storygaming." I think the blog author would have been better served using "Story Now" instead in his taxonomy. He captures much of the central ideas, but riding right alongside coherence around premise/dramatic need is the "Play to Find Out" priority. That is absolutely fundamental (if not paramount) and right there as a/the core tenet from Baker's Dogs in the Vineyward (Forge) to his post-Forge Apocalypse World. Sorcerer, My Life w/ Master, Blades in the Dark etc etc all feature this is the co-apex play priority (along with coherence around premise/dramatic need). The Forge was basically a reaction to "Story Before" gaming culture so "Story Now" is, in my mind, the most quintessential Forge offering.

I wonder how @Bedrockgames , @estar , @Emerikol , @Lanefan , @Imaro , @Maxperson , would classify their games using that taxonomy.

My general sense is it would be something like this (this is not remotely scientific obviously):

BRG and estar - 2 parts OSR, 1 part Classic, 1 part Neo-Trad

Emerikol - 2 parts Classic, 1 part Nordic Larp, 1 part OSR

Lanefan - 2 parts Nordic Larp, 1 part Trad, 1 part Classic

Imaro and Max - 2 parts Neo-Trad, 2 parts Trad

For reference when I run D&D (and derivatives) its basically:

Modvay Dungeon Crawls - 4 parts Classic

BECMI/RC Hexcrawl - 2 parts Classic, 2 parts OSR

4e - 2 parts Story Now, 2 parts Classic (though 4e-ified)

Dungeon World - 3 parts Story Now, 1 part Classic (though DW-ified)

Torchbearer - 2 parts Classic (though TB-ified), 2 parts Story Now

 

[Campbell]

@Manbearcat

It absolutely does vary from game to game, but the cultures of play that speak to me the most are Story Now / Indie, Nordic LARP and OSR. I really like making the distinction between Classic and OSR play cultures. I'm definitely far more OSR influenced. I guess that really makes me a tragic hipster. If anything dominates the most it would be Nordic LARP most likely.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat

It absolutely does vary from game to game, but the cultures of play that speak to me the most are Story Now / Indie, Nordic LARP and OSR. I really like making the distinction between Classic and OSR play cultures. I'm definitely far more OSR influenced. I guess that really makes me a tragic hipster. If anything dominates the most it would be Nordic LARP most likely.

Yup. Its interesting. I'm confident that most people on here intuitively lump you and I together, and while we certainly have a decent chunk of overlap in many things gaming, there is a pretty sizable divergence between us in terms of aesthetics and genre preferences (there is 0 % Nordic Larp in any aspect of any part of my play).

 

[Manbearcat]

Have you ever tried running a sandbox with evil PCs? I ask because I sometimes find that easier (evil PCs are sometimes better than good PCs at finding ways to stay entertained and have long term goals (i want to take over the city, is a pretty easy adventure to run for example, if they drop that kind of thing on you).

4 of the 7 Blades in the Dark Sandbox games I've run have featured a Crew of sufficiently wicked PCs (1 * Assassins, 1 * Bravos, 1 * Cult, 1 * Hawkers). The Shadows, Smugglers, and now Grifters are the only Crews that are nominally neutral.

Dungeon World, Apocalypse World, and Dogs are all emergent sandboxes so I don't know if they would qualify. Apocalypse World - yes to "evil" (per se). DW and Dogs - no.

My BECMI/RC Hexcrawl games have historically either been (a) neutral-leaning adventuring/mercenary companies or (b) a mish-mash of High Fantasy trope goodly companions or (c) a Sengoku Era Fantasy Japan troupe of Ronin/Ninja/Sohei in the service of a daimyo or a village pushing back against a warlord.

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't LARP at all, but some interesting analysis and writing has come out of the Nordic LARP scene that I have found influential on my thinking about RPGs, most notably some stuff from Markus Montola. Not all of his stuff, but some of the articles where he looks at the basic moving parts of RPGs and RPG play.

 

[Aldarc]

This extremely well-conceived and robust taxonomy of "cultures of play" (play priorties/styles) was just linked to in General. It looks absolutely great to me.

I'm in pretty robust agreement. My only quibble with it (as I put in the other thread) is "Storygaming." I think the blog author would have been better served using "Story Now" instead in his taxonomy. He captures much of the central ideas, but riding right alongside coherence around premise/dramatic need is the "Play to Find Out" priority. That is absolutely fundamental (if not paramount) and right there as a/the core tenet from Baker's Dogs in the Vineyward (Forge) to his post-Forge Apocalypse World. Sorcerer, My Life w/ Master, Blades in the Dark etc etc all feature this is the co-apex play priority (along with coherence around premise/dramatic need). The Forge was basically a reaction to "Story Before" gaming culture so "Story Now" is, in my mind, the most quintessential Forge offering.

I don't think that the author really describes Story (Now) Games all that well, as they devote considerable time simply quibbling about the Forge (e.g., terminology), the Big Model, and Ron Edwards rather than elucidating on the creative focus of Story Games.

 

[robconley]

I wonder how @Bedrockgames , @estar , @Emerikol , @Lanefan , @Imaro , @Maxperson , would classify their games using that taxonomy.

My general sense is it would be something like this (this is not remotely scientific obviously):

BRG and estar - 2 parts OSR, 1 part Classic, 1 part Neo-Trad

• I create a place, a situation, and some characters.
• I show it to some friends and other hobbyist
• I ask "Is this someplace interesting you would like to adventure in?"
• If yes then we proceed on what kind of character they would like to play.
• If no, I show them something I have.

When it comes to a session

• I describe what they see or hear as their character.
• They tell me what it is they do as if they are.
• I either roleplay or outline the mechanics we will be using.
• If the mechanics or the situation is involved sometime we discuss options until folk are comfortable with their understanding of the choices. Keep in mind one of the primary problems with the structure of RPG campaigns that everything is filtered through the human referee so situational awareness is only as good as the information the referee provides. So I tend to be generous about answering questions. Having played and ran LARP events for over a decade, I am keenly aware of what folks would be and wouldn't be aware of if there were actually in the situation as their character. This includes social cues as well the physical situation.
• Then we make the rolls.

Most of the time this happens quickly. In general what I aim for is describing enough of a picture so the players can respond as if they are there as their character.

Note this not equivalent to immersion, or acting. It happens but not required. More than a few will roleplay a version of themselves with the abilities the character. All that I require that everything is done from a first person perspective.

I haven't seen any popular taxonomy fit completely what I do. Sandbox campaigns is the closest but there are several ways of enabling players to "trash" the setting or drive how campaign unfolds. What I do above is just one of them. I definitely don't any type of storygaming or use narrative mechanics. Players in my campaigns are limited to what their character can do as if they existing the setting.

@Bedrockgames has experienced this several times with games I ran for the group we are part of with different settings, he can supply how it felt from a player's perspective.

I had a player keep very detailed journal of a 5e campaign I ran.
Gaming Ballistic - Majestic Wilderlands

For the record I don't mind people trying to "classify" me. But the nuances are such that when I have a chance to respond I write an explanation of what it is I do. The point isn't that I have THE way of running things, only A way. One thing that does set me apart from most is that I thought lot about why I do things as well as tried and tested alternative to see if they work better or worse for what I do in my campaigns.

But goal today is the same it was when I first realized the potential of tabletop roleplaying circa 1980. That it is fun to see how players can "trash" your setting.

 

[Maxperson]

FYI for users in this thread.

This extremely well-conceived and robust taxonomy of "cultures of play" (play priorties/styles) was just linked to in General. It looks absolutely great to me.

I'm in pretty robust agreement. My only quibble with it (as I put in the other thread) is "Storygaming." I think the blog author would have been better served using "Story Now" instead in his taxonomy. He captures much of the central ideas, but riding right alongside coherence around premise/dramatic need is the "Play to Find Out" priority. That is absolutely fundamental (if not paramount) and right there as a/the core tenet from Baker's Dogs in the Vineyward (Forge) to his post-Forge Apocalypse World. Sorcerer, My Life w/ Master, Blades in the Dark etc etc all feature this is the co-apex play priority (along with coherence around premise/dramatic need). The Forge was basically a reaction to "Story Before" gaming culture so "Story Now" is, in my mind, the most quintessential Forge offering.

I wonder how @Bedrockgames , @estar , @Emerikol , @Lanefan , @Imaro , @Maxperson , would classify their games using that taxonomy.

My general sense is it would be something like this (this is not remotely scientific obviously):

BRG and estar - 2 parts OSR, 1 part Classic, 1 part Neo-Trad

Emerikol - 2 parts Classic, 1 part Nordic Larp, 1 part OSR

Lanefan - 2 parts Nordic Larp, 1 part Trad, 1 part Classic

Imaro and Max - 2 parts Neo-Trad, 2 parts Trad

For reference when I run D&D (and derivatives) its basically:

Modvay Dungeon Crawls - 4 parts Classic

BECMI/RC Hexcrawl - 2 parts Classic, 2 parts OSR

4e - 2 parts Story Now, 2 parts Classic (though 4e-ified)

Dungeon World - 3 parts Story Now, 1 part Classic (though DW-ified)

Torchbearer - 2 parts Classic (though TB-ified), 2 parts Story Now

If we're only using 4 parts, then I would say my game is more 2 parts Trad/1 part Nordic Larp/1 part Neo-Trad. Immersion is also important to me and my players.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't think that the author really describes Story (Now) Games all that well, as they devote considerable time simply quibbling about the Forge (e.g., terminology), the Big Model, and Ron Edwards rather than elucidating on the creative focus of Story Games.

Yeah, I was trying to be as charitable as I could because the piece as a whole is excellent.

Calling it “Storygaming” and not stressing the “Story Now” aspect of the project doesn’t even qualify as missing forest for trees. It’s closer to “Took a wrong turn at Albaquerque.”

In my mind “Story Now” and “Force” are the two most potent concepts from the Forge (that can’t possibly be quibbled over). Coherence and focus on premise is what the blog focused on. That is absolutely fundamental to Forge Narrative ethos so I probably think they did a better job than you, but missing the “Story Now” vs “Story Before” (Trad in their formulation) angle is a pretty significant missing piece (which makes you wonder if this may exclusively a research project rather than a 1st hand account).

 

[Manbearcat]

• I create a place, a situation, and some characters.
• I show it to some friends and other hobbyist
• I ask "Is this someplace interesting you would like to adventure in?"
• If yes then we proceed on what kind of character they would like to play.
• If no, I show them something I have.

When it comes to a session

• I describe what they see or hear as their character.
• They tell me what it is they do as if they are.
• I either roleplay or outline the mechanics we will be using.
• If the mechanics or the situation is involved sometime we discuss options until folk are comfortable with their understanding of the choices. Keep in mind one of the primary problems with the structure of RPG campaigns that everything is filtered through the human referee so situational awareness is only as good as the information the referee provides. So I tend to be generous about answering questions. Having played and ran LARP events for over a decade, I am keenly aware of what folks would be and wouldn't be aware of if there were actually in the situation as their character. This includes social cues as well the physical situation.
• Then we make the rolls.

Most of the time this happens quickly. In general what I aim for is describing enough of a picture so the players can respond as if they are there as their character.

Note this not equivalent to immersion, or acting. It happens but not required. More than a few will roleplay a version of themselves with the abilities the character. All that I require that everything is done from a first person perspective.

I haven't seen any popular taxonomy fit completely what I do. Sandbox campaigns is the closest but there are several ways of enabling players to "trash" the setting or drive how campaign unfolds. What I do above is just one of them. I definitely don't any type of storygaming or use narrative mechanics. Players in my campaigns are limited to what their character can do as if they existing the setting.

@Bedrockgames has experienced this several times with games I ran for the group we are part of with different settings, he can supply how it felt from a player's perspective.

I had a player keep very detailed journal of a 5e campaign I ran.
Gaming Ballistic - Majestic Wilderlands

Thank you for the full response.

What do you think that blog post’s taxonomy of Culture’s of Play?

Do you think it captures your play (if you had 4 parts)?

@Maxperson , thanks for the response.