The Six Cultures of Gaming

[jmartkdr2]

That was an excellent blog post. Thanks for sharing. Describing "neotrad" as its own separate play style, focused on empowering player goals but still DM-driven, and informed by streaming, is rather eye-opening.

I actually feel the opposite: it think those priorities were always there in traditional gamers (I remember a lot of Gary Stus when playing various WW games). They might be a bit more obvious now with people being more ready to share what they've made, but at most it's a generational shift in traditional gaming culture. And even that's a hug e stretch, because it's more a "as you play longer, you learn to adjust your concept to the group" and there's an influx of new players who haven't learned that yet. Older players learned it the hard way a while ago.

 

[TwoSix]

I actually feel the opposite: it think those priorities were always there in traditional gamers (I remember a lot of Gary Stus when playing various WW games). They might be a bit more obvious now with people being more ready to share what they've made, but at most it's a generational shift in traditional gaming culture. And even that's a hug e stretch, because it's more a "as you play longer, you learn to adjust your concept to the group" and there's an influx of new players who haven't learned that yet. Older players learned it the hard way a while ago.

Yea, but I think the distinction is back then, playing a "Gary Stu" (or really, advocating for focus on your character) was generally felt to be a bad thing because trad play was supposed to be focused on revealing the story. In neotrad play, by contrast, having storylines focused on individual characters would be much more of a norm.

 

[pemerton]

On the methodology of the blogpost:

The author refers to paradigms: The play cultures are more like paradigms - they cohere at the level of value and reflection on what "excellent play" could mean.

Another term that could be used is ideal types: heuristic categories that pick out key patterns of causal influence (where the medium of causal transmission is human aspiration and intelligence).

It struck me as pretty uncontentious, especially as a piece of journalism rather than peer-reviewed research.

EDITED to add, for the sake of clarity:

When I say it in my last paragraph, I mean the methodology. As it happens I also think the content is pretty good, but there's always room for improving the content of explanatory taxonomies, or potentially identifying new categories.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think the idea of heuristic categories is a promising way to move forward here.

 

[MGibster]

I am pretty sure "cutlure" is really the wrong word.

Begun, the culture wars have.

 

[MGibster]

How many people dip their toes in different "cultures" depending on what game they play? When I run a Vampire game, I'm going for a Trad style game with a satisfying narrative but when I run.....uh, come to think of it I'm more of a Trad style gamer than anything else. I suppose Classic but only because so many of the games I run, Savage Worlds or D&D, involve progressive development of power. I've dipped my toes in Story Games but their not my thing and Nordic Larp isn't something I'm ever going to be into.

 

[Mercurius]

"Culture" works just fine. I don't think the author's intent is to pigeon-hole, nor do I think that's a huge danger from exploring his ideas. A more obvious takeaway is that he's pointing out (among other things) that a lot of the clashes that exist in the gaming community have to do with different underlying assumptions, paradigms, styles, or cultures. None of it is meant to rigidly define "how things are," but simply offer a taxonomy to explore different ideas. It is a lens or map, and the map (or lens) is not (ever) the territory.

Maybe sub-culture is more accurate, or paradigmatic sub-culture, but sometimes over-specificity leads to awkwardness and thus "culture" works well as a short-hand. As individuals, we're all part of multiple cultures: be it our work culture, family culture, different groups of friends, ideological affiliations, etc. Neither we as individuals nor cultures (as patterns in what Teilhard de Chardin called the noosphere), are static. I think the idea is that the word "culture" gives us a handy term for a gestalt of assumptions within a given context.

A very interesting piece. If anything, it could be used as a tool to defuse some of the friction points that arise, allowing us to recognize that a lot of it comes down to cultural differences. I mean, do we want to embrace multi-culturalism or not?

 

[Campbell]

Maybe. But I still think that it'd be better if we stopped pretending that all of these approaches can be put it one category.

I mean, there is no overlap between OSR and narrativist games. Best practices are incompatible, mistakes are different and advice that one may give or receive can be good or absolutely terrible depending on who is asking.

In Russian-speaking TTRPG world, OSR gang is sitting in their own cute little camp and everyone understands that when unless we specifically talk about OSR, there's no need to bring up that "neutral referee" or "player advocating for their characters" stuff.

I think there's a fair amount we could all learn from each other. Some of my favorite designs are hybrids inspired by both the OSR scene and indie scenes like World of Dungeons, Necrolautinus, The Nightmares Underneath, and Freebooters on the Frontier. Some of the Sine Nomine games like Godbound and Wolves of God show definite indie flourishes. Blades in the Dark was heavily inspired by Stars Without Number.

Different games come from different places and we should absolutely judge them based on what they are trying to do instead of what we wish they would do.

When it comes to character advocacy my first experiences seeing it referenced in regard to tabletop RPGs was on Jesse Burneko's excellent blog about running Sorcerer as well as his Playing Passionately blog/manifesto where he emphasized the importance of players advocating for their characters instead of trying to achieve certain story outcomes. The part of the indie space I associate most with (Sorcerer, Shadow Over Yesterday, Dogs in the Vineyard, Apocalypse World) was based on players creating characters who were worthy protagonists and GMs framing scenes that allowed the players just to play their characters with heart.

The following passages from Play Passionately discuss this in detail:

Character Advocacy: Part I​

Tension in fiction is created when two characters come into conflict. That tension arises from the uncertainty of the outcome. All we know is that something is about to change. In order to bring that same tension into role-playing that uncertainty must be present and it must be legitimate.

That means that something within the game must be representing the fictional interests of the characters in conflict. That representation is what I call Character Advocacy. In simplest terms when Protagonist meets Antagonist something within the game must be fighting for each side, either outcome must be within the realm of possibility and no one player should be able to guarantee an outcome either way. In the classic Player/GM setup, by default the Player is the advocate for his character and the GM is the advocate for any adversity that character encounters.

This is not the same as playing to win. Winning and losing is a wholly real world social thing. Winning is about the real player demonstrating that they are a superior games-man to another real player. Character advocacy is purely a fictional concern. Indeed the player and GM may have very well colluded heavily to bring the fiction to this point. The player and GM may even be rooting for the same side. But without legitimate representation for either side, the conflict is a straw-man and no system at all might as well have been deployed.

Different games handle Character Advocacy in different ways and indeed some unusual and grey area applications exist. For example, in My Life with Master it’s pretty much a given that the Master will die. That’s not where the tension is. The tension is in who will be the minion to kill the Master and what epilogue conditions will each minion be left with when that happens. In Spione character advocacy is only specified during the Flashpoint phase of play and is lifted during the Maneuvers phase of play.

This raises the question of strategy and rules mastery. Character advocacy is one of the main reasons why well designed rule sets are so important in supposedly “story oriented” games. Well designed rules with story creation in mind allow players representing characters in conflict to push as hard as they want for success. No one has to hand wave away rules to guarantee an outcome and no one player has the authority to “keep the story on track” or ignore rules for “the sake of the story.”

It is the system’s fair and legitimate representation of the fictional character’s interests that opens the door for the kind of emotional investment and vulnerability that play passionately is about. That emotional investment is what Part II will cover.

Character Advocacy: Part II​

I hear a lot of stories about people who get tripped up in games because they want their characters to fail and don’t know how to work that into the system. A couple of questions that comes to mind when I encounter this situation are, “What is wrong with your character that you want him to fail?” or “Why is the situation so bland that failure is the more compelling option?”

First, players wanting their characters to fail can be a sign of player driven railroading. The player is invested in how the story “should go” and not in the here and now tension of the situation. In all likelihood they are trying to build a specific story arc which requires failure at this juncture in order to setup some future situation they are looking forward to.

Going a bit deeper, when a player is committed to his character’s failure it expresses to me a lack of emotional connection with the character. The player seems more interested in the fiction as a structural artifact than as an emotionally compelling narrative. Again, it represents that desire to always stay in author mode and never experience the situation as an audience member. Does the player have so little sympathy for the character’s plight that he would so casually will his failure?

Playing passionately is about building and playing characters that we are personally invested in. This is not about avatarism where the character is some thin proxy for ourselves. I’m talking about just a simple basic connection with the character as if he were a real human being. This is where the trust and vulnerability enters play because, in my experience, when you’ve got that connection, seeing the character fail will be emotionally jarring if not outright painful.

When that personal connection to the character enters play Character Advocacy becomes not just something the player does as a feature of the rules but something the player WANTS to do as a function of his emotional commitment to the character. Again, this is why well designed rule sets are critical. The fact that the rules are consistently applicable and not subject to the whims of a single player acts as a shield to that player’s investment. The success and failure of his character is a legitimate and fair outcome of the system and not simply his investment being toyed with by someone else. Failure is narratively satisfying when it is most unwanted and when it is legitimately unexpected.

 

[Manbearcat]

The following passages from Play Passionately discuss this in detail:

Play Passionately said:
Character Advocacy: Part II

<snip>

First, players wanting their characters to fail can be a sign of player driven railroading. The player is invested in how the story “should go” and not in the here and now tension of the situation. In all likelihood they are trying to build a specific story arc which requires failure at this juncture in order to setup some future situation they are looking forward to.

This is something that I would like for us (people who are interested in Story Now gaming) to talk about more. Oftentimes players struggle just as much as a GM with "playing to find out what happens." Story Before is not just a problem for GMs just like Story Now is not just a treat for the GM. Its for the whole table (players as well). Advocate for your character but let go of your conceptions of what should happen and be enthralled by what does happen.

A Player's Principle like "lead your character while following them around" would go a long way toward clarifying what we/I mean here.

 

[Arilyn]

This is something that I would like for us (people who are interested in Story Now gaming) to talk about more. Oftentimes players struggle just as much as a GM with "playing to find out what happens." Story Before is not just a problem for GMs just like Story Now is not just a treat for the GM. Its for the whole table (players as well). Advocate for your character but let go of your conceptions of what should happen and be enthralled by what does happen.

A Player's Principle like "lead your character while following them around" would go a long way toward clarifying what we/I mean here.

As someone fairly new to Story Now, I'd love more discussion. We've been dabbling, but I know that I don't always feel confident about running Story Now, so will fall back on more comfortable systems, which is fine, but I do want to stretch my wings.

The article Campbell posted was interesting. I think I have a tendency to fall into author mode, which I'm working on shaking, as I really want to learn Story Now techniques.