The Six Cultures of Gaming

[Emerikol]

I like attempts to classify styles for the same reason I like attempts to classify personalities. The attempt is never perfect but it does make you think.

As I posted elsewhere I loosely weighted my own preferences and groups as
2 classic, 1 nordic larp, and 2 osr.

I think the classic agenda and the osr agenda are both super strong forces in our gameplay. Skilled play is a high priority two which overlaps both. I find the nordic larp to be less front and center but often running on a separate thread for each PC in the background or on the side. My PCs are often getting into oddball things that don't fit the other two agendas all that well.

And no we do not dress up or anything like that. I'm talking about it as used by the author of the post.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'm mostly on board with this post except for one thing:

I've never seen Nordic Larp culture discussed or in play outside of, well, Nordic LARP (capitalization is important here). I am not aware of there being an analogous playstyle in tabletop roleplaying. Could somebody give me more details on Nordic Ladp as applied to TTRPGs, and examples of games tailored to the needs and goals of this subculfure?

I'm not in that community myself, but I've seen the idea of "bleed" in ttrpgs (meaning the moment when the line between you and the character blur) on occasion. Some people see it as a goal of rp, while others think it's nice but wouldn't want to sacrifice other game elements to push for it.

I can't recall which games they were talking about.

 

[Umbran]

The upthread conversation about 'culture(s)' that imply that word can ever be used to describe something that a person exclusively belongs to is bizarre. Most people (all people, really) are part of and influenced by more than one culture definitionally...

Whether or not folks are mixtures, they THINK about things in terms of Them and Us. If you divide things up in several ways, people will identify with one more than the others, and that becomes their culture. And, people will tend to pigeonhole others into a single culture, especially when doing so allows a "better than/worse than" dichotomy in their minds. You live in a world filled with cultural clashes, ranging from geek-gatekeeping to real-world wars that is largely based upon this concept. You live in a world with Them and Us everywhere. "We" is a rarity.

And I am sure anyone you quiz about it will say, "Well, I don't do that," strangely, still gaming culture wars happen - the "Edition Wars" were just such an example. So, really, the idealistic truth ought to make space for a tad bit of realism in how folks deal with each other. Development of jargon without consideration of how people think and act is not a recipe for success.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Whether or not folks are mixtures, they THINK about things in terms of Them and Us. If you divide things up in several ways, people will identify with one more than the others, and that becomes their culture. And, people will tend to pigeonhole others into a single culture, especially when doing so allows a "better than/worse than" dichotomy in their minds. You live in a world filled with cultural clashes, ranging from geek-gatekeeping to real-world wars that is largely based upon this concept. You live in a world with Them and Us everywhere. "We" is a rarity.

And I am sure anyone you quiz about it will say, "Well, I don't do that," strangely, still gaming culture wars happen - the "Edition Wars" were just such an example. So, really, the idealistic truth ought to make space for a tad bit of realism in how folks deal with each other. Development of jargon without consideration of how people think and act is not a recipe for success.

None of that is really very relevant, as its not an idealistic truth, its an anthropological one. "We can't have categories of identity because people will abuse them" is hardly a winning argument, because people will do that regardless (and construct their own categories in the process, often ones based entirely on propoganda.)

We can certainly fight against sectarianism, but restricting the development of jargon to prevent people from having accurate frameworks with which to discuss differences between artistic movements is an entirely inappropriate way to do that.

Besides, its entirely possible that individuals using the information to specialize within any given movement could produce good things, as much as they might through fusion, diversity of style and degree of fusion is good.

 

[overgeeked]

I'm not in that community myself, but I've seen the idea of "bleed" in ttrpgs (meaning the moment when the line between you and the character blur) on occasion. Some people see it as a goal of rp, while others think it's nice but wouldn't want to sacrifice other game elements to push for it.

I can't recall which games they were talking about.

There seems to be a distinct strain of Nordic Larp in certain Call of Cthulhu / horror gaming circles. You can see them peek out when they give advice on how to run CoC / horror games. They talk a lot about evoking fear in the players rather than evoking fear in the characters. I think it's an abuse of trust and I'd say abusive behavior on the part of the Keeper to focus on scaring the people at their table. You're running a tabletop game that's supposed to be a fun experience, not a full-contact haunted house. That kind of thing deserves a fat rulebook upside the head.

 

[jmartkdr2]

There seems to be a distinct strain of Nordic Larp in certain Call of Cthulhu / horror gaming circles. You can see them peek out when they give advice on how to run CoC / horror games. They talk a lot about evoking fear in the players rather than evoking fear in the characters. I think it's an abuse of trust and I'd say abusive behavior on the part of the Keeper to focus on scaring the people at their table. You're running a tabletop game that's supposed to be a fun experience, not a full-contact haunted house. That kind of thing deserves a fat rulebook upside the head.

If the players signed up for a game that would scare them, it's all in good fun.

If they showed up to play Teenage Superheroes, then I'd agree with you.

 

[overgeeked]

If the players signed up for a game that would scare them, it's all in good fun.

If they showed up to play Teenage Superheroes, then I'd agree with you.

Signing up to play a horror game is not the same as signing up to play a game focused on scaring the players.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I found this to be an interesting read. Although I have enjoyed 5th edition, I think it gives me some insight into my rather vague dissatisfaction with it and much of gaming culture.

i am not that old but have a more “classical” outlook and framework. I started playing AD&D a lot in the late 80s and early 90s even going so far as to stick with 1e over 2e.

I bristle when I hear “telling your story” and D&D in the same breath. It’s cultural. In my gaming culture you will be a part of stories and maybe you will realize your vision and maybe you won’t.

with some DM mulligans you probably will. But the world is just as real as your lone PC and will have something to say about your aspirations as will the dice.

it’s the idea and perhaps and illusion that skill and luck will help determine where you land and not just your preferences.

mid that the “right way to play?” All depends on your culture...

can two culture join forces and play together? Of course! But they might like certain parts of the game more or less and certain dms more or less.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Signing up to play a horror game is not the same as signing up to play a game focused on scaring the players.

Technically correct, but: signing up to play a game focused on scaring the players is the same as signing up to play a game focused on scaring the players. Which is what I actually said.

 

[Lanefan]

Signing up to play a horror game is not the same as signing up to play a game focused on scaring the players.

Meh - I'd take it as being pretty much the same thing.