The Six Cultures of Gaming

[overgeeked]

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.

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

The kind of horror games I'm talking about are the ones where you need safety tools to make sure you don't stumble upon someone's real-life phobia or trauma. The idea of knowing what another person is actually scared of and/or traumatized by and intentionally poking them there isn't gaming, that's abuse.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The kind of horror games I'm talking about are the ones where you need safety tools to make sure you don't stumble upon someone's real-life phobia or trauma. The idea of knowing what another person is actually scared of and/or traumatized by and intentionally poking them there isn't gaming, that's abuse.

Yes. That is not only correct but an important part of running a horror game not just well but ethically.

I just don't see that as being at odds with what anyone has said. But I will accept that it should be said, because it is important.

 

[overgeeked]

Yes. That is not only correct but an important part of running a horror game not just well but ethically.

I just don't see that as being at odds with what anyone has said. But I will accept that it should be said, because it is important.

A game focused on trying to scare the players is at odds with it.

 

[Campbell]

With both acting and roleplaying I prefer what Nordic LARP communities refer to bleed-out (character to player) and have very little use for bleed-in (player to character). Bleed-in is fairly controversial even in most Nordic LARP communities I have encountered state side.

 

[Fenris-77]

With both acting and roleplaying I prefer what Nordic LARP communities refer to bleed-out (character to player) and have very little use for bleed-in (player to character). Bleed-in is fairly controversial even in most Nordic LARP communities I have encountered state side.

I think that this conception of what happens when roleplaying is good, i.e. bleed out, is actually far more useful than the idea of 'immersion'.

 

[aramis erak]

Each time someone describes some very different things and then insists that they fall within the same umbrella, I'm scratching my head.

Wouldn't we all be better off sitting in separate camps?

Perhaps, but taken to extremes, it leads to exclusionary thinking. Which has been a nasty bit of US sociodynamics for the last 250 years... (yes, before they united.) I get enough on the news to not want it in games.

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.

from where I sit, yes, there is. They're both focused upon player choice and engagement. Especially the OSR's "sandbox-or-nothing" crowd. They're both aiming to make the GM/Referee into something other than what many who didn't have access to Gary's rambles nor Dave's post-TSR efforts

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?

The equivalent is the "High Trust Rules Free Table" ... there's a number of threads about such on RPGG. There has been discussion of Nordic LARP on RPGG, ass well, and from the outside, they look similar enough.

 

[Emerikol]

With both acting and roleplaying I prefer what Nordic LARP communities refer to bleed-out (character to player) and have very little use for bleed-in (player to character). Bleed-in is fairly controversial even in most Nordic LARP communities I have encountered state side.

This is a great point. Bleed in versus bleed out. I would think with skilled play that bleed in is at least somewhat inevitable.

It's probably why I only gave Nordic Larp a 1 in my own self-assessment. I think we do use some of the ideas but we would not be purist by any measure.

 

[Emerikol]

I also really enjoyed the article for the bits of history entwined in it as I love reading RPG history.

I don't think analysis is problematic. It can help us find the style of game we prefer, or get into the spirit of a less familiar one.

And maybe an understanding of differing styles can help reduce the US vs. Them?
Okay, maybe way too optimistic...

I think you are right. I mean this isn't an important aspect of life. I may not want my child to grow up and join a different religion or even a different political party. Do I really care if she enjoys a gaming style that I don't prefer? Not really. Sure maybe for social reasons, I'd prefer she like what I like so I get more time with her but I'd hardly lose sleep if she enjoyed Blades in the Dark more than D&D.

I also think that most of this stuff is not hardwired genetically. It's a preference. So we should want players trying out different styles of play. I don't get my hackles up when you hear some game designer being interviewed and he paints an older style as "lacking or ineffective or old ideas" instead of just pointing out the positives of his style.

One example was the article about rust monsters. Not sure the author. But the implication was that rust monsters were #badwrongfun. Players didn't like such things and new design was going to change all of that. My reaction was "I like rust monsters".

 

[Emerikol]

A game focused on trying to scare the players is at odds with it.

It's kind of funny but I've never understood the appeal of the horror genre. Either as a game or as a movie.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is a great point. Bleed in versus bleed out. I would think with skilled play that bleed in is at least somewhat inevitable.

It's probably why I only gave Nordic Larp a 1 in my own self-assessment. I think we do use some of the ideas but we would not be purist by any measure.

Skilled play is orthogonal, at best, to bleed (either direction). Skilled play is about playing 'smart' and overcoming the challenge by marshalling your resources in clever and efficient ways. This has nothing at all to do with bleed, except that it may interfere with it due to the mindsets involved. Skilled play is often clinical.