The Six Cultures of Gaming

[Gorgon Zee]

You must have missed that "disagreement." It was about the scope of the comparison, not a difference in understanding. If we consider the APs, organized play, sage advice, etc, alongside the rules of the game, then it tilts heavily in the Neo-trad direction. If you just look at the books, I think it's pretty Trad (and this aligns with stated design goals).

Skipping your continued insinuations that I’m not paying attention; since the blog specifically mentions other written materials and organized play, it’s a bit silly to say “if you just look at the books”

Also, we're not the "two people who seem most supportive." That's a ridiculous statement that's trying to paint me and MBC as crackpot outsiders. Don't do that.

Really, you think saying you are strong supporters makes you look like crackpots? That seems a bit excessive. Also a bit aggressive.

I'm an engineer, a systems engineer to be specific, and analysis of and design of things, from conception through retirement, is my bread and butter. Let's not try to out credential each other.

Irony alert! Ovimancer starts by asserting that they know better than me because they have been “discussing game design” (with the insinuation that I am clueless) and then, when I state “I work in analytic sciences” adds 20+ words to explain why their credentials are better than mine, closing with “let’s not try to out credential each other”

Sorry, Ovimancer, I’m not excited about your debate style. I don’t need continuous needling and aggrsession when trying to discuss things; based on your posts in this thread, this seems a pattern for you which I’m not excited about engaging in. I’m not going to be replying to you in this thread anymore.

Summarizing, the last ”culture” in the blog article seems to confuse people who have studied it carefully, and it seems both vague and contradictory to me. The fact that a solid group does not exist for the single most popular cluster of players seems a pretty strong failing to me. If a theory of cultures does not encompass the most common culture, it has very limited utility.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Skipping your continued insinuations that I’m not paying attention; since the blog specifically mentions other written materials and organized play, it’s a bit silly to say “if you just look at the books”

Well, you keep saying we're disagreeing when we reached an agreement. I don't know if you weren't paying attention, but you did make statements that ignored this. I was taking the more charitable route, I thought, as the alternative implies intent.

I don't think it's silly to look at how game rules present themselves. YMMV.

Really, you think saying you are strong supporters makes you look like crackpots? That seems a bit excessive. Also a bit aggressive.

Hmm, when a statement is pointed out as needlessly dismissive, you resort to further dismissals. And then point that problem back at others. This is an interesting data point -- do you feel that you are gaining something with this approach, and, if so, what?

Irony alert! Ovimancer starts by asserting that they know better than me because they have been “discussing game design” (with the insinuation that I am clueless) and then, when I state “I work in analytic sciences” adds 20+ words to explain why their credentials are better than mine, closing with “let’s not try to out credential each other”

No, I was saying that the words made more sense to me because I have been in circles that routinely use them. This wasn't a claim I knew better than you, but a reason why the words did not seem vague or contradictory to me, along with a pointer that there are places to learn more if you are interested. You can continue to take offense at everything, I suppose, but again, I ask what value you think to gain from this?

Sorry, Ovimancer, I’m not excited about your debate style. I don’t need continuous needling and aggrsession when trying to discuss things; based on your posts in this thread, this seems a pattern for you which I’m not excited about engaging in. I’m not going to be replying to you in this thread anymore.

See, from my point of view, you're the one being aggressive. You're making strong statements about the position of others, and reacting aggressively when those people correct you about their own views. You're the one invoking other people as support for your arguments and becoming belligerent when they dare to contradict what you say they think. I mean, I suppose you can blame me for this, not sure what the point of that is except to continue with your ideas without contradiction.

Summarizing, the last ”culture” in the blog article seems to confuse people who have studied it carefully, and it seems both vague and contradictory to me. The fact that a solid group does not exist for the single most popular cluster of players seems a pretty strong failing to me. If a theory of cultures does not encompass the most common culture, it has very limited utility.

I'm not confused by it, @Manbearcat doesn't appear confused by it, @Campbell doesn't appear confused by it. Are there areas where further clarity is needed, sure, but to say "confused" is making a rather strong statement. Further, claiming the confusion of others, when they aren't saying this, is girding your argument with false testimonials. You'd do better to stick to what you think, or do you feel you need to cover of others to support your opinions? I have no problem with you thinking the article is vague and contradictory. I'd love to engage in a discussion of exactly what you think is contradictory and see if there's any agreement on this, or if further elucidation can help clarify issues seen as vague.

Also, the article didn't say that these cultures are monolithic, or that games or groups are monolithically one culture. It's really pointing out play agendas, many of which are compatible, while some are not. The argument that the article fails because you cannot find monolithic groups completely described by the cultures in the article is a failure to grasp what the article is actually trying to do. No one is just one of these cultures, and the article says this explicitly.

 

[Aldarc]

Just so we are clear:

A culture of play is a set of shared norms (goals, values, taboos, etc.), considerations, and techniques that inform a group of people who are large enough that they are not all in direct contact with one another (let's call that a "community"). These cultures of play are transmitted through a variety of media, ranging from books and adventures to individuals teaching one another to magazine articles to online streaming shows. A culture of play is broadly similar to a "network of practice" if you're familiar with that jargon.

Individuals in the hobby, having been aligned to and trained in one or more of these cultures, then develop individual styles. I want to point out that I think talking about specific games as inherently part of some culture is misleading, because games can be played in multiple different styles in line with the values of different cultures. But, many games contain text that advocates for them to be played in a way that is in line with a particular culture, or they contain elements that express the creator's adoption of a particular culture's set of values.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Thought experiment time:

A: If you were to observe a randomly-chosen set of players during a roleplaying game session, how likely do you think you would be to correctly assign that session to one of the categories in the article?

B: If you were to observe a randomly-chosen set of players during a roleplaying game session, how likely do you think you would be to correctly assign that session to one of the following categories: Rules first, Story first, Simulation first, Rules and Story first, Rules and Simulation first, Story and Simulation first?

C: If you were to observe a randomly-chosen set of players during a roleplaying game session, how likely do you think you would be to correctly assign that session to one of the following categories: Let's show how good I am at this game, Let's explore this world, Let's socialize together, Let's beat this encounter?

D: If you were to observe a randomly-chosen set of players during a roleplaying game session, how likely do you think you would be to correctly assign that session to one of the following categories: Power Gaming, Tactical Play, Method Acting, Storytelling, Casual gaming.

Bonus points for identifying the sources for the other categorizations!

-------

The point of the above is that when we look at a new model for anything, we should compare it to existing models to see if it's any better. I am quite curious as to people's answers. As a side note, @Aldarc's post made me think more about my base assumption that games themselves can be assigned to categories / genres and convinced me I was wrong. So I'm define a specific role-playing session as one that we could attempt to categorize. Hopefully that will help with agreement.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thought experiment time:

A: If you were to observe a randomly-chosen set of players during a roleplaying game session, how likely do you think you would be to correctly assign that session to one of the categories in the article?

B: If you were to observe a randomly-chosen set of players during a roleplaying game session, how likely do you think you would be to correctly assign that session to one of the following categories: Rules first, Story first, Simulation first, Rules and Story first, Rules and Simulation first, Story and Simulation first?

C: If you were to observe a randomly-chosen set of players during a roleplaying game session, how likely do you think you would be to correctly assign that session to one of the following categories: Let's show how good I am at this game, Let's explore this world, Let's socialize together, Let's beat this encounter?

D: If you were to observe a randomly-chosen set of players during a roleplaying game session, how likely do you think you would be to correctly assign that session to one of the following categories: Power Gaming, Tactical Play, Method Acting, Storytelling, Casual gaming.

Bonus points for identifying the sources for the other categorizations!

-------

The point of the above is that when we look at a new model for anything, we should compare it to existing models to see if it's any better. I am quite curious as to people's answers. As a side note, @Aldarc's post made me think more about my base assumption that games themselves can be assigned to categories / genres and convinced me I was wrong. So I'm define a specific role-playing session as one that we could attempt to categorize. Hopefully that will help with agreement.

Rhetorical questions are a poor way to elicit things. I can say whatever I want in reaponse to these questions and there's nothing to check it against. I also think that your reframing is poor -- sessions aren't any more uniquely quantifiable than games are.

That said, I feel moderately confident I could observe aspects of gaming culture in a session. Some with high confidence (story now, classic or osr) others with moderate (likely to ID trad, if not tell between them), and low to ID Nordic Larp, depending on specifics in the session. The cultures has pretty strong identifiers. I don't care to research the others and don't have definitions for them, so I can't speak to them.

I'm curious, though, if you have experience with games that forward Story Now, OSR, or Nordic Larp cultures? I haven't experience with Nordic Larp, but I see how it could work. I do with the others, and it makes those cultures stand out much more. Without that experience, though, I can easily see how the descriptions seem opaque, vague, and condratictory.

 

[Lanefan]

But this isn't remotely helpful when apprehending the relevant touchstones and priorities that should be the foundational elements for game design.

If this ("most people don't care about design or at least can't articulate what they do care about in design") was what should be gleaned from evaluating the distribution of TTRPG play and the attendant approach that should be taken for game design...game design would be absolutely incoherent anarchy across the board.

If by incoherent anrachy you mean designers would eschew theorycrafting in favour of just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks, I don't see any problem.

The problem with all these theories is they can end up acting as soft borders, with an attendant unspoken admonition "don't think outside the theories"; leading to a slow steady stiflement of creativity until someone dares to ignore the border and break the mold.

 

[darkbard]

The problem with all these theories is they can end up acting as soft borders, with an attendant unspoken admonition "don't think outside the theories"; leading to a slow steady stiflement of creativity until someone dares to ignore the border and break the mold.

Have you ever written (or read) a sonnet or haiku, etc? There's a strong argument that borders/constraints/what-have-you enhance creativity through the creation of tight focus.

 

[Lanefan]

Have you ever written (or read) a sonnet or haiku, etc? There's a strong argument that borders/constraints/what-have-you enhance creativity through the creation of tight focus.

Oh, I agree; if one is willing to work within the boundaries of that particular style those boundaries can certainly enhance creativity.

In something like design, however, where the sky really should be the limit, I posit that the presence of real or imagined boundaries is counterproductive to overall advancement. And this applies to all design, not just games.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Oh, I agree; if one is willing to work within the boundaries of that particular style those boundaries can certainly enhance creativity.

In something like design, however, where the sky really should be the limit, I posit that the presence of real or imagined boundaries is counterproductive to overall advancement. And this applies to all design, not just games.

I disagree. Design needs to be focused towards a goal, or else it's a crap shoot with a low chance of success. The cultures aren't straightjackets, but they do help define play goals, and therefore design goals. If I want to make a Story Now game, for instance, I don't want to be adding things to support Trad play, because these two things clash.

 

[pemerton]

Thought experiment time:

My view is that one session may not be enough to get a sense of how a table plays; but normally from reading a few posts from a poster on ENWorld I'm able to get a reasonable sense of how they play (eg when I reply to them about how they play, or what else might have happened in a session of theirs, they don't dissent or get outraged). I suspect the same would be true for this blog's categories. Or The Forge categories.