Same As It Ever Was: Define the Players of RPGs, then Define the Theory of RPGs

[Manbearcat]

". . . You may ask yourself, am I right? Am I wrong? . . ."

"And you may say to yourself, 'My God, what have I done?'"

Omg, is life just a railroad??

“Same as it ever was…”

 

[Umbran]

So, to be clear about the OP- the idea isn't that the four-fold way (or other, more recent classifications) is, or isn't, an accurate way to model players and/or player agendas.

Yep, I got that. No confusion.

It's more that there's a repeated cycle of-

So, I think we were also speaking with different scales of focus - you seem to be a bit more focused on the "lather, rinse, repeat" on larger scales, and I was speaking of it leaning to the individual discussions here. Both are valid scales to think on, and I think they have a great many similarities.

A. Declaring that there's a problem in TTRPGs.
B. This problem is caused by inconsistent desires/agendas/types of players.
C. Therefore, a new typology of players will be announced (almost always with some types being more equal than others, in the George Orwell sense).
D. Based on that typology, a theory (or theories) of TTRPGs and/or game design will bloom, under the concept that the system itself will enable/encourage/assist in certain types of play.
E. Rinse, repeat. (The epilogue of the book has this re-occurring, with ...IIRC, I don't have it with me at this second ... the creators of Ars Magica writing in to A&E happy to have discovered it ...).

So, one question that arises is whether there's actually been a new recognized typology put forward since... the Big Model in 2005 or so? It seems that, on the larger scale, we've gone without a new iteration for over a decade.

But the vast majority of tables will get much more use out of (for example) reading what iserith writes about DC checks or the action economy than they ever will from these discussions.

A lot of that has to do with the environment - collaboration and learning happen best in places of psychological safety, which EN World is not.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So, I think we were also speaking with different scales of focus - you seem to be a bit more focused on the "lather, rinse, repeat" on larger scales, and I was speaking of it leaning to the individual discussions here. Both are valid scales to think on, and I think they have a great many similarities.

Agreed.

So, one question that arises is whether there's actually been a new recognized typology put forward since... the Big Model in 2005 or so? It seems that, on the larger scale, we've gone without a new iteration for over a decade.

Well, I was concentrating on the "big picture" as first seen in the leadup to the Blacow model. But, yeah, it's constant. New models are constantly being proposed ... some gain more traction than others (Blacow, GNS/Big Model, the original threefold -DGS, the early Thornton and Perren typologies of wargamers, Pulsipher's classifcations, Tweet (& Laws) in the late 80s and 90s, some of the Scandinavian typologies that diverged (primarily) from LARPing, emotional response typologies and so on, and that's before getting into whether estorerica like FKR is even part of the typologies, or apart from it).

I would say that there is actually a lot out there, especially within the last five-ten years, but the discourse, here, is largely frozen between Big Model/GNS advocates and those who are not giant fans of same.

A lot of that has to do with the environment - collaboration and learning happen best in places of psychological safety, which EN World is not.

I would say that EN World is actually pretty good- I'd say that the internet, in general, is not a place of psychological safety.


...but it does have some great cat videos! Also? A lot of quality streaming TV. Too much.

 

[Aldarc]

Judging a segmentation study from over 20 years ago on today's questionnaires that have a different purpose? I'm not sure that's a great basis for a position.

Neither is a market study from 20 years ago without knowing the methodology.

 

[Umbran]

Well, I was concentrating on the "big picture" as first seen in the leadup to the Blacow model. But, yeah, it's constant. New models are constantly being proposed

But, check the dates on those models.

Blacow - 1980
Threefold model - 1998
Robin Laws - 2002
Color Theory - 2002
Meilahti School (part of "Nordic" theory)- 2002
Turku School (another "Nordic" theory) - 1999
Channel Theory - 2003
Forge Theories (GNS and Big Model) - 1999-2005.

What has there been since 2005? Can we actually name any? It looks more like there's Blacow, and then a burst of theory around the turn of the century, and then not much new in the past decade.

I would say that there is actually a lot out there, especially within the last five-ten years, but the discourse, here, is largely frozen between Big Model/GNS advocates and those who are not giant fans of same.

So, imagine I'm from Missouri - the "Show Me" state. It isn't enough to assert that there's a lot out there, we should be able to point to it and say, "There it is!"

I would say that EN World is actually pretty good

Only in comparison to the Wild West. As someone who gives talks on psychological safety in my professional life, and how often what minimal psychological safety we have must be enforced by red text and threadbans, I'd have to say no, EN World isn't good enough for the kind of work that'd be required.

I daresay no place so large would be - new theory is not really a job for hundreds of people - it is a job for handfuls of people.

...but it does have some great cat videos! Also? A lot of quality streaming TV. Too much.

Thank the powers that be for the cat videos, because we need them to recover from the rest of it.

 

[Umbran]

Neither is a market study from 20 years ago without knowing the methodology.

Note how I didn't take a whole lot of a position, other than, "Hey, I remember this is in line with that"?

Overblowing what I did say makes a strawman. Please don't.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But, check the dates on those models.

Blacow - 1980
Threefold model - 1998
Robin Laws - 2002
Color Theory - 2002
Meilahti School (part of "Nordic" theory)- 2002
Turku School (another "Nordic" theory) - 1999
Channel Theory - 2003
Forge Theories (GNS and Big Model) - 1999-2005.

What has there been since 2005? Can we actually name any? It looks more like there's Blacow, and then a burst of theory around the turn of the century, and then not much new in the past decade.

(I'd note that there are several influential ones prior to Blacow, some in the 80s, and some, such as Laws and Tweet, that began to be stated prior to 1998 ... before Laws combined Alston and Blacow).


Allston 1988 (I'd definitely put that in the list!).
Bartle Types (for MUDs, but also used) ('89-'90, summarized '95, expanded 2004)
Bowman/McDiarmid LARP Typologies (2010-12) (aka Player Motives)
Henley 2011 (the psychlogical "it fees good" process typology, hearkening back to the early 80s).

...but again, most of this is ephemeral because it is self-published, "amatuer" and usually goes back over the same issues that have been previously raised. But I'd largely agree with you, except I'd probably say that none of these are really new- I can identify all of them, but while they might be useful, I'm not sure that any of them are really different.*

I would further say that we are getting additional interesting work that's a little more academic, we are retreating from a focus on the amateur player typologies, and looking more at focused studies (what is the specific relationship between player and avatar, what are the models for types of performances within an RPG, what are modes of conversation moves employed by TTRPG players, etc.).

...but that doesn't really come up here.


*There are only two types of people in the world. Those who separate others into arbitrary groups, those who don't, and the innumerate.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is completley in alignment with what I said. So I'm not seeing disagreement here.

I'm not @innerdude so I hope he'll correct me if I've misinterpreted, but I took him to be saying he disagreed with the following:

But, since we aren't really exploring the possible theory landscape, we aren't going to find anything in the discussions.

Because based on the below, he seems to have found something significant in these discussions:

And believe me, I will now 1000% go out of my way to elucidate my experience with coming around to what "Story Now" play can do. Having an understanding of what it is and what it does has improved my group's level of play and enjoyment. Because I greatly care about finding new, fun, exciting, and innovative ways to get better at and maximize enjoyment from play.

My experience is very similar.

Perhaps what is to be found in these discussions isn't something pertaining to the hobby as a whole, but is rather more personal to some people taking part in the hobby? I've personally found quite a bit in these discussions, and that's why when I see the sentiment of "what's the point, this is nothing new" it just sounds empty.

 

[Aldarc]

Note how I didn't take a whole lot of a position, other than, "Hey, I remember this is in line with that"?

Overblowing what I did say makes a strawman. Please don't.

You mean like claiming that my entire position is based on their current surveys? Yeah, that would be disrespectful.

 

[soviet]

It seems to me that the core insight of the Big Model is that it's not a typology of players but a typology of games. Of playstyles. If one accepts that, whether you accept the three presented creative agendas or not, it follows that design can focus less on appeasing players as their types and more on offering distinct flavours of games that people can opt to enjoy or not on their own merits. That is, I am not a narrativist; I am simply a player who likes narrativist games but who might enjoy simulationist and gamist games as well if it's clear which mode I am meant to be in. And if one accepts that, again independent of whether you accept G N and S themselves, it follows that typologies themselves are not as important as finding or articulating distinct ways to play a game (however atomised) and building bespoke systems that reinforce them.