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

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

First, you identify the players (which is shorthand for playing styles or playing agendas- no, a person is not a roleplayer nor a narratavist, they are not a ego-tripper nor a gamist, those are merely terms used to describe preferences in play).

Then, you use the typology to create a theory of game design.

...isn't that what I wrote in the OP?

But just as interesting as the creation of the typologies is the later application in RPG theory. Obviously, there is the initial typology, which both acknowledged that this was an unbiased look at the games and preferences of players, while also putting its fingers on the scale ... Don Miller provided the answer in A&E 74, that "players and GMs are influenced in their FRP playing orientation by the particular set of rules that they are exposed to ... [players] may be permanently prejudiced by their first indoctrination to FRP. ..." He proposed that systems should have typologies (he offered two Manichean options; simplicity/complexity, and realtiy/abstraction). Stating that he was in the "creative vanguard," Miller then articulated that the rules could no longer be designed without thought or sophistication, and that "a game's underlying philosophy affects everything that the game's systems do or fail to do" and that designing systems can be aided with theory to serve the interests of particular groups.

We can sub out terms, but the "Big Model" is pretty much previewed right there, down to starting out with the typology (which originated as Dramatist, Gamist, Simulationist (Kim/Kuhner, 1997)) before becoming a base for "designing systems that can be aided with theory to serve the interests of particular groups ..." Unsurprisingly, the Big Model ended up focusing on a single creative agenda, because these critical tools used in the amateur community inevitably privilege one approach over others.

Which is great, but is also a limitation and is why they tend to get pushback and the cycle repeats.

(IMO. YMMV. etc.)

 

[Fenris-77]

The extent to which I care about the notion of designing a game with certain player typologies in mind is, like, a negative number or something. I don't really find discussions of that sort add much to my appreciation or understanding of a particular game either. At least not in terms of moving to a discussion of what that game does or how it works or a discussion of that sort.

This isn't to say that discussions of player typology is without merit, I just don't find it useful in a big way that some other folks seem to. Very much a YMMV sort of place.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The extent to which I care about the notion of designing a game with certain player typologies in mind is, like, a negative number or something. I don't really find discussions of that sort add much to my appreciation or understanding of a particular game either. At least not in terms of moving to a discussion of what that game does or how it works or a discussion of that sort.

This isn't to say that discussions of player typology is without merit, I just don't find it useful in a big way that some other folks seem to. Very much a YMMV sort of place.

I really can't recommend Elusive Shift enough, if only because there is just so much about the early TTRPG communities from the 70s that I didn't know about.

Given my interest in FKR systems recently, I was pleasantly and happily surprised (for example) to see the same heavy FKR influence back then; I have to admit, however, that I was completely shocked to see how widespread the conversations about referee authority (or whether the referee was just a player, or even if you need a referee- like Diplomacy, and En Garde) were.

I shouldn't have been- people back then weren't dumb, but I was.

 

[Umbran]

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

Yeah, I got that. Which is why I noted that an individual might learn something. But, we collectively, meaning the broader community don't not learn much new from the repeated discussions of the same thing.

 

[Umbran]

This isn't to say that discussions of player typology is without merit, I just don't find it useful in a big way that some other folks seem to. Very much a YMMV sort of place.

IMHO, we do a whole lot of talking about the typologies and theories, but we do a pretty poor job of translating that into useful day-to-day practices.

One major issue is that, as soon as you start talking about a theory, or techniques aligned with theory, someone is going to show up to try to shout down the theory.

Another is that some of the folks around here who know the theory best don't seem to be skilled at combining that knowledge with coaching techniques.

In addition, the forum as a media isn't terribly well suited to coaching either.

 

[Fenris-77]

Well, I don't know if coaching is even the desired outcome, valuable as it might be. I was more indexing the idea that in terms of discussing game X and how it works that the idea of player typologies is at best peripheral and and worst a distraction to that discussion.

 

[Aldarc]

IMHO, we do a whole lot of talking about the typologies and theories, but we do a pretty poor job of translating that into useful day-to-day practices.

One major issue is that, as soon as you start talking about a theory, or techniques aligned with theory, someone is going to show up to try to shout down the theory.

Another is that some of the folks around here who know the theory best don't seem to be skilled at combining that knowledge with coaching techniques.

In addition, the forum as a media isn't terribly well suited to coaching either.

It's not just the issue of forums; fandoms tend to generate certain tribalistic behaviors that are resistant and hypersensitive to coaching as well as criticism/analysis. Even criticizing something like the Marvel movies risks setting off land mines and a pack of attack dogs foaming-at-the-mouth on any perceived slight made against them, often with accusations of snobbery, elitism, and other mean-spirited ad hominems.

The reality is that not everyone wants to be coached in theory or criticism. Many people simply want their particular fandom praised and validated.

Well, I don't know if coaching is even the desired outcome, valuable as it might be. I was more indexing the idea that in terms of discussing game X and how it works that the idea of player typologies is at best peripheral and and worst a distraction to that discussion.

Typologies are useful when it comes to recommendations: e.g., "If you like Y-type board games like A, B, C, then you may want to look into games D, C, and E."

 

[Umbran]

It's not just the issue of forums; fandoms tend to generate certain tribalistic behaviors that are resistant and hypersensitive to coaching as well as criticism/analysis. Even criticizing something like the Marvel movies risks setting off land mines and a pack of attack dogs foaming-at-the-mouth on any perceived slight made against them, often with accusations of snobbery, elitism, and other mean-spirited ad hominems.

I am pretty sure I covered that with "someone is going to show up to shout down the theory" and my previous comments about psychological security.

The reality is that not everyone wants to be coached in theory or criticism.

I wasn't even talking about coaching in theory or criticism. I was talking about turning theory into practical actionable techniques for people at their tables.

I'm talking about how, IF some folks did want to learn techniques, it would be difficult in this environment to teach them well.

 

[Umbran]

Well, I don't know if coaching is even the desired outcome, valuable as it might be. I was more indexing the idea that in terms of discussing game X and how it works that the idea of player typologies is at best peripheral and and worst a distraction to that discussion.

Except, they really aren't.

Say you are a long-time D&D player, and you've heard about this "Blades in the Dark" thing, and you wanted to discuss the game and whether it was right for your group. The player typologies are how you'd get at that information. And the RPG theory feeds into how the techniques of running Blades in the Dark are different from those of D&D.

Coaching comes in because that's the best way to teach practical techniques. The coaching isn't about theory, it is about, "How do I make this game work in practice."

 

[Aldarc]

I am pretty sure I covered that with "someone is going to show up to shout down the theory" and my previous comments about psychological security.

I wasn't even talking about coaching in theory or criticism. I was talking about turning theory into practical actionable techniques for people at their tables.

I'm talking about how, IF some folks did want to learn techniques, it would be difficult in this environment to teach them well.

Believe it or not, but I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. Just because I'm adding something to what you are saying doesn't mean that I disagree.