Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8459358" data-attributes="member: 7023840">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.It's more that there's a repeated cycle of-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&amp;E happy to have discovered it ...). Like any kind of classification system or tool (even like the different modes of critical theory I discussed in a prior thread), I think that these models can be useful- often leading to people to think about their games differently, and, more importantly, allowing designers some space to create different game designs to cater to this elusive (or illusive) playing agenda. But none of them are gospel, or the truth, or reality. Just an abstracted way of looking at things that will eventually be forgotten and supplanted by something else. 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8459358, member: 7023840"] 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. It's more that there's a repeated cycle of- 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 ...). Like any kind of classification system or tool (even like the different modes of critical theory I discussed in a prior thread), I think that these models can be useful- often leading to people to think about their games differently, and, more importantly, allowing designers some space to create different game designs to cater to this elusive (or illusive) playing agenda. But none of them are gospel, or the truth, or reality. Just an abstracted way of looking at things that will eventually be forgotten and supplanted by something else. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification