The Six Cultures of Gaming

[MGibster]

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?

I suspect that I would not be able to definitively categorize a group based on one session of observation. I would likely require multiple sessions to observe their behavior as well as time to speak with my sources to ascertain what was going on. And I doubt they'd fit neatly into a single category.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I feel like there are dead giveaways in most games that would let you narrow it down pretty well by watching a group play a session. Most games have specific procedures and rules that would give you a strong sense of what game is being played, and how.

 

[Umbran]

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.

So, you know, people who design buildings and cars and furniture have limits - physical reality limits engineering. If you want the sky to be the limit... there's some pretty hefty rules you have to abide by if you don't want your skyscraper to collapse.

And people who write poetry, and fiction... they need to choose a language. They can break the rules of that language a little bit, now and then, but for the most part they need to stick by the rules, or what comes out is gobbledigook that nobody can understand.

In the end, you get the greatest advancements not by everybody taking the same approach, but by having diversity of approaches. The most creativity will come from allowing creators to work however they best work - the method that inspires them most will be the most constructive. Some folks can work blue-sky, and others by theoretical frameworks, and others on empirically defined frameworks. They'll get different results that will appeal to different people, and that's for the best, is it not?

 

[aramis erak]

LOL. No. All horror creators for all media are not given a curated list of the audience's / participant's personal fears, phobias, and traumas. The GM of a horror game (if they're being responsible and using safety tools) is given such a list. And the point of those safety tools is to not poke the players in their fears, phobias, and traumas. A game focused on scaring the players is by definition a violation of that trust and abusive. Or the GM is not using safety tools and therefore shouldn't be running a horror game in the first place. Because they will inevitably stumble into and poke a player in their fears, phobias, and traumas. Dealing with a player having a mental health issue at the table over an elf game is not something you want to deal with...again, that's the point of the safety tools, to not poke the players in their fears, phobias, and traumas.

Some players I've had specifically opted to ask for things that do, in fact, scare them in their real life, so as to help them work through some personal traumas. Not everyone wants to stay in "safe space" when playing. Most don't want to be both feet in the deep end, but are willing to wade past their comfort zone for a variety of reasons.

One of my groups, several players want to actually fear for their character - they want to have an emotional attachment to the character, and have that character at risk, and aren't afraid to have their character confront their own personal hobgoblins. They want the creepy descriptions and the vicarious excitement of knowing Wil is willing to have the badguy torture the character I'm playing. But that group also knows and understands that, if they ask for a pause, or a fade to black, it will happen. When the trust is present, it can be a blast. When the trust is abused, it can be horrible.

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

It's the same kind of thrill some get from amusement park rides. You know you're unlikely to be actually hurt, but the feeling of being in danger triggers the same adrenaline and endorphin rush as really being in danger, and the endorphin rushes can be additive.

 

[MGibster]

LOL. No. All horror creators for all media are not given a curated list of the audience's / participant's personal fears, phobias, and traumas. The GM of a horror game (if they're being responsible and using safety tools) is given such a list.

When I have session zero and ask the players to tell me what they absolutely don't want to see in a horror game I don't think they're giving me a comprehensive list of things that scare them. i.e. I'm not getting a curated list of what scares them I'm just getting a list of things they absolutely don't want to see in the game for whatever reason. I might tell the GM that I don't want to play out any scenes with violence against children or sexual assault though it's okay if these things happen "off screen." There's all sorts of other things in real life that scare me that I'm fine with being included in the game.

And the point of those safety tools is to not poke the players in their fears, phobias, and traumas. A game focused on scaring the players is by definition a violation of that trust and abusive. Or the GM is not using safety tools and therefore shouldn't be running a horror game in the first place.

Specifically poking at a player's personal fears or trauma is what's known as a dick move among my people. But I also think running a game with the focus on scaring the players is a mistake in large part because you're probably not going to scare the players.

Because they will inevitably stumble into and poke a player in their fears, phobias, and traumas. Dealing with a player having a mental health issue at the table over an elf game is not something you want to deal with...again, that's the point of the safety tools, to not poke the players in their fears, phobias, and traumas.

I don't find role playing games to be an inherently dangerous activity that is likely to inflict trauma on any of the participants. Other than the trauma induced by spending too much time in a sedentary activity while consuming salty snacks and sugary sodas. It's only horror games that I ask about what players want to avoid seeing in a game and my primary concern isn't trauma or phobias. You don't have to have any particular trauma or phobia not to want to deal with something in a game.

 

[GrahamWills]

But that group also knows and understands that, if they ask for a pause, or a fade to black, it will happen. When the trust is present, it can be a blast. When the trust is abused, it can be horrible.

I want to highlight this point. It’s almost a truism that a fundamental of a good game is that you trust the GM, and the GM is trustworthy, but so many threads are based on problems that boil down to lack of trust that it seems we need to keep saying it.

Trust is also something that needs building up. In a horror campaign, a good GM will start exploring issues carefully, building up to a point where players are approaching the point at which “a vicarious adrenal-rush of fright” becomes ”I don’t want to be playing this game right now”. And the players need that confidence that the GM is going to know when they are getting near their limit. Mechanisms like X cards are valuable not only when they are used, but also because they are a visible sign that the GM is committed to being trustworthy. With my home group, I don‘t use mechanical aids as the players know they can, without fuss, fade out or modify a scene. At conventions, I typically display them not because i expect them to be used, but because they build trust immediately.

For example, if I am playing with an unknown GM, and we are in an orphanage, and they start describing body parts, then I — as a player — am going to feel a bit worried about how the scene is going to go and I am not going to commit to the scene until I feel sure the GM isn’t going somewhere where I’ll be uncomfortable. If there is an X-card on the table, I will commit to the scene, because I have a safety net and the GM has shown me they are committed to trust

 

[Manbearcat]

I want to highlight this point. It’s almost a truism that a fundamental of a good game is that you trust the GM, and the GM is trustworthy, but so many threads are based on problems that boil down to lack of trust that it seems we need to keep saying it.

Trust is also something that needs building up. In a horror campaign, a good GM will start exploring issues carefully, building up to a point where players are approaching the point at which “a vicarious adrenal-rush of fright” becomes ”I don’t want to be playing this game right now”. And the players need that confidence that the GM is going to know when they are getting near their limit. Mechanisms like X cards are valuable not only when they are used, but also because they are a visible sign that the GM is committed to being trustworthy. With my home group, I don‘t use mechanical aids as the players know they can, without fuss, fade out or modify a scene. At conventions, I typically display them not because i expect them to be used, but because they build trust immediately.

For example, if I am playing with an unknown GM, and we are in an orphanage, and they start describing body parts, then I — as a player — am going to feel a bit worried about how the scene is going to go and I am not going to commit to the scene until I feel sure the GM isn’t going somewhere where I’ll be uncomfortable. If there is an X-card on the table, I will commit to the scene, because I have a safety net and the GM has shown me they are committed to trust

I'll take this opportunity to highlight a related point.

Trust can be more or less systemitized. Its no coincidence that games which are (a) player/table-facing, (b) GM-constraining (by the principles of play, by the rules/action resolution mechanics, and by the authority distribution between participants), and (c) just fundamentally work if you follow the procedures/ethos of play (therefore GMs don't need to go outside of the procedures/ethos, risking a breech of trust, in order to endow the play with the experience listed on the tin) don't face these GM trust issues that you're talking about.

When those things aren't systemitized, the alchemy and social contract at the table is going to have to do the heavy lifting (and, like an addict, its a session to session thing...it can absolutely be lost if you don't stay at it) to ensure that trust persists.

 

[aramis erak]

I'll take this opportunity to highlight a related point.

Trust can be more or less systemitized. Its no coincidence that games which are (a) player/table-facing, (b) GM-constraining (by the principles of play, by the rules/action resolution mechanics, and by the authority distribution between participants), and (c) just fundamentally work if you follow the procedures/ethos of play (therefore GMs don't need to go outside of the procedures/ethos, risking a breech of trust, in order to endow the play with the experience listed on the tin) don't face these GM trust issues that you're talking about.

When those things aren't systemitized, the alchemy and social contract at the table is going to have to do the heavy lifting (and, like an addict, its a session to session thing...it can absolutely be lost if you don't stay at it) to ensure that trust persists.

No, they don't remove the trust issues; they merely merge them into player trust issues, which is exponentially more tricky.

To be honest, my worst player experiences have been in nerfed GM games where one player abused the rules...
He (1) used the X-card equivalent to prevent encounters he didn't immediately see profit from. (2) ignored it when others used it. (3) intentionally used the X-card equivalent to prevent player complaints about 1 & 2. The solution was to end the campaign and stop gaming with him. It ended a 30 year friendship.

As a player in a strong GM game, he was able to be shorted quickly from toxic areas.

I will never play one of my favorite games with a stranger: Blood and Honor (by John Wick.) It's weak GM game, and unless I trust the players, it's not worth the risk.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

No, they don't remove the trust issues; they merely merge them into player trust issues, which is exponentially more tricky.

To be honest, my worst player experiences have been in nerfed GM games where one player abused the rules...
He (1) used the X-card equivalent to prevent encounters he didn't immediately see profit from. (2) ignored it when others used it. (3) intentionally used the X-card equivalent to prevent player complaints about 1 & 2. The solution was to end the campaign and stop gaming with him. It ended a 30 year friendship.

As a player in a strong GM game, he was able to be shorted quickly from toxic areas.

I will never play one of my favorite games with a stranger: Blood and Honor (by John Wick.) It's weak GM game, and unless I trust the players, it's not worth the risk.

lol, they'd be out the door so fast for abusing the rest of the group's sensitivity that way at my table.

 

[Lanefan]

At conventions, I typically display them not because i expect them to be used, but because they build trust immediately.

They don't build trust for me; in fact, the opposite.

As a player if I see an X-card or similar my first thought is that now I a) have to wonder just where the GM is planning to take this game and b) have to now trust the other players (or even the GM!) not to use i; 'cause I know I sure as hell won't be using it.