The Six Cultures of Gaming

[Ovinomancer]

The last several pages have been entrenched haggling over the meaning and application of "scared" and "negotiation."

Think about that for a moment ENWorlders. And be sad. And hope an advanced alien civilization isn't above us in low-earth orbit and they're watching you guys with their finger hovering over the "nuke the barely advanced monkeys" button.

I think you mean "negotiate with a distinct power advantage over the barely advanced monkeys." Sheesh, this isn't hard.

 

[pemerton]

You're getting soft, old man.

Pretty good <snicker>.

2012 pemerton does not approve (nor 2021 Manbearcat).

As I've posted elsewhere, 4e is the only version of D&D I would play outside of a one-shot context.

 

[Lanefan]

The last several pages have been entrenched haggling over the meaning and application of "scared" and "negotiation."

That's because everyone's just scared of negotiation.*




* - except here "scared" is defined as "bereft, lacking, or depleted" and "negotiation" is defined as "beer".

 

[Aldarc]

Maybe. But I still think that it'd be better if we stopped pretending that all of these approaches can be put it one category.

I mean, there is no overlap between OSR and narrativist games. Best practices are incompatible, mistakes are different and advice that one may give or receive can be good or absolutely terrible depending on who is asking.

In Russian-speaking TTRPG world, OSR gang is sitting in their own cute little camp and everyone understands that when unless we specifically talk about OSR, there's no need to bring up that "neutral referee" or "player advocating for their characters" stuff.

IMHO, as someone with an interest in both cultures (or at least the non-toxic parts) - as they both bring unique and well-defined game sensibilities to the table as a result of having to define themselves against Trad/Neo-Trad gaming - I do think that there is a fair amount of overlap between OSR and narrativist games. I agree that OSR diehard crowd likes to imagine themselves as an elitist, secluded circle that sticks to "their own cute little camp," but IMHO it's pretty clear that there is a lot more bleed between the camps than even they recognize.

For example, there's the narrativist Torchbearer that's an ode to old school gaming. There's Dungeon World, which is a bizarre mish-mash of PbtA and OSR. And Dungeon World led to World of Dungeons (John Harper), Freebooters on the Frontier (Jason Lutes), Dungeon Bitches (Emily Allen aka "cavegirl") and even Ironsworn (Shawn Tomkin), which, despite being narrativist games, are all highly influenced by OSR. Likewise, there is Vagabonds of Dyfed that tries to hybridize OSR and PbtA. Kevin Crawford's Stars Without Number was also a huge influence on Blades in the Dark.

On the OSR side of things, the impact has not necessarily been as overt, but one can see how narrativist games influenced even a B/X-based game like Over the Wall and Other Adventures (e.g., playbooks, character/village creation, etc.).

And despite differences in their diagnoses of "trad problems," techniques, and approaches, both OSR and narrativist cultures do have some key overlapping ideas and themes that they stress as part of their mutual reaction against Trad/Neo-Trad gaming: e.g., emphasis on character agency, resisting the GM as author of outcomes/railroading, non-linear play, play to find out what happens, emergent play, let the dice fall where they may, fiction first (or fiction before mechanics), etc.

 

[Bagpuss]

I find there is a real cognitive issue when the author says, "here are the cultures of gaming" but then notes that most folks don't actually exist within any one culture.

I am pretty sure "culture" is really the wrong word.

I disagree people naturally live between a blend of cultures. I'm British which influences my culture, but live near Liverpool so while some parts of my life are influence by an overall British Culture, I'm not all the same influences as someone from Essex for example. I also work in Education that has its own culture, and in IT that has another one. When I cook at home I might be taking influences from Indian, Italian or Spanish cultures...

While you might be able to tie particular things I do and practice to one particular culture, people as a whole very rarely can be.

So I don't have a problem with culture being used here. Certain things reflect one gaming culture, but people tend not to fall into neat little boxes.

 

[Umbran]

I disagree people naturally live between a blend of cultures.

I repeat - where people live is not the issue. I discussed this upthread, and won't repeat myself for everyone else's sake.

 

[pemerton]

I think discussion of the blogger's terminology and methodology is a distraction. Cultures, paradigms, ideal types, creative agendas: given the context of the initial blog and then of this discussion, there is nothing at stake between these.

The interesting issues are ones like has the author drawn the boundaries more-or-less correctly? Has the author accurately described the main categories of RPGing? Has any important trend in RPGing been left out?

To elaborate on some considerations that are relevant to answering those sorts of questions:

The author distinguishes Nordic Larp from Neo-Trad. But at a certain level of abstraction these could be lumped together - a certain sort of "integrity of the character in the hands of the player" is central to both. It's only when you go a bit further down into the weeds that the salient difference emerges - between an emotional integrity (for Nordic Larp) and integrity of concept (for Neo-Trad).

Are any distinctions of equal salience lurking in the other categories? For instance, do Burning Wheel - a scene-framed game with meta-currency awards connected to the play of the character - and Apocalypse World and its offshoots - which do not rely on the scene as the basic unit of play, and which don't have any sort of meta-currency like BW does - belong together? There are other differences too - eg the role of the GM's conception of the "offsceen" situation is different in BW and AW.

The basis on which BW and AW/PbtA do belong together is that both aim at "story now" play although using different techniques. But as games like these, and building on these, are developed and played down the years, will some of the differences between them start to become more salient to the aesthetic aspirations of RPGers?

[EDITed just to tidy up a misspelled word and an ambiguous verb.]

 

[Manbearcat]

I think discussion of the bloggers terminology and methodology is a distraction. Cultures, paradigms, ideal types, creative agendas: given the context of the initial blog and then of this discussion, there is nothing at stake between these.

The interesting issues are ones like has the author drawn the boundaries more-or-less correctly? Has the author accurately described the main categories of RPGing? Has any important trend in RPGing been left out?

To elaborate on some considerations that are relevant to answering those sorts of questions:

The author distinguishes Nordic Larp from Neo-Trad. But at a certain level of abstraction these could be lumped together - a certain sort of "integrity of the character in the hands of the player" is central to both. It's only when you go a bit further down into the weeds that the salient difference emerges - between an emotional integrity (for Nordic Larp) and integrity of concept (for Neo-Trad).

Are any distinctions of equal salience lurking in the other categories? For instance, do Burning Wheel - a scene-framed game with meta-currency awards connected to the play of the character - and Apocalypse World and its offshoots - which do not rely on the scene as the basic unit of play, and which don't have any sort of meta-currency like BW does - belong together? There are other differences too - eg the role of the GM's conception of the "offsceen" situation is different in BW and AW.

The basis on which they do is that both aim at "story now" play although using different techniques. But as games like these, and building on these, are developed and played down the years, will some of the differences between them start to become more salient to the aesthetic aspirations of RPGers?

I'm not going to go too deeply into this, but the differences are sufficiently potent such that they are salient to the aesthetic aspirations of RPGers.

Consider in the other thread how I attempted to use this taxonomy to capture the differences in classic (but indie ethos) and indie D&D games (including 4e). Forgetting Burning Wheel for a moment, the differences between Moldvay Basic and Torchbearer are significant and they are extremely kindred in a number of ways. The differences between 4e and Dungeon World are significant and they are extremely kindred in a number of ways. Every contrast of just those 4 games will see significant Venn Diagram overlap (in theme, in structure, in techniques deployed, in play priorities) and equally (or more) significant areas outside of that overlap.

I mean the areas outside of the overlap are probably sufficient for me to say that you (pemerton) would love 4e, would be just north of lukewarm on Dungeon World, but wouldn't be inclined toward Torchbearer (in part because you don't love delves, but other reasons as well).

 

[Bagpuss]

I repeat - where people live is not the issue. I discussed this upthread, and won't repeat myself for everyone else's sake.

It's not just about where people live though, as culture doesn't just come from that. If you kept reading I mention different cultures in work environments and the like. I think culture is a perfectly fine word to use in this case.

Would you rather they use the term style?

 

[pemerton]

I'm not going to go too deeply into this, but the differences are sufficiently potent such that they are salient to the aesthetic aspirations of RPGers.

<snip>

I mean the areas outside of the overlap are probably sufficient for me to say that you (pemerton) would love 4e, would be just north of lukewarm on Dungeon World, but wouldn't be inclined toward Torchbearer (in part because you don't love delves, but other reasons as well).

Do you think this sort of thing puts any pressure on the blogger's categories? Or is it more like someone who enjoys B/X but finds T&T a bit silly? That's probably not a reason to split the "Classic" category into two.