The Six Cultures of Gaming

[Umbran]

It's not just about where people live though, as culture doesn't just come from that.

Dude, you are the one who said that people live between things. I merely continued to use your own positional metaphor.

Would you rather they use the term style?

There are several viable alternatives - style is one.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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).

My reading of the article is that it was never intended as a way to categorize games - just types of play-goals. (Or players, but most of us would play for different goals in certain circumstances. I tend to favor trad or neo-trad by default, but would try to play DCC as an OSR game.)

Most of not all games can be used in different ways to meet different goals. Some might favor one over another. By that's a different taxonomy exercise.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

I don’t think so no.

In any taxonomic hierarchy you need to capture the most breadth at the top before your classifications narrow as you move down (eg Kingdom down to Species).

I think really what we’re seeing is that Story Now has more breadth (classification diversity beneath) than it’s likely given credit for and that it “plays nice” with Classic and OSR and can encompass many varieties of Skilled Play priorities (contrast 4e with Torchbearer).

 

[Manbearcat]

My reading of the article is that it was never intended as a way to categorize games - just types of play-goals. (Or players, but most of us would play for different goals in certain circumstances. I tend to favor trad or neo-trad by default, but would try to play DCC as an OSR game.)

Most of not all games can be used in different ways to meet different goals. Some might favor one over another. By that's a different taxonomy exercise.

We’re drifting into “system matters” territory here!

I would say you can look at the article a few different ways. One way is how you have written above. Another way is “you can see play culture priorities in design imperatives (and therefore in designs...assuming they’re intentfully-designed).”

 

[Emerikol]

I think system does matter but I also think inventive and creative people can bend a system to do all sorts of things it wasn't designed to do.

I also think that a group of rules as a distinct group may not be what some are looking for in their games but that does not mean there are individual nuggets from an alternative style that are useful.

I would never have considered my own calendar approach to the sandbox to be a Story Now approach but apparently it is used widely in some games. So the ticking clock or countdown timer etc... to represent the actions of the bad guys. I've used that technique myself in my sandbox games but I never imagined it as something different from all my other approaches.

 

[Umbran]

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:

You ask a couple important questions, and there's a consideration we ought to add to the list...

This is not a thing that needs to be left to theorycraft! If there are, in fact, natural styles people tend to fall into, this could be discovered by a statistical survey analyzed to find natural clusters in the answers. Rather than try to guess, it is entirely possible to ask people and find out what the natural groupings are!

Indeed, WotC did this back in 1999. To quote Ryan Dancey, "We did research like this at Wizards in 99/Y2K and what we found were very clear segments and none of them were clean matches for the intuitive classifications people had been making about tabletop gamers. "

So, there's actually some evidence that, in some sense, various discernible styles exist.

However, this should also leave us skeptical of frameworks made up in theorizing - they are comprised of classifications at best intuited from personal experience and anecdote, and may say more about the concerns of the persons creating the framework than the gaming population.

The problem, of course, is that the resources required to do this properly are significant...

Who wants to find a few statisticians and run a kickstarter?

 

[pemerton]

If there are, in fact, natural styles people tend to fall into, this could be discovered by a statistical survey analyzed to find natural clusters in the answers. Rather than try to guess, it is entirely possible to ask people and find out what the natural groupings are!

Why would the styles by "natural".

In any event, I don't think statistical methods are widely used to identify styles and movements in other aesthetic domains (music, visual arts, fashion, etc). So I'm not sure that they would be very useful in RPGing either. Of course marketers would use them, but marketing is a different domain of inquiry from criticism.

 

[Lanefan]

You ask a couple important questions, and there's a consideration we ought to add to the list...

This is not a thing that needs to be left to theorycraft! If there are, in fact, natural styles people tend to fall into, this could be discovered by a statistical survey analyzed to find natural clusters in the answers. Rather than try to guess, it is entirely possible to ask people and find out what the natural groupings are!

Indeed.

Indeed, WotC did this back in 1999. To quote Ryan Dancey, "We did research like this at Wizards in 99/Y2K and what we found were very clear segments and none of them were clean matches for the intuitive classifications people had been making about tabletop gamers. "

Thing is, even that WotC survey data was based on self-selected responses in that respondents had to either fill in a paper form and mail it or go online and do it there (i.e. the subject group was not truly random) and was then further mangled by WotC's exclusion of data from certain respondent groups.

The real - and, I posit, nigh-impossible - trick would be somehow getting a truly random sample from across the gaming population.

So, there's actually some evidence that, in some sense, various discernible styles exist.

Agreed, though the "borders" between styles would be very fuzzy and there'd probably be daylight between each one into which individual groups/tables/people would fall.

 

[Umbran]

Why would the styles by "natural".

Because they are found by the movements of the population without a coordinated guiding hand. Even with the 800-lb gorilla of D&D in the room, we find that players have a wide variety of likes and desires in their gaming, and generally have the freedom to experiment and move to what they actually want. Gamers still gravitate to what they like not because they are told, but because they like it.

In any event, I don't think statistical methods are widely used to identify styles and movements in other aesthetic domains (music, visual arts, fashion, etc).

Boy Bands. Even the most basic of methods yielding wildly popular (and financially lucrative) work by finding out what people wanted, rather than what critique said was good.

So I'm not sure that they would be very useful in RPGing either. Of course marketers would use them, but marketing is a different domain of inquiry from criticism.

Criticism is largely divorced from the broad public's experience of creative works. As such, its ability to help us create things that communicate broadly is limited. If you want creative works that is highly valued by a small number of like-minded people, following criticism is a good way to do that.

Following theoretical frameworks divorced from actual experience does promote creativity in some, and it'll produce a random walk that will eventually uncover something new that's useful to the broad audience. This is, in essence, what happened with the Forge and the Big Model - a goodly bit of creativity, and some cool new stuff was created. This was an inspiration to many, but once the inspiration played out, the models fell by the wayside, because they didn't tell us anything real.

If, however, you are interested in creating works that do something good for the audience, knowing what the audience actually does is terribly useful. This is what WotC got out of their own segment analysis in 1999, and again as they took significant input from staggering numbers of playtesters in designing 5e.

So, by all means, engage in criticism. There's value to be found there. But that does not decrease the value of finding out how people actually play.

 

[pemerton]

If, however, you are interested in creating works that do something good for the audience, knowing what the audience actually does is terribly useful.

This is the modern publisher's approach to commissioning and publishing works.

It means that never again will we have Ulysses, or The Quiet American, or A Room of One's Own, or Beloved, or probably even A Wizard of Earthsea.

In any event, as I am not a commercial publisher I am not interested in making works that will sell to an audience. I am interesting in engaging with works that are good.