The Six Cultures of Gaming

[pemerton]

If differences in RPG "style" and technique don't matter, why was there such a big reaction to 4e?

 

[GrahamWills]

If differences in RPG "style" and technique don't matter, why was there such a big reaction to 4e?

Not sure who you're addressing this to; can't see anyone in this thread with that position. Perhaps you should quote the person you're asking the question of? On the chance it's me, the quote you're looking for is:

"most people don't care about the priorities informing a game design"

which is obviously very different from your statement, but I can't see any better fit for your question. Do you think the two statements are equivalent, or is someone else's post you are replying to?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not sure who you're addressing this to; can't see anyone in this thread with that position. Perhaps you should quote the person you're asking the question of? On the chance it's me, the quote you're looking for is:

"most people don't care about the priorities informing a game design"

which is obviously very different from your statement, but I can't see any better fit for your question. Do you think the two statements are equivalent, or is someone else's post you are replying to?

Is it that different? If people are indifferent to design priorities, shouldn't they then be indifferent to the results of the design? This isn't the case -- game design is a hotly contested topic on occasion. I know, I've been in lots of discussions where I'm told that certain games just cannot work because they don't support assumed design goals. They do work, but because they have different design priorities, and this is the problem. This doesn't support your argument that design priorities are not cared about. I'd absolutely agree that most people don't care to discuss or consider design priorities, but they certainly care about them when they sit down to game. Or argue on the internet.

 

[GrahamWills]

We may agree in conclusion, but your thinking is pretty different from mine. I don't think that there's nearly as much contradictory information in the descriptions, and not as vague as they seem to you. That might be because I've been discussing game design quite a bit, so these terms are common and well known in some circles, so I'm bringing that along with me. My disagreement with @Manbearcat appears to be less about disagreement in the cultures, and more about the scope of consideration when looking at 5e. I was talking rulebooks only, he was including the entire catalog.

To me, the fact that the two people who seem most supportive of the theory cannot agree on whether the singular most popular RPG is in one category or not, and that the entire "culture" of 5E changes when you look at all books or just rulebooks, argues very convincingly that the theory is vague and not terribly applicable.

I work in analytic sciences, and my bias is that if a model isn't obviously applicable to the most common form of data, it's not a good model. The characteristics the blog discusses are fine and quite useful, but the attempt to create a categorization based on it just doesn't seem to fit even the most popular game. I honestly (really!) cannot see that this model does anything more effectively than asking "where do you fit on the GNS spectrum?" question --- so long as you allow the answer "I have no clue what you're talking about, can we just play?"

 

[Ovinomancer]

To me, the fact that the two people who seem most supportive of the theory cannot agree on whether the singular most popular RPG is in one category or not, and that the entire "culture" of 5E changes when you look at all books or just rulebooks, argues very convincingly that the theory is vague and not terribly applicable.

I work in analytic sciences, and my bias is that if a model isn't obviously applicable to the most common form of data, it's not a good model. The characteristics the blog discusses are fine and quite useful, but the attempt to create a categorization based on it just doesn't seem to fit even the most popular game. I honestly (really!) cannot see that this model does anything more effectively than asking "where do you fit on the GNS spectrum?" question --- so long as you allow the answer "I have no clue what you're talking about, can we just play?"

You must have missed that "disagreement." It was about the scope of the comparison, not a difference in understanding. If we consider the APs, organized play, sage advice, etc, alongside the rules of the game, then it tilts heavily in the Neo-trad direction. If you just look at the books, I think it's pretty Trad (and this aligns with stated design goals). Also, we're not the "two people who seem most supportive." That's a ridiculous statement that's trying to paint me and MBC as crackpot outsiders. Don't do that.

I'm an engineer, a systems engineer to be specific, and analysis of and design of things, from conception through retirement, is my bread and butter. Let's not try to out credential each other. Also, I dislike most of what came out of the Forge. Their best contributions were the lead in to Apocalypse World and the many games that branched from there and codifying the concept of GM Force. These, I think, are their best ideas, although there are a smattering of others. I greatly dislike GNS, and also the whole stance thing, as far too precious to be useful. Don't mix and match in the rush to dismiss.

 

[Manbearcat]

Subtracting [2] from [1] as the author suggests leaves nothing but a goal of "tell an emotionally satisfying narrative" which is about as general a statement as possible and does not distinguish from any other genre.

"Tell an emotionally satisfying narrative" is (a) not as prevalent as you think/claim and (b) where it is elsewhere, its put and operationalized entirely differently. Story Now play, for instance, isn't about "telling an emotionally satisfying narrative" (its about playing to find out...experience an emergent story as the confluence of participant roles, conversation, and systemization converge to reveal a story to all of the participants). Further, Story Now play isn't operationalized as such that you have the same kind of volitional arrangement at the table (and within the GM's purview) to make that happen.

Finally, "telling an emotionally satisfying narrative" isn't a priority at all in a huge segment of Classic Skilled Play. Pawn Stance delving/hexcrawling has zero interest in a satisfying narrative. Its entirely about playing a game and defeating obstacles/challenges.

[3]-[5] says that the GM is treated as a facilitator and not given much agency; that the rules are in charge and GM invention is way down the list of priorities. That seems diametrically opposed to 5e to me, as I thought it gave more agency to GMs than 3.0 / 3.5 did, and certainly there are way fewer modules and other material than there was for 3.0 / 3.5.

As I expressed above, this is one of the two places (including the Storygaming nomenclature and diagnosis of the apex priority) that I disagree with the essay. 5e and Neo-trad play has ENORMOUS GM latitude/empowerment. They effectively have a mandate (as I wrote above) to tell an interesting/compelling story, "ensure fun", curate content and tailor play to the aspirations of players (Power Fantasy and Dungeons and Beavers being a significant part of this...more on that below), and deploy GM Force as required to get there (the particular vehicle here is the AP/metaplot...where Force is basically required to keep play centered).

[6] is a bit odd. I want to read that as "character aspirations" but it says "player". I'm really unsure what that means, but maybe it means that players want to determine their characters' story and so argues for more meta-mechanics that support it?

Its actually spot on. Its about enabling Power Fantasy (which is absolutely a HUGE part of the formulation):

"...focus on realising player aspirations is what allows both the Wizard 20 casting Meteor Swarm to annihilate a foe."

The 2nd part "and the people who are using D&D 5e to play out running their own restaurant to be part of a shared culture of play" is the Dungeons and Beavers aspect of Trad that Classic D&D laments. This play priority/aesthetic is overlap on the Trad/Neon-Trad Venn Diagram (its a play priority that a player like Lanefan identifies with and feels is seminal to his enjoyment of D&D).

[7]-[8] seems basic hankering for the 3.0 / 3.5 / 4E CharOp and living campaigns. The latter have been massively reduced from their 3.5 heights (I've played in all of them, significantly), so again, it doesn't seem really a 5E thing.

If you've missed the vigorous CharOp community of 5e, you're not looking hard enough. Its absolutely there in spades.

 

[Campbell]

"Tell or be told an emotionally satisfying narrative" is never anywhere near a priority for me personally. It's basically the opposite of what I want under pretty much any circumstances.

My personal tastes pretty much run towards anything that's not particularly curated. I think it's the advantage of the medium.

 

[kenada]

"Tell or be told an emotionally satisfying narrative" is never anywhere near a priority for me personally. It's basically the opposite of what I want under pretty much any circumstances.

Same. It doesn’t resonate with me at all, and the way I play sometimes breaks trad games.

 

[Aldarc]

For me, there's a large difference between 5e in the rulebooks, and 5e considered across the entire product line. In the rulebooks, 5e is very Trad centered -- it explicitly tries to be less setting dependent (even offering non-setting options for things introduced in setting books!) and very much move away from RAW play, putting much of the content of the rules in the GM's hands. These same rules offer a few options for how to run games, and how to create content, that are very much still GM decided and centered. 5e, from the rules, is almost entirely Trad.

The rest of the 5e oeuvre, though, is, as you note rather Neo-Trad. From organized play being very constraining of GM rulings, to the AP lines that emphasize setting material, the rest of the 5e catalog outside the rulebooks is Neo-Trad. I tend to ignore this when I talk about 5e, because I see these offerings as ancillary to 5e rather than emblematic of it, but that's me, and I can see how a view that includes them as core would come to the conclusion you have.

Yeah, it may be better to say then IMO that 5e tried to capture "Trad" play but instead stumbled into "Neo-Trad" play, particularly as that what was popular with their audience/consumers/playerbase, and once they realized that there was more money in the latter than the former, then the latter became their primary focus. But I think that's often the case. Sometimes the desire to return to the "old" is less of a restoration of the old and instead entails an unintentional move to the "new."

 

[GrahamWills]

If you've missed the vigorous CharOp community of 5e, you're not looking hard enough. Its absolutely there in spades.

oh yes, definitely. In spades. But for 3.5 and 4E it was spades, forks, trucks, containers, tankers ... it might be enlightening to compare the ratio of char-op posts to non-char-op posts for the two; my feeling is that it was much higher 10 years ago