Why The Niches?

[Aus_Snow]

What's with the preponderance of niches lately?

Lately?!

If there is such a trend these days - and that's a honkin' great 'if' - maybe it's due to an actual (increased) fracturing of the roleplaying 'community', or player-base?

But I dunno. Sounds iffy.

 

[Mark]

What's True D&D?

Come to GaryCon II next March and you can sit in on daiglo's game with me.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I still don't see the benefit. All I see is a way to isolate oneself from ever possibly experiencing something they might enjoy, or from creating something that might be awesome, except for the fact that you deliberately scratched good ideas because they didn't fit the niche.

Just seems to me that any possible benefit is nullified by the drawbacks.

The existence of niches like Gamism, Immersionism, etc. came about because some people - mostly designers or would-be designers, but ordinary players and GMs as well - got tired of arguing about how "the game" was supposed to play, and instead chose to create games that played the way they liked. Or even the way OTHERS liked.

Instead of deriding a "power gamer," defining what it was that player enjoyed and finding a way to deliver it. Instead of excluding the author stance as "metagaming," exploring its potential to add to or supplant the traditional experience.

If you like everything that can remotely be defined as an RPG - kudos and kupos to you! You're fortunate enough to never have to be picky you can join any group and enjoy the games they play in the same way they do.

Many players - I daresay MOST, in my experience - do NOT have this universal appreciation of a wide range of playstyles. If they don't have a vocabulary to describe what they do or do not enjoy, they don't even have the ABILITY to seek out a game they might like better. All they can do is lash out at what they DON'T enjoy, condemning it with slurs that are older than the internet: powergamer, munchkin, metagamer, fancy-pants "roleplayer," frustrated novelist, frustrated actor, monty-haul GM, tightwad GM, badwrongfun (used unironically).

THOSE terms aren't remotely new. They're older than many people posting on this board, and they have ALWAYS been exclusionary. RPG theory terminology was intended to be the INclusionary, the exact OPPOSITE of what you're suggesting.

The old way was to say: you're doing it wrong!

The new way: you're doing it different; could I enjoy that? Even if I can't, here's something you might like.

 

[Agamon]

This is nothing new. Gamers seem to have a hard time looking upon each other as fellow gamers, there's always been segregation, for reasons I won't expound, but they are many. More broadly defined catagories include:

Video game/RPG
CCG/RPG
LARP/Traditional
D&D/other RPG
Earlier edition/new edition
wargamer/roleplayer

The internet has only made this more pervasive, as well as more obvious.

 

[MarkB]

The old way was to say: you're doing it wrong!

The new way: you're doing it different; could I enjoy that? Even if I can't, here's something you might like.

That sounds a bit too much like excusing old divisions by applying new labels to them. It's no less divisive, and because the new labels aren't openly prejorative and can thus be used in polite conversation, it can become ever more pervasive. In the end, we may even stop questioning whether such divisions are valid or necessary - they'll be as ubiquitous as air.

 

[Scribble]

The old way was to say: you're doing it wrong!

The new way: you're doing it different; could I enjoy that? Even if I can't, here's something you might like.

I guess I don't have such an aversion to the terms so much as how they tend to be used...

IE this can't be in the game because it's too X, or Y, and isn't Z enough.

Especially when it inevitably devolves into why X Y or Z rule or element makes something not D&D or not Roleplaying...

No, I don't enjoy EVERYTHING out there... I guess I just don't seek to avoid something because someone out there decided they wanted to label it one way or the other. (Hell half the time people can't even seem to agree on what the labels actually mean or whether or not one thing fits into said label or not!)

I like The Cure... But I've seen them thrown into genres such as: Rock, Pop, 80s music, Synth Pop, Goth, Alternative...

I guess if I was the type that reacted to labels and I didn't like Goth Music I never would have discovered The Cure?

Usually when someone says they like Genre X of music I'll say: "Like what bands?"

I think it's even more dangerous though when it's used as a measuring tool for whats being created... Like a guy trying to write a script that would be considered action and only action. He spends so much time trying to fit every part of his story into the action genre, that it ends up being a watered down version of something that might have been incredible if he'd just not worried so much about not letting that comedy slip in there...

Hey if they work for you, more power to you... Maybe I'm just in a bad mood? It just seems like I've only ever see them used to draw a dividing line. AKA I only play X not your Y... instead of hey, I play X in this way, let me suggest it as something fun... Maybe that's why I feel they don't offer a benefit? Because rather then solve the issues you say they were made for, I've only really ever seen them used to create even more reasosn someone is "doing it wrong?"

Maybe I'm also more of a reactionary person as opposed to a preventative person if that makes sense? AKA if someone says they play RPGs, and invite me to play, I don't really start listing a cadre of labels I don't play. I just play... If it ends up not being my style, I stop playing.

If someone has a new idea for the game, I listen to it. I don't ask them to tell me what niche the idea fits into and stop them before they even start.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Niches help people better understand what makes the game great for them. People who like a narrativist approach may have a hard time enjoying the flow of the game with a gamist/simulationist DM that really pays no attention to the player's story concerns ("really? Lord Darkaus was from the Northern Silver Hand? Not the Southern? Who cares?").

Cheers,

 

[Vartan]

I think some of the lingo you mention is useful for discussing and understanding the game: thinking about gamist and simulationist styles (distinct from my natural niche as a storyteller) helped me incorporate those styles in my game and think of new ways to have fun.

I think some of the lingo you mention has become loaded with ugly political meaning. "Old school" used to just mean playing older editions or emulating the style of older adventures. Now "old school" and "new school" are also being used as coded insults. In that respect I agree with you about the use of labels.

 

[Campbell]

I don't think that categorization is problematic in itself. My issue is with the belief that gamers and games do or should fit neatly into a single category, and that purity of play style is something that should be aimed for.

I'll add that I think 'new school' and 'modern' are pretty much as labels. They pretty much mean 'not OD&D' which for anyone other than diaglo is a fairly useless label given the diversity present in recent rpgs.

 

[diaglo]

In my opinion it only serves to hinder creativity, and promote arguments.

and that is your opinion.

my opinion is the niches should be smaller:

OD&D(1974)

the rest of the poor imitations of the real thing.