This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Six Cultures of Play  (Read 5063 times)

Wrath of God

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • Fearful Symmetry
Re: Six Cultures of Play
« Reply #15 on: November 30, 2021, 03:31:02 PM »
Quote
To be clear: I appreciate an emphasis on having PC decision-making matter. I just find it confusing to label this as "OSR" - when it applies to lots of games long prior to games that call themselves OSR.

Players have been complaining about railroading since very early in RPGs. There have always been lots of games where the plot was forced. This was prominent in the 1970s with tournament modules that often had a linear series of challenges. It was prominent in the 1980s with modules like Dragonlance and later Ravenloft modules that have a chapter-by-chapter structures, paralleled by similar modules for other games like Star Wars and Shadowrun.

But there has also always been a movement and advice against railroading, and letting PC decision-making matter. S'mon cites Traveller and HarnMaster - but lots of game books have had good advice about how to make PC decision-making matter - like Aaron Allston's classic HERO System material, for example.

TBH I don't think Trad = Railroading, and I agree that both Classic and Trad had problem with it.
I think Trad on it's anti-Classic pole would be something like Call of Cthulhu. You don't need to railroad in CoC, but general assumption is anti-sandbox either.
Players are rather meant to be put in some more specific scenario, that may be branching of course, and they can derail it, but generally speaking it's GM's job to craft this scenario, and then adjust adequately to player's actions and their results.

"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.”

"And I will strike down upon thee
With great vengeance and furious anger"


"Molti Nemici, Molto Onore"

RandyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • R
  • Posts: 1218
Re: Six Cultures of Play
« Reply #16 on: November 30, 2021, 04:18:59 PM »
So I think one can quibble with the splits he makes. But I do find it useful to think about different gaming cultures and their expectations. Players with different gaming-cultural expectations can clash with each other and with the GM. Neo-Trad/OC culture players tend to have heavy investment in their PCs, they enjoy the freedom of action in my games, but hate when their PCs die, to the extent of often quitting the game. Indeed I've seen a player quit because another player's PC died. In their culture it's really NOT OK to kill a PC without player permission.

I think Trad linear play splits into
1. focus on a rich, emotionally satisfying narrative created by the author and implemented by the GM, and
2. "focus on charop & challenge, with the story potentially a thin - if colourful - veneer to facilitate this.

In type 1, players don't expect to have to minmax their PCs, they focus more on developing the personalities of the protagonists in a largely pre-written story. Dragonlance & 2e AD&D fit there.
In type 2 the main focus is on the pre-game, building powerful PCs and seeing them blast through the pre-set challenges. Pathfinder & the Paizo APs fit here.

___________

I don't really think the typology covers 4e D&D style play either; putting it in Classic for the challenge focus doesn't feel right, the adventures are Trad (& bad) but the rules frame is closer to OC with more challenge.

I see a distinction between the DM arbitrarily killing a PC, and the vagaries of the dice resulting in a PC death. The latter is part of the play of the game - roll a new PC and keep playing. The former is usually a dick move.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11746
Re: Six Cultures of Play
« Reply #17 on: November 30, 2021, 05:00:23 PM »
But there has also always been a movement and advice against railroading, and letting PC decision-making matter. S'mon cites Traveller and HarnMaster - but lots of game books have had good advice about how to make PC decision-making matter - like Aaron Allston's classic HERO System material, for example.

I was talking about games that focus on world simulation & exploration, and immersion in the milieu. That likely involves choice, but so does challenge-focused 'Classic' play - I wasn't talking about games where decisions matter vs ones where they don't.

Fair enough. Still, my original point that you were responding to was about how the essay characterized "Trad" play as being about the GM writing a story, while characterizing the OSR as being about PC decisions driving play.

I agree that challenge-focused play can emphasize PC decisions, but it also might not - like running old tournament dungeons that are very linear. Games that focus on world simulation & exploration can emphasize PC decisions, but not necessarily. If the PCs are just wandering without having major impact, then their decisions don't really drive play.

I'd add that trad games that are story-focused like Call of Cthulhu can also emphasize PC decisions - by leaving it open how the events will resolve. Yes, the GM sets up NPCs and locations - but that can leave very open how things will turn out.

Wrath of God

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • Fearful Symmetry
Re: Six Cultures of Play
« Reply #18 on: November 30, 2021, 05:24:11 PM »
Quote
Fair enough. Still, my original point that you were responding to was about how the essay characterized "Trad" play as being about the GM writing a story, while characterizing the OSR as being about PC decisions driving play.

Yes, but like with our last discussion about "situation" vs "story" I think it's generally bad to assume "story" as used in wide gaming circles is necessary pre-written story.
Like take storygames, they are so anti-prescripted play some removed GM's replacing him with various external randomizers and shifting decision process between players.
I'd say - story/narrative/drama means expectation game will be not only challenging, but that events will be shapes as some interesting narrative, some genre, some bits.

Obviously in trad method GM's railroading is a danger, just like in OC dangerous thing is player's snowflakism. But they are not necessary.

CoC scenarios are more tightly, narrative written than OSR sandboxes and yet they are not necessarily railroading (after all there should always be a choice between certain death and certain insanity).

Quote
I see a distinction between the DM arbitrarily killing a PC, and the vagaries of the dice resulting in a PC death. The latter is part of the play of the game - roll a new PC and keep playing. The former is usually a dick move.

Yes. But OC, and to latest degree Trad and Nordic Players goes for heavy investment in PCs, and they want to avoid chance for overly deadly gameplay. (For the same reason such gamers and games they create usually limits such powers as mind-control, petrification and so on). Death of a hero is meant to be unusual. Other consequences before dying or losing control are encouraged to prolong player's agency - for instance I think this option when if someone is trying to mind-control you - you have three roles in consequent rounds to safe throw, and only three in row will put you under mind-control, and you are hindered meanwhile (Confused - Stunned - Mind-Controlled) but can do... something.

So they consider whole games when you can easily die to be dick moves by game developers.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2021, 05:29:54 PM by Wrath of God »
"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.”

"And I will strike down upon thee
With great vengeance and furious anger"


"Molti Nemici, Molto Onore"

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
Re: Six Cultures of Play
« Reply #19 on: December 01, 2021, 02:00:08 AM »
I see a distinction between the DM arbitrarily killing a PC, and the vagaries of the dice resulting in a PC death. The latter is part of the play of the game - roll a new PC and keep playing. The former is usually a dick move.

My point is that OC players are generally not happy with random vagaries of the dice killing their PC.
I don't think anyone is happy with the DM arbitrarily killing a PC.

RandyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • R
  • Posts: 1218
Re: Six Cultures of Play
« Reply #20 on: December 01, 2021, 10:57:54 AM »
I see a distinction between the DM arbitrarily killing a PC, and the vagaries of the dice resulting in a PC death. The latter is part of the play of the game - roll a new PC and keep playing. The former is usually a dick move.

My point is that OC players are generally not happy with random vagaries of the dice killing their PC.
I don't think anyone is happy with the DM arbitrarily killing a PC.

Definitely agree on all points.

Wrath of God

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • Fearful Symmetry
Re: Six Cultures of Play
« Reply #21 on: December 01, 2021, 07:25:56 PM »
I also think - just like with GNS theory, it's wise and careful not to apply cultures straight to systems to often, or specific game.

Aspects discussed in this articles can work quite well, and combine in very weird fashion if we apply them to various aspects of gaming:

- mechanic design
- adventure design
- worldbuilding
- GM's agenda
- Player's agenda

At least those five.
As presented in article they are sort of mix - representing certain zeitgeists and vocal subcultures around, which are not equal to existence of specific styles in general.
Both OC player-centrism and OSR sandbox-exploration are IMHO decades older than given date, but it took longer for them to achieve form of recognizable sub-society within whole RPG-mess.
"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.”

"And I will strike down upon thee
With great vengeance and furious anger"


"Molti Nemici, Molto Onore"

zend0g

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: Six Cultures of Play
« Reply #22 on: December 01, 2021, 11:18:35 PM »
After reading that blog post, my God, a categorization that is even dumber than GNS. I am amazed.
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest person, I will find something in them to be offended.

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
Re: Six Cultures of Play
« Reply #23 on: December 02, 2021, 02:34:09 AM »
Both OC player-centrism and OSR sandbox-exploration are IMHO decades older than given date, but it took longer for them to achieve form of recognizable sub-society within whole RPG-mess.

OSR is of course supposed to be reviving a mid-1970s play style of megadungeons & wilderness sandboxes, that began dying out as soon as TSR began publishing modules, especially tournament modules. OSRIC itself ironically seems to have been designed more towards publishers publishing Classic AD&D modules, not towards the styles of play now identified with OSR. OSR as a culture developed much more around the blogs, not the rules texts I think.

I have a bit harder time identifying pre-Internet precursors to OC 'be a fan of the players and their PCs - let them show the way' sort of play. West End Games made games like D6 Star Wars intended to create heroic original characters, but by RAW they're still challenged and can die. The real precursor to OC play seems to be the GM-less Simming text-play communities of the mid-90s+ Internet; Star Trek Simming especially. But that is 25+ years old now which is indeed 'decades'. :)

Wrath of God

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • Fearful Symmetry
Re: Six Cultures of Play
« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2021, 05:51:43 AM »
Quote
OSR is of course supposed to be reviving a mid-1970s play style of megadungeons & wilderness sandboxes, that began dying out as soon as TSR began publishing modules, especially tournament modules. OSRIC itself ironically seems to have been designed more towards publishers publishing Classic AD&D modules, not towards the styles of play now identified with OSR. OSR as a culture developed much more around the blogs, not the rules texts I think.

I really wonder how Gygax himself played it. (Then of course Arneson supposedly had quite different shtick, so from the beginning they would be at least two variants).
But your stance is that essential philosophy of OSR is OLDER than essential philosophy of Classic, right - at least according to this text?

Quote
I have a bit harder time identifying pre-Internet precursors to OC 'be a fan of the players and their PCs - let them show the way' sort of play. West End Games made games like D6 Star Wars intended to create heroic original characters, but by RAW they're still challenged and can die. The real precursor to OC play seems to be the GM-less Simming text-play communities of the mid-90s+ Internet; Star Trek Simming especially. But that is 25+ years old now which is indeed 'decades'. :)

I'm not sure if it really need to be in rules - like some of those modern games that outright deny ability to kill PC by unlucky rolls - (and of course in most games counted as neoTrad death is still an option - like Forbidden Lands are quite deadly (though one could also argue they are half in OSR box) - for instance Immersive Nordic style never really produced systems for itself. It was more overriding existing systems, often simplifying exisiting mechanics so they do not stand in way of IMMERSION. And I remember vocal opposition to easy PC death since at least early 2000 as recognizable voice in community, and source of often criticism towards deadly games.

I think text-play sims helped this attitude and sentiment to coalescent into Culture per se (because now it's definitely a Culture) but stance itself is probably older.
May be even from time of first cRPGs - as there was definitely back and forth influence between TT and C in this regard, and well cRPGs are generally less deadly. And have savepoints. Such things.
"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.”

"And I will strike down upon thee
With great vengeance and furious anger"


"Molti Nemici, Molto Onore"

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Six Cultures of Play
« Reply #25 on: December 02, 2021, 10:26:50 AM »
Quote
OSR is of course supposed to be reviving a mid-1970s play style of megadungeons & wilderness sandboxes, that began dying out as soon as TSR began publishing modules, especially tournament modules. OSRIC itself ironically seems to have been designed more towards publishers publishing Classic AD&D modules, not towards the styles of play now identified with OSR. OSR as a culture developed much more around the blogs, not the rules texts I think.

I really wonder how Gygax himself played it. (Then of course Arneson supposedly had quite different shtick, so from the beginning they would be at least two variants).
But your stance is that essential philosophy of OSR is OLDER than essential philosophy of Classic, right - at least according to this text?
Read Playing at the World by Jon Peterson. He goes into exhaustive detail about the milieu in which OD&D emerged, and relies on primary sources from the time period, instead of foggy memories and second hand stories.

And yes, the OSR, at least initially, was very focused on recreating the original playstyle of D&D. And by original, I mean original. Not the playstyle of the kids who picked up the game a decade later, in the 1980s, when it became a fad. Not even the playstyles of the wild and woolly years of the 1970s, when there was a crazy profusion of creativity as it was adopted by adult wargamers and fantasy enthusiasts. But the ur-playstyle, the way the people who created the game actually. Yes, the focus was that narrow. The OSR in 2006 to 2008 was obsessed with how the game was played at two tables: Gygax's, and to a lesser degree, Arneson's. Nothing more.

Turns out, that was key to the reappraisal and renewed appreciation for OD&D. Which prior to that was mostly-forgotten, and even when it was remembered, it was usually dismissed as a crude precursor to later editions. But a lot of things that later players dismissed, or struggled with, or thought were pointless or broken, actually make a lot of sense if viewed from the context of how the Greyhawk and Blackmoor campaigns were run. This includes henchmen, traps, marching order, the disposability of low level characters, the importance of gold, and much more. All these random pieces that don't seem to fit together gel into a coherent system, if you can pull back and approach it with a wargamer's mentality, view it through the lens of amateur medievalism and the anti-heroes of sword & sorcery fiction (instead of the high fantasy that became much more popular in the wake of the Lord of the Rings), and with an understanding of a set of player dynamics that's very alien to how most have played since (how many private campaigns today have dozens of players who drop in and out each week?).

The OSR diverged from this pretty quickly, but it was one of the foundational elements.

Wrath of God

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • Fearful Symmetry
Re: Six Cultures of Play
« Reply #26 on: December 02, 2021, 11:46:25 AM »
So Classic as described here is not Gygax style - it's first massive style that appeared after Gygax went public, and D&D start to get new shape in more collective concioussness?
"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.”

"And I will strike down upon thee
With great vengeance and furious anger"


"Molti Nemici, Molto Onore"

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
Re: Six Cultures of Play
« Reply #27 on: December 02, 2021, 01:23:15 PM »
Yes, Classic is the style I remember as an 80s kid. From TSR modules and White Dwarf adventures. Centred on challenge and loot, not exploration. High risk high reward, powergaming, tons of instant death and magic items.

Jaeger

  • That someone better.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1536
Re: Six Cultures of Play
« Reply #28 on: December 02, 2021, 03:27:44 PM »

My point is that OC players are generally not happy with random vagaries of the dice killing their PC.
...

In my opinion:

I look at that as largely a result of their "story" oriented play.

This is one of the issues I have with trying to run RPG's as "Storygames".

As much as OC sees the players role "as contributors and creators." ... "a "story" is, one that focuses on player aspirations and interests and their realisation as the best way to produce "fun" for the players."...

The GM still has to run the game.

And it is virtually universal that in "storygame" play, fudging dice rolls and hand waving NPC reactions to get the best outcome for the "story" is entirely acceptable.

So PC's are perceived as having, and treated with a degree of "plot armor".

IMHO fudging and "GM telling a story" is one of the reasons PC death is taken very badly in new school/OC/whatever players.

Because the GM is now Not Neutral - so PC death is taken as a Personal punishment. Not a bad roll of the dice!

If the DM is "in charge" of the story, then any character death is the DM's responsibility on some level, and it becomes personal.

So that is why when they happen to find themselves in a hard combat - all rolling out in the open, and the 'random vagaries of the dice' kill the character - It will still be seen as a personal punishment by the GM for putting the players in a situation where their "plot armor" could not help them.

As a result they get snowflake-tears, rage-quit, angry-mad.

The overblown reactions to PC death by the "story" crowd is proof IMHO that they take PC death as a personal affront. In core 5e gameplay resurrections are not exactly uncommon, and yet the overly emotional reactions of PC death by the "story" crowd remain...
« Last Edit: December 02, 2021, 03:31:49 PM by Jaeger »
"The envious are not satisfied with equality; they secretly yearn for superiority and revenge."

Wrath of God

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • Fearful Symmetry
Re: Six Cultures of Play
« Reply #29 on: December 02, 2021, 04:11:41 PM »
Quote
And it is virtually universal that in "storygame" play, fudging dice rolls and hand waving NPC reactions to get the best outcome for the "story" is entirely acceptable.

I'd say that's quite opposite. Storygaming culture was quite strong on limiting GM's power. It was designed mechanics that should keep narrative umph on track, not DM's fudging.
However in OP's culture - when it's not about story as such, but about PC's spotlight (and it's not the same) - sure fudge the dice so Player won't be sad about character dying or losing.

But both immersive and storygaming cultures as described IMHO were always fond about "playing to loose" because experience matters, not some... victory.

Quote
So PC's are perceived as having, and treated with a degree of "plot armor".

IMHO fudging and "GM telling a story" is one of the reasons PC death is taken very badly in new school/OC/whatever players.

Because the GM is now Not Neutral - so PC death is taken as a Personal punishment. Not a bad roll of the dice!

If the DM is "in charge" of the story, then any character death is the DM's responsibility on some level, and it becomes personal.

That I think it's more reaction to Trad school than to Story school.
Trad school was arguably the most to promote railroading for sake of prewritten scenario, and if PC's were just dragged along, tough shit.
GM's have last word even if he's an asshole.

Quote
So that is why when they happen to find themselves in a hard combat - all rolling out in the open, and the 'random vagaries of the dice' kill the character - It will still be seen as a personal punishment by the GM for putting the players in a situation where their "plot armor" could not help them.

As a result they get snowflake-tears, rage-quit, angry-mad.

The overblown reactions to PC death by the "story" crowd is proof IMHO that they take PC death as a personal affront. In core 5e gameplay resurrections are not exactly uncommon, and yet the overly emotional reactions of PC death by the "story" crowd remain...

Alas this is not crowd caring about story, this is crowd caring about their own snowflakes.
It's interesting how various cultures operate on what is called I guess bleed in this article.

Like both Classic and OSR had bleed of Player into Character, because Player Skill often trumps Character abilities as shown (gamist and anti-simulationist perspective I'd say).
In Immersive it's Character that's meant to bleed into Player for Experience's Sake.

In OP you have weird mix of two, but done mostly for self-gratification. In a way I can see in that natural evolution of classic.
Like classic was probably stronger influencer of cRPGs, not Trad because more advanced narratives were harder to put into cRPG, while looting and powergaming - damn those are salt and mead of multiple games. But video games have certain invulnerability brought by replayability. Save games. And so on. And then you take whole generation who first learned about RPGs from video games and put them on a table... and voilla. Disaster ready.

Although as was written by some people in comments, roots are earlier than Critical Role, or even common cRPGs, I think always for some people playing will lead to parasocial relationship with own Character. Just today I've read post from girl who decided to retire her flamboyant bard character, because other player hate bard doing... well doing whatever any 5e bard do during gameplay (God I hate bards)... and it hurts her to much her bard is mocked by other characters for trying to seduce and compliment enemies during combat, so she's gonna take another character without such emotional ties to.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2021, 04:16:51 PM by Wrath of God »
"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.”

"And I will strike down upon thee
With great vengeance and furious anger"


"Molti Nemici, Molto Onore"