So listening to one of my favourite Polish RPG podcasts I found link to this IMHO very interesting article dividing community of RPG at large into six big cultures with different methods, purposes and agendas in playing. This is quite interesting model or theory I must say, I think ticking more boxes than simplicity of GNS (though my authism loves this simplicity) and while it's USA centric I have to say I've seen all those aspects, and mentalities many times on Polish scene, in discussions, just of course without any systematic thought to organise them.
I think specifically Climate Gang (Klimaciarze) aka Nordic LARP were very vocal here in Poland, I always had feeling that something very local, as I rarely met examples of that in Anglophone RPG discussions alas it seems they exist(ed) among Anglosaxons as well, enough to land among Big Six.
Six Cultures of Play (https://retiredadventurer.blogspot.com/2021/04/six-cultures-of-play.html)
So what do you think about this division of RPG community into specific sub-cultures? Would you add any? Merge some of those proposed together?
Makes a lot of sense. Really helped me understand what those young whippersnappers are on about with their "OC" games and their pastel-coloured Tiefling hermaphrodite PCs. ;D
I guess my style is mostly somewhere between Classic & OSR, I definitely think of the 1e AD&D DMG as my default reference for what RPGing is supposed to be. I tend to like PCs & NPCs with more inner life than you tend to see in those styles when done 'pure' though, so I'm pretty compatible with moderate OC gamers. The ones who don't mind *too* much when their lovely PCs die. ;D
What's my style? Well, on a certain other site I was lambasted for being 'arbitrary' because I mentioned that I wasn't a slave to the rules. I don't think I am. I prefer to create an interactive game with every opportunity for improvisational dialogue. Sure sometimes I have to make decisions on the fly - welcome to the world of game mastering - but I want players to feel they have a say in how the game progresses. I remember one infamous character who ran a game and virtually controlled our characters for us. It wasn't fun.
Interestingly enough D&D 3 and 4, which are very gamist (well 3 trying to bow a bit to simulationism) seems in this equation to be more classic and Gygaxian if anything.
Sure they went from rules-light to rules-heavy but there is clear assumption of certaint social contract of proper challenges and rise in power to take new challenges, more than OSR-ian sandbox approach. Otherwise they don't fit anything else - sure you can apply Trad mode to them - but TBH Trad culture as described by Retired Adventurer is probably most system neutral attitude of all presented - all you need are players willing to be railroaded by GM, and any RPG with GM (ergo 99,9% of them) would suit, even those vehemently denying such posibility, even very narrative ones like PBTA, all can be hijacked for Trad Culture.
I'd also notice, that if we take those two ideals of Classic and OSR, then definitely Classic still live within OSR, because while many GM's here had specifically very sandbox-simulator approach (tenbones and SHARK came to mind) there are also others who go very strong to Challenge mode and "you have no name till you finish first dungeon", and that seems Classic.
Simmilarily if I compare Games - Dungeon Crawls Classic seems to be designed with Classic in thought, while I think Pundit's games with their strong setting centred approach fits within simulationist zeitgeist. I think I could take any of his settings and play it with BRP rules for instance, and still keep spirit, this old D&D mechanics seems to be easy to replace.
Meanwhile DCC - somehow I cannot see it, it's very much gaming experience.
Quote from: Wrath of God on November 29, 2021, 02:56:07 PM
So what do you think about this division of RPG community into specific sub-cultures? Would you add any? Merge some of those proposed together?
So the division suggested is:
1) "Classic" - starting with Basic Set / AD&D1 style and similar
2) "Trad" - starting with Call of Cthulhu along with Dragonlance and similar
3) "Nordic Larp"
4) "Story Games" - starting with The Forge and into Powered by the Apocalypse
5) "OSR" - starting with Labyrinth Lord and others
6) "OC/Neo-trad" - starting with D&D3 organized play
I feel like the essay slices very thinly to distinguish between "classic" and "OSR" -- while at the same time lumping together nearly all non-D&D play under "trad", which it broadly characterizes as "the Dungeon Master creating an elaborate, emotionally-satisfying narrative". This comes across to me as "If you're not playing D&D, then you're just acting out the GM's story." This is emphasized further by how it describes the OSR as "The goal is a game where PC decision-making, especially diegetic decision-making, is the driver of play."
That seems very dismissive to me. Yes, there have been plenty of railroaded, GM-story games in non-D&D systems -- but there have also been lots of railroaded games within D&D in every era. There have been plenty of non-D&D, non-OSR games where PC decision-making is important - from Traveller to GURPS to lots of others.
There is variation within games and within sub-communities. There were a number of modules that were more linear - like Dragonlance or later Ravenloft modules, plus some other games like Deadlands and Torg. But there have always been GMs and groups that emphasized PC decision-making.
I will write more about my thoughts in the morning.
I think clearly bias towards Classic and OSR is seen, and it may weaken other descriptions a bit, but I think you're making mistake equating Classic and OSR strictly with D&D. There is underlying philosophy that can be used in more wide approach.
And of course there is big chance lots and lots of gamers played... outside cultures.
Also let's note Trad playstyle according to this leaked into D&D and D&D for some time was Tradist, and Classic mores become less prevalent.
Quote from: jhkim on November 29, 2021, 07:53:44 PMThat seems very dismissive to me.
Yup. While forgeworld may have pissed in the grognards cornflakes, they remain upset about it YEARS later.
And in terms of GMs story, I find the Pundits advice to be almost completly centered on pure GM satisfaction.
I just want my drug addicted dollar store Herculoids to rob automated banks in the ruins of the old empire and get in trouble and smash a sentient hyper-macguffin from the 2nd dawn of time and then try to keep the shadow people from finding out about it because they'll be SOOOO pissed if they do.
Quote from: S'mon on November 29, 2021, 06:08:58 PM
Makes a lot of sense. Really helped me understand what those young whippersnappers are on about with their "OC" games and their pastel-coloured Tiefling hermaphrodite PCs. ;D
I guess my style is mostly somewhere between Classic & OSR, I definitely think of the 1e AD&D DMG as my default reference for what RPGing is supposed to be. I tend to like PCs & NPCs with more inner life than you tend to see in those styles when done 'pure' though, so I'm pretty compatible with moderate OC gamers. The ones who don't mind *too* much when their lovely PCs die. ;D
It's so easy to see the AD&D 1E DMG in that way, because it Did Define the genre.
Quote from: jhkim on November 29, 2021, 07:53:44 PM
Quote from: Wrath of God on November 29, 2021, 02:56:07 PM
So what do you think about this division of RPG community into specific sub-cultures? Would you add any? Merge some of those proposed together?
So the division suggested is:
1) "Classic" - starting with Basic Set / AD&D1 style and similar
2) "Trad" - starting with Call of Cthulhu along with Dragonlance and similar
3) "Nordic Larp"
4) "Story Games" - starting with The Forge and into Powered by the Apocalypse
5) "OSR" - starting with Labyrinth Lord and others
6) "OC/Neo-trad" - starting with D&D3 organized play
I feel like the essay slices very thinly to distinguish between "classic" and "OSR" -- while at the same time lumping together nearly all non-D&D play under "trad", which it broadly characterizes as "the Dungeon Master creating an elaborate, emotionally-satisfying narrative". This comes across to me as "If you're not playing D&D, then you're just acting out the GM's story." This is emphasized further by how it describes the OSR as "The goal is a game where PC decision-making, especially diegetic decision-making, is the driver of play."
That seems very dismissive to me. Yes, there have been plenty of railroaded, GM-story games in non-D&D systems -- but there have also been lots of railroaded games within D&D in every era. There have been plenty of non-D&D, non-OSR games where PC decision-making is important - from Traveller to GURPS to lots of others.
There is variation within games and within sub-communities. There were a number of modules that were more linear - like Dragonlance or later Ravenloft modules, plus some other games like Deadlands and Torg. But there have always been GMs and groups that emphasized PC decision-making.
Yes, I think he doesn't split out simulation world exploration focused play (Traveller, Harn) from challenge-focused Classic play - you could say Nordic Larp is a narrow, extreme subset of world-sim play with a stronger emphasis on deep immersion? I've only ever experienced deep-immersion play with a German GM, which may be significant!
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.
Quote from: Wrath of God on November 29, 2021, 02:56:07 PM
Six Cultures of Play (https://retiredadventurer.blogspot.com/2021/04/six-cultures-of-play.html)
So what do you think about this division of RPG community into specific sub-cultures?
I don't match any of the cultures on that list. Too niche, I guess.
QuoteYes, I think he doesn't split out simulation world exploration focused play (Traveller, Harn) from challenge-focused Classic play - you could say Nordic Larp is a narrow, extreme subset of world-sim play with a stronger emphasis on deep immersion? I've only ever experienced deep-immersion play with a German GM, which may be significant!
Well I'd say OSR is that, in spirit.
That's why those aspects of OSR that are too into D&D 1e are more epigones of Classic than OSR as new thing.
And of course I think this style was around just bit shorter than classic, it's clear even from OSR/D&D fans that some played games Classic and some OSR, long long time ago.
But remember this article is not just trying to categorize all game styles around, all tables, but more culture. Ergo larger conglomerations, vocal, ones that shaped discourse for decades. They did not have to be most numerous in number of players (note that there is no something like Casual Culture here - though who knows maybe in 20 years we gonna define one based on modern evolution of 5e scene).
Polish scene for instance started with Trad who soon went into war with Nordic Larp, and later when D&D 3.5 appeared in Poland it was scoffed by both as Boardgame, Roll-playing, Wargame and so on. 4e even much more, due to it's videogame like designs.
And then we should also remember that with all those elements: mechanic design, adventure design, worldbuilding, GM's agenda, Player's agenda - all those can easily mix and merge weirdly between cultures.
For instance Vampire I'd say is generally TradGame (skill based mechanics trying to sim abilities of vampire), but how game was marketed it was much more into LARP type of experience, or maybe even protostorygaming. Emotions and deep deep drama were promised, but game itself did little to none to truly enforce it. So to get this emotional immersion and bleed XD players had to go full amateur actors themselves. And TBH Nordic Larp seems to be one style that can easily engulf almost any mechanics and setting, because it's fundament is - that players and GM should act a lot, and their acting abilities be high enough for mutual immersion, and then you can play 1e, Warhammer, Vampire or Blades in the Dark, and put it into Nordic LARP culture.
Quote from: Wrath of God on November 30, 2021, 05:30:52 AM
Quote from: S'mon on November 30, 2021, 02:11:51 AM
Quote from: jhkim on November 29, 2021, 07:53:44 PM
I feel like the essay slices very thinly to distinguish between "classic" and "OSR" -- while at the same time lumping together nearly all non-D&D play under "trad", which it broadly characterizes as "the Dungeon Master creating an elaborate, emotionally-satisfying narrative". This comes across to me as "If you're not playing D&D, then you're just acting out the GM's story." This is emphasized further by how it describes the OSR as "The goal is a game where PC decision-making, especially diegetic decision-making, is the driver of play."
Yes, I think he doesn't split out simulation world exploration focused play (Traveller, Harn) from challenge-focused Classic play - you could say Nordic Larp is a narrow, extreme subset of world-sim play with a stronger emphasis on deep immersion? I've only ever experienced deep-immersion play with a German GM, which may be significant!
Well I'd say OSR is that, in spirit.
That's why those aspects of OSR that are too into D&D 1e are more epigones of Classic than OSR as new thing.
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.
Quote from: jhkim on November 30, 2021, 02:44:30 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.
QuoteTo 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.
Quote from: S'mon on November 30, 2021, 02:27:22 AM
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.
Quote from: S'mon on November 30, 2021, 02:55:15 PM
Quote from: jhkim on November 30, 2021, 02:44:30 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.
QuoteFair 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.
Quote from: RandyB on November 30, 2021, 04:18:59 PM
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.
Quote from: S'mon on December 01, 2021, 02:00:08 AM
Quote from: RandyB on November 30, 2021, 04:18:59 PM
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.
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.
After reading that blog post, my God, a categorization that is even dumber than GNS. I am amazed.
Quote from: Wrath of God on December 01, 2021, 07:25:56 PM
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'. :)
QuoteOSR 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?
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Wrath of God on December 02, 2021, 05:51:43 AM
QuoteOSR 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.
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?
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.
Quote from: S'mon on December 01, 2021, 02:00:08 AM
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...
QuoteAnd 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.
QuoteSo 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.
QuoteSo 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.
Quote from: Wrath of God on December 02, 2021, 04:11:41 PM
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.
Except my comments are not about the Ron Edwards / Forge pure "story gaming culture".
It is about the current crop of people who play D&D5e and describe it as a "storytelling game". And that they are "telling stories" when they play their characters.
One look at twitter and other forums and it is readily apparent that they want to have it both ways.
They talk about limiting the GM's agency over their PCs with their adherence to 'sage advice' proclamations, and in different conversations you can see the same people argue that there is nothing wrong about a GM fudging die rolls if it suits the story better and stops stupid random PC deaths.
Quote from: Wrath of God on December 02, 2021, 04:11:41 PM
But both immersive and storygaming cultures as described IMHO were always fond about "playing to loose" because experience matters, not some... victory.
Yes, Forge style pure story gamers liked their misery tourism. For immersion players losing was just a natural consequence of making bad choices. Immersive types want to "win", but death is an accepted outcome if the dice fall that way.
Quote from: Wrath of God on December 02, 2021, 04:11:41 PM
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.
IMHO for the current new school D&D 5e crowd their PCs are the "story". Hence: "a "story" is, one that focuses on player aspirations and interests (the Characters) and their realisation as the best way to produce "fun" for the players."...
Frankly I agree with jhkim that for a lot of these "six structures": the essay slices very thinly to distinguish between some styles of play, while at the same time lumping together many of other types of play into a single category.
The second paragraph of the OC / Neo-trad description is the only one that I feel ties directly to a playstyle that I see has gain widespread popularity with new D&D players who love things like critical role.
Quote from: Wrath of God on December 02, 2021, 04:11:41 PM
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.
I agree.
I think that the effect of Crpg's on the RPG hobby has been underestimated, and that their influence is far more widespread than people think.
Quote from: Wrath of God on December 02, 2021, 04:11:41 PM
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. ...
Also true. Players were snowflakes about their PC's before we called them snowflakes. The rot goes wayyy back.
It is unfortunate that they can now get on social media and actually convince others in the hobby that such nonsense is perfectly ok.
QuoteExcept my comments are not about the Ron Edwards / Forge pure "story gaming culture".
It is about the current crop of people who play D&D5e and describe it as a "storytelling game". And that they are "telling stories" when they play their characters.
One look at twitter and other forums and it is readily apparent that they want to have it both ways.
They talk about limiting the GM's agency over their PCs with their adherence to 'sage advice' proclamations, and in different conversations you can see the same people argue that there is nothing wrong about a GM fudging die rolls if it suits the story better and stops stupid random PC deaths.
Fine. I agree. Nevertheless that does not make D&D5e storygaming. I tried storygaming it's vastly different.
And of course the true it it's not about what suits story better (as many great filmmakers proves really unexpected deaths are often awesome) but what suits player entitlement better.
QuoteYes, Forge style pure story gamers liked their misery tourism. For immersion players losing was just a natural consequence of making bad choices. Immersive types want to "win", but death is an accepted outcome if the dice fall that way.
Not necessarily. I'd say it were Immersionists before Storygamers who went into "playing to loose and purposeful misery". Think about all this WoD drama queens of 90's. That's what I think is called - quite unfortunately - Nordic LARP in article. All about fell and emotion. Now mind it - among all groups classic, trad, OSR, maybe aside of storygamers (who sort of openly were denying it) - there are lot of people liking immersion in game. That's universal. Immersionits subculture however is it's own thing. They are probably only ones who can go into diceless RP-ing and be killed by GM and be fine with it as much as they really FEEL IT. Difference is they wanted to achieve it generally by acting, and emoting - not by various weird storymechanics of Forge.
But unlike OC they were more into feeling what character feel good or bad, rather than making PC your avatar and then getting overly attached to it - like Critical Role culture shows (all table cried when Pike died, dear lord what was it).
QuoteIMHO for the current new school D&D 5e crowd their PCs are the "story". Hence: "a "story" is, one that focuses on player aspirations and interests (the Characters) and their realisation as the best way to produce "fun" for the players."...
Frankly I agree with jhkim that for a lot of these "six structures": the essay slices very thinly to distinguish between some styles of play, while at the same time lumping together many of other types of play into a single category.
The second paragraph of the OC / Neo-trad description is the only one that I feel ties directly to a playstyle that I see has gain widespread popularity with new D&D players who love things like critical role.
I agree. But also - let's remember this article is not into classifying styles of play, but... cultures. That's why OSR despite being probably more original than Classic (as we discussed before) is on 5th place. Culture is more than individual gameplay of a table. It's certain zeitgeist, some set of rules uniting many tables, giving certain expectations, dominating at least segments of public discussion about RPG.
I think definitely OC and Neo-trad should be counted separatedly.
OC is Critical Role zeitgeist and it's own thing, connected mostly to D&D 5e. Neo-Trad is more like this synthetic advancement of Trad, using certain elements of both storygames and OSRs applied to games who are in theory more trad ones. But then one could say it's more synthetic school of design than culture of play. Or maybe there is certain syncretism of D&D 5e enemies, not falling strictly under OSR or SG. People willing to use dozens of different systems of different categories, with assumption that both system and GM and player's aspirations should much, and you cannot just totally improvise those things out of your ass, but also - there is no universal style of game and it's good to try many games from wide array to check. But are they culture now? Dunno.
It's weird because subcultures should be vivid and specific to be easily recognised, and this is sort of enlightened normie gaming with strong anti-OTW attitude.
It's hard to put them into neat box like others.
Though I guess trad as described here is also quite wide, even though article makes me think mostly about tyranical railroading CoC Game Masters ;)
QuoteAlso true. Players were snowflakes about their PC's before we called them snowflakes. The rot goes wayyy back.
It is unfortunate that they can now get on social media and actually convince others in the hobby that such nonsense is perfectly ok.
TBH I'm fine with it, as gamestyle. It's old. As many people says - we play to release stress, and we have enough random crits in our lives to pick games with them. Give us invincible cool superheroes and low risk. That's fine.
What is not fine is of course rampant snowflakism, and trying to spread Tyranny of Fun as only universal gameplay.
I wonder a bit - Chris-Many-Numbers whose game is very gamist spiritual descendant of 4E, and who is not fond of OSR, said how all those dark moody games - who were mechanically Trad but I think many groups play them as NordImerssivists - WoD basically supported both RPG and LARP - were for times of prosperity and safety, but in times when people feel threatened and arguably both left and right, both wokesters and conservatists feel threatened (I put aside validity of those claims and who shall really feel threatened - but that's the zeitgeist) people want to play as Big Fucking Heroes. That's from one side Classic aspect (and as I said I consider 4e as a game turbo-classic that moved all power-creep into character-build leaving aside various social aspects of level from 1e, or magical item addiction of 3e) on the other hand OC.
So it's possible it's well natural way society works decade by decade with changing spirits.
I just wonder if there is some strong style, something at least bit popular that during those 40+ years of RPG have yet to achieve Culture level.
If OP lost it steam with time, as this pathological juggernaut - will something new arrive, or one of oldies shall take it's place.
For a grognard, storygame is 'Anything I dislike'. And anything they like is pure goodness played by chads inbetween chainsaw juggling competitions.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 02, 2021, 06:01:10 PM
For a grognard, storygame is 'Anything I dislike'. And anything they like is pure goodness played by chads inbetween chainsaw juggling competitions.
For a real grognard, all RPGs are storygames. Grognard was originally a wargaming term.
QuoteFor a real grognard, all RPGs are storygames. Grognard was originally a wargaming term.
I cannot wait for time when Matt Mercer gonna be called grognard by New Wave of British Heavy Roleplayers members.
Quote from: Pat on December 02, 2021, 06:08:10 PMFor a real grognard, all RPGs are storygames. Grognard was originally a wargaming term.
For a real grognard, you killed actual moores with a actual sword.