The Six Cultures of Play

[WhiteShark]

The Six Cultures of Play

tl;dr summary below, though it skips some points.

► Show Spoiler

>1. Classic
Original Gygaxian play that focuses on gameplay with a linear progression of challenges and player power. Story is a non-priority. The article places this as emerging in the 70s.
>2. Trad
Story focused play that revolves around the DM as the central creative agent crafting a world/narrative. Players are secondary creative agents, largely playing to the DM's tune. The unstated goal is to recreate the experience of other media. The origin of "roleplay, not rollplay". The article places this as emerging in the ADnD 2e era.
>3. Nordic Larp
Very immersion focused. The players are meant to really inhabit their characters. It's inherently more collaborative than trad, since the players are necessarily more involved, but also tends to make it less narrative focused than Trad. The article places this as emerging around the early 00s.
>4. Story Games
What it says on the tin. The story focus goes beyond the realm of Trad, to the point of increasingly eschewing mechanics in order to minimize or eliminate ludonarrative dissonance. The article also places this as emerging around the early 00s.
>5. OSR
A return to heavy gameplay focus in the vein of Classic, but less interested in fairness. There's more deliberate focus on challenge and variance. Story is once again a non-priority. The article places this as emerging around the late 00s and early 10s.
>6. OC/Neo-Trad
A version of the story-focused Trad play, but with more focus on player agency and collaborative storytelling. The DM is more of a facilitator than the creative authority and the focus is on player gratification. The author places this as emerging in the 3.x era and notes that Critical Role has popularized it with newer players.

Agree you with the author's categories? Does your own playstyle match any of them, or a mixture thereof?

Following the author's categories, my own ideal is a mix of OSR, Nordic larp, and OC/Neo-trad. I like the freedom and "unfairness" of OSR, for it creates the sense of a living world. I like the immersion focus of Nordic larp because the most intense RP experience is one wherein you forget yourself entirely. Finally, I like the rules-focus of Neo-Trad because it enables player agency through consistent and player-facing rules.

I think the lumping of OC and Neo-Trad under one category is the weakest part of the article. Both camps may be PC-focused, but in actuality I think there is little crossover between the 3.PF charop schools and the freeform OC forum roleplayers. The charoppers tend to be focused on combat, or at the very least problem-solving of a specific kind, whereas the OCers are all about long-winded text roleplay and relationships.

The author also claims that Gygaxian "Classic" play was meant to be somewhat balanced. I find this surprising considering how often modern systems are criticized by supposed grogs for expecting the GM to balance and customize encounters to fit his party. I lack experience with systems from that era so I cannot refute the author's claim, but I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has.

[J1M]

"The unstated goal is to recreate the experience of other media."

Savage. True at most tables.

[Emphyrio]

I do not find these categories useful. None of them describe my experience with pnp.

[Gregz]

Gary knew what he was doing, everything else is gay fanfiction and LARPing.

[Emphyrio]

Until the last couple years, my understanding was that what is described as "Trad" was the old and broke way to play (railroading, DMNPC), and so-called "storygames" (Fate, apocworld) were the the cool new thing. And OD&D was just an old, bad clunky system not worth considering. Now I've been reading about these old systems and I'm interested in trying games with "old school" assumptions: fast abstract combat, high lethality followed by rolling new characters, hirelings, low emphasis on story and "roleplaying".

My first experience with roleplaying was forum roleplaying like what is described as the origins of "Neotrad". No GM usually, we each had our characters and wrote a few paragraphs their actions, but the convention was that we could describe our attack but the person attacked would decide how it affected their character. Everything you can imagine that would be problematic in that system, was. The metaculture was also really cliquey and gay and there was an assumption that you weren't a good writer unless you spent multiple paragraphs describing each miniscule action. Good writing was synonymous with verbose writing. I agree with @WhiteShark that I've never seen crossover with prewritten modules or whateverthefuck.

I think it's fair to say that this has been the unspoken assumption in every RPG I've ever played: "OC basically agrees with trad that the goal of the game is to tell a story, but it deprioritises the authority of the DM as the creator of that story and elevates the players' roles as contributors and creators." My experience with GMs and as a GM is that the GM creates a situation, and lets the players respond to it, but tries not to "railroad" them which is considered a great sin. GMs have sometimes stated that they wanted to create a "sandbox". I think there has also been an assumption that players put a lot of work into their characters and are attached to them, so the GM shouldn't challenge them so hard that they actually die. This might be expressed as "no save or die rolls". GMs typically play fast and loose with the rules, and if they don't feel like looking up a rule they narrate or make up a rule on the spot instead.

I used to think Apocalypse World was really cool, but I only ever played it as GM, and I think that I must have GMed it incorrectly. Probably because of assumptions of how RPGs should work that I brought in from other games. If you have the players move around as a party and try to get fun out of the combat system, it's going to be disappointing.

I have never encountered "nordic larp" and I don't understand the distinction the author makes between "classic" and "osr". It seems, for lack of a better word, "political"?

[Emphyrio]

I suppose the author's assumption in lumping completely different things in OC/Neotrad is that their common elements is that the DM is either nonexistent, or his power and discretion are minimized. So despite the similar names, it's in opposition to what he calls Trad, where the DM is very powerful and the PCs are along for the ride. It's confusing because he calls Critical Role neotrad but it could be argued CR is trad.

Having "storygames" as a separate category doesn't seem very useful. If trad and neo-trad are already opposite poles regarding the DM's involvement in creating the narrative, where do "Storygames" fit in?

This all seems more obtuse than the "big model" the author derides.

[Acrux]

Well, I had a nice long writeup, by my computer restarted and ate it so I'll just say this:

I read the whole article. I think he tries to make too much distinction between some of these styles. For instance, Dave Arneson was doing a mix of Classic and Trad even during Blackmoor (and don't tell anyone, but I like Arneson's DM style just a little better than Gary's). That's basically the way I run games and my preferred play style, although I'm very eclectic with rules from all kinds of systems.

[Emphyrio]

"Trad prizes gaming that produces experiences comparable to other media, like movies, novels, television, myths, etc., and its values often encourage adapting techniques from those media."

I don't see how this is different from storygames.

[WhiteShark]

I don't understand the distinction the author makes between "classic" and "osr". It seems, for lack of a better word, "political"?

It seems to revolve mostly around whether the game is "fair"―that is, whether challenges escalate smoothly with PC power―or not. The author also mentions that OSR often prefers fewer rules in accordance with its 'rulings not rules' mantra, which I personally think is a bit of oxymoronic retardation, but it's there.

If trad and neo-trad are already opposite poles regarding the DM's involvement in creating the narrative, where do "Storygames" fit in?

In my experience, one of the common elements of storygames is the ability for a player to directly manipulate the gameworld apart from his PC. For example, in FATE, players receive fate points which can be spent to, among other things, add elements to a scene which then exist in the gameworld as though they had always been there. Even storygames without a specific mechanic for this seem to encourage this sort of on-the-fly collaborative creation, which is obviously different from Trad but also different from Neo-Trad, in which the GM takes the player's backstory and plans and creates the world around them in preparation.

I agree, though, that Storygames are a natural evolution of Trad. Be the goal to emulate other media in a specific genre, it's only natural that rules to model all those pesky genre-irrelevant details get cut. Ironically, though the author claims the elimination of ludonarrative dissonance to be a primary goal of storygames, in my experience they do just the opposite: the mechanics become so abstract that their connection to what they're supposedly modelling becomes frighteningly tenuous. Worse, they sometimes pit the player's goals against his PC's goals, which from the perspective of immersion is anathema.

[rusty_shackleford]

everything other than simulationism is playing it wrong
source: divine providence; it came to me in a dream

[Tweed]

Jihad is the seventh pillar.

[Acrux]

[Wretch]

I’m actually a lot more interested to know how people prefer to play in the sense of do they use a lot of physical visual representation and minis with a grid and basically play it out like a turn based tactics game. Do they do more of what I think people call theatre of the mind and focus more on descriptions and allow their players more freedom? Do people play mainly online with digital tokens, maps, etc?

What styles have you tried and what makes you prefer them?

[Rand]

I don't create or use narratively constrained adventures.
I prefer to play and run sandbox games.
Examples are classic adventures such as The Caves of Chaos or The Isle of Dread, and let the players make their own stories in them by interacting as they see fit.
At most, there'll be a suggested directive, but they're free to ignore it and go do whatever interests them.

[Rand]

I like tactical combat and the majority of the players I've played with do, too.
So we'll use minis and grids when we have them, but they aren't necessary, as the important components are a variety of tactical options besides "roll to hit" round after round.

[Acrux]

. Do they do more of what I think people call theatre of the mind

Tactical combat using theater of the mind. You should have an Excel spreadsheet in your head of all units' placements.

Graph paper is also acceptable for those without an imagination.

[WhiteShark]

I’m actually a lot more interested to know how people prefer to play in the sense of do they use a lot of physical visual representation and minis with a grid and basically play it out like a turn based tactics game. Do they do more of what I think people call theatre of the mind and focus more on descriptions and allow their players more freedom?

A grid doesn't hinder freedom, it enables it. Theater of the mind is all well and good in situations where exact positioning and timing don't matter, but in most combat situations they matter a great deal, and without a grid it's hard to keep everybody on the same page. By putting everyone on the grid, both the players and the GM are able to see exactly what is and isn't possible; without the grid, combat tends to become a boring, wishy-washy affair in which players are uncertain who is where, what actions are feasible, and what's going on in general. Tactical and lateral thinking both require a detailed grasp of the situation to be exercised properly.

The only reasons to forgo the grid are if the system doesn't support one - in which case I would suggest a different system, as systems without tactical combat tend to be rules-lite slop - or one's group doesn't enjoy combat in any form - in which case I would question the choice of roleplaying, which is a form of wargaming, as a hobby.

Also, to address the implication in your question: it's a fundamental error in thinking, propagated by the nuRPG crowd, to believe that rules and descriptivity/freedom are opposed. The opposite is true in all cases. The essence of an RPG is that it simulates a fictional world. By necessity, then, every bit of 'fluff' is a rule and every rule represents 'fluff': they are one and the same. If a rule does a poor job of simulating an aspect of your, or any, gameworld, the issue is not that there is a rule - if there weren't a rule, you'd end up needing to make one yourself- but that it's a bad one. In the words of Alexander Macris, author of ACKS: "Rules-light games are just games that haven't been played a lot yet."

Do people play mainly online with digital tokens, maps, etc?

I do, or did, because I no longer live near any of my friends who play. Online play has its ups and downs. Virtual tabletops have many conveniences and looking up rules in PDFs is quick. You can easily incorporate nice looking art, tokens, handouts etc. into your games. Some people play thematically appropriate background music. Actually, one of the downsides to online play is that all the cool things you can include in a digital tabletop can begin to feel like a necessity and then a burden if you become obsessive.

Some people say that online play isn't real tabletop, but I disagree. It mainly comes down to your group. My friends and I had a great time with it. On the other hand, I've also played in many abortive campaigns with strangers. Finding reliable people with whom to play is by far the worst part of playing online. GMs tend to quit at random and players tend to get bored and ghost the campaign. I think many people enjoy the idea of playing in a game more than actually playing.

What styles have you tried and what makes you prefer them?

Accepting the blogger's categories as is, I've played in Trad, neo-Trad, and Storygames. I don't prefer any of them. Storygames aren't RPGs and should not be classified as one of the cultures of play thereof. @rusty_shackleford is absolutely right that simulationism is the only proper approach to RPGs. On that note, check out some of these articles the ACKS author wrote on the topic.

[Wretch]

I’m actually a lot more interested to know how people prefer to play in the sense of do they use a lot of physical visual representation and minis with a grid and basically play it out like a turn based tactics game. Do they do more of what I think people call theatre of the mind and focus more on descriptions and allow their players more freedom?

A grid doesn't hinder freedom, it enables it. Theater of the mind is all well and good in situations where exact positioning and timing don't matter, but in most combat situations they matter a great deal, and without a grid it's hard to keep everybody on the same page. By putting everyone on the grid, both the players and the GM are able to see exactly what is and isn't possible; without the grid, combat tends to become a boring, wishy-washy affair in which players are uncertain who is where, what actions are feasible, and what's going on in general. Tactical and lateral thinking both require a detailed grasp of the situation to be exercised properly.

The only reasons to forgo the grid are if the system doesn't support one - in which case I would suggest a different system, as systems without tactical combat tend to be rules-lite slop - or one's group doesn't enjoy combat in any form - in which case I would question the choice of roleplaying, which is a form of wargaming, as a hobby.

Also, to address the implication in your question: it's a fundamental error in thinking, propagated by the nuRPG crowd, to believe that rules and descriptivity/freedom are opposed. The opposite is true in all cases. The essence of an RPG is that it simulates a fictional world. By necessity, then, every bit of 'fluff' is a rule and every rule represents 'fluff': they are one and the same. If a rule does a poor job of simulating an aspect of your, or any, gameworld, the issue is not that there is a rule - if there weren't a rule, you'd end up needing to make one yourself- but that it's a bad one. In the words of Alexander Macris, author of ACKS: "Rules-light games are just games that haven't been played a lot yet."

Do people play mainly online with digital tokens, maps, etc?

I do, or did, because I no longer live near any of my friends who play. Online play has its ups and downs. Virtual tabletops have many conveniences and looking up rules in PDFs is quick. You can easily incorporate nice looking art, tokens, handouts etc. into your games. Some people play thematically appropriate background music. Actually, one of the downsides to online play is that all the cool things you can include in a digital tabletop can begin to feel like a necessity and then a burden if you become obsessive.

Some people say that online play isn't real tabletop, but I disagree. It mainly comes down to your group. My friends and I had a great time with it. On the other hand, I've also played in many abortive campaigns with strangers. Finding reliable people with whom to play is by far the worst part of playing online. GMs tend to quit at random and players tend to get bored and ghost the campaign. I think many people enjoy the idea of playing in a game more than actually playing.

What styles have you tried and what makes you prefer them?

Accepting the blogger's categories as is, I've played in Trad, neo-Trad, and Storygames. I don't prefer any of them. Storygames aren't RPGs and should not be classified as one of the cultures of play thereof. @rusty_shackleford is absolutely right that simulationism is the only proper approach to RPGs. On that note, check out some of these articles the ACKS author wrote on the topic.

Thanks for the detailed response.

For someone starting out dming this is all very overwhelming. I primarily if not exclusively intend to play in person and am wondering what things i need to make a grid based system work. Do people use grid mats? Maybe clear grid overlays to other mats? How meticulous is the design meant to be in making maps and areas of play? It seems like a limitless rabbit hole to go down and not something I can tackle at my level of familiarity.

I’m also mainly more interested in developing an enjoyable and heavily interactive setting with interesting characters and story elements to get embroiled in. The combat and wargaming aspect is probably the least important thing to me starting out. I do enjoy that stuff but it’s a lot less important to me than the other points.

[Acrux]

Especially for a new DM, you don't need to be detailed. I really wasn't joking about graph paper/Excel.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[Wretch]

Especially for a new DM, you don't need to be detailed. I really wasn't joking about graph paper/Excel.

Off Topic

Here's an example from an online game I'm a player in right now. This is about as complicated as our maps get. Dark blue squares are players, light blue are allies. Red are enemies.

Oh i really like this, definitely within my limited abilities

[Sweeper]

Original Gygaxian play that focuses on gameplay with a linear progression of challenges and player power. Story is a non-priority. The article places this as emerging in the 70s.

See? Do you SEE? I've been telling you that RPGs have nothing to do with RPfaggotry for years now... YEARS!

[Rand]

Do people use grid mats? Maybe clear grid overlays to other mats?

Yes to both. But I like crunchy combat.