Brian Rogers (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
subplotkudzu) wrote2007-09-07 06:07 am
subplotkudzu) wrote2007-09-07 06:07 am
Entry tags:
We're not average, we're MEAN!
Earlier netcurmudgeon had posted that that our group were not "average gamerz", in part because of the Trek Game's willingness to play to genre rather than maximal tactical efficiency. That got me thinking about the overall nature of the gaming community. What is the "average gamer"?
netcurmudgeon had posted that that our group were not "average gamerz", in part because of the Trek Game's willingness to play to genre rather than maximal tactical efficiency. That got me thinking about the overall nature of the gaming community. What is the "average gamer"? Lets assume for sake of argument that you really could plot all gamers on a single axis (a highly dubious concept in the world of the threefold model, seven types of gamer and so on). For my purposes I'll look at a conservative to radical style of play, with "conservative" play being more like the original designs of the first RPGs - emphasis on combat, problem solving as an aspect of resource management (i.e., I have these spells, items, hyper tech toys or powers, how can I avoid or work through this non-combat encounter), low character personality development, with the PCs being free agents (in both an in-game sense and also that the GM has extremely limited control of of a PCs actions) operating in a semi-adversarial fashion against a GM (1).
On the radical play style we have some of increasingly exotic Forge experiments that begin to break down any and all of those concepts - things with communal world description, shared characters, tightly focused & repetitive scenarios to plumb a particular idea (such as My Life with Master) and so on. This also include the personality and character interaction heavy diceless games such as Amber or Theatrix. Since there are so many ways to be radical I'm not going to try to plot a single end point (2) - basically it's the further you get away from a group of mercenaries delving into an endless dungeon to kill things and take their stuff.
With that in place, I can agree that our group isn't the Median group of gamers - by all accounts a large enough population of RPG groups are still doing some variation of "find dungeon, enter dungeon, kick in door, kill things, take stuff, repeat". There's nothing wrong with this - it's not a bad definition of our groups Russia Campaign, since I built it to be a dungeon crawl - but it's an inherently conservative style of play, and it's certainly well supported by D&D's market dominance. That weight at one end of the axis means that the median gamer is probably playing a bog standard fantasy game.
But average? There are some radical designs at the far end of the axis were just a few players there would average out a large number of conservative players - it only takes a few instances of a high "Radical" score to push the mean up from a very low "Radical" ranking. Based on what I've read in A&E, on industry sites and what's been coming out in the industry, I think that our group is actually pretty "Average" in this respect. I hope so anyway, because as fun as it can be to dip into conservative style play (many of us have our gaming roots there, after all), I think the hobby needs to stay a little radical to both draw in new players and avoid stagnation.
I could be wrong of course, but I'm thinking in this case the Average is pretty good.
(1) People can argue with me if they wish, but this has always been my view of both early gaming and of new groups of players coming into the hobby because it is very easy to grasp and implement - this version of play is most like a board game and therefore most accessible. (Obviously, new players coming in to an existing group will likely adopt that groups play style, but I'm simplifying for purposes of effect).
(2) interestingly some of the wacky Forge experiments end up looking a lot like board games in their design, suggesting that the line circles back on itself.
On the radical play style we have some of increasingly exotic Forge experiments that begin to break down any and all of those concepts - things with communal world description, shared characters, tightly focused & repetitive scenarios to plumb a particular idea (such as My Life with Master) and so on. This also include the personality and character interaction heavy diceless games such as Amber or Theatrix. Since there are so many ways to be radical I'm not going to try to plot a single end point (2) - basically it's the further you get away from a group of mercenaries delving into an endless dungeon to kill things and take their stuff.
With that in place, I can agree that our group isn't the Median group of gamers - by all accounts a large enough population of RPG groups are still doing some variation of "find dungeon, enter dungeon, kick in door, kill things, take stuff, repeat". There's nothing wrong with this - it's not a bad definition of our groups Russia Campaign, since I built it to be a dungeon crawl - but it's an inherently conservative style of play, and it's certainly well supported by D&D's market dominance. That weight at one end of the axis means that the median gamer is probably playing a bog standard fantasy game.
But average? There are some radical designs at the far end of the axis were just a few players there would average out a large number of conservative players - it only takes a few instances of a high "Radical" score to push the mean up from a very low "Radical" ranking. Based on what I've read in A&E, on industry sites and what's been coming out in the industry, I think that our group is actually pretty "Average" in this respect. I hope so anyway, because as fun as it can be to dip into conservative style play (many of us have our gaming roots there, after all), I think the hobby needs to stay a little radical to both draw in new players and avoid stagnation.
I could be wrong of course, but I'm thinking in this case the Average is pretty good.
(1) People can argue with me if they wish, but this has always been my view of both early gaming and of new groups of players coming into the hobby because it is very easy to grasp and implement - this version of play is most like a board game and therefore most accessible. (Obviously, new players coming in to an existing group will likely adopt that groups play style, but I'm simplifying for purposes of effect).
(2) interestingly some of the wacky Forge experiments end up looking a lot like board games in their design, suggesting that the line circles back on itself.
no subject
It seems to me that what I'm doing differs from what a lot of Forge games do in that it retains and indeed heightens the distinctive role of the GM, while using that role not to offer standardized mass entertainment but (in a modest way) creative art. I've taken to describing my attitude toward RPGs as "auteurist," to borrow a term from film. Whereas the modal Forge approach seems to minimize the role of the GM, making all of the players equals, and having some of the structure that conventionally comes from the GM built into the published system, so that when you agree to play, say, Dogs in the Vineyard you have already agreed to an extremely specific thematic focus and to a set of rules that facilitate that one theme at the expense of other possible themes.
The standard gaming social contract seems to be that you start out with a group of players who initially agree that they're going to game together; agree in choosing a GM to run the campaign; and then delegate decision-making power to the GM—who acts sort of as a Hobbesian sovereign. In contrast, the Forgeite model seems to start with a group of players who agree they're going to game together; adopt a game system; and under that game system, play as equals, making all decisions collectively—more a Rousseauean "general will" model. But my approach is based on the GM, as entrepreneur, coming up with a campaign premise, seeking players for that specific campaign, and getting their explicit agreement to the campaign when they agree to play in it. On the one hand, it gives the GM more power to make creative decisions; on the other hand, it gives the GM no security of being able to run any given campaign, because the player population does not exist in advance, but must be created by having both an attractive premise and a reputation for delivering good play. In a sense, I suppose this is more like Spooner's disavowal of constitutional "social contracts" in favor of explicit contracts between specific people for specific purposes—and while I don't believe anarchism works for legal systems, I find it satisfactory for most other activities.
no subject
The radical nature of your games comes in both selected subject matter and in the method of campaign selection. Of these the former is certainly important (and I'll admit the breadth of experimentation in your campaigns has been a large influence on my own gaming), but the latter is more radical (though, I hope, growing because even if it can only be partially implemented it is a wonderful idea that deserves dissemination). However, the radical nature of the campaign prospectus/dinner party model ends once the campaigns are selected and play begins. Players from other groups will be able to easily grasp the concepts of your play (even if they don't enjoy the subject matter); a player wandering into Dogs in the Vineyard or Prime Time Adventures would have a harder time.
Like you, I generally avoid the radical game mechanics end of the spectrum. I want the mechanics to provide the correct simulation of the chosen genre, but I don't want the larger break from the GM and Player relationship. I think these games have something to teach me, however - I adore PTA's "pitch" mechanic for getting player input in designing the series, even if I don't want to use the rest of the mechanics, or apply the pitch to every campaign.
no subject
no subject
Radicalism in the hobby is certainly multi-dimensional, but trying to select which dimensions to plot is well outside the scope of my post (that the "average" gamer is probably playing some pretty interesting games, even if the "median" gamer is a dungeon-crawlin' door-bashin ork-killin' mercenary). I'm not even sure such a multi-dimensional study would be possible, given the decades long mutating argument over the dimensional meanings of the threefold model.
no subject
So I think "radical" is probably not a proper taxonomic category defined by positive traits that unify all its members, but a residual category defined by the absence of certain positive traits, in the way that "invertebrates" are defined not by any anatomical feature but by the absence of a feature (the backbone). Different "radical" games may be as different from each other as an ameba, a sea urchin, and an earthworm.
no subject
I'll be the earthworm, you can be the sea urchin and we'll let the Forgeites be amoebas?
no subject
no subject
invertebrates together!
This thread has taken a very strange turn....
Re: invertebrates together!
OK, seriously though, have you considered that there may also be a generational component to what makes an "average gamer"? How do you think the evolution varies between those who grew up gaming in the systems of our time, and say those whose gaming started with and continues in the various White Wolf models? All those youngsters who never even noticed D&D in the face of vampire and its brethren, where the concept of a simple hack and slash game with no character development is a bit trickier to manage? Some of those kids may not even get all of the munchkin references! You know, my former dating pool. :)
I think your gaming group does fall outside the norm, in part due to a general consensus for the value of storytelling, but I think that in trying to find out where you fall on the Unplottable Graph you maybe need to consider that whole section of gaming I know ain't your favorite.
Re: invertebrates together!
And World of Darkness is still a numerical minority against the vast, vast hordes of D&Ders.
Re: invertebrates together!
Re: invertebrates together!
You could try knitting yourself a GM....
Re: invertebrates together!