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
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!