Thoughts on Folk Gaming
Mythic Mountain Musings posted this excellent article about folk gaming a couple weeks ago. One of the main points of the post is to define folk tabletop, which they do in terms of authority. They define folk tabletop as a situation where the authority of the game arises from the table, not from other sources. They call the table’s authority the ‘magic circle’, an informal group space of mutual consent where the goals of the players govern actions and narratives. They go on to categorize indie TTRPGs, story games, and OSR as contemporary types of folk gaming, and WOTC and other big gaming as anti-folk.
I think this is a great article, and brings up important points about centering the goals of the players and creating spaces through shared consent. I wholeheartedly agree with MMG, and would like to expand the discussion to highlight some other aspects of folk gaming that are dear to me.
First, let’s talk about another foundational characteristic of folk gaming. In folk gaming, group narratives create shared experiences and spark discussions around collective values. Through the aforementioned ‘magic circle’, individuals are given opportunities to act out values as part of a collective storytelling experience. In 2025, we have a dwindling number of group spaces that host any sort of collective storytelling, making indie-TTRPGs the modern bearer of a long-standing human tradition.
MMG argues that big business TTRPGs are anti-folk because they impose an alienated source of authority that takes the power out of the hands of the players. While there are lots of way to consider authority in the TTRPG sphere, I certainly agree that corporate TTRPG are anti-folk, partially because they generate alienated authority models, but also because these businesses work to eradicate independent group spaces in order to monopolize the market.
In the process of building monopolies, big-business game companies exploit cultural values to generate palatable content. When a company like WOTC creates DND characters that possess cultural values like bravery and compassion, their goal is to generate profit from society’s connection with those values. If the product reinjects nothing meaningful into society’s collective discussion of those values, then that profit is extractive. Unless the products are replenishing the meaning of our values, they are depleting our values, reducing our collective ability to use them as tools in envisioning and building a better world.
At the end of the day, stories are a tool, and folks should use them. They can use them for the betterment of themselves at the expense of others, or for collective betterment. When I think of folk gaming, I think of a community that supports the latter.
So what are some ways we can use folk gaming for collective betterment of our values?
Folk gaming can be used to share value structures cross-culturally. For instance, a value-driven folk gaming module can share traditional morals and fables from the region that inspired the project.
In countries with immigrant populations like the USA, folk gaming can be used to re-connect and re-examine the value traditions that were left behind.
TTRPGs are a unique type of story-telling method because the players can take meaningful in-game actions to impact the unfolding of the story. Applying behavioral psychology, one can see that the symbolic actions taken in TTRPGs can be a pathway to emotional internalization and eventual behavioral change. You could consider TTRPGs ‘high-impact’ storytelling. This is important because we have a crisis in America where some people are alienated from traditional cultural values, allowing them act like total dickholes.
Along the way, we can create community driven markets that destabilize corporate monopolies and community driven games that are a lot of fun and hopefully tinge our lives with meaning.
It’s not that hard to do. I’ve been collborating with several Europeans lately. One person I’ve been working with is GammlerNoob, who’s spearheading a project to build a hexswamp. How do the values inform the game? It’s a secret, but you should get game and see for yourself.
It’s worth noting that in practice, the ‘magic circle’ is rarely fully egalitarian. At most TTRPG tables exists an informal power structure that can be defined in many complex ways. Just as a start: Who did the most prep work? Who’s hosting? Who is the loudest? Who has the power to direct, to influence, to appeal? It’s worth having objective discussions about informal power at your table and in your friend group.
Thank you very much and thank you for your thoughts on this!
I am agnostic to the idea that folk culture can convey values though it certainly seems that way to me, and I aspire or hope for that to be the case. I also don’t consider the group focus a matter of egalitarianism or liberation. This calls to mind for me Richard Rohlin the philologist I follow who believes TTRPGs are the best conversational vehicle for forming moral imagination.
There were two major works that influenced my article. One was “Homo Ludens”, which generally establishes this idea that you can’t form honest play without consent, and free participation. He divides play from survival tasks, even if they can be gamified.
The other more controversial reference is “Pirate Utopias” by Hakim Bey. To me, this relates more to how game tables can work well and produce games, more so than “right” power structures or achieving egalitarianism. It makes the games work in my experience.
Who among us has not been on the wrong end of a company union acting as syndicate or a catty HOA? In most cases I suspect the “Dungeon Master” will be the Captain of the Pirate vessel in question and the clubhouse manager the tinpot dictator of the Pirate Republic. The social organization of such is not only bound to be messy, but come into conflict with surrounding pirate republics!
Hi, I like your ideas on this, but have one sticking point.
While I do think that each "magic circle" or "Table" will have it's own culture and particularities, and that this is a good thing, I do not think it necessarily needs to drive to betterment of society or something. It's possible, and it's good when it happens, but I also think that some tables will just play to have fun, and to escape responsabilities and thoughts of reform. Take for example another game that is played differently at every table: UNO. The rules variations don't necessarily stem from cultural or moral situations, but just a way the group organically thought this would be more fun for them.
Something being folk doesn't need to mean that there's some big agenda connected to it. Granted, the chance is higher in shared story telling, but that's not always how it goes I think.