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.
Values, whether they better society or not, are inevitably intertwined with what happens at the table. They inform what we consider ‘fun’, guide the actions of the players. Uno is not a great example because there is minimal narrative, the opposite of ttrpgs (and even then there are nuances in uno playstyle informed by values).
The separation you are searching for does not exist, and is only believable in a society suffering from alienation. It’s alright to play as an escape from grief, tragedy, or pain, but I can’t support playing to escape from responsibility.
I think that, if we are just trying to observe and define what folk gaming is, we cannot limit it to only responsible/moral/ethical games, tables or magic circles.
Some will use it to actually tell stories with intent and drama, but there's an entire subset of people where it's all about the tactical/strategic play, right? They would usually react badly on focussing too much on the story.
What I will agree on is that the group, table, circle thing is bigger than the technical game, or than play. It's a social-emotional thing where different personalities and ego's interact, and in that it's good practice to make it a safe or ethical space. But that is not to say that it will always be a safe space. Not all groups are like that, but does that mean it's not folk? They too are making the rules/game their own, right?
I am, to be clear, not saying that games and game spaces/tables/circles shouldn't be safe. I am all for that. I'm just trying to make sure that in finding a defenition, we're not missing the point. Because I think that if being folk means people can make it their own, then I think it can go both ways.
Hmm I see what you mean, it’s a good argument! You’re right that folk gaming is not limited to the story content of a game, sometimes it’s just about people sitting around a table and sharing each other’s company. And that can be playing dominoes, cards, whatever you’d like. It’s still folk gaming, and it’s still meaningful.
However, even though there’s a wing of the TTRPG community focused on strategy/tactics, if they’re playing rpgs then they’re choosing to strategize within a flavor setting. When TTRPG strategists pretend the setting is arbitrary, that’s where I think it’s a problem. The flavor is never arbitrary.
In terms of defining folk gaming, I think there’s a bit of a distinction between how MMG and I are approaching the topic. MMG’s article is made to create a definition for folk gaming, my article is about the potential for folk gaming to make the world a better place. A group of toxic friends playing homebrew could be considered folk gaming, I just wouldn’t care about it. To me, the definition is not as important as the application.
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.
Values, whether they better society or not, are inevitably intertwined with what happens at the table. They inform what we consider ‘fun’, guide the actions of the players. Uno is not a great example because there is minimal narrative, the opposite of ttrpgs (and even then there are nuances in uno playstyle informed by values).
The separation you are searching for does not exist, and is only believable in a society suffering from alienation. It’s alright to play as an escape from grief, tragedy, or pain, but I can’t support playing to escape from responsibility.
I think that, if we are just trying to observe and define what folk gaming is, we cannot limit it to only responsible/moral/ethical games, tables or magic circles.
Some will use it to actually tell stories with intent and drama, but there's an entire subset of people where it's all about the tactical/strategic play, right? They would usually react badly on focussing too much on the story.
What I will agree on is that the group, table, circle thing is bigger than the technical game, or than play. It's a social-emotional thing where different personalities and ego's interact, and in that it's good practice to make it a safe or ethical space. But that is not to say that it will always be a safe space. Not all groups are like that, but does that mean it's not folk? They too are making the rules/game their own, right?
I am, to be clear, not saying that games and game spaces/tables/circles shouldn't be safe. I am all for that. I'm just trying to make sure that in finding a defenition, we're not missing the point. Because I think that if being folk means people can make it their own, then I think it can go both ways.
Hmm I see what you mean, it’s a good argument! You’re right that folk gaming is not limited to the story content of a game, sometimes it’s just about people sitting around a table and sharing each other’s company. And that can be playing dominoes, cards, whatever you’d like. It’s still folk gaming, and it’s still meaningful.
However, even though there’s a wing of the TTRPG community focused on strategy/tactics, if they’re playing rpgs then they’re choosing to strategize within a flavor setting. When TTRPG strategists pretend the setting is arbitrary, that’s where I think it’s a problem. The flavor is never arbitrary.
In terms of defining folk gaming, I think there’s a bit of a distinction between how MMG and I are approaching the topic. MMG’s article is made to create a definition for folk gaming, my article is about the potential for folk gaming to make the world a better place. A group of toxic friends playing homebrew could be considered folk gaming, I just wouldn’t care about it. To me, the definition is not as important as the application.