Too many ways to play D&D

Since the inception of the game that would come to be known as D&D, players have sought to uncover how the game is meant to be played.

Players close to Gygax and Arneson, both proximally and in terms of game knowledge, had a very solid grasp of what it meant to play D&D.  Others, exemplified by the Arduin Grimoires, had no idea what the game was, even after reading the rules.  Elsewhere, the incredible looseness of the OD&D ruleset has been showcased through Coins & Scrolls intentional mis-interpretation.  The Basic Expert has shown how Chainmail was meant to interface with OD&D, but even then only through un-published material.

This illustrates only how confusing the original rules were, moving on:

The second era of D&D was the Basic/Advanced split in the 80s (by my observation), and this created even more confusion and headache for the players of the game.  Many saw the Advanced system as the 'better' version of the game (when they were kids, at the time), whereas the Basic edition was seen as less of a game.  In reality, the Advanced rules were written for adults, who had the cranial capacity to understand what was written.  Further, the Basic rules were actually better for people who did not need those rules to achieve the same effect, like children, whose imagination is already quite powerful.

I know this ranting and raving doesn't quite make sense but stick with me here:

 Even further chaos was manifested in players brains with the release of 2nd edition AD&D, which simultaneously changed everything and nothing.  Everything, because almost every sub-system of the Advanced ruleset was changed or overhauled completely, and nothing, because it was still, officially,  compatible with all previously published material.

 This state of affairs, in the late 90s, was essentially a mess of, "which rules do we use," "What does this rule mean," and "I don't think we're doing this correctly, but whatever."  All of which was decidedly not helped by acquisition of D&D by WotC and the release of 3rd edition.

3e & 3.5e: This edition promised the player that he could do "anything."  Yippee, just what was wanted, even less direction.  This ruleset again changed everything about the rules, omitted key sections of the game, and capitulated to market demands.  

After this, the confusion as to what exactly D&D is, or how it is meant to be played was only exacerbated, yet further, by the living contradiction that is WotC D&D: publishing multiple editions of of supposedly the same game, while making almost entirely reactive changes, all the while claiming that the real D&D is whatever WotC publishes.

 

THE MEAT OF THE  POST

GNS theory: the theory that all TTRPGs (and maybe board games) can be categorized into three types of games: Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist.

The effort™ returned the above theory, an attempt to classify the massive catalogue of games which call themselves RPGs.

In a different vein of thought, others came up with the idea of gaming cultures, the post which I found on the matter suggested six: traditional, old-school, modern, norwegian larp, and two others I couldn't be bothered to remember. 

I took great issue with this latter manner of categorization because the difference between traditional and old-school is minute, the difference between those two and modern is appreciable and between any of the others and LARP an insurmountable gulf.  Because LARP should be outlawed and condemned totally as a crime against humanity. (as determined by a very different Geneva convention)

So, I came up with three gaming cultures, or rather three types of players: Those who follow the rules, those who break the rules, and those who shirk the rules. Or, more succinctly:  Wargamers, Powergamers, and Storygamers.

BUT

As I have come to realize, this categorization of players does not inherently replace, usurp or in any other manner insubordinate GNS theory, indeed, the two could, theoretically be used together, but I get ahead of myself.

Some recent thinking has brought to mind further ways of classifying games:

Game styles: Heroic, Realist, or Pulp.

And

Results-at-table: Character Immersion, Dice-rolling, or Theatrics.

 

To expound upon each: The Game Styles describes the broad interpretation of what a character's goals are and what actions the player will have them take to achieve those goals.  The Pulp style of game is the classic dungeon crawler, characters want gold and will go through great trouble to get it.  Realist games feature characters with unreasonable goals taking reasonable measures to achieve them.  Heroic styled games have characters saving the empire or seeking after the grail, or saving innocent civilians.

 

The Results of play categorization describes three different outcomes of players getting together to play a game: Character Immersion, is much similar to Diplomacy and Braunstein, in that interaction with the world, through the character, is experienced.  Dice-rolling can also be called the beer-and-pretzels game, where the players are not here to play the game so much as hang out.  Finally the Theatrics type of table is best described by Internet/Youtube based "Live-plays," where much of what the players are doing is just undertaken to entertain either the other players, or an audience of viewers/listeners. Despicable.

 

 CONCLUSION

As laid out in the preceding section, there exists four different angles by which games may be categorized: By what they are made of, by the players who play them, by what style they are, and by what outcome is achieved.

Of great importance, to me, is that none of these systems of categorization, necessarily, overlap.

What this would certainly indicate to anyone of an inquiring mind, is the possibility, or by my measure certainty, of the existence of... ALIENS *cough* I mean, 81, Eighty-One, different types of game.

All of which are called the same thing:

 D&D.

 

Be seeing you.