itch.io Community » Tabletop Gaming » Design » Belonging Outside Belonging

"What is belonging outside belonging?" Sticky

A topic by Nora Blake created Mar 22, 2019 Views: 13,478 Replies: 13

Viewing posts 1 to 6

It's come up once or twice that some people aren't familiar with the phrase belonging outside belonging, so I thought I would take the opportunity to give a brief rundown.

In the back of Dream Askew/Dream Apart, Avery Alder describes the belonging outside belonging framework as being the line that connects Dream Askew and Dream Apart, the common threads that bind them together. These threads are:

They are about marginalized groups establishing an independent community, just outside the boundaries of a dominant culture.
Those communities have a hopeful, precarious, vulnerable quality to them.
Both are for 3-6 players, each of whom has a unique character role.
They divide their settings into distinct elements which are shared around the table.
They employ a community worksheet.

Any game adhering to one or more of these design choices has the potential to be a belonging outside belonging game. Which leads us to...

But can I use the label?

Much like Powered by the Apocalypse, the phrase belonging outside belonging has a certain context in which the label is appropriate. In Avery's words:

It’s up to you to decide whether to use the label to describe your own work, but there are a few guidelines to consider. Most importantly, a game of belonging outside belonging is about a marginalized community attempting to live just outside the boundaries of a dominant culture. Beyond that, ask yourself: does this new game fit the established line? Did this chapter serve as a key reference in design? Does it feel right to adopt the label? Use it if it feels right.

Like Reply

Party of Bards5 years ago(+3)

I think part of the reason it doesn't get recognised as easily is that unlike other systems for grouping games (say d20 or PBTA) it has a much less mechanical through line, and much more of a thematic and ideological one.
I appreciate this write up, as I think it helps codify what people mean when they use it, and should help it become recognised as a thing by more people.

Like Reply

poetryalpastor5 years ago

So, I haven't read Dream Askew, though I have read some other games that fit into the Belonging Outside Belonging framework.

But, to clarify, does this mean that if someone were to make a game that used certain mechanics defined in Dream Askew (like the token economy with weak/neutral/strong moves, or the way the GM role is distributed among players) but didn't fit into those threads, it would not be a Belonging Outside Belonging game?

To me this makes sense, although I wanted to clarify, partially just to clarify, but also because I'm wondering if it would then be inappropriate to repurpose mechanics from Dream Askew without honouring its specific themes, intents and lineage.

Like Reply

silentferrets5 years ago(+1)

There's a specific chapter to look at in Dream Askew/Dream Apart that talks about this. The threads are important and part of the design ethos as much as the concept of like principles are to a pbta game. It might be a Belonging game but it would stray much further from Avery's original concept.
One example in the text is that without lures to encourage player interaction, that might result in more separation among the players and even a larp that had lures but made them more difficult to do might result in something moving towards the edge of the framework.

I suspect a good way to look at it is less as a binary and more as a spectrum where the elements might gradually shift it further afield from what the system was originally designed to express. The book itself is also highly recommended and is, in my opinion, one of the clearest pieces from a technical writing/teaching perspective and does a great job getting at the essence of what the system is and what it brings to the table.

I think it wouldn't be inappropriate it just might be Belonging inspired instead of an actual belonging game. Avery actually talks about this in a chapter about designing your own belonging game int he core book. If you go over to the belonging jam, you there are some resources you might find helpful.

Like Reply

poetryalpastor5 years ago

Thanks for the thoughtful response! I think I might want to rephrase the first part of my question. I get that it's not so much a pass/fail set of criteria as it is a design intent. However, the threads that have been outlined here that tie Dream Askew and Dream Apart don't include certain mechanical things, such as being GMless, using tokens with weak/regular/strong moves, etc. Because of that, it would be very possible to make a "Belonging Outside Belonging" game that plays very differently from Dream Askew.

Of course, this is true of PBTA as well —Dream Askew itself is a PBTA game that plays a lot differently than Apocalypse World.

But because Vincent Baker hasn't defined (afaik) "PBTA" as anything other than games which take inspiration from AW and decide to use the label for themselves, thematic content is not necessarily one of the uniting threads between all PBTA games, therefore Dungeon World, which is PBTA, and mechanically functions a lot more like AW than Dream Askew does, is much more different thematically to Apocalypse World. Whereas, with Belonging Outside Belonging, it would be possible to make a game that plays very similarly to Dream Askew, and feels very similar mechanically, but which doesn't touch on any of these points. So my question is not so much "what exactly counts as Belonging Outside Belonging," but rather, is this choice to exclude most of Dream Askew's mechanics from the framework of Belonging Outside Belonging, as it has been outlined here, deliberate? And therefore, does that mean that there is theoretically a second lineage of Dream Askew hacks, one that is much more a lineage of "reskinning," for lack of a better word?

Like Reply

Nora BlakeModerator5 years ago(+1)

like PbtA, belonging outside belonging is not a mechanical classification. The core element is that it be about a marginalized community on the edge of a larger society. Variations on mechanics only come into play if the person designing the game feels their game is too different or should not use the label.

Like Reply

poetryalpastor5 years ago(+1)

I'm sorry; I don't know what you mean by your last sentence. I understand that Belonging Outside Belonging, like PBTA, is not a mechanical classification. I know that PBTA is not a mechanical classification. However, PBTA is also not a thematic classification either, and has only been defined, to my knowledge, as a policy regarding intellectual property, by Vincent and Meguey. As I understand, Belonging Outside Belonging has been defined as more than just an IP policy, by outlining the common threads between Dream Askew and Dream Apart. However, those threads, at least the ones in this forum post, omit things like being GMless, etc., and I'm just curious what other people think about what that implies for games which do not fit into the framework that has been outlined here, but which do play mechanically a lot like Dream Askew, that's all! So far it seems that people generally don't split hairs, which is fine, but to me it raises the question —in that case, why define the framework at all?

Like Reply

Anna Landin5 years ago(+8)

"Why define the framework at all?"

because as with all active creative pursuits, the creation of games is a conversation - not just between creators as a literal conversation, but with the medium itself as a more metaphorical one. And when carrying on a conversation, defining your terms is helpful.

imho, the main hinge on which Belonging-games turn is that they center marginalised communities outside of a dominant culture - both thematically and in the playing itself. That matters, and is worth defining - whether you then want to get into the weeds of specific mechanics or not. And it matters because of the underlying history of marginalised communities being, well, marginalised. Making your general design philosophy something that cares about, and values, marginalised communities at the edges of society is important - for the same reason that caring about marginalised communities in other aspects of life is important.

As a general design philosophy, "this game cares about the marginalised" is a good thing to have expressed clearly in the foundation of the thing you're making. It's a statement of intent, and a guiding principle. Compare it, if you will, to the underlying philosophy of art movements: surrealist art was - and is - a broad range of different things in terms of modes of expression (painting, sculpture, writing, etc.), but it is all united in a core philosophy and intent.

Belonging-games - and indeed any other classification of games - works kind of the same way. It's less about the specific mode of expression, and more about your aim and intent as a creator.

And re: PBTA as a classification - aside from it being an IP policy, afaik it is also defined as any game made as a reaction to PBTA in general. Which means that following that logic, even if you make something that is an explicit and intentional rejection of things contained in another PBTA-game.... you're still making a game that fits into the messy family tree of PBTA-games. But it's also entirely up to you if you WANT to define it that way.

.... tabletop rpg cladistics sure are a messy thing to sort out, huh.

Like Reply

silentferrets5 years ago(+1)

I would just add that the chapter in the book about what Belonging Outside Belonging is and is not is very helpful and has a lot of important things I'm working on a belonging game, I refer back to it heavily.

Like Reply

irrevenant263 days ago

I think the underlying question here is: If someone were to create a game that used the same basic mechanics as BOB but wasn't themed around marginalised groups establishing an independent community, then what should they refer to it as?

(And if that's not the underlying question here, I'm still interested in the answer. 🙂)

On one hand, it wouldn't feel right to call it a BOB game. On the other hand, it wouldn't feel right to not credit BOB as an inspiration.

Would you just call it "A Belonging Outside Belonging-inspired game"?

Like Reply

Colonel Gerard249 days ago

Its like the concept of creating your own meaning in life instead of finding it in a world that is largely hostile or indifferent to you is an alien concept to the majority of wannabe "developers" on this site.

Like Reply

irrevenant249 days ago

Its like the concept of creating your own meaning in life instead of finding it in a world that is largely hostile or indifferent to you is an alien concept to the majority of wannabe "developers" on this site.

That seems a particularly uncharitable way of looking at it.

Some people think BoB contains an interesting system and are interested in seeing if it can apply well to subjects beyond its original focus.

Wanting to do something different with the original concept doesn't mean they don't understand the original concept.

If we follow that line of thought, Avery must be a wannabe "designer" who finds RPGs "an alien concept" since he set out to do something new with them.

I don't think that's a particularly reliable line of thought, do you?

Like Reply

Colonel Gerard249 days ago (13 edits)

Considering how many "Roleplaying games" even on this site lack any actual roleplay elements like Baldur's gate 3 has in spades from custom builds to get through combat and rewarding you for creative thinking like tricking a minotaur to jump off a cliff to get to you for an easier fight or even bypassing some encounters completely by just exploring using the tools provided, yes most people really don't understand what RPGs are and don't care to commit to taking their own story seriously. Then act surprised when the audience rightly doesn't either. They don't leave the immersion destroying and 4th wall breaking inside jokes for Easter eggs or the audience and their friends like what used to happen naturally if people liked a game well enough. Nope they dump that nonsense right in the middle of the main plot and keep forcing that garbage.

Video games and RPG's especially, are an interactive medium and most RPG's and Visual Novels masquerading as "RPG's" don't get that. Especially Visual novels or developer's insistence on constant speedbumps and exposition dumps. Even in a 2D written format where you literally don't have to illustrate anything sometimes. Its just pure laziness when its "GO FORWARD" as the only option in dialogue. May as well remove that completely and save the player a few seconds.

DDLC was the one exception I've found where a VN had actual RPG elements and actually engaged the player in any meaningful way with Monika and going through the game files for her. The player being talked at the whole time like some third party overhearing a group's conversations is not "RPG" material at all and would better fit a book.

This site hosts a ton of unfinished projects and a lot of the work I've been seeing over the years at a casual glance is uninspired garbage primarily made by cliques of children/shitposters or patreon/discord scammers who have this unspoken belief that its criminal to have any real imagination or original lines of thought. While of course being solely motivated by money. Not wanting to make something cool for the hell of it and that's a bonus if they can monetize it too. The very different mindset that built this industry decades ago.

Like Reply

irrevenant248 days ago (1 edit)

I'm also a fan of DDLC but this thread is specifically about tabletop RPGs - in particular about how far the "Belonging outside belonging" approach can be stretched beyond that original concept and about how a game that does that should be described/categorised.

Like Reply