What Games do you think are Neotrad?

gorice said:

I understand the concept of purist-for-system, I just think it's very much of its time. IMO, there's a reason that style of design fell out of use. That doesn't mean that every unfashionable bit of design is bad -- but I think you can read something like AD&D or Rolemaster and find that there actually are reasons for a lot of things existing beyond an abstract commitment to completeness. FWIW, as someone who used to be really interested in 'simulationism', I'm increasingly convinced that it doesn't exist as an agenda, in Forge jargon. I see it as more of an inflection or mode, in the same way that we can talk of literary realism, naturalism, modernism, etc. Seen this way, you absolutely can judge whether a given design is good or bad for its purpose. This ties back to 'neotrad', too, because I think it's pretty clear that a lot of what gets included under that umbrella serves disparate purposes, and the category (to the extend that it's coherent at all) is based on particular inflections or techniques.

Regarding labels like neotrad, OSR, storygames, etc., I'm extremely cynical. They seem to be advanced principally by people who fit the description of 'influencer' better than 'designer' or 'critic'. A huge amount of discussion abour RPGs online is about branding and cliqueishness, unfortunately.

Click to expand...

Micah Sweet said:

As a simulationist primarily, I won't support any RPG classification system that says my preferred playstyle doesn't really exist. On that basis alone the Forge loses out. And it's not my only basis.

Click to expand...

AbdulAlhazred said:

I'm a bit puzzled by this statement. Edward's formulation of 'S' surely encompasses the sort of play you espouse. It does indicate that this play has some commonality with certain other styles. Anyway, most writers on the subject have moved on from the 'big model' and its focus on coherency-by-agenda and such. Either way, nobody ever suggested that any sort of play "doesn't exist". What may, instead, have been suggested is that its core defining feature is not exactly what is often claimed.

Click to expand...

Micah Sweet said:

I don't consider physics-style simulation and genre-style simulation to be so close as to fall into the same category. On top of that, Edward's has on more than one occasion straight-up lambasted simulation as a playstyle (perhaps understandable from his perspective as it seems the purpose of his work was to showcase narrative play). A classiciation system that includes all RPGs should be less biased.

Click to expand...

soviet said:

To be fair I think the GNS essays themselves do a pretty good job of exploring what's fun about sim play. The stuff about it not being a real agenda and so on all came from forum discussions, and I don't think was ever incorporated into the theory per se.

I definitely think sim is a real agenda and believe it or not MERP/Rolemaster is actually one of my favourite games.

You may be right that genre sim and physics sim are ultimately different agendas, I don't think it massively affects the utility or not of the theory itself if that's the case. Although we'd need a fourth agenda name, preferably one that forms a nice acronym!

Click to expand...

Micah Sweet said:

The forum discussions you are referencing prominently feature the primary architect of the theory, so I think they are relevant.

The rest of what you say makes sense to me.

Click to expand...

Micah Sweet said:

As a simulationist primarily, I won't support any RPG classification system that says my preferred playstyle doesn't really exist. On that basis alone the Forge loses out. And it's not my only basis.

Click to expand...

AbdulAlhazred said:

I'm a skeptic about a lot of things, BUT there is still a pretty coherent orientation to play (use whatever terms you want, I don't care but be careful about it) wherein the players say "I have created/adopted this character, X, and how we are going to play is that X is what it is, and has the story arc and progression that I want for it." THAT is a thing. Call it 'neo-trad', call it 'worms' call it any darn thing you want. I've labeled it neo-trad, and I KNOW it exists out there in the actual world as a type of play. Heck, it is a fun and amusing sort of play, sometimes. Certain concomitants arise from that core agenda too, and I'm perfectly happy to point out features aligned with that in various games.

Honestly, I think you are probably being a bit too demanding in terms of wanting an exact and invariant set of traits, and exclusively those traits. I think maybe you reject the idea of things like 'neo-trad' on the basis of the fact that they don't have perfectly determined boundaries. Yes, actual play is more like a mix/continuum and may even be inconsistent and veer somewhat within a given game (that is, game as played at a table). I don't think that invalidates the use of a label, it just needs to be understood that kvetching about the exact boundaries and definitions is less useful than being able to say "this is neo-trad" and then being able to talk about the specifics of THIS game with certain ideas in mind.

Click to expand...

Campbell said:

Clinton R. Nixon simply asked if simulation was an agenda, something you actively did at the table. His hypothesis was that simulation was a component of design, but not what we actively set out to do. Ron was among those who disagreed. It was never really about whether or not coherence, realism, et al mattered. Just if they were ever the primary activity of play.

Click to expand...

Micah Sweet said:

I don't consider physics-style simulation and genre-style simulation to be so close as to fall into the same category.

Click to expand...

Micah Sweet said:

On top of that, Edward's has on more than one occasion straight-up lambasted simulation as a playstyle (perhaps understandable from his perspective as it seems the purpose of his work was to showcase narrative play). A classiciation system that includes all RPGs should be less biased.

Click to expand...