What Games do you think are Neotrad?

Thomas Shey · Apr 16, 2024

Well, as you say, some of it is that you can have general shared authority in some of this, or what you call "the sense of archeology" but not both. But some of it is either an inherent lack of desire to do things like run NPCs, or expectation having printed on people enough its a bridge too far.

None of that even explains the rules-adjucation thing, but I'll not go down that rabbit-hole again here, as I've reached the point I just end up getting surly about it.

Emberashh · Apr 16, 2024

I think a lot of things we think of as being the GMs problem mostly stem from trying nothing and having no other ideas when it comes to the expectation of the players actually knowing the rules, how to put those rules into practice, and, I think most importantly, coming to the table with more than just the a general want to play the game. (Eg, having in-game goals and desires and all that).

Obviously, when players are new its one thing to not expect them to have any of that, but too many games (re almost all of them), saddle way too much on the GM to foster that new players growth into something that will be let them focus more on the things the GM is there for. And thats assuming they make an attempt to make anything easier on the GM at all besides putting out a book to do all the fun parts for you.

Personally speaking though, my ideal would be a game where the GM doesn't actually have to know how player characters work at all, and where their play experience is fully in the realm of Player But Different, rather than just a facilitator. Hence, quite a lot of design decisions in my game.

Thomas Shey · Apr 16, 2024

Emberashh said:
I think a lot of things we think of as being the GMs problem mostly stem from trying nothing and having no other ideas when it comes to the expectation of the players actually knowing the rules, how to put those rules into practice, and, I think most importantly, coming to the table with more than just the a general want to play the game. (Eg, having in-game goals and desires and all that).

It doesn't help that there is, shall we say, a large degree of variance in how much people GMing are willing to accept players adding elements to the setting on a player level.

Emberashh · Apr 16, 2024

Thomas Shey said:
It doesn't help that there is, shall we say, a large degree of variance in how much people GMing are willing to accept players adding elements to the setting on a player level.

Idk, that to me seems more like an issue of consent and an issue of the GM potentially biting off more than they need to just to play a game.

Like, for one, there shouldn't be any case where a GM making up their own setting should be causing issues with the players. Thats just an etiquette thing and if the group cannot reconcile that, somebody else needs to GM or they need to do something else.

And while I get the allure of world building, most games that aren't just a pamphlet already have a more than useable setting to use, and you need a lot less than that just to play. Arguably you don't need a setting at all depending on what the group is there for. I still don't know what DCC's default setting is, if it even has one.

But at the same time, if you are going to worldbuild and make a unique setting, there is zero reason to not do that in collaboration with everyone else playing, even up to the point of letting it happen in-game.

Being unwilling to do that to me is just kind of immature and again goes back to the consent problem, and neither one is something we need to restructure the whole game around. The game was never the issue.

Thomas Shey · Apr 16, 2024

Emberashh said:
Idk, that to me seems more like an issue of consent and an issue of the GM potentially biting off more than they need to just to play a game.

Like, for one, there shouldn't be any case where a GM making up their own setting should be causing issues with the players. Thats just an etiquette thing and if the group cannot reconcile that, somebody else needs to GM or they need to do something else.

I'll just note as I always do, that people don't get that people who want to play will often put up with a lot more irritating things than this, and in some cases the GM available is literally the only one that wants to do it. With no offense intended to you personally, people who don't get that need to get around in the hobby more.

Emberashh said:
And while I get the allure of world building, most games that aren't just a pamphlet already have a more than useable setting to use, and you need a lot less than that just to play. Arguably you don't need a setting at all depending on what the group is there for. I still don't know what DCC's default setting is, if it even has one.

But at the same time, if you are going to worldbuild and make a unique setting, there is zero reason to not do that in collaboration with everyone else playing, even up to the point of letting it happen in-game.

Being unwilling to do that to me is just kind of immature and again goes back to the consent problem, and neither one is something we need to restructure the whole game around. The game was never the issue.

It doesn't matter if it is or not; its still a common issue and to ignore it generically is to ignore the fact this limits what people are often, in practice, capable of doing.

mamba · Apr 16, 2024

pemerton said:
The whole notion of "screwing up", even in jest, makes the point, doesn't it?

not really, of course it is not just freeform play where a derailed main plot will just be abandoned entirely, that is pretty much impossible if you want to even loosely stick to a published adventure. It however still means that some things can be skipped, others will go differently than imagined and yet others need to be improvised because the adventure does not cover what the players are doing.

That still does not mean it is all 'preprogrammed' however, which would be required for the GM to always know the next step

Emberashh · Apr 16, 2024

Thomas Shey said:
I'll just note as I always do, that people don't get that people who want to play will often put up with a lot more irritating things than this, and in some cases the GM available is literally the only one that wants to do it. With no offense intended to you personally, people who don't get that need to get around in the hobby more.

I would say that people being unwilling to GM is rooted in the same issue. There is a reason after all I am a huge proponent of treating the GM as a player, and emphasizing their experience as being centered around fun, and not just a bunch of work.

Thomas Shey said:
t doesn't matter if it is or not; its still a common issue and to ignore it generically is to ignore the fact this limits what people are often, in practice, capable of doing.

It is what? I'm not certain what you're referring to, and my entire point in that section is that any "limits" are entirely self-imposed.

thefutilist · Apr 16, 2024

The-Magic-Sword said:
My experience is that this doesn't hold up in practice, if it did my message-board RP days would have had static, centralized, Game Masters and they almost never did-- if no one expects to look at a Game Master for content, then the responsibility simply diffuses to everyone, and pools a bit on those who are playing the most. The presence of a Game Master in the hobby is distinct from the necessity of having a Game Master in the hobby, unless the only goal is the experience provided by a static Game Master anyway, but that's trying to make the conclusion a premise. In other words, you don't need those procedures to have a different creative relationship.

I think you’re missing the forest for the trees, although that’s partially my fault.

How about this. Different types of authority give rise to different types of creative relationship. I dislike the creative relationship between Brennan and his players and between the participants in most message-board play.

I’ve written and am currently playing in a gmless game, I do like the creative relationships in that game.

The-Magic-Sword · Apr 16, 2024

thefutilist said:
I think you’re missing the forest for the trees, although that’s partially my fault.

How about this. Different types of authority give rise to different types of creative relationship. I dislike the creative relationship between Brennan and his players and between the participants in most message-board play.

I’ve written and am currently playing in a gmless game, I do like the creative relationships in that game.

Hey that's fine, dislike is dislike.

Thomas Shey · Apr 16, 2024

Emberashh said:
I would say that people being unwilling to GM is rooted in the same issue. There is a reason after all I am a huge proponent of treating the GM as a player, and emphasizing their experience as being centered around fun, and not just a bunch of work.

Even if they do, if they see it as a different kind of fun, they're not necessarily going to want to do it. Not everyone finds the same fun things, well, fun.

Emberashh said:
It is what? I'm not certain what you're referring to, and my entire point in that section is that any "limits" are entirely self-imposed.

And? You act like that makes a difference in practice. The fact the limits are self-imposed does not make them not there.

What Games do you think are Neotrad?

Thomas Shey

Legend

Emberashh

Hero

Thomas Shey

Legend

Emberashh

Hero

Thomas Shey

Legend

mamba

Legend

Emberashh

Hero

thefutilist

Explorer

The-Magic-Sword

Small Ball Archmage

Thomas Shey

Legend

Similar Threads