What Games do you think are Neotrad?

[Reynard]

Whats it called if you are a trad GM, but also like when your players are neotrad? I see the distinction, but it very often feels like splitting hairs to me.

I am still confused as to whether "neo-trad" is a playstyle or a design ethos.

 

[GobHag]

Ah. Thanks.

So how does that reveal itself in system, specifically? I understand how the GM can decide whether the world moves even if the PCs choose not to act (which is the way I try and do it), but I am not sure how the game system can make that happen.

Some forcefully(Fabula Ultima a PC can die only if they make a heroic sacrifice, otherwise they surrender and suffer narrative setback/the story's theme changes/they forcefully make a negative Bond towards the Villain. 13th Age every character must be tied in someway or another with the big players of the light setting--The Icons.) some more as prompts for the GM to keep in mind( Aspirations, Exalted's intimacy systems, 4e suggesting that players make a list of what loot they get in the future.)

 

[payn]

I am still confused as to whether "neo-trad" is a playstyle or a design ethos.

Exactly. I obviously get a deep chargen system that allows for realizing a character concept. Though, does neotrad go deeper than that? Does neotrad include mechanics in play that reinforce the idea of character actualization? In the case of D&D, it certainly does the former, but never really the latter.

 

[GobHag]

I am still confused as to whether "neo-trad" is a playstyle or a design ethos.

It's a playstyle, but playstyle inevitably creates a design ethos as players try their hand at designing a game themselves or designers are making changes/new systems to better help with that playstyle.

Like look at Chronicles as to how a system can develop into being more and more player character focused, the latest splat--deviant the renegades--is the most Neotrad thing out of all the gamelines since even the enemy faction(conspiracies) are actually designed together with the players that scales according to their 'power level' at the start of session 0.

 

[Reynard]

It's a playstyle, but playstyle inevitably creates a design ethos as players try their hand at designing a game themselves or designers are making changes/new systems to better help with that playstyle.

Like look at Chronicles as to how a system can develop into being more and more player character focused, the latest splat--deviant the renegades--is the most Neotrad thing out of all the gamelines since even the enemy faction(conspiracies) are actually designed together with the players that scales according to their 'power level' at the start of session 0.

Thanks. I am personally wary of mechanics that tell players what to do with their characters and GMs what to do with their world. I think those things are better conducted through play choices rather than mechanics.

I guess I'm just trad-trad. Or old.

So old.

 

[Wofano Wotanto]

I obviously get a deep chargen system that allows for realizing a character concept.

I'm not sure that's mandatory, simply because it seems to imply that a rules-light system couldn't be "neotrad" however that's defined. For ex, I'd call most PBtA games both neotrad and rules-light, with minimal customization beyond tweaking details on your playbook a bit. I mean, yes, a deep, involved chargen system can also serve well here but I don't think it's required.

Does neotrad include mechanics in play that reinforce the idea of character actualization?

That seems like it would be a common approach to it, yeah. Customizing what a character has to do to advance is pretty clearly neotrad, while just requiring a set number of generic XP or skill usages or whatever that all characters are trying to achieve to get better is more traditional. Going back to PBtA as an example, many playbooks are trying to do unique things to grow - and some of them have the potential for negative growth as they accumulate scars and wear over their career (although the FitD systems are more explicit about that kind of career-ending doom track as you accumulate traumas).

 

[Reynard]

For ex, I'd call most PBtA games both neotrad and rules-light,

Aren't PbtA games "narrative"? I'm more confused than ever on this categorization.

 

[Wofano Wotanto]

Thanks. I am personally wary of mechanics that tell players what to do with their characters and GMs what to do with their world. I think those things are better conducted through play choices rather than mechanics.

Yes, but at the same time most (maybe all?) trad games with any kind of advancement system beyond "just show up for X number of sessions" are already doing that to some degree. They're just less transparent about it. Depending on what edition of D&D you're playing, you may need to collect wealth or fight monsters or overcome skill challenges or just roleplay convincingly or some combination of all of those to earn xp, which is definitely telling players what to do with their characters. Runequest/CoC players want to test as many of their skills as they can to improve them but have to balance the risks of doing so in dangerous situations with the potential reward. Advancement systems ultimately push you to do things in game the way the designers expect it to be played.

Aren't PbtA games "narrative"? I'm more confused than ever on this categorization.

I may be wrong in my definition of both terms, but is there a reason "narrative" and "neotrad" can't mix?

 

[payn]

Yes, but at the same time most (maybe all?) trad games with any kind of advancement system beyond "just show up for X number of sessions" are already doing that to some degree. They're just less transparent about it. Depending on what edition of D&D you're playing, you may need to collect wealth or fight monsters or overcome skill challenges or just roleplay convincingly or some combination of all of those to earn xp, which is definitely telling players what to do with their characters. Runequest/CoC players want to test as many of their skills as they can to improve them but have to balance the risks of doing so in dangerous situations with the potential reward. Advancement systems ultimately push you to do things in game the way the designers expect it to be played.

I dont want to speak for Reynard, but I think they are of the same mind on the topic. I dont mind the simplest of clues as intended play. For example, skills that let rogues pick locks or sneak around, but I prefer them to be loose enough that their interpretation is broad and can be applied as the player sees fit. As opposed to games that award XP every single time an action is taken in the perceived correct way.

I may be wrong in my definition of both terms, but is there a reason "narrative" and "neotrad" can't mix?

That is where a lot of confusion sets in. Are these cultures as in different philosophies or are they deign elements in which they fly solo or can work congruently?

 

[Reynard]

Yes, but at the same time most (maybe all?) trad games with any kind of advancement system beyond "just show up for X number of sessions" are already doing that to some degree. They're just less transparent about it. Depending on what edition of D&D you're playing, you may need to collect wealth or fight monsters or overcome skill challenges or just roleplay convincingly or some combination of all of those to earn xp, which is definitely telling players what to do with their characters. Runequest/CoC players want to test as many of their skills as they can to improve them but have to balance the risks of doing so in dangerous situations with the potential reward. Advancement systems ultimately push you to do things in game the way the designers expect it to be played.

Rewarding certain play through XP strikes me as different than forcing players to engage certain elements of play as described above by GobHag.

I may be wrong in my definition of both terms, but is there a reason "narrative" and "neotrad" can't mix?

I'm going to watch the Questing Beast video again and see if I can figure it out.