What Games do you think are Neotrad?

[AbdulAlhazred]

If the party can either attack or not attack the bone naga ambassador, in what way are their actions constrained? The book gives you lots of options to use the material, but there is still no requirement that any particular thing happen. As I said before, if the party behavior is quite different than what the author expected, it's going to play differently, and not just because the PCs are willful. All those if-thens are contingencies to keep the party "on track" in terms of using the material in the module, but the existence of all those possibilities is just a tacit admission that you can't make the PCs do any particular thing. I think the mere existence of such guidance shows that the idea PCs will "stick to the module" out of some sense of etiquette is unrealistic, if not meaningless. At the end of the day, a module is just a collection of people, places, and potential events.

I'm very skeptical of the assertion that because published adventures often propose a mostly linear series of events, players are beholden to only do things that have been anticipated by the module writer. I know that I, as a GM, certainly don't invest a lot of energy preparing in such a way that I assume the players will fall in line. One reason I haven't done a lot in terms of publishing modules is that I don't necessarily care for the effort involved in turning a one-page writeup, front and back, into a thirty page adventure suitable for a stranger to run, accounting for and writing out all the contingencies I would deal with intuitively. That a published module has written out some helpful information, forks, and ideas, does not mean you, or the players, are beholden to a specific course of action. It certainly does not mean the GM is restricted to running what's in the module.

I can think of very few actual play experiences I've had that were run this way. Even in organized play experiences, like Adventurer's League, there were very few rules about completing particular sections of content. At one point, I was on a FB group specifically about running a particular hardback adventure series, and there were whole threads about how the PCs interacted with certain NPCs or defined their own goals.

To me, the idea of a bunch of players showing up and thinking they have to "stick to the module," whatever that means, it just makes me feel a little sad. What happened to them in the past, that the spirit of curiosity and adventure was beaten out of them? Anything will stick to the module. Your job is to be interesting.

So, what you are asserting is that the content of the fiction of the campaign in any game is not a function of the material on proffer from the GM, in the form of a module or some other similar form of material that was generated largely or wholly indepedent of the specifics of the PCs being played? I find this assertion to be preposterous, to put it bluntly.

You're running Phandelver, there will be a mine, a town, a ruin full of goblinoids, a dragon lair, etc. Sure, the players can have their PCs visit them in several different orders (but the mine will always come last and typically the town first). They might even have some options involving whom they fight, I'm not sure as I only played through it, I didn't read it.

Regardless of anything else, the story will revolve around some PCs being hired to find a lost mine. Sure, they can just lark off in some random direction and ignore the entire content of the module, but that's VERY UNLIKELY to happen. Most GMs will probably deploy some in-game social persuasion to get things back on track, maybe even just a flat out appeal to the players at the table to not hose the GM. Some GMs might then go so far as to employ in-game force such that the PCs arrive at an appropriate location (IE by moving them around, making them get lost and stumble upon the location, capture, etc.).

Note that the material and situations bear no relationship to the PCs. There isn't the slightest anticipation that the content of the adventure is sensitive in any way to the PCs BIFTs for example. It is a canned adventure, it just happens how it happens. Sure, RP of your character may bear on what choices you make in terms of which locations to visit and what to do there, but play is ABOUT a story that was pre-authored!

Isn't this FUNDAMENTALLY different from playing, say, Dungeon World, where the GM could well devise the equivalent of Phandelver as an adventure front, but only after session 0, which is going to include elucidating the history and goals of the PCs, from a player perspective, and where the principles dictate that this information should form an important input to the construction of any front, steading, map, etc. That is, the game will be ABOUT the PCs. They are the main characters, the protagonists in the fullest and broadest sense of the term.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So, to me, Dungeon World (merely as an example) epitomizes a certain player centered form of play. Imagin if you will an example from some of our play:

Session 0: Having agreed to play DW, 4 of us get together and I sort of get 'volunteered' to be the GM. The other three then create characters. They choose to create 3 humans, a Barbarian with 'Herculean Appetites: Mortal pleasures' a thief, and a Fighter who wields a huge axe. They all declare themselves to be neutral and state that they are 3 brothers! Naturally I ask where they're from and the fighter tells me a small marginal farm outside a village. The thief states that their parents are dead, and the Barbarian that he spent part of his youth captured by people living to the north, and recently reunited with his brothers. They pick some bonds appropriate to this backstory and the game gets started.

The PCs then state, in response to further questions, that their goal is to somehow score some money so the barbarian can indulge, and the other two aren't allergic to coin either. So, I drop them into a bar in a town down south of the village, they've never been here, but they heard someone is selling a treasure map here. Immediately they're in over there heads, there are various unsavory characters around, all after this map! The Thief player then reveals that he has the deed to their (almost worthless) farm. He wants to parley that into gaining the map!

So, nothing too profound. The characters don't have any high ambitions, or great ideals to uphold, but they do have a solid bond, a working backstory that helps set the stage for something to happen. I as the GM have invented the map, but purely in response to the players avowed desire to 'get rich'. They're also in a precarious situation, a strange place, dangerous people, etc. There's a bit of the fantastic, a treasure map. It isn't much, but we're only 2 hours into the game at this point and the action is about to heat up!

Now, I would fully agree, 5e can deliver this kind of a setup, fine actually. It is just MOST LIKELY to get a bit off into the weeds, whereas DW really won't. IIRC the thief pissed off some nasty guy, they absconded with the map, and a bunch of angry would-be treasure hunters started hunting THEM. The barbarian was pissed at the thief because he was hankering for a drinking binge and now he was on the run! The thief was irritated at the fighter because he grabbed the map off the table and pounded feet, not a very subtle play! The fighter was mad at the barbarian because he got bamboozled and lost the deed while trying to acquire drink.

This was a fun game, and it took on more significant dimensions as the characters got fleshed out. Turns out the barbarian also had a blood brother amongst his adopted people, and that created some complications and obligations (are you going to hunt treasure and drink, or help out your blood brother?). The thief didn't trust the fighter with the map, but they made up after some sort of situation happened, etc. In the long run there was a campaign front about the awakening of the mythical frost dragons, or something like that, which was suggested when the barbarian stole a magic weapon, even though he was told it was keeping the dragons frozen (He wanted to sell it for more drink and women).

Not a high brow game, but fun and it was full on action all the time, except when the PCs found a place to Carouse, at which point things always went south.

 

[pawsplay]

So, what you are asserting is that the content of the fiction of the campaign in any game is not a function of the material on proffer from the GM, in the form of a module or some other similar form of material that was generated largely or wholly indepedent of the specifics of the PCs being played? I find this assertion to be preposterous, to put it bluntly.

I find it to be incomprehensible. I don't know what you think I said, or what I'm supposed to think you think I said. But maybe just respond to something I said.

 

[pemerton]

I've said before that the primary job of players, the only thing that I'd put outside of the gameplay loop itself, is "wanting things." Obviously, that requires some GM collaboration. If you want to find your lost brother, I will have to kidnap him for you, and there's a whole field of "encouraging players to want things" we tend to call plot hooks. It's a category error to treat that as the complete set of what players are allowed to want though.

Plot hooks are about the GM wanting things, namely, wanting the players to declare actions that engage with the GM's prepared content.

If the party can either attack or not attack the bone naga ambassador, in what way are their actions constrained?

I don't know. I didn't say that their actions are constrained. I said that the GM knows what is happening next. For instance, in the examples I gave the GM knows that the PCs will encounter the Drow battle and meet some Drow nobles; or that the PCs will deal with the bone naga, and then be chased out of the city, and then go to some other place (even making sure they get there by using the tiefling if necessary to point them there).

 

[pawsplay]

Plot hooks are about the GM wanting things, namely, wanting the players to declare actions that engage with the GM's prepared content.

I don't know. I didn't say that their actions are constrained. I said that the GM knows what is happening next. For instance, in the examples I gave the GM knows that the PCs will encounter the Drow battle and meet some Drow nobles; or that the PCs will deal with the bone naga, and then be chased out of the city, and then go to some other place (even making sure they get there by using the tiefling if necessary to point them there).

So the party will either fight the bone naga or not fight the bone naga, and they will leave the city and go some other place, and an NPC will talk to them. That sounds like a very far thing from knowing what will happen next.

 

[Pedantic]

Plot hooks are about the GM wanting things, namely, wanting the players to declare actions that engage with the GM's prepared content.

Plot hooks exist as a means to lubricate the player/GM relationship. You need the players to want things, you make stuff you hope they want, you present it in the most interesting light. Plot hooks are marketing, but the game ultimately relies on the players making some kind of purchase, which in turn relies on the GM selling things they want.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Plot hooks exist as a means to lubricate the player/GM relationship. You need the players to want things, you make stuff you hope they want, you present it in the most interesting light. Plot hooks are marketing, but the game ultimately relies on the players making some kind of purchase, which in turn relies on the GM selling things they want.

Right, but you can see how there's a big difference between a game where the GM puts out plot hooks to 'sell' to the players an adventure location that he thought up and wrote vs one where the GM examines the inputs of the players and generates a scene frame directly based on that.

 

[pemerton]

Plot hooks exist as a means to lubricate the player/GM relationship. You need the players to want things, you make stuff you hope they want, you present it in the most interesting light.

In this sentence, "hope" is a particular form of want. It's not just that the GM hopes that the player wants the hook; the GM wants the player to want the hook.

Which is what I said: Plot hooks are about the GM wanting things, namely, wanting the players to declare actions that engage with the GM's prepared content.

Plot hooks are marketing, but the game ultimately relies on the players making some kind of purchase, which in turn relies on the GM selling things they want.

Well, marketing doesn't rely on the advertiser selling things the customer antecedently wants. It relies on the advertiser generating new wants in the customer.

In the context of RPGing, there's also the fact that the players - presumably - want to play a game, and so decide that their PCs want the things that are promised by the hook.

you can see how there's a big difference between a game where the GM puts out plot hooks to 'sell' to the players an adventure location that he thought up and wrote vs one where the GM examines the inputs of the players and generates a scene frame directly based on that.

Well, I certainly can!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Right, but you can see how there's a big difference between a game where the GM puts out plot hooks to 'sell' to the players an adventure location that he thought up and wrote vs one where the GM examines the inputs of the players and generates a scene frame directly based on that.

There's a difference, but "big" difference assumes he's writing whatever material he's doing completely in a vacuum without any awareness of his players and what interests they have. Basically, I think you're excluding a fairly large middle here.

 

[aramis erak]

The things I think typify neotrad are

• Fully build characters by choices, not fortune.
• Provisions for cheating death of a PC.
• GM centric play
• formalized mechanics intended to be used

Things I see concomitant but not at all definitive (but are definitive for not being Trad):

• metacurrency
• fine grained results (more than just CS/S/F/CF)
• Story as a trump over rules at the GM side
• Rule 0 is "Don't be a «bleep»"

I'd put Tails from the Loop as neotrad, but not the other games I've run within Year Zero engine. They're not trad, but not quite neotrad, as they tend to have REALLY rough combat systems. Dragonbane included.