Thinking About the Purpose of Mechanics from a Neo-Trad Perspective

[Thomas Shey]

I'd speculate that systems that either do definition of a character in very broad strokes or very great detail would be attractive, for reasons I mentioned earlier; if you do it in very broad strokes you can simply embed the character concept in it and hide it in the fog of the definition, if its in great detail you can potentially customize how the character operates in ways that works around any default dissonance you might have with how the system expresses what you're trying for.

Now for expression of the character in play--that's a much more complex question, I suspect.

 

[Pedantic]

I think there's another dimension here. System knowledge plays a bigger role in this kind of play than probably anything other than pure challenge/tactical play. I've definitely had to nurse players past disappointment when they've realized some definitional part of what their character is supposed to be isn't well supported by the rules, usually because the structure of the game as a game (usually combat) requires them to engage to some degree an ability/competence they have planned not to express in a given character, or because they've announced a character competence the rules don't actually support.

That latter is most often a problem with protagonism; they're looking for a story beat that matches the experience of a protagonist in other media, where million to one chances go the right way just the one time, or a character escapes danger without actually doing anything to mitigate it, in systems that don't actually allow for narrative manipulation of situation that way.

However, this can swing the other way with experienced players. I don't think I've seen anyone that seems to fit into this bucket who's really a one-trick PC. They might have themes/abilities they like, but they aren't playing the same character repeatedly, and generally seem to relish having a variety of OCs. Once they've internalized how a set of rules works and what it supports, they've tended to just preemptively constrain their character choices to something workable within the system. Given enough information, it's not really a problem to say, not play a sneak thief in a game that doesn't have a robust stealth system.

 

[pemerton]

So, going back to neotrad and mechanics I think the interesting question is less 'what is it' and more what systems and techniques work.

I think there's another dimension here. System knowledge plays a bigger role in this kind of play than probably anything other than pure challenge/tactical play. I've definitely had to nurse players past disappointment when they've realized some definitional part of what their character is supposed to be isn't well supported by the rules, usually because the structure of the game as a game (usually combat) requires them to engage to some degree an ability/competence they have planned not to express in a given character, or because they've announced a character competence the rules don't actually support.

<snip>

However, this can swing the other way with experienced players. I don't think I've seen anyone that seems to fit into this bucket who's really a one-trick PC. They might have themes/abilities they like, but they aren't playing the same character repeatedly, and generally seem to relish having a variety of OCs. Once they've internalized how a set of rules works and what it supports, they've tended to just preemptively constrain their character choices to something workable within the system.

My takeaway from this is that a free-descriptor based system seems a better fit than a "choose from list A, list B etc" type system.

That does reinforce my opinion that Fate is an excellent neotrad vehicle.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My takeaway from this is that a free-descriptor based system seems a better fit than a "choose from list A, list B etc" type system.

That does reinforce my opinion that Fate is an excellent neotrad vehicle.

The only problem is that you have to be willing to for the system to only express distinctions in character in the broadest way, and that the output is going to be primarily dependent on your narration to do any heavy lifting, because the system won't do it for you.
(And in the case of Fate, will tend to let you down if you want to be Good at X but Really Good at Y. I can't help but think if you're at all fussy in this area you'd be better off with Cortex, which gives a bit more wiggle-room here than Fate).

 

[niklinna]

I think there's something to be said for the fact that people were looking for this kind of expression before the era outlined in the essay (like, I think 90's VTM larpers are most likely neo trad before this era), but that's also largely true of literary movements, so I think demanding that degree of precision is missing the forest for the trees (in the sense of missing the overall arc that there's a distinct movement being discussed) or missing the trees for the forest (in the sense that bleeding Nordic Larp into what we're discussing could actually prevent us from understanding what was unique about these other examples that make them worth considering separately) in other words, it might dilute the point of having a map at all, and I think when discussing what are essentially just lenses through which to examine different mentalities toward roleplaying-- its ok to accept that the lens we're using is imperfect, without disqualifying it, something special was at any rate, happening during this era.

I see what you did there.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Universal systems would indeed have the benefit of latching directly onto the roleplaying without much fuss, but I also agree that crunchy systems that include lots of character options give a toolbox for self-expression that can get the player excited by letting them sort through it looking for the right stuff. One thing that I think is very important, is to carefully curate the game's activities to facilitate a 'narrative toybox' that neither limits nor enforces the character's ability to play out an arc according to the player's wishes. The trad games work well for this because the standard act of adventuring (or in VTM's case being a vampire) are activities that can be used to keep the conflict external to the character's inner self. The game should support episodic play where individual arcs can be self-contained, that way you can do the middle-star-trek thing of intermixing character pieces about the ensemble cast in with other self-contained stories that give them excuses to quip and be themselves. I feel like Mutants and Masterminds with it's very freeform character creation would be a good fit-- Kids on Brooms (never actually read Kids on Bikes) would work well too, because its way of handling spellcasting is thematic but completely freeform, distilling your magic into strategies instead of specific spells.

 

[pemerton]

The only problem is that you have to be willing to for the system to only express distinctions in character in the broadest way

I don't know Fate well enough to have a view. But this is not true for HeroQuest Revised.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'd speculate that systems that either do definition of a character in very broad strokes or very great detail would be attractive, for reasons I mentioned earlier; if you do it in very broad strokes you can simply embed the character concept in it and hide it in the fog of the definition, if its in great detail you can potentially customize how the character operates in ways that works around any default dissonance you might have with how the system expresses what you're trying for.

Now for expression of the character in play--that's a much more complex question, I suspect.

OK, so one extreme would be B/X D&D, lets say, where you just pick one of 4 or 5 classes/races and besides that you've got your equipment, and maybe spells, plus ability scores. I expect if we assume a 'put them in any order' on the ability scores, then you can build, at very low-fi, whatever character you envisage. You will run into problems with things like "Conan has all 18s" or some such with certain character concepts/ability score rolls, but that is maybe more a question of 'score inflation' than an actual problem with that system.

4e would kind of be the other extreme where you have tons of classes, MCing, hybrids, loads of feats, background, theme, and PP/ED, as well as proficiencies and power selection. As long as your concept isn't broken by some small detail of how your powers work or whatnot then you should be able to build something that's pretty expressive of the concept. It has the virtue over the B/X version of having a lot of 'hooks', but OTOH that also means mechanics are going to 'hook' you and that might not be what you want! Still, things like the Lazylord, for example, can be pulled of, which is kinda cool.

Personally I've built some pretty distinctive characters at both extremes, but then I'm not generally in the same sort of mindset as some of the more 'OC' people who want something very exactly a certain way. So, build options were never really, in and of themselves, something that either draws me to or repels me away from a system (though I admit, I can imagine there being too little, but still early D&D can be enough).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Universal systems would indeed have the benefit of latching directly onto the roleplaying without much fuss, but I also agree that crunchy systems that include lots of character options give a toolbox for self-expression that can get the player excited by letting them sort through it looking for the right stuff. One thing that I think is very important, is to carefully curate the game's activities to facilitate a 'narrative toybox' that neither limits nor enforces the character's ability to play out an arc according to the player's wishes. The trad games work well for this because the standard act of adventuring (or in VTM's case being a vampire) are activities that can be used to keep the conflict external to the character's inner self. The game should support episodic play where individual arcs can be self-contained, that way you can do the middle-star-trek thing of intermixing character pieces about the ensemble cast in with other self-contained stories that give them excuses to quip and be themselves. I feel like Mutants and Masterminds with it's very freeform character creation would be a good fit-- Kids on Brooms (never actually read Kids on Bikes) would work well too, because its way of handling spellcasting is thematic but completely freeform, distilling your magic into strategies instead of specific spells.

Again, it just depends on how specific your requirements are. There are definitely a lot of potential ways to get what you want out of a game. For example there used to be a PDF floating around of the main characters from Star Wars done up using 4e with nothing but reflavoring things. It was amazing! Like, the characters were beautiful expressions of the movie down to a T. Clearly it took a good bit of work for the author to do that, but it certainly demonstrated how much you can get out of a very detailed system, sometimes. Now, I don't think the PCs would have played exactly like the movie characters, at least not in any optimal sense, but they did have the right schticks and whatnot, so it might have really worked completely (though once they leveled up some, maybe not so much, hard to say).

OTOH while you can make a Lazy Lord, it is pretty hard in 4e to make a Nincompoop Wizard. You can do it with pure fluff, kinda, but overall it didn't strike me as super satisfactory. The game wasn't really designed for that sort of play, clearly, and it shows. Like in classic Hero system you can bend stuff a lot more, and I think it might really be the best of all for this, as it is as you say VERY universal/generic.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

This seems a bit too hostile to actually respond to, but giving it the benefit of the doubt-- six cultures of play isn't gibberish

It's a really poorly written essay, and the author will often spend paragraphs nominally defining something without actually doing anything of the sort:

This is again an autonym. The "Nordic" part is more about origins and mass of the player base than a true regional limitation of any sort. The "Larp" designation is part of the name for reasons that are unclear to me, even tho' its ideas started in tabletop roleplaying, and its philosophy and aspirations are realisable in tabletop games just as much as in dress-up games. (Edit: Spelling it as if it wasn't an acronym is a shibboleth of Nordic Larp, so in keeping with the autonym principle I've edited it to follow that convention when referring to the culture, but kept the activity as LARP)

Nordic Larp is built around the idea that the primary goal of a roleplaying game is immersion in an experience. Usually in a specific character's experiences, but sometimes in another kind of experience where player and character are not sharply distinguished - the experimental Jeep group often uses abstract games to affect the player directly. The more "bleed" you can create between a player and the role they occupy within the game, the better. Nordic Larps often feature quite long "sessions" (like weekend excursions) followed by long debriefs in which one processes the experiences one had as the character.

Embedding the player's character within a larger story can be one way of producing vivid, absorbing experiences, but it's not necessary and may even interfere with pulling it off (especially when done badly). Nordic Larp players emphasise their collaborative aspects, but when you drill into this, it's a rejection of trad's idea of a single DM-auteur crafting an experience, and the collaboration is there in service of improving immersion by blending player and character agency more thoroughly.

I think LARP conjures up images of people doing fantasy cosplay, and there are sometimes elements of that in some Nordic Larps, but I actually think the trend has been away from fantastical games to scenarios and set-ups that are closer to real life since it allows the incorporation of modern architecture, technology, and other details from the real world to facilitate immersion.

Nordic Larp's first major publication that I know of is the very self-conscious Manifesto of the Turku School by Mike Pohjola in 2000, and I think the early community is in dialogue with the Forge crew, tho' the two groups have very different ideals of play. By 2005 you have specific groups like Jeep developing these ideas, and in 2010 you get the publication of the Nordic Larp book. Nowadays there's also a wiki and an official website.

Nordic Larp is the part of roleplaying that seems to receive the most grants and funding for academic study. I'm never sure why, tho' I suspect some of it has to do with the interest in commodifying LARP ideas to create immersive entertainment experiences for tourists at mega-resorts in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. I'm not going to link to any specific individuals connected to Nordic Larp who have jobs there to avoid doxing private individuals, but they exist (please don't dox anyone in the comments, either).

The author appears to be talking to an audience that already knows what the heck they're talking about, but in the meantime, they spend an awful lot of words to convey almost nothing beyond their vocabulary. And what this section appears to be saying -- that the players create the narrative in this style of play -- is also part of their definition of Story Games and OC/Neo-Trad.

Everyone needs an editor or a proofreader, including this author, unless the obtuseness is intentional, as a way to signal that some people are inside the tent and others are outside.