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

[Voadam]

I was a little wrong on B/X, it does have a paragraph on the DM optionally using stats to adjudicate things not covered.

This is a discretionary DM option, but does include things like "thinking of a forgotten clue".

Page B60:

"There's always a chance." The DM may want to base a character's chance of doing something on his or her ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and so forth). To perform a difficult task (such as climbing up a rope or thinking of a forgotten clue), the player should roll the ability score or less on 1d20. The DM may give a bonus or penalty to the roll, depending on the difficulty of the action (-4 for a simple task to +4 for a difficult one). A roll of 1 should always succeed, and a roll of 20 should always fail."

Also there is a secondary reference sentence outside of the ability score section to playing as intelligently as the intelligence score:

Page B11

"Note that playing an alignment does not mean a character must do stupid things. A character should always act as intelligently as the Intelligence score shows, unless there is a reason to act otherwise (such as a magical curse)."

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I was a little wrong on B/X, it does have a paragraph on the DM optionally using stats to adjudicate things not covered.

This is a discretionary DM option, but does include things like "thinking of a forgotten clue".

Page B60:

"There's always a chance." The DM may want to base a character's chance of doing something on his or her ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and so forth). To perform a difficult task (such as climbing up a rope or thinking of a forgotten clue), the player should roll the ability score or less on 1d20. The DM may give a bonus or penalty to the roll, depending on the difficulty of the action (-4 for a simple task to +4 for a difficult one). A roll of 1 should always succeed, and a roll of 20 should always fail."

Also there is a secondary reference sentence outside of the ability score section to playing as intelligently as the intelligence score:

Page B11

"Note that playing an alignment does not mean a character must do stupid things. A character should always act as intelligently as the Intelligence score shows, unless there is a reason to act otherwise (such as a magical curse)."

Frankly I think there's not a very consistent line here. Even within a given game things might vary.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I should add this hinges on what @Manbearcat means by “conversation trap”. Is it skillfully tricking everyone into going to the wrong place and being angry at each other while you steal the captain’s ship and wife and daughter (like Cugel in Cugel: The Skybreak Spatterlight), or is it approaching the conversation as a gameable element to get what you want?

Contextually, it appeared it referred to asking questions to the GM until you've trapped them into a decision they don't want as a consequence of prior answers. In other words, a variation of "playing the GM" (though the one I'm more familiar with is appealing to their biases).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Maybe you have a better idea than I do, but I'm not sure what game system is out there would allow them to never fail all the time about the things related to their character concept.

You're still misreading my statement. Its not about never failing. It's about the difference between two abilities being mechanically distinct enough. There are tons of games where that's true; they're just not games that are dependent on a resolution system that's deliberately very tight. The latter is a virtue in many ways, but it has a price; there's less room for mechanical distinction in a system that's, essentially, based on 4D3 than, say, one that's based on 3D6 (I don't recall whether Fate does modifiers much, either). Basically there are games that can have a bonus of +1 and a bonus of +2 and a bonus of +6 without destroying the system, and being able to see those sorts of distinctions really does matter to some people.

 

[Aldarc]

You're still misreading my statement. Its not about never failing. It's about the difference between two abilities being mechanically distinct enough. There are tons of games where that's true; they're just not games that are dependent on a resolution system that's deliberately very tight. The latter is a virtue in many ways, but it has a price; there's less room for mechanical distinction in a system that's, essentially, based on 4D3 than, say, one that's based on 3D6 (I don't recall whether Fate does modifiers much, either). Basically there are games that can have a bonus of +1 and a bonus of +2 and a bonus of +6 without destroying the system, and being able to see those sorts of distinctions really does matter to some people.

If I am still misreading your statement, it's because I don't think you are being particularly clear with communicating your point. You were talking about players desiring a "+4 steady state" in Fate, which amounts to never failing. When I said as much in my post, you said that you didn't disagree with what I said. If your argument just amounts to arguing that people like to see distinctions in numbers, then that seems almost like a banal truism. Okay?

 

[Thomas Shey]

If I am still misreading your statement, it's because I don't think you are being particularly clear with communicating your point. You were talking about players desiring a "+4 steady state" in Fate, which amounts to never failing. When I said as much in my post, you said that you didn't disagree with what I said. If your argument just amounts to arguing that people like to see distinctions in numbers, then that seems almost like a banal truism. Okay?

My point was that to be visible and operating on a steady state you'd need to have things like +4s available. I agree that's not something you want to see in a 4D3 resolution system, which is why Fate doesn't do it. But it also means you can't really represent the distinctions I'm talking about in Fate in a way that some people would want it. The system is just too chunky, and really wants to manage things that get much outside a +2 with Fate points. That's not a compatible structure for what some people are going to want. That's why I said its a good choice for some, but not all the people who want to define their characters to suit themselves; it fits the open-ended need in scope, but not in range.

Is that clearer?

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Thank you so much for this post! I find this fascinating. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this form of role play emerged with no particular reference to Dungeons and Dragons or other TTRPGs, and was more akin to a kind of collective fan fiction writing. The way this ethos feeds into contemporary ttrpg play culture is really interesting, especially when/if it can be divorced from 5e as a fiction generator. It also raises the question of what constitutes the "game" part of rpgs. The retired adventurer article describes it thusly:



In your experience, did participants regard this process as being a "game." It would be interesting if they did, but even if they did not, it speaks to the way that creating characters and working within genres/styles of writing involves aspects of play or of gaming. Even with your combat example, the element of play seems to be a kind of virtuoso in writing.

While I see why the article lumped neo trad with OC, this also speaks to some important differences. Notably, in my mind I tend to associate neo trad with character optimization and powergaming, which relies on some mathmatical resolution system for the sake of 'system mastery.' While the focus is on character, that type of character building seems quite separate from the OC style you describe.

I can't find it now, but I know Jay Dragon has talked about the influence of OC play in their games, and I feel like Wanderhome, a GM-less game with hardly any mechanics, is maybe a kind of spiritual successor to this style.

Interestingly, I never really thought about it at the time, but I think some did and some didn't think of it as a game, for instance Fizzy Bubbles knew it was a game and does have an extensive ruleset which you apparently need to be logged on to see, (that's a password I haven't used in a long time, woof), so maybe contrast that with something like: Gaia Online (which you don't need to be logged into)

I distinctly remember other people formally alluding to them as "RPs," on the subject of its relationship to tabletop, that is something that I am actually unclear on, it's entirely possible that the trend had begun in such a way before spreading to the forums that I was on (where people mostly hadn't played TTRPGs for sure) but I wouldn't shocked if the whole time some people had been saying RP, and other people had been saying game, and I just thought of them as synonyms without realizing it could be conceptually loaded.

I will note my writing is cleaner post my adult education than it ever would have been then, that third person mode was absolutely a thing people did, but you also saw this:

Jackie: /Turns to Marissa, gives a nervous little wave/ So uh, how are you doing today?

My understanding of those two seemingly contradictory elements is that the lens of TTRPGs, when paired with the mentality of those communities and the goals of "OC" as seen on those message boards leads to the rules lawyering and power gaming as a means of navigation-- seperately if you accept the era at work here, you have a very, very strong "I have experience with Video Game RPG rulesets or MTG or something, and am prepared to engage in Instrumental Play (note the section of the video which is way too long, the research cited in this specific bit is actually incredibly relevant)" component that is essentially co-morbid without necessarily emerging from the same causes, but a constant in the experience of these participants as a historical matter.

 

[niklinna]

My understanding of those two seemingly contradictory elements is that the lens of TTRPGs, when paired with the mentality of those communities and the goals of "OC" as seen on those message boards leads to the rules lawyering and power gaming as a means of navigation-- seperately if you accept the era at work here, you have a very, very strong "I have experience with Video Game RPG rulesets or MTG or something, and am prepared to engage in Instrumental Play (note the section of the video which is way too long, the research cited in this specific bit is actually incredibly relevant)" component that is essentially co-morbid without necessarily emerging from the same causes, but a constant in the experience of these participants as a historical matter.

I really enjoy the videos of Folding Ideas. They're dang long by modern attention spans but always full of good stuff, especially this one.

Edit: Fixed a typo.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Thinking about it in terms of 4e. You can see both positives and negatives of its approach. The very level playing field, and design techniques like focusing most of the effects of powers onto damage, and the very existence of A/E/D/U and codification of powers COULD work against some character concepts. OTOH it does offer a lot of 'cool move space' and a pretty decent stage on which to use it, along with hooks into the other sorts of character elements those might relate to. So probably a more effective design in that space would be less concerned with balance, or using a single character architecture, and maybe open things up more towards different types of design, like characters that do combos, cooldowns, etc. That's obviously only in one dimension of character, but a game really designed for that might do things like tie some mental state (that is basically RPed by the player, maybe with some loose rules) to their mechanics, like "I have to get really angry before I actually let loose!" Things like that, which I expect are more likely to appear maybe in Japanese RPGs? I'm not sure, I haven't really ever played any of them, just heard things.

This is something that Pathfinder 2e takes up, the class features are asymmetrical, and each class has core mechanics (with varying degrees of imposition on play-style) that create ludic texture for each one. A swashbuckler must do a cool thing (distilled into a skill check, usually attached to one of the other game's actions, or to an improvised stunt) this gives them 'panache' which is a state that confers small bonuses, but it's also a currency that can be consumed for a big damage or condition-inflicting 'finisher.' In contrast, a Ranger selects a target and marks it for execution, then gets bonuses (reductions to multi-attack penalties, extra AC, or extra damage) against that specific target giving it a focus-fire playstyle, in contrast a fighter gets a +2 to hit and so gets that same damage by hitting and critting more often, e.g. skipping the mechanic for a better-than-you base state that functions as its feel, meanwhile a rogue must somehow put the enemy off balance to get sneak attack damage, whether by coordination or a stunt. The balance is actually vital to maintaining expression in this instance, because it affirms that your ability to make expressive choices does not compromise your instrumental viability-- you aren't pressured to skip the playstyle that you want for one you need.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I really enjoying the videos of Folding Ideas. They're dang long by modern attention spans but always full of good stuff, especially this one.

I just relistened to a solid portion of that one, the first chapter pulls together (through the lens World of Warcraft) something about how play priorities and agenda's of the game, intersect with those of the players, that I think injects a lot of new life into the discourse of goals of play and the degree to which designers can meaningfully be said to control them. The designer it and the research it cites to support, can attempt to incentivize or compel play, but that influence shouldn't be overestimated, and this is in an environment where every participant is a part of the same table.