What Games do you think are Neotrad?

[AbdulAlhazred]

I understand the concept of purist-for-system, I just think it's very much of its time. IMO, there's a reason that style of design fell out of use. That doesn't mean that every unfashionable bit of design is bad -- but I think you can read something like AD&D or Rolemaster and find that there actually are reasons for a lot of things existing beyond an abstract commitment to completeness. FWIW, as someone who used to be really interested in 'simulationism', I'm increasingly convinced that it doesn't exist as an agenda, in Forge jargon. I see it as more of an inflection or mode, in the same way that we can talk of literary realism, naturalism, modernism, etc. Seen this way, you absolutely can judge whether a given design is good or bad for its purpose. This ties back to 'neotrad', too, because I think it's pretty clear that a lot of what gets included under that umbrella serves disparate purposes, and the category (to the extend that it's coherent at all) is based on particular inflections or techniques.

Regarding labels like neotrad, OSR, storygames, etc., I'm extremely cynical. They seem to be advanced principally by people who fit the description of 'influencer' better than 'designer' or 'critic'. A huge amount of discussion abour RPGs online is about branding and cliqueishness, unfortunately.

I'm a skeptic about a lot of things, BUT there is still a pretty coherent orientation to play (use whatever terms you want, I don't care but be careful about it) wherein the players say "I have created/adopted this character, X, and how we are going to play is that X is what it is, and has the story arc and progression that I want for it." THAT is a thing. Call it 'neo-trad', call it 'worms' call it any darn thing you want. I've labeled it neo-trad, and I KNOW it exists out there in the actual world as a type of play. Heck, it is a fun and amusing sort of play, sometimes. Certain concomitants arise from that core agenda too, and I'm perfectly happy to point out features aligned with that in various games.

Honestly, I think you are probably being a bit too demanding in terms of wanting an exact and invariant set of traits, and exclusively those traits. I think maybe you reject the idea of things like 'neo-trad' on the basis of the fact that they don't have perfectly determined boundaries. Yes, actual play is more like a mix/continuum and may even be inconsistent and veer somewhat within a given game (that is, game as played at a table). I don't think that invalidates the use of a label, it just needs to be understood that kvetching about the exact boundaries and definitions is less useful than being able to say "this is neo-trad" and then being able to talk about the specifics of THIS game with certain ideas in mind.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As a simulationist primarily, I won't support any RPG classification system that says my preferred playstyle doesn't really exist. On that basis alone the Forge loses out. And it's not my only basis.

I'm a bit puzzled by this statement. Edward's formulation of 'S' surely encompasses the sort of play you espouse. It does indicate that this play has some commonality with certain other styles. Anyway, most writers on the subject have moved on from the 'big model' and its focus on coherency-by-agenda and such. Either way, nobody ever suggested that any sort of play "doesn't exist". What may, instead, have been suggested is that its core defining feature is not exactly what is often claimed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm a bit puzzled by this statement. Edward's formulation of 'S' surely encompasses the sort of play you espouse. It does indicate that this play has some commonality with certain other styles. Anyway, most writers on the subject have moved on from the 'big model' and its focus on coherency-by-agenda and such. Either way, nobody ever suggested that any sort of play "doesn't exist". What may, instead, have been suggested is that its core defining feature is not exactly what is often claimed.

I don't consider physics-style simulation and genre-style simulation to be so close as to fall into the same category. On top of that, Edward's has on more than one occasion straight-up lambasted simulation as a playstyle (perhaps understandable from his perspective as it seems the purpose of his work was to showcase narrative play). A classiciation system that includes all RPGs should be less biased.

 

[soviet]

I don't consider physics-style simulation and genre-style simulation to be so close as to fall into the same category. On top of that, Edward's has on more than one occasion straight-up lambasted simulation as a playstyle (perhaps understandable from his perspective as it seems the purpose of his work was to showcase narrative play). A classiciation system that includes all RPGs should be less biased.

To be fair I think the GNS essays themselves do a pretty good job of exploring what's fun about sim play. The stuff about it not being a real agenda and so on all came from forum discussions, and I don't think was ever incorporated into the theory per se.

I definitely think sim is a real agenda and believe it or not MERP/Rolemaster is actually one of my favourite games.

You may be right that genre sim and physics sim are ultimately different agendas, I don't think it massively affects the utility or not of the theory itself if that's the case. Although we'd need a fourth agenda name, preferably one that forms a nice acronym!

 

[Micah Sweet]

To be fair I think the GNS essays themselves do a pretty good job of exploring what's fun about sim play. The stuff about it not being a real agenda and so on all came from forum discussions, and I don't think was ever incorporated into the theory per se.

I definitely think sim is a real agenda and believe it or not MERP/Rolemaster is actually one of my favourite games.

You may be right that genre sim and physics sim are ultimately different agendas, I don't think it massively affects the utility or not of the theory itself if that's the case. Although we'd need a fourth agenda name, preferably one that forms a nice acronym!

The forum discussions you are referencing prominently feature the primary architect of the theory, so I think they are relevant.

The rest of what you say makes sense to me.

 

[Campbell]

The forum discussions you are referencing prominently feature the primary architect of the theory, so I think they are relevant.

The rest of what you say makes sense to me.

Clinton R. Nixon simply asked if simulation was an agenda, something you actively did at the table. His hypothesis was that simulation was a component of design, but not what we actively set out to do. Ron was among those who disagreed. It was never really about whether or not coherence, realism, et al mattered. Just if they were ever the primary activity of play.

 

[gorice]

As a simulationist primarily, I won't support any RPG classification system that says my preferred playstyle doesn't really exist. On that basis alone the Forge loses out. And it's not my only basis.

The purpose of categorisation isn't to validate anyone's preferences. Take it as given that I generally accept your preferences as valid, and want to understand how to support them. When we start taking these terms ('cultures','agendas', whatever) and using them as personal identifiers, things go downhill quickly.

I'm a skeptic about a lot of things, BUT there is still a pretty coherent orientation to play (use whatever terms you want, I don't care but be careful about it) wherein the players say "I have created/adopted this character, X, and how we are going to play is that X is what it is, and has the story arc and progression that I want for it." THAT is a thing. Call it 'neo-trad', call it 'worms' call it any darn thing you want. I've labeled it neo-trad, and I KNOW it exists out there in the actual world as a type of play. Heck, it is a fun and amusing sort of play, sometimes. Certain concomitants arise from that core agenda too, and I'm perfectly happy to point out features aligned with that in various games.

Honestly, I think you are probably being a bit too demanding in terms of wanting an exact and invariant set of traits, and exclusively those traits. I think maybe you reject the idea of things like 'neo-trad' on the basis of the fact that they don't have perfectly determined boundaries. Yes, actual play is more like a mix/continuum and may even be inconsistent and veer somewhat within a given game (that is, game as played at a table). I don't think that invalidates the use of a label, it just needs to be understood that kvetching about the exact boundaries and definitions is less useful than being able to say "this is neo-trad" and then being able to talk about the specifics of THIS game with certain ideas in mind.

The definition you give is fine, but it doesn't match all of the definitions I've seen on this thread and elsewhere. This is what I keep saying: I'm seeing lots of people say 'I like neotrad games', and then give conflicting accounts of what that means. Those people's preferences are valid, and in many cases they are describing a thing, but 'neotrad' is too broad and imprecise a label.

 

[pawsplay]

I've been thinking about this further, and how is AD&D's ridiculously exhaustive equipment lists any different than the same procedures in a "Narrativist" lane that end up specifying what streets characters live on, or how they feel about characters that never turn out to be that important?

 

[Manbearcat]

Clinton R. Nixon simply asked if simulation was an agenda, something you actively did at the table. His hypothesis was that simulation was a component of design, but not what we actively set out to do. Ron was among those who disagreed. It was never really about whether or not coherence, realism, et al mattered. Just if they were ever the primary activity of play.

Exactly.

The question's formulation becomes "is Simulationism a phenomenon (something that you actually design toward to generate a process of blow-by-blow play that is clearly distinguishable from an alternative) or merely an epiphenomenon (exclusively a byproduct that arises from doing a thing or a collection of things; like "the experiential quality of being there" or "immersionism")...or is it both?"

That is healthy, productive question to ask about any type of TTRPGing, Simulationism (of course) included. Clinton was merely asking (positing really) "is Simulationism epiphenomenal only?" Clearly Ron felt it was both phenomenon and and epiphenomenon...and one (at least one) of his favorite all time games is Simulationism. Its absolutely the height of "I don't know what I'm talking about and just read the crappy headline by a drive-by partison" to throw out the opinion that Ron Edwards hates or hated Simulationism. Its totally one of his things.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't consider physics-style simulation and genre-style simulation to be so close as to fall into the same category.

I think the fundamental assertion is that both, as well as PFS "play the system for its own sake" all share some traits in common when it comes to techniques and structure. In all these modes of play there's an aim to adhere to some external governing process/standard (in the case of PFS it is self-referential). So there will be rules of some form which produce outcomes in keeping with that thing, and part of the 'lusory attitude' is to adopt a specific orientation towards that thing, that adherence to it is a core stricture of play. Beyond that, sure, the details of what is handled vary wildly. I just think GNS is not thinking about S in the same way you are, but that does not make either perspective wrong. In fact being able to adopt a variety of views on a subject is generally helpful.

On top of that, Edward's has on more than one occasion straight-up lambasted simulation as a playstyle (perhaps understandable from his perspective as it seems the purpose of his work was to showcase narrative play). A classiciation system that includes all RPGs should be less biased.

I don't want to get into some Forge slapfight. I have not seen that. I mean, Edwards has spoken at length about his own play in which the things he is said to 'hate' featured heavily, and spoken about them in a quite positive light. Nor do any of the GNS essays incorporate negative views of any type of play. He may have arrived at a set of personal play preferences quite different from your own, but IMHO it makes more sense to simply acknowledge that everyone is different.