D&D 5E Help me understand & find the fun in OC/neo-trad play...

[DrJawaPhD]

Edit: also for this being a + thread you sure are crapping all over the play style and people who enjoy it by projecting all sorts of stuff.

Yeah wasn't the point of the thread for people to explain what they enjoy about neo-trad? Somehow many the posts are just about how much neo-trad sucks

 

[niklinna]

Yeah wasn't the point of the thread for people to explain what they enjoy about neo-trad? Somehow all the posts are just about how much neo-trad sucks

Egad, I hope my posts haven't come across that way. There's a lot about neotrad that I like!

 

[CandyLaser]

Yeah wasn't the point of the thread for people to explain what they enjoy about neo-trad? Somehow many the posts are just about how much neo-trad sucks

That is a good point, and I'm afraid my last post was reacting to that trend rather than furthering the topic. On the subject of what I like about this style of play: as someone who almost entirely GMs, I appreciate how it encourages player buy-in and gets them involved. We're playing out their story, collectively, in a way that lets all of us be surprised by how it goes. This adds resonance to the important moments, I find.

I've mentioned before that I'm currently running Fellowship as my main game. The last big campaign before that was a 5e Eberron, and we were playing in what I suspect is a more neo-trad style than most 5e tables. I pitched it as a pulp adventure story, going up against the Emerald Claw. One player had picked the hermit background and, as their discovery background feature, wanted to be able to hear the voice of the Silver Flame, while another wanted to be a shulassakar venerating and serving the couatl whose essences made up the Flame itself. Those two backstory elements ended up being central to the plot, and because they were player-chosen, there was immediate interest from the players and emotional impact as we collectively discovered how the story unfolded.

My overall "prep" consisted in me putting together about a page of brainstorming about plot elements I wanted, over and above what my players had told me they wanted, either explicitly or implicitly. Everything else was stuff that grew organically in play, often as a result of plot elements the PCs had introduced (one had a twin brother, another was experimented on by House Vadalis, a third was a drug-smuggling kobold with underworld contacts everywhere). I think it's safe to say my players would put it in the top 3 of the campaign's I've run with them over the course of the last dozen years or so. The fact that the plot that emerged was so tightly tied into the characters' backstories as well as the relationships that developed during play made it genuinely stunning when an NPC the players had all grown to love and trust betrayed them (something I'd wanted to do from the moment I introduced the NPC) and genuinely touching when, at the climax of the game, the two players above (along with a third) sacrificed themselves to reignite the Silver Flame and bind the demon lord they'd inadvertently released. Basically, by giving the players more ability to author the story, they became more involved in its creation, and thus more invested in its quality and how it played out.

 

[Shardstone]

If you have seen them many times, I wonder if your game is Neo T?

And you say the occur, but you don't mention the severity. So if you count that one time a character got turned into a turtle for a couple minutes and then it was dispeled. I'm talking about when the character becomes a duck for several game sessions, maybe weeks or months in real life time.

And you don't mention if the players agree or not. Because that makes a big difference.

And . the "tractable challenge with an interesting storyline" is likely a split between the two games. And again, it depends on if the players agree or not. As you say, both games have the characters getting cursed and having to adventure to find the cure. But I would think only traditional has the events like the characters falling off a bridge into a raging river and loosing many of their items.



Don't think I ever typed that? I thought I typed above that in a Neo T game all the power and control is shared between all the players(with the DM as a player). But a challenge is more vague...and depends on the players.

Again, I said 'many'....not "all must do it". Every game type has players that play themselves....it is very common. It does stand out the most in Neo T games and the Story games.

Straight up, nothing you've said about neotrad has been true, and I don't think your opinion has any credibility at all.

 

[Shardstone]

That is a good point, and I'm afraid my last post was reacting to that trend rather than furthering the topic. On the subject of what I like about this style of play: as someone who almost entirely GMs, I appreciate how it encourages player buy-in and gets them involved. We're playing out their story, collectively, in a way that lets all of us be surprised by how it goes. This adds resonance to the important moments, I find.

I've mentioned before that I'm currently running Fellowship as my main game. The last big campaign before that was a 5e Eberron, and we were playing in what I suspect is a more neo-trad style than most 5e tables. I pitched it as a pulp adventure story, going up against the Emerald Claw. One player had picked the hermit background and, as their discovery background feature, wanted to be able to hear the voice of the Silver Flame, while another wanted to be a shulassakar venerating and serving the couatl whose essences made up the Flame itself. Those two backstory elements ended up being central to the plot, and because they were player-chosen, there was immediate interest from the players and emotional impact as we collectively discovered how the story unfolded.

My overall "prep" consisted in me putting together about a page of brainstorming about plot elements I wanted, over and above what my players had told me they wanted, either explicitly or implicitly. Everything else was stuff that grew organically in play, often as a result of plot elements the PCs had introduced (one had a twin brother, another was experimented on by House Vadalis, a third was a drug-smuggling kobold with underworld contacts everywhere). I think it's safe to say my players would put it in the top 3 of the campaign's I've run with them over the course of the last dozen years or so. The fact that the plot that emerged was so tightly tied into the characters' backstories as well as the relationships that developed during play made it genuinely stunning when an NPC the players had all grown to love and trust betrayed them (something I'd wanted to do from the moment I introduced the NPC) and genuinely touching when, at the climax of the game, the two players above (along with a third) sacrificed themselves to reignite the Silver Flame and bind the demon lord they'd inadvertently released. Basically, by giving the players more ability to author the story, they became more involved in its creation, and thus more invested in its quality and how it played out.

The buy-in is huge. Getting players to engage with the idea of a strange setting or story is when I start having a lot of fun with games.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

I read the blog post, and now understand what OC is meant in this context.

But couldn't we have had more fun if we meant THIS OC????

 

[bloodtide]

I would love for you to define “deep role playing.”

Easy enough. You start with at least a couple paragraphs written out of the characters well rounded and detailed personality. You want at least 20 or so personality points that are not only different from the players, but ones the player does not like or disagrees with...and even more so that breaks the character away from "just being the player insert playing the game". A personality with issues, problems, fears, and weaknesses. A personalty the player will not just ignore or toss away when inconvenient or "not cool". A personality that is a challenge for the player to play.

Edit: also for this being a + thread you sure are crapping all over the play style and people who enjoy it by projecting all sorts of stuff.

My posts are all positive. Where do you see any crap in "everyone shares power"?

Rendering a player unable to play for real-time months is ludicrous behavior, assuming you're playing a game where each player has a single character.

Well, your not doing anything to the player . But it's not removing the character from the game, just effecting them. An archer with no bow can still go on the adventure.

You are simply wrong about this. This has been pointed out many times, in this thread and others, with people giving examples from their own games. I'll add to the count, as in the next-to-last session of the game I'm currently running, one of my characters lost literally all of their gear, including their body. They're a sort of magical plasma that inhabits different constructed shells, so this wasn't fatal, but they haven't gotten their gear back yet, and at the current rate I'd estimate that it'll be at least another couple of real-life weeks before they do. At no point did I confer with the player before doing this, and my game is much, much closer to a neo-traditional game than a traditional one.

As pointed out above, I never said "this never ever happens" or anything like that. I said it was rare in a Neo T game, yes. Any individual game can have bits and parts of others.

Also I note your only talking about taking the characters gear away for a short time, and then saying they will get it all back

Also, also, you don't mention what the gear is...is it just like "a pair of sturdy boots" or is it like an archer losing their bow or a wizard losing their spellbook? Because that is what I'm talking about.

Power and control being shared does not mean that everyone has a veto on anything that happens at the table. Most PBtA games, for instance, restrict what the GM is able to do—but only the GM has the ability to make Moves/Cuts/etc.

Well, ok, that is that one specific game?
But if you have shared power and control...equally...then each player would have veto power. That is how "shared" works.

 

[zakael19]

Easy enough. You start with at least a couple paragraphs written out of the characters well rounded and detailed personality. You want at least 20 or so personality points that are not only different from the players, but ones the player does not like or disagrees with...and even more so that breaks the character away from "just being the player insert playing the game". A personality with issues, problems, fears, and weaknesses. A personalty the player will not just ignore or toss away when inconvenient or "not cool". A personality that is a challenge for the player to play.

My posts are all positive. Where do you see any crap in "everyone shares power"?


Well, your not doing anything to the player . But it's not removing the character from the game, just effecting them. An archer with no bow can still go on the adventure.

As pointed out above, I never said "this never ever happens" or anything like that. I said it was rare in a Neo T game, yes. Any individual game can have bits and parts of others.

Also I note your only talking about taking the characters gear away for a short time, and then saying they will get it all back

Also, also, you don't mention what the gear is...is it just like "a pair of sturdy boots" or is it like an archer losing their bow or a wizard losing their spellbook? Because that is what I'm talking about.

Well, ok, that is that one specific game?
But if you have shared power and control...equally...then each player would have veto power. That is how "shared" works.

That’s not deep role playing, that’s a unique form of granular backstory. What is deep role playing to you? And where are these trad tables you see it at?

(The first part is a trick question - people have been struggling with it since the mid 1970s, back when strident arguments were made that any form of rules made it impossible to role play).

 

[Wolfpack48]

l

OC = Original Character, in case anyone else was wondering.

These acronyms are out of control.

 

[niklinna]

These acronyms are out of control.

Acronyms, in general, are out of control.