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

[EzekielRaiden]

I am probably the worst possible GM to run Fate in good faith. But then, I ran Cypher without ever Intruding (except on nat 1s). At least in Cypher I could hack the XP system; the Fate Point Economy merely imploded.

Ahhh, the Cypher System. I don't think there's been another one quite like it in my eyes. A couple genuinely inspired ideas, and a couple "wtf are you even doing, this is horrible" ideas.

 

[prabe]

Ahhh, the Cypher System. I don't think there's been another one quite like it in my eyes. A couple genuinely inspired ideas, and a couple "wtf are you even doing, this is horrible" ideas.

I'd run Cypher again--probably for a different table, though. I wouldn't run Fate again. We're allowed to like different TRPGs.

 

[overgeeked]

If you take this approach, it is probably wise to avoid using the phrase "signal-to-noise ratio."

While possibly accurate, it is an...unfriendly...way to express the notion.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'd run Cypher again--probably for a different table, though. I wouldn't run Fate again. We're allowed to like different TRPGs.

Oh, certainly. I just don't see any way I could ever enjoy GM Intrusions and the "spend permanent XP for temporary bonuses" stuff. I genuinely don't understand why anyone would want either of those things. And the extreme punitive rules for "hoarding" cyphers is just sort of the icing on the cake for actively player-hostile design.

 

[Micah Sweet]

While I 100% agree, it is worth noting that "fun" requires a sense of scale. Things don't need to be instant fun, but they do need to give some kind of clear return sooner rather than later if they're going to claim to be worthwhile.

Turning a character into a duck for "months" is so far removed from that, I can't see any way to make that actually pay off for the demanded cost. A session? Two, perhaps, if it starts in session 1 and ends in session 2? Sure, that's pretty clearly cromulent. But week after week after week for months on end? Nah bro. Might as well have told me not to come to sessions for that long. I expect more respect than that.

It is good to have mysteries. It is good to have unfolding elements, reveals, etc. It is bad to have events so inexplicable and bereft of involvement or entertainment that all I can go on is "trust me bro, it'll be sweet!" You have given me no reason to trust! Trust is not mandatory--trust is earned through demonstrating that it's worthwhile.

I don't see why the player of the duck can't just run another character until the transmogrification can be corrected. From my perspective this is too deep a commitment to a single PC.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't see why the player of the duck can't just run another character until the transmogrification can be corrected. From my perspective this is too deep a commitment to a single PC.

I had been assuming that was not permitted, given the context in which the hypothetical was offered.

 

[prabe]

Oh, certainly. I just don't see any way I could ever enjoy GM Intrusions and the "spend permanent XP for temporary bonuses" stuff. I genuinely don't understand why anyone would want either of those things. And the extreme punitive rules for "hoarding" cyphers is just sort of the icing on the cake for actively player-hostile design.

The only times I Intruded were on Nat 1s, and I told the players what every Cypher was when they found them (not when they were choosing them, if that makes sense). I do not have the problem with having different ways to use XP--at least I can use them, they're not just a pointless gauge--but that doesn't seem like a point worth arguing over (just acknowledging I see where you are on it).

 

[Micah Sweet]

As I have said in my first post, while apologizing for whole paragraph of crapping over the definition, it's hard to be positive, when author did such a poor job explaining "op/neotrad" in a way that doesn't crap all over it.

On more positive note, I thought of one important quality of this style of play that got overlooked. To paraphrase words of Brenan Lee Mulligan, if a player comes to you and says "my character is a teenage sleuth" you cannot just say "I don't have anything for him to do, he can naughty word off", you need to work to incorporate that into the campaign. And of course in this style it is understood the player should make character who doesn't go against the campaign pitch, so no witch hunters and magic-hating barbarians in Strixheaven, as I outlined in previous example. Unlike other styles of play, I feel it's much harder to have a character in this style, where you don't know why they're even hanging out with rest of the party.

If the whole point of play from a player perspective is to explore your OC's "story", it would be quite easy to prioritize what you want for your PC over the desires of the other players, or the GM. I suspect this is why the pitfalls of Neo-Trad are being emphasized. Sometimes, it's hard not to see them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I had been assuming that was not permitted, given the context in which the hypothetical was offered.

Fair enough, but as I see it that's the problem right there. Playing someone else for a while seems to me to be the obvious solution.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If the whole point of play from a player perspective is to explore your OC's "story", it would be quite easy to prioritize what you want for your PC over the desires of the other players, or the GM. I suspect this is why the pitfalls of Neo-Trad are being emphasized. Sometimes, it's hard not to see them.

And yet when I emphasize the pitfalls of "trad" or OSR-and-similar—bad GMs acting capriciously or selfishly, flagrant inconsistency in rulings, black boxing, poor handling of iterative probability, wildly punitive consequences, etc.—I get told I'm being a negative Nancy and "well don't play with a GM you don't trust, duh" and such.

So...why would you even want to play with players you don't trust? Don't you trust your players? No gaming is better than bad gaming. Why presume bad faith from the players? Why immediately jump to the possibility of harm when there's so much potential for great gaming?

I think that covers most of the responses I got when noting the pitfalls of styles that give the DM, and I quote, "absolute power", and zero accountability beyond, and I quote, "voting with your feet".