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

[jmartkdr2]

It is an option some players pick.

In Traditional Play a single player often has several characters they control in the form of Followers, Henchmen, Retainers and more. So having more then one character is common enough.

Still the point is many Traditional players will just game with it, and not just switch characters.

And while I will never say no Neo T players would just game with it, I doubt many would. After all the basis of OC/Neo T is the Single Character the player wants to play, and they don't want to play the character with any major drawbacks or effects.

I really shouldn't engage but:

Trad play does not normally have multiple characters per player. That might be common in OSR or Classic, but one of the things Trad did to differentiate itself was going for one pc the player was attached to rather than a stable of tokens to use ad hoc.

 

[prabe]

I really shouldn't engage but:

Trad play does not normally have multiple characters per player. That might be common in OSR or Classic, but one of the things Trad did to differentiate itself was going for one pc the player was attached to rather than a stable of tokens to use ad hoc.

And various neotrad games--indlucing D&D 5e--have rules for sidekicks and such--mostly, as I understand it, for play with not enough players.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't question that the books themselves do not support the idea that DMs in those games do not have absolute power and are expected to cooperate with, and genuinely respect the desires and requests of, their players.

I am simply saying that the idea that everyone agrees with that statement is demonstrably false, because I have been told point blank by multiple users on this very forum that DMs have "absolute power" (actual quote, used repeatedly, every effort I made to soften or add nuance to this was rejected, they really REALLY meant it) and that they genuinely really do believe that it is a <my way or the highway> situation.

That gets back to this...

Specific example context matters,

Absolutes are rarely without exceptions(sometimes many of them). There are certainly going to be some example areas where your post135 statement about gm authority is 100% true, but you don't mention any example areas & just present it as if it's a blanket gamewide thing; the same sort of more complicated greyscale applies to the bit about players introducing stuff.

The only times I can think of when the gm in a TTRPG has the level of blanket absolute authority across everything that you & bloottide keep talking up is well meaning newbie GMs who don't know or haven't yet learned better and when that TTrpg gets adapted to a CRPG where the coded game is incapable of more.

 

[jmartkdr2]

And various neotrad games--indlucing D&D 5e--have rules for sidekicks and such--mostly, as I understand it, for play with not enough players.

Sure you can - there are no hard rules for playing Neotrad as it's a style not a ruleset - but if everyone's bringing sidekicks I wouldn't peg that as a neotrad game.

You can run 5e in almost any style, btw. It's flexible like that.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

It is an option some players pick.

In Traditional Play a single player often has several characters they control in the form of Followers, Henchmen, Retainers and more. So having more then one character is common enough.

Still the point is many Traditional players will just game with it, and not just switch characters.

And while I will never say no Neo T players would just game with it, I doubt many would. After all the basis of OC/Neo T is the Single Character the player wants to play, and they don't want to play the character with any major drawbacks or effects.

I dare you to argue Band of Blades is Traditional game then.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

It is an option some players pick.

well, there you go.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That gets back to this...

Absolutes are rarely without exceptions(sometimes many of them). There are certainly going to be some example areas where your post135 statement about gm authority is 100% true, but you don't mention any example areas & just present it as if it's a blanket gamewide thing; the same sort of more complicated greyscale applies to the bit about players introducing stuff.

While that's fair, I would argue that even your 2e citations are completely conforming to this. The DM listens...and then the DM writes. The player does not write. Even with a spell, it is the player pointing in the direction they'd like to go, and then the DM actually making something. The idea of a fully player-authored spell, where the DM isn't doing more than approving work the player already did, doesn't fit with the description given. It also doesn't fit with the way "trad" play has generally cashed out both IME and based on testimony I have heard from others.

Conversely, neo-trad is deeply collaborative, down to its bones. It doesn't work unless there is collaboration. Trad works, and can even be great for those seeking it, with or without collaboration. That's pretty clearly a major difference.

The only times I can think of when the gm in a TTRPG has the level of blanket absolute authority across everything that you & bloottide keep talking up is well meaning newbie GMs who don't know or haven't yet learned better and when that TTrpg gets adapted to a CRPG where the coded game is incapable of more.

I've seen too much testimony here and elsewhere to believe that this never happens with experienced long-time DMs who have a very...strict...idea of what is and isn't acceptable/appropriate/permissible in the D&D sphere. (In fairness, this isn't exclusive to D&D though--I've seen similar from Shadowrun and old-school Vampire/Werewolf/Mage/etc.)

 

[bloodtide]

I don't question that the books themselves do not support the idea that DMs in those games do not have absolute power and are expected to cooperate with, and genuinely respect the desires and requests of, their players.

I am simply saying that the idea that everyone agrees with that statement is demonstrably false, because I have been told point blank by multiple users on this very forum that DMs have "absolute power" (actual quote, used repeatedly, every effort I made to soften or add nuance to this was rejected, they really REALLY meant it) and that they genuinely really do believe that it is a <my way or the highway> situation.

Well, to say no book from the last 50 years says something....is not wise. The Time Before Time....was brutal.

But we don't have to go back so far.
The 5E DMG states on page 4:

The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game.

I have final say in the game I'm running, that should seem to be common sense: if you don't like it leave.

I dare you to argue Band of Blades is Traditional game then.

Sorry never heard of that game.

Blades + Band of Brothers= World War II Ninjas!

 

[prabe]

Sure you can - there are no hard rules for playing Neotrad as it's a style not a ruleset - but if everyone's bringing sidekicks I wouldn't peg that as a neotrad game.

You can run 5e in almost any style, btw. It's flexible like that.

I can see using the sidekick rules if you have, say, two players, and having things still be closer to neotrad than trad--it'd just be a matter of approach. But, yeah, it feels to me as though it pushes the game in at least one direction I don't like as much--though, to be fair, even though I will if pressed self-identify as neotrad, it's not as though I'm in a position to say others are neotradding incorrectly.

 

[prabe]

Sorry never heard of that game.

Blades + Band of Brothers= World War II Ninjas!

Band of Blades - Evil Hat Productions

The Legion is in retreat following a failed battle against the armies of the undead. You are a member of the Legion, your bonds to one another forged in the dark by bone and blood.

evilhat.com