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

[EzekielRaiden]

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:

Someone literally gave quotes explicitly saying you're supposed to work with your players, going back to 2e. The 5e books also say similar things.

Your quotes do not say what you think they say.

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

And guess what? You are one of the people I was talking about, who would not care what the books say.

 

[zakael19]

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.

Given that this is a + thread, I'd hope there weren't a lot of "pitfalls ... being emphasized" from people who aren't generally fans of the play style!

To your point here, as I've posted multiple times I think you need to separate "neotrad" from "OC." The former in my personal experience does absolutely lend itself to risks of the player feeling like they're the main character - especially if not all of the group is as invested or inhabiting their character. Since many groups tend towards having a bit of a default leader in social scenes or what have you, a strong OC player can get to take up a lot of spotlight time, for better or for worse. I know as a GM with two players who tend heavily towards OC play (again, commissioning artwork of their characters/writing fic in at least one case) I've had to gently work with them to ensure they don't overrun other PCs. However, that problem is hardly unique to neotrad, so I don't see it as a unique risk or pitfall there!

To the larger question of character disabling or switching or whatever. You can see in the new systems designed specifically to facilitate the style of character focused narrative play that defines Neotrad as I think we're using the term here that the mechanics are simply not there to do so. Something like Fabula Ultima prohibits the GM from killing a PC, has closed scene resolution for many status effects - and those that persist have the very simple effect of reducing your attribute die by one size (so elegant!). You're worse at doing a thing, but never out of the action. The very worst case is that your character winds up separated and you have a new challenge/scene to face and overcome.

The more I've read the rules of these new systems and thought about the play style, I'd go so far as to assert that in my opinion neotrad at its core is this: "a play style wherein the goal of play is to find out how the player characters will overcome the obstacles in their way and succeed in their goals, and how they will change and deal with setbacks along the journey." I think that's pretty cool, and am really excited about GMing more of that sort of story in systems like FU or Daggerheart that give the GMs and players the tools to really lean hard into that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So in other words, it's bad to change the story to fit the player character and the player's desire? What kind of backwards view of the game is this, where the game is there for the GM and players must be stopped from "messing it up"?

I don't recall anything in that statement claiming that. Maybe read what I wrote first? In any case, what you're saying seems to suggest that the game is there for the players and GMs must be stopped from "messing it up", based on your suggestion what you think I want is backwards. That's not what you're really saying though, right? Notice how I'm not making assumptions here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Clearly Neotrad is Bad Play, and the people who enjoy it must be exiled, or at least stopped; and clearly a thread where someone is asking for help understanding that enjoyment is the perfect place for people who don't understand the playstyle to denigrate it.

You folks seem a bit sensitive, to be honest. I don't recall saying anything about Neo-Trad being bad, just that's it's potential pitfalls as a style are discernable, just like every other playstyle. Upthread I even suggested what I see as the best way to handle such issues, regardless of what playstyle from which they emerge.

 

[prabe]

You folks seem a bit sensitive, to be honest. I don't recall saying anything about Neo-Trad being bad, just that's it's potential pitfalls as a style are discernable, just like every other playstyle. Upthread I even suggested what I see as the best way to handle such issues, regardless of what playstyle from which they emerge.

You think talking about its "potential pitfalls" is an apt choice for a [+] thread about what the fun is in neotrad play? I wouldn't go into an OSR thread--especially not a [+] thread--and point out the "potential pitfalls" of that style of play. For one thing, those might be features, not bugs. For another thing, I'm pretty sure people who prefer OSR play have ways of dealing with them, if they in fact are pitfalls, that are more congruent with OSR play than anything I would be likely to come up with.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Sorry never heard of that game.

It's a game that is build on Forged in the Dark rules, with very strong emphasis about player decisions and agency and plot moving through success at a cost. Entire Forged in the Dark movement as a whole is the main thing people point at as neotrad, alongside its cousin, Powered by the Apocalypse. It's also a game where players command a military unit, each player will rotate through multiple characters and can even sacrifice them to help the unit's survival. So this is a game that is part of the face of neotrad that does everything you've said netrad would never dare to do.

As a matter of fact, you should also explain to me why the game that parented the Forged in the Dark, Blades in the Dark, literally tells the players to treat their character like a stolen car and not get attached.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I don't recall anything in that statement claiming that. Maybe read what I wrote first? In any case, what you're saying seems to suggest that the game is there for the players and GMs must be stopped from "messing it up", based on your suggestion what you think I want is backwards. That's not what you're really saying though, right? Notice how I'm not making assumptions here.

And here we have it, literally a false dichotomy. You have a situation where GM is telling their story and players must shut up and deal with it because they don't matter, and when people offer alternatives, your imagination fails you and you immediatelly assume that it must be just flip of the roles, instead of imagining any scenario where GM and players have equal power and work together to have fun. Complete lack of imagination, you ignore everything many people said in this thread to instead make up strawmen.

You folks seem a bit sensitive, to be honest. I don't recall saying anything about Neo-Trad being bad, just that's it's potential pitfalls as a style are discernable, just like every other playstyle. Upthread I even suggested what I see as the best way to handle such issues, regardless of what playstyle from which they emerge.

You also ignored what other people said to build strawmen to paint the style of play in negative light and acted as if we're being dishonest for trying to point the ways to avoid said pitfalls or childish for not liking the railroad.
Also, I'm over thirty, so you can take that whining about kids and eat it for all I care. If you're treating people who disagree with you like children, it tells more about you than them.

 

[zakael19]

It's a game that is build on Forged in the Dark rules, with very strong emphasis about player decisions and agency and plot moving through success at a cost. Entire Forged in the Dark movement as a whole is the main thing people point at as neotrad, alongside its cousin, Powered by the Apocalypse. It's also a game where players command a military unit, each player will rotate through multiple characters and can even sacrifice them to help the unit's survival. So this is a game that is part of the face of neotrad that does everything you've said netrad would never dare to do.

As a matter of fact, you should also explain to me why the game that parented the Forged in the Dark, Blades in the Dark, literally tells the players to treat their character like a stolen car and not get attached.

I genuinely do not see FITD or PBTA in generic (which is dangerous since there's so many spins) as neotrad. Most of them hold characters too lightly, and there's no assumption that you'll have dramatic arcs or success. I think that narrativist play style is its own distinct thing, and while the players drive the play the GM in those has a lot more permission to hurt them and the things they hold dear.

 

[Morrus]

Removing the '+' designation. [+] doesn't mean 'you aren't allowed to disagree with me'. It certainly doesn't mean 'I'm allowed to post [-] opinions about the topic without challenge.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

That's true, but I still think playing someone else for a while is the best move under those circumstances.