What Games do you think are Neotrad?

[aramis erak]

Exactly. I obviously get a deep chargen system that allows for realizing a character concept. Though, does neotrad go deeper than that? Does neotrad include mechanics in play that reinforce the idea of character actualization? In the case of D&D, it certainly does the former, but never really the latter.

FOr me, the term has meant, since I first started using it in the 00's, a game where the GM is final authority, but character gen is non-random or minimally random, numerical attributes (3-10 of them), GM driven adventures, and usually a metacurrency. Generally, multiple pools, not single monolithic point pool; GURPS isn't quite Trad, but isn't quite NeoTrad, either...)
A notable trend of the newer ones is the "No non-consensual death of PCs."

Games I'd include are WFRP 2E, WFRP 4e, all the FFG 40K RPGs, D&D 4E (but not 5e), all editions of RTG Cyberpunk and Mekton, Green Ronin's Fantasy Age/Dragon Age, TFG's Prime Directive (1e), Legend of the Five Rings (all, but L5R5 is pushing the limits), 7th Sea 1E (2e pushes into storygame turf), Savage Worlds. Haven't run Fabula Ultima, but on first read, yeah, it, too.

I'd say 5E is too unfocused to be.clearly NeoTrad - it's got too many moves towards storygame.. and yet, most play it as a trad or neotrad....

 

[Emerikol]

<snip>

I'd say 5E is too unfocused to be.clearly NeoTrad - it's got too many moves towards storygame.. and yet, most play it as a trad or neotrad....

I think any game that could support trad could support neo-trad. Story games do benefit from different rules though you could probably just play with a certain perspective even in D&D and make it a story game.

 

[aramis erak]

I think any game that could support trad could support neo-trad. Story games do benefit from different rules though you could probably just play with a certain perspective even in D&D and make it a story game.

Not while actually using the rules.
Otherwise, Every RPG is usable as a storygame... just ignore everything past character gen. Which, if that's one's rhetorical bent, makes discussion of rules utterly meaningless, and shifts Trad, Neotrad, Storygame, etc to playstyles.

 

[TwoSix]

I'd say 5E is too unfocused to be.clearly NeoTrad - it's got too many moves towards storygame.. and yet, most play it as a trad or neotrad....

I tend to think of D&D as being soft trad. The loosening of cosmological constraints on classes and the orientation towards a generic "D&D-verse" in 5e orients that edition in a more neotrad direction, though.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is a rather fascinating discussion. It's probably something that I should be sure to clarify in my campaign introductions. I'm very trad. That doesn't mean characters can't influence events either. It just means the campaign is not designed to revolve around the PCs. Those of us who want a "living" world will have all kinds of events happening in the campaign that don't directly impact the characters. It's just like when a writer shows a setting change over time. It makes the verisimilitude stronger.

And this happens too in NeoTrad campaigns. My last campaign was as NeoTrad as it gets; I started by asking each player to name a threat, rival, or quest for their PC.

This gave me six solid NPC groups ... two of which were at war, a third playing power behind the throne, and a fourth treating the rest the way Bugs Bunny treats powerful jerks. And one NPC's brother tripping through the centre of this mess, surviving by the skin of his teeth as big brother PC sought to catch up with and protect them. And the dragon didn't even know the name of the PC who'd sworn vengeance on him for burning his village down while his minions had been infiltrated by multiple separate factions all of whom were manipulating this powerful and stupid dragon into looting and razing where they wanted attacked.

Just because all the major players had connections to the PCs didn't make that the most important thing about them or the only thing they were interested in.

 

[TwoSix]

Not while actually using the rules.
Otherwise, Every RPG is usable as a storygame... just ignore everything past character gen. Which, if that's one's rhetorical bent, makes discussion of rules utterly meaningless, and shifts Trad, Neotrad, Storygame, etc to playstyles.

It is more about playstyle then about rules, generally, although exceptions exist. A ruleset can be weakly or strongly oriented towards one of the particular playstyles, but most games have more than enough "give" to be shifted into another orientation.

 

[Neonchameleon]

FOr me, the term has meant, since I first started using it in the 00's, a game where the GM is final authority, but character gen is non-random or minimally random, numerical attributes (3-10 of them), GM driven adventures, and usually a metacurrency. Generally, multiple pools, not single monolithic point pool; GURPS isn't quite Trad, but isn't quite NeoTrad, either...)

To me any Trad game can be run as NeoTrad and vise-versa, but the difference in terms of games boils down to one single question: "Does the game routinely use mechanics that reflect intangible or social qualities about the character? Mechanics such as social status, reputation, allies, willpower, bonds, etc.?"

I'd say 5E is too unfocused to be.clearly NeoTrad - it's got too many moves towards storygame.. and yet, most play it as a trad or neotrad....

I don't see 5e really resembling a story game in any meaningful way. And its unfocused nature is characteristic of NeoTrad, giving something for everyone, and not at all like the much more stripped down and focused Storygame group. Meanwhile its level and locked class system and incredibly slow play is anathema to storygames

 

[Emerikol]

And this happens too in NeoTrad campaigns. My last campaign was as NeoTrad as it gets; I started by asking each player to name a threat, rival, or quest for their PC.

This gave me six solid NPC groups ... two of which were at war, a third playing power behind the throne, and a fourth treating the rest the way Bugs Bunny treats powerful jerks. And one NPC's brother tripping through the centre of this mess, surviving by the skin of his teeth as big brother PC sought to catch up with and protect them. And the dragon didn't even know the name of the PC who'd sworn vengeance on him for burning his village down while his minions had been infiltrated by multiple separate factions all of whom were manipulating this powerful and stupid dragon into looting and razing where they wanted attacked.

Just because all the major players had connections to the PCs didn't make that the most important thing about them or the only thing they were interested in.

Maybe the game styles bleed together at some point. But I'm thinking Game of Thrones is mostly trad whereas Lord of the Rings is clearly neo-trad. Epic fantasy is neo-trad in it's assumptions. Whereas perhaps Fafrd and Grey Mouser are more trad.

So a compelling subplot involving a PC is not enough to be neo-trad I wouldn't think. Those things happen in trad games too. The difference is whether the goal is for the PCs to be overwhelmingly important in the world or not.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It is more about playstyle then about rules, generally, although exceptions exist. A ruleset can be weakly or strongly oriented towards one of the particular playstyles, but most games have more than enough "give" to be shifted into another orientation.

Though my own feeling is that there's sometimes a certain degree of using a wrench as a hammer doing that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To me any Trad game can be run as NeoTrad and vise-versa, but the difference in terms of games boils down to one single question: "Does the game routinely use mechanics that reflect intangible or social qualities about the character? Mechanics such as social status, reputation, allies, willpower, bonds, etc.?"

Hmmm. Do you consider the Hero System NeoTrad by that? (I think I would, as I think about it).