I just want to say
@Manbearcat you do an excellent analysis on the type of game I most enjoy running, highlighting possible pitfalls, some of which I have experienced myself over the years.
I have in the last few years being concerned with illusionism, and you have guided me towards embracing gamism and introducing a more player facing game. That approach seems to have worked for my table who are an easy group and trusting of me and the process. I find it is a balancing act between being able to surprise/delight my players with secret backstory unfolding and introducing mechanics which players can utilise to make informed decisions which the table ensures does not upset our immersive experience of the story.
One thing though that caught my eye...
I have used DW mechanics, at your suggestion, for a PC's Nightmare upon almost dying and for a Sorcerer trying to purify himself from a Devil Pact - if you recall;
BitD mechanics for an exploration quest where they can fill their equipment slots as problems arise;
I have allowed players to create content for our setting (from NPCs to designing the look of a magical helmet found)
...etc
Is this all part and parcel of the variance you are referring to here?
Yessir, it is one part of the variance I'm referring to. When I speak to variance within the Trad sphere, I'm talking about two kinds:
1) Variance within the game itself (perhaps from one week to the next). What you're pointing out above where you harvest several different techniques and procedures from other games, perhaps excising some techniques native to the game you're playing, and basically treat your play as a toolkit sort of game.
2) Basically "play culture and system heterogeneity" with substantial variance across tables/regions despite everyone "playing D&D" or even "playing D&D 5e."
My advice for this sort of toggling on/off and toolkit sort of play would be for GMs and players to be 100 % overt about toggling on/off and porting/excising. For instance:
GM: "Hey, for this dungeon, the point of it is to basically solve the dungeon and get the treasure. To that end, we're basically doing a 5e version of Moldvay. We're using map & key, strict Exploration Turns, xp for gold, Wandering Monster clock, mandatory Rest every 6 Turns or you start eating cumulative Exhaustion, Fail Forward = Twists."
vs
GM: "Hey this week the dungeon isn't about solving it for treasure. This is about battling through the hag's goons, illusions, and tricks to get to her lair and save the kids before she finishes her digestion ritual! So we're just going to handle this via a series of varying encounters and a clock. If you get x successes before y failures then you're in her lair before she's finished her fell ritual; its a showdown with the hag and you have to stop her ritual and defeat her! If you get y failures before x successes, then the ritual has gone off and...well...you can figure that out!"
The worst in the Trad sphere is when this stuff isn't overt (either purposefully for Illusionism interests or Immersionism interests or accidentally merely because the GM doesn't understand an alternative model). The GM obscures or manipulates how the gamestate evolves. Simultaneously, that GM provides a pretty vacuous and/or nearly univariate (and often blind or nearly so) decision-space masked as "limitless" or a rudderless milieu bereft of clear stakes and not remotely sufficiently charged with conflict/action/momentum. Players are perpetually in the unfortunate state of an inconsistent orientation to play broadly, a cognitive loop that is often wrongfooted, and a suite of assets/currency that are unreliable.
There are solves to this, but most/all of them entail very overt signaling/communication (at least deft signposting). If you aren't engaging in Illusionism + you don't like alternative models... then you're going to have to figure out your players. And this is where things can get sticky, and another form of variance invests Trad play and its social dynamics with hardship. This spread of players below in a Trad game is not remotely uncommon:
Sally: Detests overt gameplay and metaconversations (the old saw; "I just want the rules to get out of the way..."). She is basically a
Participationist LARPER. She wants GM Storytime, Ouija play, actively expecting the GM to control the planchette and manipulate the situation-state. Sally feels her role is to provide bold color, affectation, and characterization until we arrive at the climax. Only at that point does Sally want actual control of the planchette.
Sue:
Deckbuilding Optimizer. Feels that "the play" is overwhelmingly about preplay build decisions and build decisions between sessions upon level-up such that scenes/encounters are overwhelmingly dominated by build choice and their "engine coming online" which overwhelms the system's inputs (encounter budgeting, NPC rosters). Happy to have the GM hard frame between scenes to "get to the action," but that scene-framing better respect the immediate "scene win" and the wins piled up to date. Where there is consequential action, they demand to have control the planchette.
Samantha:
Sim Dollhouse Player and Setting Tourist. Isn't interested in conflict-charged or premise-forward play. Very much against hard scene-framing. Mostly wants to wander and explore, freeplay tavern parties, attend balls/weddings/galas, have some freeform social intrigue, maybe start a shop. Definitely wants to passively explore a color-rich setting, chew scenery, and talk to NPCs where the GM's entertainer hat goes to 11.
Pleasing all three of those players simultaneously is an absolute ask & a half....impossible really. However....it is possible to manage this table if (a) you toggle modes of play, (b) you are 100 % overt about it, (c) Sally, Sue, Samantha can tolerate the dynamic, (d) the GM can handle (and enjoys) the extreme bandwidth and load demands.
