A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto

[hawkeyefan]

You tagged me with a claim in the post I quoted. I'd like that explained is extremely straightforward

Your previous request was not straightforward. It was hard to parse. Your sentences tend to run on very long and so the subject becomes a bit unclear.

This request above is much clearer. You want me to explain post 495.

That's not the thing in question, stating lt says nothing. In 495 you made expectations of the player who is GM, that's a fact. Also in 495 you did not so much as mention the player who is a player so much as saying one word to another player through the entire process, that's also a fact. We can verify those two facts trivially by looking at post 495.hL. Things break down when you stop questioning assumed motivation and mindset to dismiss problems that stem from those facts.

Yes, I didn't elaborate in post 495 that the process described applies to all players in the game. I think I have clearly done so in subsequent posts. If not, I'll elaborate now.

The process is a collaborative one. No one is demanding things of others. No one should be surprised by the expectations. In games where the design is explicitly intended to deliver an experience we'd call neotrad, the participants should be aware of this. In games where the design is loose enough to allow for either trad or neotrad or some other kind of play, the group should discuss expectations and processes of play up front.

Either way, once play begins, everyone should be on the same page. The players should have strong character concepts with specific goals. These can be shared or not, but there should be some unifying element to the group... something that keeps them together. That can be an additional goal of some sort, or it can be some other bond... family, friendship, necessity, whatever.

The GM will work with the players, who will also work with each other, to discuss and firm up these ideas. Then the GM will add his own ideas... and then they can start.

The player in 495 does not extend the same expectations placed upon the GM to themselves and the other players. that is a step zero problem for neotrad to be open about without simply pointing at the gm because neotrad calls for players to be empowered with authority over new areas the GM is expected to abide by

I'm not really going to address the idea of problematic players. If someone is going to insist on doing something that the group isn't into or doesn't appreciate, then they're going to do it. All I can do is say that you seem to think that neotrad play somehow fosters problem players. But that's not the case.

• Because the player in 495 never asked about the gm's world there is no way to be sure that their character's described story fits the setting at all.

This depends, which is why I didn't comment on it. I don't think there's one way to do this. It's possible the game will take place in a known setting... let's say we're going to play the Alien RPG. No one's going to ask to play an elf.

Or... crazy idea incoming... the GM may not already have a world fully formed. Maybe he's waiting for the players' ideas to finalize things. That's how I often do it. I don't create a whole fictional world whole cloth before talking to players. What if they don't like any of the ideas I come up with?

Or even if I do have a strong sense of the world before play begins, maybe one or more of the players comes up with a really cool idea I hadn't thought of, that not only fits with my world, but enhances it? I mean, players are creative people, too.... there's no reason to just ignore their ideas because they have a different role in the game.

• Because the player in 495 never asked about the campaign there is no way to know if they have declared revenge on the new boss or whatever.

But isn't it trivially easy to work this out with the GM? They can just talk and come up with something that works.

• Becausethe player in 495 never spoke to the other players there is no way to know if their story is compatible (or worse in conflict) with the. Back stories of one or more other players.

That I didn't address this in the example doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. Everyone typically is involved in the process. Again... each of these points is eased if we think of everyone a bit more equally. It's not the GM's world... it's the group's world.

• Because the the GM is bound to honor the incompatible and conflicting backstories they are not capable of really doing anything about it. Lucky for the player I'm 495 they just need to hold firm longer than any other player to make sure their story wins.

Why would there be incompatible and conflicting backstories?

Why would the player characters' stories be at odds in any way?

Again, it's a collaboration, not a contest.

• Because neotrad places zero responsibility on the player in 495 towards the other players they are being a model neotrad player when they simply point at the powerless gm while saying "you fix it" just as they are complaing when the GM fixes it by changing or refusing to honor the back story from 495.

You've misinterpreted that post to the point of absurdity.

Story games and narrative heavy games are clear and take pains to avoid all of these kinds of conflicts. Neotrad does not even see them as fit to discuss or clearly address without questioning motive or "mindset"

I would say that there are many games that I don't think make a distinction between play styles or expectations, or that think multiple styles can be accommodated simultaneously. And while I wouldn't go so far as to say that's impossible, I think it'd be better if games were more explicit about this kind of stuff. Rather than "hey here's some rules, do what you like" they should actively explain the game's intentions and how to achieve them.

Otherwise, people wind up with really warped ideas about what a given style is about.

 

[niklinna]

Your previous request was not straightforward. It was hard to parse. Your sentences tend to run on very long and so the subject becomes a bit unclear.

This request above is much clearer. You want me to explain post 495.



Yes, I didn't elaborate in post 495 that the process described applies to all players in the game. I think I have clearly done so in subsequent posts. If not, I'll elaborate now.

The process is a collaborative one. No one is demanding things of others. No one should be surprised by the expectations. In games where the design is explicitly intended to deliver an experience we'd call neotrad, the participants should be aware of this. In games where the design is loose enough to allow for either trad or neotrad or some other kind of play, the group should discuss expectations and processes of play up front.

Either way, once play begins, everyone should be on the same page. The players should have strong character concepts with specific goals. These can be shared or not, but there should be some unifying element to the group... something that keeps them together. That can be an additional goal of some sort, or it can be some other bond... family, friendship, necessity, whatever.

The GM will work with the players, who will also work with each other, to discuss and firm up these ideas. Then the GM will add his own ideas... and then they can start.



I'm not really going to address the idea of problematic players. If someone is going to insist on doing something that the group isn't into or doesn't appreciate, then they're going to do it. All I can do is say that you seem to think that neotrad play somehow fosters problem players. But that's not the case.



This depends, which is why I didn't comment on it. I don't think there's one way to do this. It's possible the game will take place in a known setting... let's say we're going to play the Alien RPG. No one's going to ask to play an elf.

Or... crazy idea incoming... the GM may not already have a world fully formed. Maybe he's waiting for the players' ideas to finalize things. That's how I often do it. I don't create a whole fictional world whole cloth before talking to players. What if they don't like any of the ideas I come up with?

Or even if I do have a strong sense of the world before play begins, maybe one or more of the players comes up with a really cool idea I hadn't thought of, that not only fits with my world, but enhances it? I mean, players are creative people, too.... there's no reason to just ignore their ideas because they have a different role in the game.



But isn't it trivially easy to work this out with the GM? They can just talk and come up with something that works.



That I didn't address this in the example doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. Everyone typically is involved in the process. Again... each of these points is eased if we think of everyone a bit more equally. It's not the GM's world... it's the group's world.



Why would there be incompatible and conflicting backstories?

Why would the player characters' stories be at odds in any way?

Again, it's a collaboration, not a contest.



You've misinterpreted that post to the point of absurdity.



I would say that there are many games that I don't think make a distinction between play styles or expectations, or that think multiple styles can be accommodated simultaneously. And while I wouldn't go so far as to say that's impossible, I think it'd be better if games were more explicit about this kind of stuff. Rather than "hey here's some rules, do what you like" they should actively explain the game's intentions and how to achieve them.

Otherwise, people wind up with really warped ideas about what a given style is about.

That all seems glaringly basic, obvious, and fundamental. But hey, if you really feel a need to lay it all out like that in such minute detail, props to you!

 

[Emberashh]

I'm no expert on what certain people you hold as authorities think about it, but LND was long held to be a fairly specific mismatch between game play and presented narrative, that is pre-written material, cut scenes, dialogue, etc. In that sense LND is not possible in Story Now play, as a logical consequence of the lack of planned narrative! I suspect that the term has become overused and lost specificity over time, as often happens. Whether the broader uses are coherent enough to say something is a bit beyond my own study of your sources frankly, though I am always a bit suspicious of lumping at that level.

As stated, theres more than one kind of problem we can tie to these issues, and whether or not we're using one or the other is entirely besides the point.

After all, I'm positive beyond all reasonable doubt you and everyone else in this topic has made the criticism of 5e that it doesn't actually support what its pitched as. Exploration being the prime example.

Whether you want to say the anemic to non-existent exploration game within 5e is a consistency violation or LDN just doesn't really matter when the point was that game design is game design; tabletop rpgs are not exceptional.

And Im sure there will still be arguments to contrary, but fact of the matter is that differences in game medium, tabletop rulebooks versus a digital video game vs whatever, are highly specific and we can objectively identify them; to paint in absurdly broad strokes and say nothing from video game design spaces applies is just prejudicial and predicated on a clear elitist belief that video games are icky, unlike our pure wholesome TTRPGs.

The contradiction between mechanics, theme, and even playstyle isn't something thats limited to just video games. Thats patently ridiculous and just denying it isn't an argument.

 

[pemerton]

It’s not just what fiction a game can produce but also how it produces it. That is, all the mechanics and omitted mechanics matter. One of my much earlier mistakes in such discussions was believing that narrative/story now games were being praised for being able to generate certain fictions that a game like d&d could not, but the actual claim was a bit more subtle, it wasn’t that the games generated different fiction, it’s that the mechanics behind the generation of the fiction made for greatly dissimilar gameplay regardless of whether the resulting fiction ended up the same.

Unless "mechanics" is given a very broad reading - like, process of play - then I think emphasising mechanical differences is a mistake. It's looking in the wrong place.

The key difference between "story now" and "trad" play is in the principles, and the resulting techniques used by the GM to frame situations and narrate consequences:

Goals of (or, if one prefers, approaches to) RPGing are not characterised by mechanics. They're characterised by the principles and expectations that shape the "moves" the participants make - for the GM, roughly, how they frame scenes and establish consequences, which includes but is not limited to the role of prep in this respect; and for players, how they declare actions for their PCs.

On top of that, the key difference between (say) playing AD&D 2nd ed in a fairly conventional fashion, and playing Apocalypse World, sits on the GM side.

Yes, the player-side design of AW is also different, in that the basic moves are deliberately chosen to channel the crunch and climaxes of play in a particular direction. But the actual play of them is not significantly different: when you declare an action for our PC that triggers a player-side move, you make the roll, add your bonus and see what happens. Again, it is on the GM side that the adjudication of the move results is different.

Apocalypse World uses PC action declarations just like D&D - I look around, I punch them, I put a gun to their head, I offer them a deal, I open my brain to the psychic maelstrom.

<snip>

the mechanics in AW are just action resolution mechanics, built around a particular probability pattern.

The reason that Apocalypse World, played by the book, will turn out differently from Gygax's AD&D, played by the book, is mostly because of things the GM does, not things the player's do.

<snip>

There are three main ways I'm aware of for "story now" play to establish opportunities for players to make the sorts of action declarations that address "engaging/problematic issues":

*The issues and opportunities flow from the characters (eg Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel);

*The issues and opportunities flow from the setting (eg HeroWars/Quest played in Glorantha, 4e D&D played in the default setting);

*The issues and opportunities flow from situations that speak to well-known tropes (eg Prince Valiant, where the situations and tropes are those of Arthurian knight errantry; Agon 2e, where the situations and tropes are those of pop Greek heroes; Marvel Heroic RP, where the situations and tropes are those of superhero comics).​

Generally the last of those dot points produces the emotionally and thematically lightest sort of play; while the first of them will tend to produce the emotionally and thematically most serious. The RPG form reinforces this, because of the strong identity of player and character which therefore makes character driven premise/theme pretty intense. (At least in my experience.)

The way to tell that play is not "story now" is if there is a "correct" or expedient answer that (i) has its parameters established by the GM's prep and/or adjudicative decision-making, and (ii) that the players are expected, if they are good players, to identify. As a simple example, every time you see a GM say "The players should have worked out that they need to have their PCs retreat" we can tell that the play in question was not "story now".

Notice how "story now" has nothing to do with metagame mechanics, or the players having the ability to affect the fiction otherwise than by declaring actions for their PCs.

This is why it is possible to play RPGs in a "vanilla narrativist" fashion: use the PC build and action resolution mechanics of an "ordinary" RPG (in my personal experience, AD&D or Rolemaster), but apply principles and resulting techniques for framing and for consequences that are closer to (say) Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World than to a more "trad" approach.

This is also why it is possible to take "indie" mechanics and use them in RPGing whose overall principles and expectations are much closer to "trad". This is how "neotrad" is used in the blog that @clearstream has linked to.

 

[pemerton]

I would say that there are many games that I don't think make a distinction between play styles or expectations, or that think multiple styles can be accommodated simultaneously. And while I wouldn't go so far as to say that's impossible, I think it'd be better if games were more explicit about this kind of stuff. Rather than "hey here's some rules, do what you like" they should actively explain the game's intentions and how to achieve them.

To me, this seems quite closely related to my points made just upthread in replying to @FrogReaver.That is, that more fundamental than PC build or action resolution mechanics are the principles and expectations that govern (i) how PCs are created as elements - fictions - within the shared setting - a broader fiction, and (ii) how the GM draws on that setting to establish situations in the fiction that confront the PCs, and (iii) how the GM establishes consequences, in the fiction, that flow from what the players have their PCs do.

Some combinations of principle and expectation support "trad" play (eg strong GM control over setting and consequences; an expectation that players are to fit their PCs into the GM's "world" and to have little expectation as to how their PCs will unfold and what happens to them).

Some will support "neotrad" play (eg strong player control over PC backgrounds and expected trajectories, which the GM is expected to have regard to when it comes to framing and consequences).

Some will support "story now" play (eg strong player control over introducing things to care about in a value-laden or thematic sense in the build of their PCs, with an expectation that the GM will put the players' feet to the fire in respect of those things, both in how they frame situations and how they establish consequences for failure).

None of this is to say that mechanics don't matter. Some mechanics suit some principles and expectations better than do others. The point is about what is primary vs what is secondary.

I think this is also what @AbdulAlhazred is pointing towards when saying that it is important to identify aims/agenda/goals of play.

 

[pemerton]

A quick thought on this (I'll read it and @Manbearcat's again later) coming out of earlier conversation over DitV active disclosure. The "rule" for actively disclosing is - if it's not your focus of play, actively disclose it. Notionally we can then have

That which someone decides - influences and interfaces with play, but not settled by play (Duskvol setting fiction)

That which we actively disclose - influences play and interfaces with play, but may not be settled by play (DitV town inhabitants)​

​

That which we shroud in mystery, with some process for disclosure - influences and interfaces with play, but may not be settled by play (the BBEG's plot in an AP)​

​

That which is settled by play - neither actively disclosed, nor shrouded in mystery, nor simply decided by one person​

​

Where I'm going with this is that when your focus for play is something other than protagonists-resolve-premises, the above still applies. If it is ludically-crux (among your prelusory-goals), it ought to be settled in play. The implication drawn attention to is that it's fine if the BBEG is scripted, so long as that isn't what you're playing for. To avoid accusations of "smearing out" - no, this doesn't make RPGs undifferentiable. For one thing, they can each make different things the focus of play, and they can each decide that different things aren't the focus of play. And treat those things in different ways.

In order to play RPG as game, one ought to subject one's focus of play to play. Anything else is unideal (and arguably, not playing a game.)

When playing Dead Gods as written and presented for play; or playing a CoC scenario; what is the "ludically crux" focus of play?

I will suggest an answer to this question:

*For the players, what is "ludically crux" is learning the pre-scripted story, but not in virtue of having it read or presented in a novelistic or movie-like fashion, but rather by imagining oneself "into" the story, and thus encountering it second-person ("You see that . . .", etc) and prompting those second-person revelations via first-person action declarations ("We go and visit the . . . ", etc).

*For the GM, what is "ludically crux" is revealing the pre-scripted material in the manner just described, and then taking pleasure in the players' pleasure in experiencing the revelation.​

So one thing to note is that the GM and the players don't share a common "pre-lusory" goal. This asymmetry, I want to say, is almost definitional of "trad" RPGing.

Another thing to note is that the game play really consists in the players providing the first-person prompts, and the GM providing the second-person responses. To borrow some language from Vincent Baker, the purpose of the game's mechanics is, primarily (and perhaps with combat as an exception in AD&D and in CoC) to "structure [the] group's ongoing agreement about what happens in the game".

As far as the content of the fiction is concerned, the players' contribution is explained by Edwards, here:

the story [is] a feature of Exploration with the process of play being devoted to how to make it happen as expected. The participation of more than one person in the process is usually a matter of providing improvisational additions to be filtered through the primary story-person's judgment, or of providing extensive Color to the story.​

Eero Tuovinen describes this sort of RPGing in these terms:

the purpose of the GM story hour is not to cheat and create an illusion of freedom; it is to exquisitely prepare nuanced literary material for intimate consideration. The strength of the railroading game structure is not in hiding the tracks, but rather in ensuring that those tracks travel through scenes worthy of spending some time in. You’re literally only bothering with the railroad tracks because you don’t want to waste time preparing complex content and then just have the other players skip it; it’s much better to take the track as a given and focus on how to make your content worth the trip.

I’ve written about this in more detail elsewhere, but the key consideration is treating your game prep the same way an adventure video game does: your core strength is being able to prepare carefully, and the freedoms you give to the player are carefully constrained to ensure that you actually get to show off your stuff. It is still interactive, as the player has the primary control over the pace (how quickly you go over your material) and focus (what parts of your material are particularly observed) of play, even as the GM by definition holds primary content authority. The GM decides what play will be about, but the other players decide how they investigate that aboutness.

The GM story hour is an appropriate game structure for games where a single player introduces specific subject matter to the other players. It is extremely important that the introduced matter is good stuff, creatively relevant to the participants. Tracy Hickman understood this in his magnum opus Dragonlance, pushing the AD&D content delivery chassis to its extreme ends and beyond in an effort to deliver a true high fantasy epic via a game structurally very poorly suited for the purpose; Hickman understood that if there was to be a measure of grace to the project, it would be in the fact that the GM would in his interminable story hour be delivering actually legit fantasy literature. . . .

Respect yourself, respect your friends, and if you choose to play a game structured for the story hour, bring something you actually want to tell the other players about. Something that you can describe to them, and then let them ask questions, and then answer those questions gladly, confident that you’re engaging in an intelligent, meaningful activity.​

Tuovinen also adds some remarks about an alternative/variant, where the emphasis is less on literary merit and more on shared appreciation of the source material:

The better the game manages to portray its source material, the more accessible, the more powerful the portrayal, the greater our appreciation. The GM is of course core here . . .

Substantial exploration pairs up well with GM story hour, of course, but they both can fare just fine without each other, which makes considering them distinctly quite meaningful.​

Notice how Tuovinen emphasises the point that the core of this sort of play is the prompt- revelation cycle, between players and GM.

And from what has been said - by me, by Edwards, by Tuovinen - we can also see why "play to find out" is not particularly apt here. There is no particular, single thing that all the game participants are finding out. The GM already knows the material - they are revealing it to the players, not learning it for themselves. What they are "finding out" is how the player will respond, and (hopefully) the particular way in which the players' appreciation will manifest. The players, on the other hand, are finding out what it is that the GM is delivering to them, whether by way of story in the literary sense (eg DL, arguably Dead Gods) or by way of the second-to-first-to-second person way of presenting beloved source material (eg CoC, arguably Dead Gods).

(A footnote: In checking the above quote from Edwards, I also discovered Edwards' description of neo-trad, or proto-neo trad, here: "Players get to contribute tons of Color, even content, but never outcomes or final-resolutions, and playing the character as conceived is the first priority".)

 

[tetrasodium]

Your previous request was not straightforward.

No, the request was basic to the extreme unless the claim was a mistake or a product of fiction.

Here is what you wrote in 530 responding to clearstream

Who denies it?

Both @Emberashh and @tetrasodium would appear to be doing so. From what I can tell.

There is no deeper depth hidden behind me responding to it saying

I'd be interested to hear that explained.

It can not be any more straightforward to have me asking your reasoning for that claim about me explained given that I was not part of the claim or the question that spawned it in any way other than you choosing to tag me.

---

As to the rest of your post it was made quite clear back around page 50 that the power of authority over story & such that neotrad shifts from the player who is theGM to the players who are players comes with no responsibilities or expectations. You however went a little further and admitted that they had

Spoiler: this responsibility

When I run or play games that I think fall into the neotrad bucket, I expect players… in addition to their normal responsibilities… to have a strong character concept and to actively work toward that concept.

So if they’re out for revenge on those who slew their loved one, they should actively pursue that vengeance. Where as a more trad game would see such a goal as a distraction from the “main story”, neotrad should be including this quest for revenge in the game.

The rest of your post 551 shredded response to what I wrote in 546 is literally shifting the goalposts of responsibility that you & others set for neotrad to broadly gesture at some nonspecific responsibilities and expectations in a way that avoids admitting that there was an error in not being willing to say them at any point they were asked about. If that is a mistake that is just now clicking into place mentally then it's an easy oops I see why responsibilities are important. If that is not a mistake and is instead a deliberate choice to avoid clearly calling those responsibilities and expectations what they are even when asked directly it implies things about neotrad itself....

 

[Manbearcat]

The tone and continued doubling down on otherizing something into belonging strictly to a design space you have decided to ignore, for no good or even stated reason, says otherwise.

Alright just a few things and then we're almost surely done talking. I'm not interested in this particular brand of back and forth nor this conversational style.

1) This looks like bait. I have no idea what in the world you're even talking about here. Who is "otherizing" (is this a novel form of "othering" that I'm not familiar with...given that we're seeing novel definitions and uses of terms left and right, I'd actually like to know) what here? Me?

What am I "othering" (I'm going to use that term because I understand it) here?

My contributions to this thread have been explaining and defending Neotrad play against incorrect claims about it and aspersions against it despite the fact that I don't engage with the play culture nor the systems that support it. I'm quite happy that folks have an ability to engage with this novel play style and systemization and I'd like it if it was understood-at-large (rather than distorted and that distortion aspersed).

So what are you on about with the above statement?

2) Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about with Ludonarrative Dissonance. Its not a concept I engage with much at all. Here is my brief understanding of it and my later contact with it in the TTRPG space:

a) The original Bioshock blog post that introduced the concept which lamented the unfortunate, jarring relationship between the non-interactive, game-experience-driving metaplot which the trajectory of play is captured by and the mechanically-interactive components of gameplay.

b) The Alexandrian and others employment of the term in order to generate an edition warring hitpiece (dissociative mechanics) based on anchoring priors that misunderstand or misrepresent any game design (and cloud < > box relationship to borrow Baker's concepts) that isn't Purist for System, process-simulation like Runequest or Rolemaster.


That is the extent of my understanding with and engagement with the concept. The (a) that pertains to "Story Before" metaplot driving play trajectory and the potential for disconnection with the players perception of their role and ability to drive play by interacting with their levers and widgets and the extrapolation of (b) (which looked like both a bastardization of the original concept and clearly motivated reasoning to wrap agitation and anger in a housing of rationale).

That is my contact with the concept. Any "game studies in secondary/specialty education" or blog posts or nexus of conversation that extended the topic? I have no contact with that nor clue about.

3) I'm not getting into the rest of your post; not the content nor your approach to conversation nor your conception of what player-side subversion of best practices might look like for Story Now games (not that you can even get into that without knowing the actual game in question...having a fundamental crisis of faith or duty and going from a priest to heretic or a kingsguard to kingslayer might be entirely appropriate...it depends on the game in question...like Dogs in the Vineyard engages exactly with the former while My Life With Master engages exactly with the latter).

 

[pemerton]

I'm not getting into the rest of your post; not the content nor your approach to conversation nor your conception of what player-side subversion of best practices might look like for Story Now games (not that you can even get into that without knowing the actual game in question...having a fundamental crisis of faith or duty and going from a priest to heretic or a kingsguard to kingslayer might be entirely appropriate...it depends on the game in question...like Dogs in the Vineyard engages exactly with the former while My Life With Master engages exactly with the latter).

I'm not sure who you're replying to - there are a few posters in this thread whose posts I can't see - but what is the ostensible basis for claiming that it subverts "story now" play for a character to go from priest to heretic, or from bodyguard to assassin? I mean as you say it all depends on context, but on the face of it either of those sounds like it could be quite awesome!

Is there a poster who is confusing neotrad-ish sim with story now? I mean, I'm reminded of this from Edwards:

Consider the behavioral parameters of a samurai player-character in Sorcerer and in GURPS. On paper the sheets look pretty similar: bushido all over the place, honorable, blah blah. But what does this mean in terms of player decisions and events during play? I suggest that in Sorcerer (Narrativist), the expectation is that the character will encounter functional limits of his or her behavioral profile, and eventually, will necessarily break one or more of the formal tenets as an expression of who he or she "is," or suffer for failing to do so. No one knows how, or which one, or in relation to which other characters; that's what play is for. I suggest that in GURPS (Simulationist), the expectation is that the behavioral profile sets the parameters within which the character reliably acts, especially in the crunch - in other words, it formalizes the role the character will play in the upcoming events. Breaking that role in a Sorcerer-esque fashion would, in this case, constitute something very like a breach of contract.​

In "story now" play, it's not a breach of contract for the PC to "explode" in some fashion: it's expected!

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, the request was basic to the extreme unless the claim was a mistake or a product of fiction.

Here is what you wrote in 530 responding to clearstream

There is no deeper depth hidden behind me responding to it saying

It can not be any more straightforward to have me asking your reasoning for that claim about me explained given that I was not part of the claim or the question that spawned it in any way other than you choosing to tag me.

---

As to the rest of your post it was made quite clear back around page 50 that the power of authority over story & such that neotrad shifts from the player who is theGM to the players who are players comes with no responsibilities or expectations. You however went a little further and admitted that they had
The rest of your post 551 shredded response to what I wrote in 546 is literally shifting the goalposts of responsibility that you & others set for neotrad to broadly gesture at some nonspecific responsibilities and expectations in a way that avoids admitting that there was an error in not being willing to say them at any point they were asked about. If that is a mistake that is just now clicking into place mentally then it's an easy oops I see why responsibilities are important. If that is not a mistake and is instead a deliberate choice to avoid clearly calling those responsibilities and expectations what they are even when asked directly it implies things about neotrad itself....

Sorry, your posts aren’t clear to me.

My comment about you not thinking neotrad is a real playstyle seems straightforward. As near as I can tell from your posts, you view it as some form of degenerate play.

If that’s not the case, then I’ve misunderstood. Please feel free to clarify.

As for the remainder, I feel I’ve explained myself clearly across several posts. Many others seem to understand what ai’m saying. So it seems we may have to leave it at that.