Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9236588" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I think the GM should have goals for play. I just think that, in a neotrad game, those goals should be either sufficiently broad or sufficiently focused on the characters. Yes!I mean… there could also be a game where there’s one GM and one player that’s not out of necessity. I’ve played this way plenty of times, and although it requires some different techniques, it’s a perfectly valid way to play. That the players typically outnumber the GM may be true, but I really don’t think it matters.What? Who is rejecting what in the above? The idea that neotrad is just “a shield for poor player behavior” is really odd. I’ve played in and GMed plenty such games. I’d say the bulk of my earliest play was neotrad, well before the term was even coined. Those games didn’t involve poor player behavior at all. This is an area I’m not quite clear on. Is adjusting challenge in that way trad or neotrad or both?It seems more trad to me, but I think it’s probably a practice that generally sees a lot of overlap between the two. I mean, there aren’t hard and fast lines between these cultures and how folks implement their elements into their games.</blockquote>