Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9239836" data-attributes="member: 71699">In TTRPG, the mechanics dive in and out of the imagination. Imagination is part of them. One can say that what one means by "mechanics" is that they are external real world things and not imagination, and if so one ought to accept that MDA lacks a complete account of the way in which TTRPGs operate.You can, and that points directly to why it is so important to prompt participants accurately.This is a good response as I alluded to in a response to Snarf above. It's certainly worth asking, is "neotrad" simply spatchcocking a few mechanics from indie games into an otherwise traditional TTRPG design? The resultant play will be traditional (as folk who can afford the time to observe actual play will see). Making "neotrad" a synonym of "trad". I'm not aiming to offer a toothless definition!I put weight in Harenstam's explanation of his OPBaker invests ample, strongly worded text into enforcing that the rules are observed. Relying I suppose on the principles of respect for and a playfully curious tolerance of a designer's work.Fortunately, I don't mean that. I mean both asymmetrical roles and equal committment to grasping and upholding the rules.I have in mind that it should be provocative. It should point out the impossibility of the toothless definition of neotrad, and prescribe a solution. It's not a toolkit of design patterns, it's background philosophy for design with purpose.</blockquote>

Verification