NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9240036" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Going to throw a few words at this in hopes that perhaps it helps this thread along.I believe elsewhere you've seen my take on one of the primary juxtapositions of Neotrad play and Story Now play?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Form (with intentionally removed function) of Story Now design where risk/stakes are reduced via the vectors of system and/or table conspiracy.  This can mean things like (a) the game is not particularly difficult in terms of attainment of objectives or (b) that the system meta entails the means to ensure high-stakes objective attainment, typically at the forfeiture of low-stakes objective attainment (which might barely rise beyond the realm of color/texture rather than "toothy consequences").  An easy example of this is resolution framework + currency economy paradigm + difficulty dials that yield player opt-into forfeiture of low-stakes objective attainment in order to gain the necessary currencies to ensure high-stakes objective attainment later.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">GM Metaplot synergizing/working in concert with player-side railroading where there is either explicit or well-signaled conception of character from player to GM with the expectation that this conception gets mapped onto play via a character arc; this is the table conspiracy in the first bullet point.  Sometimes, the player has profound or total control of this via system (see bullet point one above for an example).</li> </ul>So (IMO) one of the key areas where Neotrad and Story Now play diverge is not in form.  They can "look" very similar to one another on the surface.  Its in the function.  Story Now games are supposed to be designed to be resistant to any railroading (by GM and player) or expectations of Story Before mapping onto play (like the ensured conception of character) so that all participants can "play to find out."  Story Now games typically handle the function component of this by (a) flatly telling you where your headspace should be (players and GM) and (b) designing in a scheme of character > conflict > fallout > advancement ("advancement" here doesn't inherently mean "stronger", though it can) that cannot be gamed such that preplay character or plot conception can be successfully mapped.  The game generates dynamism of outcomes and trajectories via its engine and both it and the text rebuke/foil efforts by any participant to circumvent this.A bit of an aside, but this is one reason why I think 4e is such an excellent design.  The "dial" for Neotrad vs Story Now is pretty straight-forward; difficulty.  The difficulty curve of 4e works.  Just turn the knob.  There is a clear regime change at some point in 4e play where the engine will rebuke/foil player efforts to ensure preplay character conception/Power Fantasy gets mapped onto play.EDIT:  An easy short-hand might be that Neotrad play and Story Now play might both look like sparring in form (grappling or striking).  However, the first is overhwhelmingly (or totally) choregraphed while the second is live.</blockquote>

Verification