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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9244697" data-attributes="member: 6690965">In the 150-300ish post range, I think we got a pretty clear sense that the dividing line comes down to authority over the fiction. Neotrad places some portion of mechanical control that in trad play resides with a GM in the hands of PCs, especially as it relates to their characters, but still places most authority in the GM's hands and may still pursue many of the same ultimate goals of play as trad.We had some back and forth over whether this can be achieved by classifying the GM as a player (I personally thought that was a bit of a sideshow) and how much/what authority can be moved without shifting past neotrad to something else altogether. A lot of focus came down to using specific techniques to constrain the GM, and how much of that authority was negative, vs. a more overt narrative system. Think things like death flags, that prevent the GM from saying "your character is killed" but do not otherwise constrain the GM's ability to determine what NPCs or the opposition do, or what the world contains. We ran all kinds of places with various levels of myth, and all the usual talking past each other diversions.In so much as there is a consensus, I think it comes down to games that have the general shape of trad play, but give PCs and/or systems some specific constraints on the GM, usually coming down to protecting/guiding character development.I offered the summary much earlier of "trad, but..." with the space after the but left open as the design question a "neotrad" game would be articulating a mechanism to solve, and a rationale for why it should be different; "but what, and why?"</blockquote>

Verification