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="clearstream" data-source="post: 9245127" data-attributes="member: 71699">To take stock, taking to heart VB's contention thatG, N and S were arbitrary, not reflective of real divisions in actual design or actual play. That while you can, if you want, assign a given instance of gameplay to G, N or S more or less consistently, you do so by asserting false similarities and ignoring some true similarities between other instances of gameplay. GNS is a convenient stand-in for what's actually going on. So making an attempt to avoid leaning on those constructs (a lazy habit I have!)1. It feels like there is a high level of agreement that "neotrad" designs are game texts incorporating mechanical innovations from indie-games. They're game texts for which we can often see historical counterparts pre-dating those innovations, or in any event they import rather than invent them. On the whole, the innovations referred to were first found in "storygames" inspired by a common nexus of RPG theory: thus representing a wave of "new technology". 2. It feels like there is a fair level of agreement that such innovations tend to constrain GM powers. Accompanying a shift in assumptions around GMing: GM may judge on rules, but works in accord with them. Rules can then compel and constrain GM. (This does not amount to arguing that it ought to be preferred.) 3. There is strong agreement that players are centered on to an increased degree, relative to what is normally observed in the absence of the mechanics referred to. There is some level of agreement that 2. contributes to this, whether or not it is a necessary precondition. (This does not amount to arguing that it ought to be preferred.) 4. I believe there is a high level of agreement that "neotrad" is a trend or shift in design. Something designers are seen to be thinking about and doing, resulting in a diversity of game texts incorporating the mechanical innovations referred to in 1. There is long precedent for designers "magpieing" this way; particularly in evidence following waves of new tech (innovative RPG mechanics, in this case.) Availing of mechanics prototyped in other games is an efficient design move, and for that reason if no other ought to be on the table.I have offered additional arguments that - i) that the innovations represent purposes that remain salient to the mechanics in their new contexts, and ii) that it is play rather than players that is forefronted (in particular, play rather than characters), however forefronting play naturally forefronts players and thus often characters. The second move is of significance, because it implies that "neotrad" isn't necessarily about Western dramatic tradition story even where it is using mechanics from storygames. (Something that could already have been noted from it's initial positioning by Härenstam.) It also separates neotrad from OC. Contradiction between i) and ii) is avoided by iii) counting all TTRPG into ludonarrative.Folk can obviously gauge their agreement with the above 4-point description of "neotrad" without buying into my additional arguments. There is some precedent for believing mechanics can be ported to new contexts and acquire new purposes in those contexts, leaving their original motivating intents behind. I don't think that is happening here - rather I observe failures to make the mechanics sing - but others might. Alternatively, you might resist iii) or say that it doesn't have the implications I draw relating to the lusory-duality and playing to settle  your crux lusory-goals. That would create a contradiction between i) and ii) without any proposed resolution. I think if you do so, then you're forced to assume the mechanics can take on new purposes.One consideration in design is efficiency. Validating mechanics innovations is costly (takes many iterations, with some percentage of misses rather than hits.) It is efficient to avail of mechanics prototyped in other games. As a designer, you can efficiently equip yourself to take part in this second wave - the extended "neotrad" shift - by reading, playing, and observing play of, games in which the innovations are found. Whether you need to understand the original purposes of the innovations would depend on your view of my additional arguments, which if right (and followed) would predict an increased likelihood of impactfully deploying them.[USER=70468]@kenada[/USER] [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER] [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] the above may be of interest to you - as designers - whether or not you agree with my additional arguments (or indeed, any of it!)</blockquote>

Verification