All i Really Care About is Interesting Choices

[Reynard]

We're talking about two completely different things here though. One is about the situations being distinctly about the player characters. The other is collaborating with players to build a world / tell a story. These are different sorts of gameplay experiences, both of which I find valuable.

No one here is questioning the validity of trad techniques, including more collaborative trad play which I discussed upthread. Just talking about other viable forms of play.

I'm just saying it is a sliding scale, not two separate and distinct things. Not you necessarily, but there's a fair bit of "but you can't do that in D&D, it's trad" mixed in to this thread, whereas I say, "I don't need dedicated mechanics to do those things, just table rules." I get that some games lend themselves better to one thing or another, but the desire to be collaborative with and/or accommodating to all the other people at the table isn't a rulebook thing.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't understand why folks are constantly trying to create hard distinctions between trad games and "new school" games as if no D&D GM ever considered allowing players input into the world and the "story."

I am as trad as they come and I've been listening to my players for decades. You know, because a) they are the players, and b) I'm kind of lazy.

That's really not the difference. You can be totally Trad in play and still take input from players. The difference is the authority structures, and how play treats that input, and really what the play is meant to be about. In Trad play, the GM retains full authority, such that input from players is suggestion, to be taken, changed, and used however the GM chooses (including ignoring or totally subverting). Further, play is centered on the exploration of the setting (possibly the plot). As such, there's a ground truth to the setting that is independent of the players -- their focus is on discovering this ground truth and then using it (or have it use them, depending).

There's a fundamental shift in approach for some other games, usually ones that use the Story Now approach to play, which are included in @loverdrive's posting on Eastern Taxonomy as "new school" (although that school is not exclusively these games). Here, the concept of play is that the GM poses a problem, the players pose actions to deal with them, and then the system says what happens. If it's not openly established in play, then it's up for grabs. There's no 'ground truth' here that can thwart or deflect an action. If the system says success, then that action works to address the problem posed. If it fails, or a success with complication is indicated, then the GM gets to say what failure or complication looks like. These are all constrained by the premise of the game and the principles and agenda of the games in question. It's not the GM's game, it's everyone's game, and you're all playing (GM included) to find out what happens because no one could say beforehand. I noted earlier that much of mainstream play is addressing GM set goals. This kind of play is anathema to GM set goals.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm just saying it is a sliding scale, not two separate and distinct things. Not you necessarily, but there's a fair bit of "but you can't do that in D&D, it's trad" mixed in to this thread, whereas I say, "I don't need dedicated mechanics to do those things, just table rules." I get that some games lend themselves better to one thing or another, but the desire to be collaborative with and/or accommodating to all the other people at the table isn't a rulebook thing.

No, it's pretty separate. I believed as you did about 7 years ago, before I grokked the fundamental shifts. I made the same arguments. I'm 100% totally on the other side of that set of arguments now. I also still play and run 5e (although it's been a few months due to long term hiatus with that group), so it's not a matter of me shifting to not liking Trad play. 5e is totally Trad play -- hard to drift it to other things without a lot of work (and I don't want to do work like that anymore). So, yeah, how 5e plays is radically different in some fundamental ways from how a game like Blades in the Dark plays (if you're following how it tells you to play).

 

[Reynard]

That's really not the difference. You can be totally Trad in play and still take input from players. The difference is the authority structures, and how play treats that input, and really what the play is meant to be about. In Trad play, the GM retains full authority, such that input from players is suggestion, to be taken, changed, and used however the GM chooses (including ignoring or totally subverting). Further, play is centered on the exploration of the setting (possibly the plot). As such, there's a ground truth to the setting that is independent of the players -- their focus is on discovering this ground truth and then using it (or have it use them, depending).

There's a fundamental shift in approach for some other games, usually ones that use the Story Now approach to play, which are included in @loverdrive's posting on Eastern Taxonomy as "new school" (although that school is not exclusively these games). Here, the concept of play is that the GM poses a problem, the players pose actions to deal with them, and then the system says what happens. If it's not openly established in play, then it's up for grabs. There's no 'ground truth' here that can thwart or deflect an action. If the system says success, then that action works to address the problem posed. If it fails, or a success with complication is indicated, then the GM gets to say what failure or complication looks like. These are all constrained by the premise of the game and the principles and agenda of the games in question. It's not the GM's game, it's everyone's game, and you're all playing (GM included) to find out what happens because no one could say beforehand. I noted earlier that much of mainstream play is addressing GM set goals. This kind of play is anathema to GM set goals.

See, this is where I get into trouble for asking: "So why do these Story Now games even have GMs" Wouldn't they work just as well or even better if they didn't have this asymmetrical relationship? Couldn't a combination of random tables and participant input do the job?"

And before anyone get angry (again) for me asking, note that I am NOT asking to be snarky or pejorative. I am totally serious. What does the GM add to this style of play that requires that role be filled, that isn't just a legacy issue? Surely if Bob's character is talking to an NPC, Mary can take the role of the NPCs since in the end the dice are going to decide what the result of the conversation is going to be?

 

[Reynard]

No, it's pretty separate. I believed as you did about 7 years ago, before I grokked the fundamental shifts. I made the same arguments. I'm 100% totally on the other side of that set of arguments now. I also still play and run 5e (although it's been a few months due to long term hiatus with that group), so it's not a matter of me shifting to not liking Trad play. 5e is totally Trad play -- hard to drift it to other things without a lot of work (and I don't want to do work like that anymore). So, yeah, how 5e plays is radically different in some fundamental ways from how a game like Blades in the Dark plays (if you're following how it tells you to play).

Maybe it was the GM but I did not say I felt like a paradigm shift had occurred in playing BitD. I mean, I enjoyed it, and I like the tools of flashbacks and stuff, but I use that technique running Savage Worlds, perhaps the most trad of modern trad games.

 

[Ovinomancer]

See, this is where I get into trouble for asking: "So why do these Story Now games even have GMs" Wouldn't they work just as well or even better if they didn't have this asymmetrical relationship? Couldn't a combination of random tables and participant input do the job?"

And before anyone get angry (again) for me asking, note that I am NOT asking to be snarky or pejorative. I am totally serious. What does the GM add to this style of play that requires that role be filled, that isn't just a legacy issue? Surely if Bob's character is talking to an NPC, Mary can take the role of the NPCs since in the end the dice are going to decide what the result of the conversation is going to be?

The GM has a job to do. It's not the same as being a player. As a player, you're supposed to go hard for your character -- you are supposed to be 100% in the tank for your person, unreservedly and unabashedly. That's a headspace that's different from the GM's, whose job it is to pour adversity on these characters and see what comes out. If you're trading the role of GM, there's a natural instinct to softball that adversity. That cuts against the intent of play.

Some games, like Ironsworn*, do have a GM-less version of play, but it also provides the Oracle mechanic to offset softballing and help generate problems. It's still a bit soft when used this way (my opinion) and open to manipulation, but if you have a great table that can keep it separate (and not get mad that Bob just hammered you (rightfully) even though you pitched him slow last go round) then you can make it work. But, even here, you're really just trading that different job around -- it's still a different job.

I think that you might be thinking that the point of this kind of play is just to generate a fun story, so that there's no need for real tension and you can just share the GM job around (because, maybe, you think it's mostly cat herding?). But that's not the point, and that's not how it's supposed to work, and the GM's job is pretty darned critical to play.

*I still highly recommend Ironsworn as an excellent on-ramp to grokking this kind of play. It does a great job with it's solo play to introduce and teach the differences in play. And the game it pretty easy to read and pick up, too. Plus, best of all, it's completely free at ironswornrpg.com.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Maybe it was the GM but I did not say I felt like a paradigm shift had occurred in playing BitD. I mean, I enjoyed it, and I like the tools of flashbacks and stuff, but I use that technique running Savage Worlds, perhaps the most trad of modern trad games.

Then it was the GM, and they were not following the principles and agenda of play. Here's a quick test -- did you pick what you were doing, or did it feel like you were doing like in a D&D or CoC game -- taking actions to get the GM to reveal more things about what was going on? If yes, then the GM was taking the system and just running it like D&D (which probably caused numerous problems and confusion as rolls were called for that led to strange outcomes and were probably just swept under the rug when too problematical). If no, then I'm very curious to talk more about your play experience. Blades plays nothing at all like 5e.

 

[Reynard]

Then it was the GM, and they were not following the principles and agenda of play. Here's a quick test -- did you pick what you were doing, or did it feel like you were doing like in a D&D or CoC game -- taking actions to get the GM to reveal more things about what was going on? If yes, then the GM was taking the system and just running it like D&D (which probably caused numerous problems and confusion as rolls were called for that led to strange outcomes and were probably just swept under the rug when too problematical). If no, then I'm very curious to talk more about your play experience. Blades plays nothing at all like 5e.

Can you articulate what you mean by "pick what you were doing"? Because if you mean "did you choose what score to go for" the answer is "kind of, it was a introductory game so we sort of just agreed on one the GM had run before." If you mean something deeper, I would need a better explanation.

But broadly: no, it did not feel especially different than most RPGs with a lot of player agency within the context of the "adventure." The real difference was the constant attempt to interpret results of "success with a cost" which at times felt forced (similar to interpreting Genysys dice).

 

[Ovinomancer]

Can you articulate what you mean by "pick what you were doing"? Because if you mean "did you choose what score to go for" the answer is "kind of, it was a introductory game so we sort of just agreed on one the GM had run before." If you mean something deeper, I would need a better explanation.

But broadly: no, it did not feel especially different than most RPGs with a lot of player agency within the context of the "adventure." The real difference was the constant attempt to interpret results of "success with a cost" which at times felt forced (similar to interpreting Genysys dice).

Yup, sounds like the GM didn't get it, and tried to make it work with how they understand RPGs to work as well. That it felt forced is zero surprise -- it was forced.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm just saying it is a sliding scale, not two separate and distinct things. Not you necessarily, but there's a fair bit of "but you can't do that in D&D, it's trad" mixed in to this thread, whereas I say, "I don't need dedicated mechanics to do those things, just table rules." I get that some games lend themselves better to one thing or another, but the desire to be collaborative with and/or accommodating to all the other people at the table isn't a rulebook thing.

Yes and no... There is a big difference between playing a fairly 'neo trad' game with a lot of instances of GM/player collaboration on 'player projects' or 'player interest play' vs the sort of Story Now/Narrativist play that something like PbtAs or FitD based games do. There are similarities, and you may be able to drift your 5e game closer to something like a really Narrativist game, but usually a game like that will play in a mostly traditional way with things like player initiated quests, etc.