D&D 5E Help me understand & find the fun in OC/neo-trad play...

[pemerton]

But only if they're new to the business, I guess.

In lieu of a groan emoji, you get my sad face . . .

 

[pemerton]

while OC/neo-trad may be close to story games in design, I'd say that they come from different origins and, as such, it's interesting to recognize them as different variants of a common approach to roleplaying.

This is interesting. I hadn't read it yet when I posted a reply to you upthread.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think there is a defensible reason for drawing the distinction, namely, because of the way that mainstream RPGing (and for clarity, a game like Apocalypse World or In A Wicked Age is well within this mainstream) allocates particular bits of the fiction to particular participants: one group of participants primarily "own" and control the doings of particular characters; while another single participant (the GM) "owns" and controls all the other stuff; and the "plot" is the result of some interaction between and adding to these various bits that the various participants "own".

If you emphasise "plot", you will tend to be emphasising stuff that the GM "owns": NPCs, events involving the environment or large social groups, etc.

If you emphasise "character", you will tend to be emphasising stuff that the non-GM participants "own": PCs, and some of the stuff that orbits around them and the PCs' emotional/thematic/moral/etc orientations towards that orbiting "stuff".

These two different sorts of emphasis, because of the difference places where they put control or ownership under pressure or require it to be exercised in certain ways, tend to invite different techniques (and not just mechanics like - say - rolls to hit and damage; but techniques around, say, how situations and stakes are established, how consequences are established, etc).

Hence why I think it is defensible to differentiate the, both when looking at "cultures of play" and when analysing the various possible technical components of RPGing.

Sure, but I think both “trad” and “neo-trad” involve some degree of emphasis on plot/DM-owned material and some degree of emphasis on character/player-owned material. To me at least, they look like poles on a spectrum. Wherever a given group may fall on that spectrum, they’re still fundamentally within the “collective storytelling” play culture, as opposed to the “skilled play” culture (which itself has a spectrum of adherence to traditional Gygaxian techniques vs. “NuSR” experimentalism), and the culture developed over at the Forge.

…Huh. You know, put that way it sounds pretty much like the Big Model’s creative agendas. That’s a little embarrassing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I use that six cultures of play article as a filter & almost always need to boot a player when they proudly shift blame for their behavior onto "well I'm neotrad" before demanding all kinds of changes. I don't think that article accurately describes whatever neotrad is now because it seems to be an amorphous undefinable SEP shield that's too deep for anyone but people proclaiming to play neotrad to grasp.

No. The article is just really bad at describing it. Most likely because the author does not practice or enjoy either of those styles of play. The simple fact that they conflated "OC" with neo-trad is already a pretty major sign something is wrong.

It's unfortunate that you've had bad experiences with folks who like these styles of play, but if your style is strongly opposed to the things their style is about, then of course that's likely to lead to conflict. Any player can be a demanding, petulant anus. Neo-trad and OC are not special in that regard. I have seen "classic" and "trad" and "OSR" players be demanding and petulant at tables that favor neo-trad play.

 

[niklinna]

Sure, but I think both “trad” and “neo-trad” involve some degree of emphasis on plot/DM-owned material and some degree of emphasis on character/player-owned material. To me at least, they look like poles on a spectrum. Wherever a given group may fall on that spectrum, they’re still fundamentally within the “collective storytelling” play culture, as opposed to the “skilled play” culture (which itself has a spectrum of adherence to traditional Gygaxian techniques vs. “NuSR” experimentalism), and the culture developed over at the Forge.

…Huh. You know, put that way it sounds pretty much like the Big Model’s creative agendas. That’s a little embarrassing.

Don't worry, Ron Edwards has publicly disavowed GNS (if you consider calling it "moronic and annoying" to be disavowing, that is).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

They're mostly D&D nerds on the Internet.

Often, I find, they are specifically those who want to defend their style (typically, an older one) against either (a) the slings and arrows of outrageous newcomers who (allegedly) dismiss anything and everything older as bad solely because it is old, or (b) some alleged decline, usually painting more recent styles in a negative light while extolling the virtues of older styles. Compare, for a rather illustrative example, the "Quick Primer for Old School Gaming."

 

[pemerton]

You know, put that way it sounds pretty much like the Big Model’s creative agendas. That’s a little embarrassing.

Sure. Because I'm never too humble to pull a self-quote:

In the Forge sense, I think neo-trad is a species of high concept simulationism, or in some contexts perhaps it is exploration-heavy gamism where the stakes of "loss" for the player are very low. But in establishing exploration (in the Forge sesen) as its primary concern, or as a significant concern, it uses a different authority structure from that present in the examples that Edwards talked about 20 years ago. This different authority structure is partly a matter of "ethos" - centring the player more than is traditional - but also is established and mediated, at least to some degree, by new techniques that have been developed, or at least become mainstream, over that two-decade period.

This blog - What does it take to be a “neotrad” role-playing game? - identifies some of the techniques that are present in neo-trad oriented RPGs but absent from trad-oriented ones.

Asymmetric gameplay; a "Chekhov's gun" approach to mechanics; "bounded bookkeeping" and other means of supporting the GM's role in framing and adjudication; and no rule zero: these are primarily about rejecting the purist-for-system design legacy that remains common in many trad-oriented RPGs. By making the GM's job easier - with more support/scaffolding for decision-making, and reducing the technical challenges inherent in implementing a decision (for instance, no need to have drawn up complex maps to support wargame-style action resolution) - these also permit the shift of authority towards players without that impeding the actual processes of play.

Clear agency for PCs and shared party creation: these mean that "world/setting exploration", "fish out of water" PCs, "hunting for the adventure" and similar aspects of much trad RPGing are foregone: the focus of exploration shifts to character and situation, where the situations are clearly drawn. In addition, these technical innovations further support the realignment in authority to players, without that realignment pulling the rug out from under the GM, because the GM can see what the players' concerns are and can know where they are heading in the play of their PCs.

The incorporation of these techniques is summed up thus:

"it’s got the production values, ease of use and plentiful campaign material of a traditional RPG, combined with the kind of clever and thematic rules design usually found in the indie games”, he said. . . .

a tabletop roleplaying games need to be abreast of the times, requiring less time and effort, cutting downtimes, taking some useless responsibilities away from the master job and, generally speaking, be competitive with other entertainment media. “Modern” RPGs (or indie, or new wave) are a very good answer to these needs but they offer a different game experience so many gamers are not comfortable with their approach.​

That "not comfortable" is about departures from sim, or exploration-heavy gamism. Neo-trad remains in the "comfort zone" but changes the ethos and techniques.

I think understood in the above terms, neo-trad is broadly identifiable as a thing: an ethos/orientation to RPGing that certain games set out to support.

 

[Charlaquin]

Don't worry, Ron Edwards has publicly disavowed GNS (if you consider calling it "moronic and annoying" to be disavowing, that is).

I don’t really put stock in Ron Edwards’ opinion.

All models are wrong, some models are useful. This is as true of GNS as it is of Cultures of Play.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure. Because I'm never too humble to pull a self-quote:

This is tangential to your point, but is it so buck-wild to me that the blog you linked there lists “no rule zero/golden rule” as a hallmark of neo-trad, and then just calls that statement self-explanatory and moves on. Maybe that’s self-explanatory to an audience who’s already familiar with neo-trad, but it sounds completely outlandish to me.

 

[pemerton]

This is tangential to your point, but is it so buck-wild to me that the blog you linked there lists “no rule zero/golden rule” as a hallmark of neo-trad, and then just calls that statement self-explanatory and moves on. Maybe that’s self-explanatory to an audience who’s already familiar with neo-trad, but it sounds completely outlandish to me.

To me, it's a sign of the move to integrate/adopt "indie" methods into an overall more "trad" agenda.