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

[Paul Farquhar]

No one is saying you can't be both. The only reason to make this comment is because you're trying to, for some reason, disprove neotrad by saying that you can't be described by labels. That's fine by you. Most players can't be described by purely just one label, and categorizations like these are a footnote for a style of PLAY, not a style of PLAYER.

And also make the point that labels are actively harmful and misleading.

Style of play is determined by the style of player. You will often see tables using exactly the same rules to play very different games.

 

[Shardstone]

And also make the point that labels are actively harmful and misleading.

Style of play is determined by the style of player. You will often see tables using exactly the Same rules to play very different games.

They aren't. Sorry, hate to break it to you. Labels are ok actually, so long as you don't take them as gospel to reality. Like, I prefer neotrad play. I play mainly neotrad games. I'm not just a neotrad player, but it is my preferred. I'm not being hurt by this. I'm not misleading anyone.

You need a healthier schema for labels.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

so long as you don't take them as gospel to reality.

Humans are psychologically incapable of making that distinction. Truth is black or white, there is no room for grey.

You are wrong, labels are harmful.

This is highly relevant to the OP - the reason they are having trouble seeing the fun is because they are being presented with a very extreme, exaggerated version. Because that’s what the definition says. And some people even play that way, because that is what the definition says they should do.

 

[Aldarc]

No one is saying you can't be both. The only reason to make this comment is because you're trying to, for some reason, disprove neotrad by saying that you can't be described by labels. That's fine by you. Most players can't be described by purely just one label, and categorizations like these are a footnote for a style of PLAY, not a style of PLAYER.

Yeah, Cultures of Play does not claim that players can only be one. These are cultures of play in the hobby. I definitely jump between Story Games, Neo-Trad, and OSR games. These cultures and associated games deliver different gaming experiences, all of which I happen to enjoy.

But I also feel that complaining about the label of OC/Neo-Trad seems to go against the purpose of a +Thread about trying to understand the fun. Instead, it seems to venture more into the realm of thread-crapping.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

So if a tree [like that entry in the six cultures post] falls in the forest but the only evidence is an endless list of personal estimations and hot takes in the form of individual forum posts describing how it must have been and the tree itself is dubious then did it ever exist? Given how many of the posts talking about the difference between trad & neotrad/oc tend towards painting one of them with a questionably extreme brush, like post 88 noted, does it exist as anything other than a desire to use a unique term for players deeming themselves "neotrad"?

There must be actual articles & longer form blog posts talking about "neotrad" specifically somewhere if it's more than a series of misinterpretations, where are they?

 

[Shardstone]

So if a tree [like that entry in the six cultures post] falls in the forest but the only evidence is an endless list of personal estimations and hot takes in the form of individual forum posts describing how it must have been and the tree itself is dubious then did it ever exist? Given how many of the posts talking about the difference between trad & neotrad/oc tend towards painting one of them with a questionably extreme brush, like post 88 noted, does it exist as anything other than a desire to use a unique term for players deeming themselves "neotrad"?

There must be actual articles & longer form blog posts talking about "neotrad" specifically somewhere if it's more than a series of misinterpretations, where are they?

So if something isn't already documented, it doesn't exist? Guess we'll never cure cancer then...

 

[tetrasodium]

So if something isn't already documented, it doesn't exist? Guess we'll never cure cancer then...

That's a rather wild conclusion to draw from what seems to be a pretty questionable reading of my post about drawing conclusions from questionable descriptions. I think the lack of more than forum posts describing "neotrad" is noteworthy because other terns like story games shared narrative games & similar tend to be used in those longer form writeups. Where are they for this thing called "neotrad/oc" that so many in the thread claim to be?

 

[Aldarc]

So if a tree [like that entry in the six cultures post] falls in the forest but the only evidence is an endless list of personal estimations and hot takes in the form of individual forum posts describing how it must have been and the tree itself is dubious then did it ever exist? Given how many of the posts talking about the difference between trad & neotrad/oc tend towards painting one of them with a questionably extreme brush, like post 88 noted, does it exist as anything other than a desire to use a unique term for players deeming themselves "neotrad"?

There must be actual articles & longer form blog posts talking about "neotrad" specifically somewhere if it's more than a series of misinterpretations, where are they?

Regardless, this doesn't seem to be the thread for discussing that. There are several other threads you can find that discuss Neotrad as a label.

 

[Shardstone]

That's a rather wild conclusion to draw from what seems to be a pretty questionable reading of my post about drawing conclusions from questionable descriptions. I think the lack of more than forum posts describing "neotrad" is noteworthy because other terns like story games shared narrative games & similar tend to be used in those longer form writeups. Where are they for this thing called "neotrad/oc" that so many in the thread claim to be?

At one point in time, even story games were a forum only topic.

 

[tetrasodium]

Regardless, this doesn't seem to be the thread for discussing that. There are several other threads you can find that discuss Neotrad as a label.

My point was one searching for understanding through longer form articles/blog posts because the last sixteen pages have had so many disparate personal interpretations. How can anyone understand, as the OP asked to do, a thing that exists entirely of individual personal hot takes? It's hard not to desire something more substantial that one could point at when the gold standard being used gets panned as "really bad" in the post I quoted there. There's no reason for this kind of response just to avoid clarity if the answer is "no nobody knows of any such longer form things" because such an answer in itself would be descriptive & explanatory.