Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Ok. Apparently I’m the one who’s mistaken about what “rule zero” means, because several people seem to be expressing something along these lines. Fair enough.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Help me understand & find the fun in OC/neo-trad play...
- Thread starter overgeeked
- Start date
Again just for clarity: I'm not expressing any view on your usage in general - I'm just talking about what is meant by the term in the blog.
Neonchameleon
Legend
Just to confirm this. Colloquially Urban Dictionary confirms this (language in link NSFW).
5e is explicit on the very first column of the very first page of prose (p4); "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game."
Not a Decepticon
Explorer
First of all, I question the validity of the whole article, but in particular it fails to diffirentiate between the "OC/NeoTrad focuses on optimization" and previous type of play, the "forge". By all means I think D&D 3.5 was a Forge game, it was only shoved into "neotrad" because it was a blanket term for "modern games" author of the article did not like and wanted to whine about. It even shows in the name, since OC is often used in a mocking sense, to describe amateurish characters and shame young creators, often teenagers and kids, for sharing their first creations online and not being at "professional" level. It's there with "Mary sue" of useless terms in character criticism. And "neotrad" basically flattens this to "repackage of trad" and trad itself was a philosophy author of the article mocked he most in previous part. I know OP asked to engage in good faith with this, but it's hard when this is pretty much worst part of the article and clearly has least amount of respect.
So I will refer to the 6th philosophy as "character-focused". And I think it is the opposite of "trad", hencce why I reject the name "neotrad". It's like saying wet is "neodry". Character-focused type of play is one where agency if put firmly in hands of the players and, unlike classic or osr, they are less given a sandmbox and more that regardless what type of campign is being played, their characters goals and motivations are being considered when tailoring plot hooks and storylines. Players are free to pursue their personal goals and GM works with them to make quests and plotlines they want to pursue. If a character-driven style is applied to a module, characters from PC's backstory may replace specific NPCs or villains, or the PC themselves may take a role of an NPC. For example, in a character-focused Curse of Strahd game, the GM may remove characters like Ireena, Ismark or Ezmeralda and present rough outline of their backstories for the PCs to base their characters of. It ensures that if we are telling a story, it's a story where PCs are main characters, not spectators.
This doens't mean the GM is powerless in this type of play. One of important things is player buy-in. This type of game will not tolerate players who show up on a magic school campaign with "Women and Children Too" Pointdexter, Puritan Witchunter who memorized every word of Malleus Maleficarum, nor a player who shows up on a pirate campaign with a heavy-armored dwarf who cannot swim, swore sacred oath to never set foot on a boat and is there to forcibly draft entire party into dwarven army and march into the mountains, to retake long lost dwarven fortress deep in the center of the continent, thousands of miles away from any body of water. In fact, I have heard advice it may even be a mistake to come to a session with preexisting idea of a character and you should build your pcs together with other players, so that they mesh well thematically. Even more extreme approach would be to, when creating a new world, worldbuild with the players, asking them to say what concept they have and then together shape their character's homeland and people. Another thing may be to allow Instead of GM working against players or to challenge them, GM and players work to create the story together (tho GM can and should still challenge the players to keep things exciting and interesting).
Another important thing is that the world reacts to PCs decisions and actions. If they leave the city without solving the zombie problem, it will be overrun by zombies. If PCs decide to steal 100k from an NPC and buy themselves a castle for it, you let them, but the NPC may come after them or someone may contest the ownership of the castle. PC are allowed to do things with a chance of failure but without DM shutting them down or railroading, but their actions have consequences, both good or bad. In fact, this type of game encourages "success at a cost" mechanics, where PC can succeed, but something negative will still happen, thus tying their problems to their own actions.
So I will refer to the 6th philosophy as "character-focused". And I think it is the opposite of "trad", hencce why I reject the name "neotrad". It's like saying wet is "neodry". Character-focused type of play is one where agency if put firmly in hands of the players and, unlike classic or osr, they are less given a sandmbox and more that regardless what type of campign is being played, their characters goals and motivations are being considered when tailoring plot hooks and storylines. Players are free to pursue their personal goals and GM works with them to make quests and plotlines they want to pursue. If a character-driven style is applied to a module, characters from PC's backstory may replace specific NPCs or villains, or the PC themselves may take a role of an NPC. For example, in a character-focused Curse of Strahd game, the GM may remove characters like Ireena, Ismark or Ezmeralda and present rough outline of their backstories for the PCs to base their characters of. It ensures that if we are telling a story, it's a story where PCs are main characters, not spectators.
This doens't mean the GM is powerless in this type of play. One of important things is player buy-in. This type of game will not tolerate players who show up on a magic school campaign with "Women and Children Too" Pointdexter, Puritan Witchunter who memorized every word of Malleus Maleficarum, nor a player who shows up on a pirate campaign with a heavy-armored dwarf who cannot swim, swore sacred oath to never set foot on a boat and is there to forcibly draft entire party into dwarven army and march into the mountains, to retake long lost dwarven fortress deep in the center of the continent, thousands of miles away from any body of water. In fact, I have heard advice it may even be a mistake to come to a session with preexisting idea of a character and you should build your pcs together with other players, so that they mesh well thematically. Even more extreme approach would be to, when creating a new world, worldbuild with the players, asking them to say what concept they have and then together shape their character's homeland and people. Another thing may be to allow Instead of GM working against players or to challenge them, GM and players work to create the story together (tho GM can and should still challenge the players to keep things exciting and interesting).
Another important thing is that the world reacts to PCs decisions and actions. If they leave the city without solving the zombie problem, it will be overrun by zombies. If PCs decide to steal 100k from an NPC and buy themselves a castle for it, you let them, but the NPC may come after them or someone may contest the ownership of the castle. PC are allowed to do things with a chance of failure but without DM shutting them down or railroading, but their actions have consequences, both good or bad. In fact, this type of game encourages "success at a cost" mechanics, where PC can succeed, but something negative will still happen, thus tying their problems to their own actions.
Shardstone
Hero
Ty for teaching me the word neodry, going to use that for now on.
overgeeked
B/X Known World
It's worth noting the fuller context. That passage does not only refer to changing the rules for story reasons. There is no such limiter in the DMG.
"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game. That said, your goal isn't to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for morel If you're lucky, the events of your campaign will echo in the memories of your players long after the final game session is concluded."
Whatever style of game your players want, this passage is equally applicable. Whatever reason the referee has for changing the rules, this passage is equally applicable.
Neotrad seems highly influenced by the rise of fanfic, which is where "OC - original characters" come from. And that has a solid start before RPGs - fanfic starts largely with Star Trek fanzines.
So separating out "OC" style play, which in my experience gets pretty precious and can often lead to main character syndrome in a party that's not all there to play around with OCs, reading the (really freaking excellent) Fabula Ultima game book + GM's guide I think gets to a lot of the a) fun in "neotrad" or whatever you want to call it [I think that the keeping of traditional style leveling + classes + skills + frequent and somewhat tactical battles is what separates neotrad from the more narrativist games - @kenada provided a definition somewhere which boiled down to 'neotrad is a trad game using indie/story game techniques and systems'] and b) ways to run it.
On a) it makes it clear to all the players that everybody at the table must be as invested in moment to moment gameplay as the GM. Because players are steering the goals, they must agree to do so - accepting premise + world + risk. The world itself is co-generated during setup, and further defined in relation to the player's class and feature choices. You see Daggerheart doing something very similar in its playtest. It puts limits on the GM, while inculcating techniques and game rules to maximize drama within scenes through mechanically tied bonds/identities/themes. It also makes it clear that the game is in service to a narrative arc that will be created via play, based on some starting conditions. Plot will happen, it's just not pre-designed beyond villains. Eg: "Metichor, Arch-Magus of Death is working on a ritual that will drain all life from the land. How will you stop him?" and the rest of the game is the players figuring that out - racing a clock (literal, it's using FITD clocks to indicate progress/threat).
I think most neotrad games will try and incorporate consequences to failure that avoid PC death. Fabula Ultima explicitly says that PCs don't die at 0 hp unless they consent, they surrender instead. However, surrendering has permanent consequences - the bad guy's plans tick forward, the PC's bonds change to a darker place (and you invoke your bonds for mechanical advantage...), etc. So in many ways you've got a much richer outcome then a trad game, from a narrative/story perspective. People evolve from failure or success or setback, and then this ties back to mechanical uses. Finally, players accumulate metacurrency they can spend to invoke their bonds, change a scene (within bounds), and some other stuff.
On b) you get a set of principles and effective guidance via words and mechanics to implement them, a lot of it around seeking input from the players while being clear with them in terms of information + consequences. It's a bit long to type it all out, but I'll say that between the DM chapter in the play guide and the short GM's Guide, it contains probably some of the best GMing advice for this sort of game I've seen anywhere - presented in a manner that supplements the 4e DMG in my head as best game-running advice (towards narrative outcomes).
The Core GM principles espoused there are:
-Portray a Wonderous World (nothing new here, just make things unique but don't get bogged down in details - be short and then let players ask questions)
-Manage information. (usual stuff, you're going to be managing the info about teh world and people)
-Seek input. If class/identity relevant, ask for player input on teh fiction and game world.
-React to heroes' choice. (yeah, but does explicitly note apply consequences of their freely chosen strategies and don't pull punches)
-Enforce transparency. Very narrativist, make sure people understand what's at stake before they make a Check/choose courses of actions.
-Keep the pressure high. (PCs want to do things, somebody will want to stop them, there's not enough time, make some hard choices, use public facing clocks)
-Think cinematically. Lots of video game framing reference here. I find myself doing this as shorthand in some of my 5e games too anyway - we're all younger gamers.
-Start and End Scenes. Hard scene framing with close-scene resolution. Once things are petering out, ask if it's done and if no players have anything they want to do - move on.
-Design interesting battles. No filler fights, no room by room dungeon crawls. Be intense and dramatic.
On a) it makes it clear to all the players that everybody at the table must be as invested in moment to moment gameplay as the GM. Because players are steering the goals, they must agree to do so - accepting premise + world + risk. The world itself is co-generated during setup, and further defined in relation to the player's class and feature choices. You see Daggerheart doing something very similar in its playtest. It puts limits on the GM, while inculcating techniques and game rules to maximize drama within scenes through mechanically tied bonds/identities/themes. It also makes it clear that the game is in service to a narrative arc that will be created via play, based on some starting conditions. Plot will happen, it's just not pre-designed beyond villains. Eg: "Metichor, Arch-Magus of Death is working on a ritual that will drain all life from the land. How will you stop him?" and the rest of the game is the players figuring that out - racing a clock (literal, it's using FITD clocks to indicate progress/threat).
I think most neotrad games will try and incorporate consequences to failure that avoid PC death. Fabula Ultima explicitly says that PCs don't die at 0 hp unless they consent, they surrender instead. However, surrendering has permanent consequences - the bad guy's plans tick forward, the PC's bonds change to a darker place (and you invoke your bonds for mechanical advantage...), etc. So in many ways you've got a much richer outcome then a trad game, from a narrative/story perspective. People evolve from failure or success or setback, and then this ties back to mechanical uses. Finally, players accumulate metacurrency they can spend to invoke their bonds, change a scene (within bounds), and some other stuff.
On b) you get a set of principles and effective guidance via words and mechanics to implement them, a lot of it around seeking input from the players while being clear with them in terms of information + consequences. It's a bit long to type it all out, but I'll say that between the DM chapter in the play guide and the short GM's Guide, it contains probably some of the best GMing advice for this sort of game I've seen anywhere - presented in a manner that supplements the 4e DMG in my head as best game-running advice (towards narrative outcomes).
The Core GM principles espoused there are:
-Portray a Wonderous World (nothing new here, just make things unique but don't get bogged down in details - be short and then let players ask questions)
-Manage information. (usual stuff, you're going to be managing the info about teh world and people)
-Seek input. If class/identity relevant, ask for player input on teh fiction and game world.
-React to heroes' choice. (yeah, but does explicitly note apply consequences of their freely chosen strategies and don't pull punches)
-Enforce transparency. Very narrativist, make sure people understand what's at stake before they make a Check/choose courses of actions.
-Keep the pressure high. (PCs want to do things, somebody will want to stop them, there's not enough time, make some hard choices, use public facing clocks)
-Think cinematically. Lots of video game framing reference here. I find myself doing this as shorthand in some of my 5e games too anyway - we're all younger gamers.
-Start and End Scenes. Hard scene framing with close-scene resolution. Once things are petering out, ask if it's done and if no players have anything they want to do - move on.
-Design interesting battles. No filler fights, no room by room dungeon crawls. Be intense and dramatic.
Last edited:
jmartkdr2
Hero
The history certainly goes back at east that far, but I think it became the norm in popular media a bit later (in the last twenty years or so) - at least that's my feeling.
And even then, it's a shift in what's more common and popular - character-driven stories and plot-driven stories probably go back as far as stories in general do. Which is dominant just changes over time and place.
Another thing to add to the list to separate Traditional from Neo T. How do the players react to events happening in the game that effect them directly that they did nothing at all to trigger. This is a big split:
Traditional: the game rolls on and the characters deal with it.
Neo T: The players hate it, and often will vote to make it go away. Though also most Neo T DM hate it too, so they don't do it.
Oh memory unlocked. 1980 something...on a S tar Trek BBS (internet before Windows!) and so many threads would be flooded by Fanfics where Lt. Amanda Jones would fall in love with Spock and live happily ever after...written by Amanda Jones.
Similar Threads
