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

[DrJawaPhD]

So, for the people who enjoy OC/neo-trad style play. What's the draw? Where's the fun? What's the joy? Etc.

Honestly. Please help me understand because I don't get it.

Answering for myself, I've never heard these labels before but I love the 'Critical Role style' which is apparently OC/neo-trad.

To me the draw is that when done properly, there is almost no difference between what that article describes as Traditional vs OC/neo-trad. Both focus on telling stories (fun!), both have the DM as the main hand steering the game and the story, but in games like Critical Role there is a more focus on having the DM work with players to incorporate their characters into the main plot lines (super fun!) rather than the DM just writing plotlines independent of the characters.

It seems like detractors are acting like incorporating player ideas into the story somehow makes the DM irrelevant and the players now run the show, which could occur at some tables but is definitely not how I've ever seen any game be run. For example, Matt Mercer is still the one controlling all the story plotlines on Critical Role even though he incorporates backstories of his players, and lets players narrate killing blows. I think this style is more fun for both players and as a DM

 

[Pedantic]

I think that’s where I’ve had problems. I’m not a fan of pure “I just win all the time” power fantasy.

What little isekai I’ve read or watched still has obstacles, setbacks, losing, etc all the normal things you’d expect from a story.

When I’ve played with OC/neo-trad players they’ve seemingly all wanted the former (“I just win”) without the latter (obstacles, setbacks, etc).

I think that's a fairly extreme characterization. It's more often that they want specific stakes, instead of no stakes. Death generally isn't appealing as a real possibility, for example. It's more likely they want challenges that reflect on the specific strengths and often weaknesses they've assigned their characters, or that you're into character/setting elements they're attached to.

 

[overgeeked]

I think that's a fairly extreme characterization. It's more often that they want specific stakes, instead of no stakes. Death generally isn't appealing as a real possibility, for example. It's more likely they want challenges that reflect on the specific strengths and often weaknesses they've assigned their characters, or that you're into character/setting elements they're attached to.

It's an honest one from direct experience with self-identified OC/neo-trad players. I've posted many times about players who rage-quit when a cantrip didn't make them an Avatar-style bending master, about players who rage-quit when their character took 1 hp of damage, more recently a player who rage-quit because I did not follow her desired story beat exactly. I'm not generalizing the broader style. Only relaying my experience with some players who said this was their style. And that's honestly why I started the thread, to try to understand what I was missing.

 

[tetrasodium]

Answering for myself, I've never heard these labels before but I love the 'Critical Role style' which is apparently OC/neo-trad.

To me the draw is that when done properly, there is almost no difference between what that article describes as Traditional vs OC/neo-trad. Both focus on telling stories (fun!), both have the DM as the main hand steering the game and the story, but in games like Critical Role there is a more focus on having the DM work with players to incorporate their characters into the main plot lines (super fun!) rather than the DM just writing plotlines independent of the characters.

It seems like detractors are acting like incorporating player ideas into the story somehow makes the DM irrelevant and the players now run the show, which could occur at some tables but is definitely not how I've ever seen any game be run. For example, Matt Mercer is still the one controlling all the story plotlines on Critical Role even though he incorporates backstories of his players, and lets players narrate killing blows. I think this style is more fun for both players and as a DM

That's oddly focused on the DM in ways that make normally collaborative interactions seem more like a one sided service. I've never seen a TTRPG so brazenly one sided in assigning responsibility outside efforts to explain neotrad, even DMG type books tend to put more on player shoulders than this. The working definition of those two bolded terms is the problem where things break down & lead to justified questioning of the "play culture" before any sort of understanding is possible.

When the DM tries to "work with players", what are the players doing in that apparently one sided process? If the GM & players are not simply working together, why the need to call out only the GM unless there is a unique working definition for the "GM work[ing] with players"?

Likewise what are the players "incorporating" from the GM responsible for building & running the game world those "player ideas" need to fit into? If the players are not being shielded from any of that why describe a one sided process?

 

[overgeeked]

Answering for myself, I've never heard these labels before but I love the 'Critical Role style' which is apparently OC/neo-trad.

To me the draw is that when done properly, there is almost no difference between what that article describes as Traditional vs OC/neo-trad. Both focus on telling stories (fun!), both have the DM as the main hand steering the game and the story, but in games like Critical Role there is a more focus on having the DM work with players to incorporate their characters into the main plot lines (super fun!) rather than the DM just writing plotlines independent of the characters.

What I'm gathering from the thread is that it seems to be a difference in scale. It almost sounds like

OSR->Trad->OC/neo-trad

are on a continuum of PC power, PC longevity, scale of the threats, and the amount the emergent story of the game centers the PCs. All these seem to increase as you go across those styles.

It seems like detractors are acting like incorporating player ideas into the story somehow makes the DM irrelevant and the players now run the show, which could occur at some tables but is definitely not how I've ever seen any game be run. For example, Matt Mercer is still the one controlling all the story plotlines on Critical Role even though he incorporates backstories of his players, and lets players narrate killing blows. I think this style is more fun for both players and as a DM

Or people have negative experiences so become less inclined to give others the benefit of the doubt.

 

[zakael19]

That's oddly focused on the DM in ways that make normally collaborative interactions seem more like a one sided service. I've never seen a TTRPG so brazenly one sided in assigning responsibility outside efforts to explain neotrad, even DMG type books tend to put more on player shoulders than this. The working definition of those two bolded terms is the problem where things break down & lead to justified questioning of the "play culture" before any sort of understanding is possible.

When the DM tries to "work with players", what are the players doing in that apparently one sided process? If the GM & players are not simply working together, why the need to call out only the GM unless there is a unique working definition for the "GM work[ing] with players"?

Likewise what are the players "incorporating" from the GM responsible for building & running the game world those "player ideas" need to fit into? If the players are not being shielded from any of that why describe a one sided process?

I think it's to try and be distinct from "trad" play which is largely seen as players along for a DM centric adventure? THere's an expectation that as the DM develops plot beats, scenes, locations, etc - there's some linkage back to what a player has said is important to them during session 0 creation / during play. There's also some deference to character-attachment as pointed out, so that death isn't cheap - it either has a chance for recovery (spells/NPCs/whatever), or plays out in a dramatic scene at a climax point. A recent CR season has a good example of this from what I've heard.

This isn't something new, but I think the desire to make it a distinct sub-set of traditional adventure play was to draw attention to the increasing popularity of this sort of character-story centric play.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

That's oddly focused on the DM in ways that make normally collaborative interactions seem more like a one sided service.

Well yeah, because it is one sided. The DM runs the show and has final say on everything, so the DM can incorporate player ideas whenever the DM chooses to, but it doesn't work the other way around. Players don't get to just make decisions about what happens in the DMs' world, they can only make requests, suggestions, comments, and provide ideas.

Likewise what are the players "incorporating" from the GM responsible for building & running the game world those "player ideas" need to fit into? If the players are not being shielded from any of that why describe a one sided process?

No one ever said the DM needs to fit all player ideas into their story. You pick the ones you like and incorporate those, and ignore the ones that don't fit in with what you were planning for your story.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Do you play MMOs? If you do, have you ever run old content just to get transmog?

Have you ever paid money in a video game for a cosmetic upgrade?

what is "transmog"?

 

[DrJawaPhD]

Or people have negative experiences so become less inclined to give others the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah for sure I've only played at a handful of tables, but what has me the most confused is people using Critical Role as an example of the DM somehow having no control over the story

 

[zakael19]

what is "transmog"?

A MMO term around transforming your appearance based on collected skins. EG: turning your armor slots that may be very disparate into a unified look from an older set.