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

[pemerton]

If turning into a duck for a long period of time, in-game, is a part of your setting's definition of magic, then shouldn't the players be willing to explore that? Exploring the possible outcomes of magic is part and parcel of crafting a realistic setting.

If simulation is the primary priority, and gamism is secondary, then making sure negative experiences are properly simulated should trump the player not having relevant "gamist" actions for a while.

Now I want to play at least 3 consecutive 8 hour sessions where I explore the negative experience of recovering from an exhausting fight. I'll call the scenario Healing, in homage to Warhol's Sleep.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If turning into a duck for a long period of time, in-game, is a part of your setting's definition of magic, then shouldn't the players be willing to explore that? Exploring the possible outcomes of magic is part and parcel of crafting a realistic setting.

If simulation is the primary priority, and gamism is secondary, then making sure negative experiences are properly simulated should trump the player not having relevant "gamist" actions for a while.

Agreed, and if it were my PC I'd probably keep playing them. But if the player doesn't like it, I'd rather they play someone else rather than make the established magic work differently because the player is bored.

 

[niklinna]

Getting back to the OP topic, one of the things I like about neotrad play is that, whether I am player or GM, I get to collaborate with the group to build a cool, satisfying story together that involves everybody. It's the right balance between everything being nailed down in advance (usually but not always on the GM side) and having random things just kill a character. Everything that matters is tied into what folks agree matters to them, and genuine conflicts about that can be resolved through negotiation at all levels of play.

Folks have argued a bit about whether PbtA and FitD count as neotrad. Like has been said, neotrad isn't the system, but how you use the system, and yet some systems work better with a neotrad approach (or require less tinkering). I think, apart from rules on harm & death, that both PbtA and FitD games are quite well suited to neotrad play, and those rules on harm & death are easy enough to tinker with. The little I've heard about Fabula Ultima has me very curious, I've downloaded the starter kit and will be digging into it soon.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You were criticising players for being precious about their PCs - "too deep a commitment to a single PC".

Well, we all have our preferences. If the GM is fine with compromising the setting in play for one's player, then there's no problem. To me, I would accept that I'm a duck for a while, or play another PC, rather than ask the GM to change the world for me personally because I don't like how the dice bounced.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Now I want to play at least 3 consecutive 8 hour sessions where I explore the negative experience of recovering from an exhausting fight. I'll call the scenario Healing, in homage to Warhol's Sleep.

Don't tempt me. I'll take slow healing and play another PC, or a henchman.

 

[pemerton]

Folks have argued a bit about whether PbtA and FitD count as neotrad. Like has been said, neotrad isn't the system, but how you use the system, and yet some systems work better with a neotrad approach (or require less tinkering). I think, apart from rules on harm & death, that both PbtA and FitD games are quite well suited to neotrad play, and those rules on harm & death are easy enough to tinker with.

I can't comment on FitD. When it comes to PbtA I think it depends on the actual system.

I can't really see how Apocalypse World would be played neotrad without extensive drifting, for instance. Whereas, by way of contrast, it seems to me that a lot of Dungeon World play is essentially neotrad.

 

[bloodtide]

.As a matter of fact, you should also explain to me why the game that parented the Forged in the Dark, Blades in the Dark, literally tells the players to treat their character like a stolen car and not get attached.

Well, I don't know the Blade games....but are you sure they are Neo T games?

Someone literally gave quotes explicitly saying you're supposed to work with your players, going back to 2e. The 5e books also say similar things.

Your quotes do not say what you think they say.

Guess I could post some older ones.....but guess it would not matter right? Even a quote that says "DMs, know the game systems, and you will know how and when to take upon yourself the ultimate power. To become the final arbiter, rather than the interpreter of the rules, can be a difficult and demanding task" really says "make a shared emergent game", right?

And guess what? You are one of the people I was talking about, who would not care what the books say.

Really? I had no idea.......

 

[zakael19]

Instead of making up these suppositions, though, one could look at the actual ethos of this approach to play. Someone upthread linked to a nice blog about it: Old RPG Gamers and The Streaming Youth - From a Dark Forest

Oh man 100% this in my groups that BG3 finally pushed from being a CR fan into wanting to actually play. We just got done with a session that was a masquerade / art gallery reception where I a) dropped the last of the 3 folks who betrayed my fighter on him in a situation where he felt he couldn't do anything about it b) dropped the person who my bard knows as a thief and rival from the feywild as the artist and c) a whole bunch of hi jinks resultant from the set of failed rolls and plans going awry but with real backstory consequences and lots of cheering each other on for failures because it was funnier/more interesting.

 

[zakael19]

You do realize this is no true scotsman falalcy? Literally removing what many consider face of this style of playing because it doesn't fit your narrow definition. No wonder this is something you view in complete negative, but it does make me question point of arguing with you, as you are clearly not engaging in good faith.

Did you read my post there or any others ive made in this thread? I'm a huge neotrad proponent, proposed a couple definitions I think fit better and are positivist - and simply made the comment that I dont think most of the core FITD/PBTAs fit it well from a system design perspective due to how they hold characters. As @pemerton said some may suit it more, and you can always drift - but my understanding of the core goals of narrativist/story now play while they have some overlap, generally go harder into premise and character endangerment (and mostly resist arcs and steering as far as I know) then I think most people playing neotrad style would.

IF you say you're doing that and it's working, cool! I'm wrong a lot, it's just not at all what I think of system wise (DW maybe more so though).

 

[Not a Decepticon]

If turning into a duck for a long period of time, in-game, is a part of your setting's definition of magic, then shouldn't the players be willing to explore that? Exploring the possible outcomes of magic is part and parcel of crafting a realistic setting.

If simulation is the primary priority, and gamism is secondary, then making sure negative experiences are properly simulated should trump the player not having relevant "gamist" actions for a while.

False dichotomy. "Either simulation or gamism" completely removes roleplay. It's either "you're here for GM'S WORLD and GM'S story" r "you're here to roll dumb dice!". You completely deleted roleplay. And I'm not showing up to a game to roleplay an useless duck and be butt of other players' jokes, it sounds like for ours of being bored, feeling useless, all for one jerk's sick power trip.

is an condescending way to Well, we all have our preferences. If the GM is fine with compromising the setting in play for one's player, then there's no problem. To me, I would accept that I'm a duck for a while, or play another PC, rather than ask the GM to change the world for me personally because I don't like how the dice bounced.

And once again, you think giving players any power or agency means "compromising the setting". Listen, I like existing settings, but the best thing about them is watching them change in players' hands and see consequences of their actions, good or bad, leave mark on the world. It's a beautiful part of roleplaying and I find it really sad you just see it as "those pesky players ruining your precious setting". If a setting is a porcelain doll for you to look at, but not touch, it shouldn't be published as an rpg, but an artbook.

Well, I don't know the Blade games....but are you sure they are Neo T games?

Powered by the Apocalypse and Forged in the Dark are literally the first types of games people point out as examples of "Neotrad" and agressively contrast them with OSR. They are first games paraded around as "tyranny of fun" or "taking GM's power away" or "making everything about player decisions". In Blades it's all about PCs making decisions and about consequences of their actions. Let players succeed at changing the setting is literally one of advices in Blades in the Dark book, with an example given being assassination of important named NPC. Half of things we've been discussing here can be found in Forged in the Dark games, but the moment they don't fit the horribly negative potrayal you people are painting, they suddenly "don't count". no true Scotsman, that's what this is.

Did you read my post there or any others ive made in this thread? I'm a huge neotrad proponent, proposed a couple definitions I think fit better and are positivist - and simply made the comment that I dont think most of the core FITD/PBTAs fit it well from a system design perspective due to how they hold characters. As @pemerton said some may suit it more, and you can always drift - but my understanding of the core goals of narrativist/story now play while they have some overlap, generally go harder into premise and character endangerment (and mostly resist arcs and steering as far as I know) then I think most people playing neotrad style would.

IF you say you're doing that and it's working, cool! I'm wrong a lot, it's just not at all what I think of system wise (DW maybe more so though).

But these games are exactly what we've been discussing here - they put emphasis on player agency, they help tailoring the plot to the character, they allow players to change the setting through their actions. The only thing not fitting is they don't treat the character as a precious thing nothing bad can happen to and, to be frank, I think this point is just a strawman potrayal of the "neotrad" style, something assigned to mispresent and mock the people who prefer it. I think most players in this style can take something bad happenning to their character, as long as it narratively makes sense, comes from character actions and we feel DM didn't pull some shenanigans to make it happen.