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

[Micah Sweet]

Well, the six cultures of play article is definitely identifying something real. It’s far from the first time someone has made the observation that there is a distinct division between the player skill tested against GM ingenuity style of play from which D&D originated, and the group storytelling style characterized by the 2e era. As well, I think it’s pretty clear that the folks on the Forge were very deliberately trying to build something distinct from both of the aforementioned styles. But, I do think the article indulges in hair-splitting by trying to define the OSR movement as a distinct culture of play, rather than an exploration of untapped design space within the type of play the article labels “Classic”. Likewise, I think that what the article calls “neo-trad/OC” is really just “trad” with a heavier focus on character than plot. But, the author reveals a strong bias against that style of play, particularly when it is heavily character-focused.

To be fair, bias one way or the other has always been an issue with these pseudo-academic treatments of playstyle.

 

[overgeeked]

No, it's not something new. It's pretty much the way the groups I was in played 1e back in mid-late 1980s.

But, I do think the article indulges in hair-splitting by trying to define the OSR movement as a distinct culture of play, rather than an exploration of untapped design space within the type of play the article labels “Classic”.

Right? I thought the same when he talked about the OSR. That style is how my group has played since 1984.

 

[Helena Real]

I'm still reading the thread, so someone may have said this already, but OC/neo-trad as it is defined here is how I've been trying to play since I started roleplaying, back in 2001, so it's not something new. And it doesn't have to do with PC empowerment only; I love it and I'm mostly a forever GM!

From my perspective, OC/neo-trad follows on an ancient tradition of storytelling: that of plot coming from the protagonists' own internal struggles, and not (only) as some external plot in need of solving. When one adapts that style of storytelling to TTRPGs, the result is gaming systems like Fate or gaming philosophies like PbtA or FitD. Fate is trying to be OC/neo-trad (especially Fate Core), but I'd say the best modern example, in my opinion, is PbtA games. The way I run (and whenever I get the chance to play) them, a PbtA offers you a character archetype, with a character arc already included in there. That's why we say that PbtA playbooks aren't classes/professions/etc.

Another thing I wanted to mention is that the best OC/neo-trad players I've played with have no desire to "win all the time" as someone said. On the contrary: they're often the ones proposing dramatically devastating conundrums for their characters. They don't mind losing—and losing big, in a manner that changes their characters forever. What they care about is getting to experience a dramatic story that's centered on them, where their characters are the protagonists, and that their actions, for good or ill, will have great repercussions in the world around them. Sometimes the world around them is a little town (Monsterhearts 2), a great city (Masks: A New Generation), or even their whole fictional world (Avatar Legends, Root: The RPG, and even my own PbtA, Against the Odds).

Sorry for tooting my own horn here but, as its designer, I feel that Against the Odds is a good example of what "heroic fantasy OC/neo-trad" can look like. The PCs are heroes, but their conflicts go way beyond killing monsters, gathering loot, or having enough torches/rations. It's about each character's inner sense of self, of doing things that'll forever haunt you to "save the world", and how often great heroes are only so because they died before they turned into villains.

 

[Helena Real]

Something else I wanted to say but forgot in my first post (and I don't where to add it, so that's why I'm writing it here) is that PCs in OC/neo-trad, the way I see it, have to be, most of all, vehicles for drama. It's not about PCs getting more powerful; instead, it's about creating characters that will always be at the center of a dramatic storm, either because of their own internal struggles, their relationships, or their emotion-based behavior. In that sense, you can play any game as OC/neo-trad, but some games—like D&D—will punish you mechanically for doing so, whereas others (like most PbtAs I've read/run/played) will reward you in some way or another for the same. That's why PbtA encourages you to "Make each main character’s life not boring" (Monsterhearts 2) to not-GM players, and recommend GMs to "Be a fan of the PCs" or "Seek consequences besides death". It's about having drama all the time and, for that, it must a cooperative effort between all players at the table, regardless of which side of the GM screen they are.

 

[Aldarc]

Note this is a [+] thread. If you don't enjoy this style of play, that's great, but there's no need to drag this thread down. It's okay to let people talk about what they like.

I'm using the definition provided in the Six Cultures of Play article.

Sorry, but I don't get it. My preferences run squarely in the old-school, OSR, and NuSR veins. I like challenges and I'm fine with randomness and character death. Almost literally the opposite of everything I've seen, read, or heard about OC/neo-trad. This isn't me ragging on OC/neo-trad. This is me explaining where I am coming from in hopes of making the conversation easier.

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.

Think Fabula Ultima, which was labeled by a number of posters here as being solidly Neo-Trad. It's a fairly traditional game with some strong indie game influence, both in terms of mechanics and game principles. There is a focus on builds, aspects, and bonds as a way for players to express their character. Play revolves around the player characters because they collectively are the protagonists of the JRPG. Also note that FU also resists the GM authoring the story, as the PCs are meant to push the direction and the GM revolves play around them.

 

[KYRON45]

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.

It sounds like you are missing mature players.

 

[TiQuinn]

It sounds like you are missing mature players.

Those do seem like extreme cases - makes me wonder if these are game store open table sessions, though I always think to myself “who would act like that in public?”

 

[Shardstone]

I thought I was pretty clear about how neotrad needs to be proactive in suppling the missing specifics to those generalizations.

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.

I need to caution you against making generalizations against player types. To be frank, your stereotypes are wrong for literally everyone I've game with in the last 10 years, over a hundred different people. Stop trying to put populations into very specific, constrained, hyper-defined labels; you didn't play with neo-trad players, you played with problematic players OR players incompatible with you. It has nothing to do with wanting your character to have a bigger role in the campaign story/world or not.

 

[Shardstone]

Honestly, just based on the responses in this thread, I don't buy it. It doesn't have an agreed upon definition, so it isn't actually a thing. Some person wrote up a list and some other people propagated that list, but it doesn't actually represent anything actual or real.

God I hate jargon for jargon's sake.

There is no such thing as jargon that isn't for jargon's sake. All discussions of roleplay styles are trying to take an already niche concept -- roleplay -- and divide it up into ever more niche concepts based off personal tastes and observations of gameplay.

Also almost everyone in this thread that is pro Neotrad is on the same page. The only people that have different definitions are the people who don't understand or like neotrad. That makes sense, doesn't it? They don't understand it so they have a different definition compared to those who do understand it and have the same defnition.

 

[Shardstone]

Well, the six cultures of play article is definitely identifying something real. It’s far from the first time someone has made the observation that there is a distinct division between the player skill tested against GM ingenuity style of play from which D&D originated, and the group storytelling style characterized by the 2e era. As well, I think it’s pretty clear that the folks on the Forge were very deliberately trying to build something distinct from both of the aforementioned styles. But, I do think the article indulges in hair-splitting by trying to define the OSR movement as a distinct culture of play, rather than an exploration of untapped design space within the type of play the article labels “Classic”. Likewise, I think that what the article calls “neo-trad/OC” is really just “trad” with a heavier focus on character than plot. But, the author reveals a strong bias against that style of play, particularly when it is heavily character-focused.

This is exactly it. The core of this is the original author's bias. People who don't play character-focused games, for some reason, usually harbor a bias for these very same types of games. Then they go online and they start stirring the pot about how bad this style of play is, as if the ideas of "having a character that matters" is some how hedonistic or gross, whereas "playing some random drunkard from faux-1700s" is noble and demonstrates skill and wit.

Weird.