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

[Paul Farquhar]

There is no such thing as jargon that isn't for jargon's sake.

But the sake isn't necessarily good sake. Jargon is often used by a person to sound like they understand more about the subject than they really do*, or by groups in order to exclude others from belonging.


*You hear a lot of jargon at job interviews. What's amazing is how often it works an the jargon-spouter gets the job.

 

[Shardstone]

But the sake isn't necessarily good sake. Jargon is often used by a person to sound like they understand more about the subject than they really do, or by groups in order to exclude others from belonging.

Jargon is also used just to refer to a concept that has many words with just a handful of words instead.

In this case, neotrad play is, as defined both by Free League designers who use the term AND the people who are self-proclaimed neotrad in this thread, a style of play that focuses on the characters and their personal stakes which the GM uses as the main ingreidient for prepping scenarios for the players to engage with. This also gives the GM a specific role, still the master of the game but also something specific to the world, story, or narrative. That's a lot of words, and I'm not going to type that out repeatedly no matter how much @Reynard asks me too, so I'm going to refer to it as Neotrad.

Before people say Neotrad is just play again, Pawn-stance is actually the default "just play" and is completely different than neotrad. If pawn-stance is an actual playstyle, which it is, then there must be other playstyles, and those playstyles ought be named so we don't have to describe the entire concept of them every time we discuss something. Thus, Neotrad is a valid term.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In this case, neotrad play is, as defined both by Free League designers who use the term AND the people who are self-proclaimed neotrad in this thread, a style of play that focuses on the characters and their personal stakes which the GM uses as the main ingreidient for prepping scenarios for the players to engage with. This also gives the GM a specific role, still the master of the game but also something specific to the world, story, or narrative. That's a lot of words, and I'm not going to type that out repeatedly no matter how much @Reynard asks me too, so I'm going to refer to it as Neotrad.

And the fact that it is a lot of words tells you how improbable it is that you will actually meet anyone who exactly fits the definition.

there must be other playstyles

There are as many playstyles are there are players - more, since someone's playstyle will change depending on who they are with and what mood they are in. Trying to label them is like trying to name every grain of sand on the beach.

 

[Reynard]

Jargon is also used just to refer to a concept that has many words with just a handful of words instead.

In this case, neotrad play is, as defined both by Free League designers who use the term AND the people who are self-proclaimed neotrad in this thread, a style of play that focuses on the characters and their personal stakes which the GM uses as the main ingreidient for prepping scenarios for the players to engage with. This also gives the GM a specific role, still the master of the game but also something specific to the world, story, or narrative. That's a lot of words, and I'm not going to type that out repeatedly no matter how much @Reynard asks me too, so I'm going to refer to it as Neotrad.

Before people say Neotrad is just play again, Pawn-stance is actually the default "just play" and is completely different than neotrad. If pawn-stance is an actual playstyle, which it is, then there must be other playstyles, and those playstyles ought be named so we don't have to describe the entire concept of them every time we discuss something. Thus, Neotrad is a valid term.

These playstyle theory discussions are never as production, IME, as discussions about actual play. This is why I don't care for jargon in this area: people start spouting theory instead of talking about play, and plays the thing. Telling me you are neotrad is of no value. Tell me how you solved the problem of one player eating to much spotlight time (for example).

 

[Reynard]

Also, the very pinnacle of sus is saying only you and the people you agree with "get it" and everyone else is stupid and/or disingenuous.

 

[Shardstone]

Also, the very pinnacle of sus is saying only you and the people you agree with "get it" and everyone else is stupid and/or disingenuous.

That's not what I'm saying though. I'm saying that it's normal for people who don't get an idea to have an incorrect OR incomplete definition of it. That's why you talk to people who claim to get the idea, see if they make sense, see if they speak with any credibility, and then decide how and what to revise in your own definition. It gets really tiresome having to dodge all the accusations on this forum about bad actors. I wish people wouldn't read posts and try to look for all the ways its secretly malicious.

Anyway, I've, in this thread, offered examples of neotrad play, what I like about it, and can easily go into how it effects my games as opposed to trying other genres of playstyles. Its really unfortunate that instead of being able to do that, I'm being told the entire concept is meaningless and I'm wasting time trying to communicate my experience with TTRPGs.

What am I actually allowed to talk about? Do I have to write 10-page essays for every post now deep-diving and giving 10 examples from my IRL games for each and every idea in order to have an allowed discussion by the members?

 

[Shardstone]

And the fact that it is a lot of words tells you how improbable it is that you will actually meet anyone who exactly fits the definition.

There are as many playstyles are there are players - more, since someone's playstyle will change depending on who they are with and what mood they are in. Trying to label them is like trying to name every grain of sand on the beach.

I'm going to be frank, this is a really silly argument to make. No, it isn't anything like that, and these dramatics only serve to undercut discussion and to udnermine and oversmplify the points that people are making.

It is obvious that there are "genres" of playstyles. Those "genres" have an infinite amount of nuance, produced by the unique players and the composition of the table itself and the very nature of the game being played and its role in the greater culture in regards to third-party supplements and help. Despite that infinite nuance, these genres still exist.

If I say I'm playing a game in an OSR way, it means something to people. It may mean something slightly or moderately different to everyone, but that still means something, and to many people it means something very similar. If I say instead I'm playing a story game, that means something different, and many people will have a similar -- though slightly different -- definition of this concept. Ergo, these terms have meaning, and they can be used and there is nothing wrong with using them or coming up with new ones. Trying to characterize this as labeling every grain of sand on the beach is almost anti-intellectual, and I do not appreciate people in this POSITIVE thread consistently trying to say that neotrad doesn't exist, shouldn't be talked about, and shouldn't be even thought about.

 

[TwoSix]

And the fact that it is a lot of words tells you how improbable it is that you will actually meet anyone who exactly fits the definition.

Definitions don't have to be exact to be useful.

It's human nature to categorize and simplify, and to make words that define those categories. The fact that every category will have exceptions and caveats doesn't render the desire to categorize useless.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

These playstyle theory discussions are never as production, IME, as discussions about actual play. This is why I don't care for jargon in this area: people start spouting theory instead of talking about play, and plays the thing. Telling me you are neotrad is of no value. Tell me how you solved the problem of one player eating to much spotlight time (for example).

Indeed. I would never label myself in that way, even though our games have some similarities to the definition.

Are characters important, beyond a set of stats? Yes. Do they have elaborate backstories? Sometimes. Do those backstories influence the adventure? Occasionally. Do players hog the spotlight? Never. Is narrative important? Yes. Are the players forced to follow a pre-written narrative? No. Do characters die? Occasionally. Does resource-management factor into the game? No. Are there hexcrawls? Occasionally. Are there puzzles and detective work? Yes.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Edit: put another way, it's when the genre of fantasy you're trying to capture is isekai.

i'd actually think isekai would be notably conterproductive to most attempts at neo-trad play wouldn't it? given that the base premise separates the main character from 99% of what they care about and are connected to by dropping them in a foreign world, and from what i've gathered reading this thread (i came back to this post after i reached the current 8 pages) the primary crux of neo-trad seems to be making stories about the things your character is connected to and invested about.