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

[Shardstone]

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.

Great job! We never have to discuss TTRPGs again! Wrap up the forum, everybody! I'm clockin' out!

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

What are you talking about? I explained why I was looking for clarity and asked for specific clarifications of things like player responsibilities & the weight they could be expected to carry. I felt that showing the problem resulting from a lack of clarity would help target that clarity towards simple "ahh I see the problem... here's how it works" rather than the clarity free barbs it received.

 

[tetrasodium]

All of the questions through my posts in this thread have been asked genuinely hoping for answers rather than with a goal of knifing neotrad.

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.


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.

Then what purpose is served by describing the collaborative activity of one person working with a second to some end as a one sided thing? Fiasco is a game where the goal is to make things go sideways in catastrophic falure as a group... If neotrad is a straight up Mary Sue style inversion if Fiasco why not be clear and own it with a spotlight like meat grinder funnels do wrt pc longevity? If it's something else, like Helena notes below, why is neotrad so quick to bring out knives like the last paragraph in 31 when that gets questioned in search of a clarifying answer?

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.

Aren't you just describing story games here? What differences in the overlapping and non-overlapoing sections of a Venn diagram of story games placed beside one of neotrad clearly mark out how these two are different at a glance?

That bold bit is especially applicable with story games to the point that I think fate core even has sections talking about that kinda stuff in various ways. can you (or anyone) clear up what part of the neotrad writeup in the six cultures blog post or some other article/blog post we could poutat with more focus than a bunch of contradictory forum posts about neotrad covering this kinda stuff?

The last few pages of somewhat conflicting posts with personal definitions for neotrad and everything about it as a whole show why I'm asking. There are lots of ttrpg terms lacking a solid agreement over specific definition, power gamer and munchkin for example, but if two people made a Venn diagram for what each of those represents a third person could usually agree that both powergamerowergamer and munchkin:munchkin diagrams have significant enough overlap for that third person to agree the two were about the same general thing despite differences. How can a "play culture" that depends on personal & working definitions for everything about it right down to basic english like "work[ing] with"not even mention that

 

[Umbran]

The fundamental question being asked here, if I understand it, is whether player preferences as expressed through PC backstories and what the engage with drives the direction of the campaign, as opposed to the GMs big plan.

What the author indicates as "neo-trad" may take it to more than "backstory and engagement".

For example, I will note Ashen Stars, a Gumshoe-based investigation and space opera procedural game. It isn't really neo-trad overall, but it has a neo-trad element: The Personal Arc. In a Personal Arc, the player presents a goal for the character, what it means in terms of internal personal conflict, and three sub-plot ideas that can bring the goal and conflict into play.

This isn't new and it doesn't need new terminology. It's just play. So play.

Look, if you don't care for the conversation, nobody is forcing you to engage. Continuing to try to shout it down isn't helpful to anyone, especially you.

When someone presents a categorization based upon what they've seen, it can be enlightening to look at and think about it, because it can reveal things. Taking someone else's perspective for a bit isn't about cementing TEH TRVTH! It is about thinking differently about things for a bit, and seeing if there is some truth to be found in it.

 

[Shardstone]

What the author indicates as "neo-trad" may take it to more than "backstory and engagement".

For example, I will note Ashen Stars, a Gumshoe-based investigation and space opera procedural game. It isn't really neo-trad overall, but it has a neo-trad element: The Personal Arc. In a Personal Arc, the player presents a goal for the character, what it means in terms of internal personal conflict, and three sub-plot ideas that can bring the goal and conflict into play.



Look, if you don't care for the conversation, nobody is forcing you to engage. Continuing to try to shout it down aren't helpful to anyone, especially you.

When someone presents a categorization based upon what they've seen, it can be enlightening to look at and think about it, because it can reveal things. Taking someone else's perspective for a bit isn't about cementing TEH TRVTH! It is about thinking differently about things for a bit, and seeing if there is some truth to be found in it.

Best Umbran post.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If I am understanding the definitions of 'Trad' and 'Neo-Trad' correctly... then there seems to be one very easy-to-understand demarcation between the two cultures (that I am using here for my post-- fully acknowledging that perhaps I am completely misunderstanding the definitions.)

It seems to me that 'Trad' games are ones whose narrative is focused from the DM's perspective-- what the DM introduces into the game and story and what the players take from and build from... whereas 'Neo-Trad' are ones with their narrative derived from the players and their characters and the DM building off of them (at least in part).

To put it in another way... in a 'Trad' game, the story only begins from the first session of play. And everything that ends up important to the PCs only occurs starting from that first session. Nothing that might have occurred to these characters before the game started matters (or even gets created), because the DM has no hand in that. But the DM sets the stakes starting with the first session, so that's where characters interaction and concern starts from. The real identity of "emergent play" you could say. The story emerges from what occurs at the table by the players playing and reacting to what the DM presents.

But in 'Neo-Trad'... players design their characters from the beginning of their "lives" and things that have happened to them and which are important to them can all occur before the "starting point" of the campaign. Relationships the character has formed, needs and wants the character has built, events that have occurred and which cause the character to act in the ways they do... all of these things can and will have been formulated by the players prior to the first session, and the DM is expected (and perhaps even desires) to incorporate those past events/relationships/needs into the story going forward. In this case... while the DM might have had the authorial control over the world the game takes place in... the players have control of the all the events that are important to their characters. And how they act and react once that first session begins won't be as a direct result and reaction to only what the DM presents... but also as a reflection to who they already were. Thus the DM has to react to the players, not the other way around.

Now once the game actually begins... then absolutely, neo-trad players will also react in-character to things the DM offers up as actions and events... that part wouldn't change. But there is that expected back-and-forth between players and DM in neo-trad where those actions and events will have come from both the offers of the DM creates as part of their prep, but also the offers the players have made by all the background material they created prior to that first game. And in best-case-scenario... both sides will take their actions and reactions from what they other side has offered (whenever those offers had occurred) and build their events and stories off of it.

 

[Aldarc]

If I am understanding the definitions of 'Trad' and 'Neo-Trad' correctly... then there seems to be one very easy-to-understand demarcation between the two cultures (that I am using here for my post-- fully acknowledging that perhaps I am completely misunderstanding the definitions.)

It seems to me that 'Trad' games are ones whose narrative is focused from the DM's perspective-- what the DM introduces into the game and story and what the players take from and build from... whereas 'Neo-Trad' are ones with their narrative derived from the players and their characters and the DM building off of them (at least in part).

To put it in another way... in a 'Trad' game, the story only begins from the first session of play. And everything that ends up important to the PCs only occurs starting from that first session. Nothing that might have occurred to these characters before the game started matters (or even gets created), because the DM has no hand in that. But the DM sets the stakes starting with the first session, so that's where characters interaction and concern starts from. The real identity of "emergent play" you could say. The story emerges from what occurs at the table by the players playing and reacting to what the DM presents.

But in 'Neo-Trad'... players design their characters from the beginning of their "lives" and things that have happened to them and which are important to them can all occur before the "starting point" of the campaign. Relationships the character has formed, needs and wants the character has built, events that have occurred and which cause the character to act in the ways they do... all of these things can and will have been formulated by the players prior to the first session, and the DM is expected (and perhaps even desires) to incorporate those past events/relationships/needs into the story going forward. In this case... while the DM might have had the authorial control over the world the game takes place in... the players have control of the all the events that are important to their characters. And how they act and react once that first session begins won't be as a direct result and reaction to only what the DM presents... but also as a reflection to who they already were. Thus the DM has to react to the players, not the other way around.

Now once the game actual begins... then absolutely, neo-trad players will also react in-character to things the DM offers up as actions and events... that part wouldn't change. But there is that expected back-and-forth between players and DM in neo-trad where those actions and events will have come from both the offers of the DM creates as part of their prep, but also the offers the players have made by all the background material they created prior to that first game. And in best-case-scenario... both sides will take their actions and reactions from what they other side has offered (whenever those offers had occurred) and build their events and stories off of it.

There is also some shared world-building, IME, with Neo-Trad, though not always (see Free League). This may involve GM advice like "Ask questions, build on answers." You can also see Neo-Trad culture in games coming out of the Matt Mercer wheelhouse: Candela Obscura, Daggerheart, etc.

 

[Umbran]

To put it in another way... in a 'Trad' game, the story only begins from the first session of play. And everything that ends up important to the PCs only occurs starting from that first session. Nothing that might have occurred to these characters before the game started matters (or even gets created), because the DM has no hand in that.

I think the "only", "everything" and "nothing" here are overstatements. As a practical matter, completely ignoring PC backgrounds would be a mistake for a trad-GM, as they should be able to assume that the players would be more likely interested in and willing to engage with things related to those backgrounds.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the "only", "everything" and "nothing" here are overstatements. As a practical matter, completely ignoring PC backgrounds would be a mistake for a trad-GM, as they should be able to assume that the players would be more likely interested in and willing to engage with things related to those backgrounds.

Of course. But we all know it gets rather tiring to add all the couching adjectives into everything we write. All the 'almosts' and 'for the most parts' and 'practicallys'. So everyone can feel free to assume I meant those terms should be added to my post, such that things are not 100%, but merely 99%.

 

[bloodtide]

Given the definitions, I can tell where to find the fun in the neo traid game.

The other types of play....but more so Triad....players don't do much in the game except play their character. They are in their view "just a player"

And this is a huge let down for a person who watches the ton of media from the last 50 years or so that has an overwhelming focus on "The Chosen One". The countless stories where some Normal Person....is, in fact, The Chosen One. This all has the message that the reader/watcher themselves could be a hidden Chosen One. Someday you will discover you are emperor of the galaxy. The list is long but Star Wars did it twice, Luke and Rae; The Matrix with Neo, Harry Potter and really going all the way back to "King of the World" Arragon.

The icing on the cake are the adventure video games. Most plots have the video game player as "The Chosen One".

So, when this type of person sits down to play a RPG, they very often want to play a "Chosen One Character". This is the OC side.

The neo triad side comes back as they also want to be the DM....well...at least have all the power of the DM, but none of the work or hard stuff. This might also go the route of saying "the DM is just a player" and "everyone is an equal player". A great many DMs wholly embrace this and will gladly say so.

For a lot of Neo Triad games...."nobody" wants to DM...everyone wants to play. So one person will agree to "be DM" for a bit. And part of the agreement is each of the players does some of the work of the RPG, to make the DMs job easy. The DM, in turn, agree to do whatever the players want....and gets the agreement for the future for when they switch DMing with another, that they get to do whatever they want too.

So, fun all around. The DM has to do very little work like world building, plot making or storytelling. Each player will do their part of making the world. The DM just needs to follow whatever each player tells them to do. Then after a short time that adventure will be over, and someone else will DM the next adventure. And repeat. Everyone gets exactly what they want, so everyone has fun.