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

[overgeeked]

First of all, that article is kinda a mess--especially the OC/Neo-Trad part. Among other things, OC and Neo-Trad aren't quite the same thing. OC is more about what your character brings mechanically, tending (in at least one extreme) toward what someone with your stated preferences might describe as "winning the game at chargen." This is very much the typical approach by the end of D&D 3.x/PF1e.

Yeah. That aspect is basically a non-starter for me.

Neo-Trad is very much more aligned with the way 5e is built, where the character focus is, ideally, more narrative than mechanical. It's where the GM pulls material from the characters' backstories and builds adventures relevant to those backstories and other interests; the idea the players might have ideas about the setting (while still giving the GM primary authority over it) is very Neo-Trad, I think. There doesn't have to be a pre-constructed story--I'm probably the most Neo-Trad GM I know (at least the most out one) and I don't pre-write stories, everything that happens is a response to what the players do--but the focus of the story is very probably going to be on the characters, as opposed to Trad, where the story is the story no matter what characters the players bring.

Re: pre-written stories. Yeah, that sounds like what I’ve done before. Everything is emergent rather than pre-ordained. I don’t think I could stand to run games another way.

Re: backstories. Ugh. I’ve tried that a few times. The players either ignore the obvious backstory hook or get mad that it doesn’t play out exactly how they wanted it to. It honestly felt like I was supposed to just stay out of their way as the referee and validate the story they wrote and pretend dice rolls were involved. Any change or hint of challenge, obstacle, etc in their path was met with…less than ideal responses.

Also re: backstories. How do you communicate…politely…to players that only a few relevant bullet points of their backstory are sufficient to play and that reading pages and pages of backstory is not what you signed up for?

 

[overgeeked]

This article is complete garbage when it comes to Neotrad play.

In Neotrad play, the players are taking on the roles of characters in the story, and the GM takes on the role of something in relation to those characters, such as villains (in the case of 5E), an arbiter of fate, a dangerous and dark world of corruptiong magic, etc.

Sound like trad play? That's because it is, just with a little more emphasis on the narrative and thematic elements. You have more character building options so you can build a more authentic character for the world in question. Likewise, the GM often has rules and procedures for generating certain kinds of experiences at the table.

Sound like story games? That's because it is! Yes, Neotrad is simply having more crunch then a typical story game, but focusing more on the narrative then you would a contemporary OSR game. It is my preferred style of play because I get to enjoy the parts of stories I love most (the narrative and thematic ideas) and the aspects of RPGs I love most (the game rules that lead to fun experiences). I also like how the GM is always positioned with a slightly unique purpose for most Neotrad games. GMing Symbaroum is a lot different then GMing Mutant Year Zero, not just because of the rules, but because I am representing a different world and thus a different set of aesthetics and tropes and ideas.

But at the end of the day, Neotrad and blah blah blah are all nuanced takes on the same core concept of Roleplaying.

I wouldn’t agree that’s the “core of roleplaying” as in it’s the exclusive domain of this style. Other styles exist and are still rolepaying. Like the article’s classic play along with challenge-based play of the OSR.

How do you push story in this style without railroading?

 

[Shardstone]

I wouldn’t agree that’s the “core of roleplaying” as in it’s the exclusive domain of this style. Other styles exist and are still rolepaying. Like the article’s classic play along with challenge-based play of the OSR.

How do you push story in this style without railroading?

You completely misunderstood my post. My post is saying exactly what you said. However, roleplaying is playing a ROLE. It can be pawn-stance and your role is as the player trying to beat the dungeon, or as an OSR character who is just a dude trying to get rich, or as a hero trying to save their kingdom.

You push the story by giving your players interesting hooks to choose from, asking them what they're interested in pursuing and how, and then making them face the consequences of those actions. Neotrad doesn't create a pre-written story; it creates a scenario that the players are getting involved with. No true Neotrad GM is out here plotting out every detail. It's remarkably similar to your style of gaming, where we just create interesting stuff to interact with and then see what happens when we throw it at our players.

 

[Pedantic]

Also re: backstories. How do you communicate…politely…to players that only a few relevant bullet points of their backstory are sufficient to play and that reading pages and pages of backstory is not what you signed up for?

On the one hand, no one is actually reading the theoretical fanfiction that people complain about. But on the other hand, that is exactly what the neotrad GM is signing up for. If you mention your family, and tell the GM you want to protect them, the GM is obligated to specifically endanger them in a way you can specifically resolve. There's an underlying bargain, where the player cedes authority to make up the fictional world and generally drive the story, in exchange for the GM using that authority to let the player explore and/or show-off their character.

 

[overgeeked]

You completely misunderstood my post. My post is saying exactly what you said. However, roleplaying is playing a ROLE. It can be pawn-stance and your role is as the player trying to beat the dungeon, or as an OSR character who is just a dude trying to get rich, or as a hero trying to save their kingdom.

Got it.

You push the story by giving your players interesting hooks to choose from, asking them what they're interested in pursuing and how, and then making them face the consequences of those actions. Neotrad doesn't create a pre-written story; it creates a scenario that the players are getting involved with. No true Neotrad GM is out here plotting out every detail. It's remarkably similar to your style of gaming, where we just create interesting stuff to interact with and then see what happens when we throw it at our players.

What you describe here is how I’d describe OSR play. So what are the differences then? Between say OSR challenge-based play and neo-trad. Both use emergent play. Both create hooks and populate the world with interesting things for the PCs to do. Is it down the characters and their goals? Expected lifespan? The existence or not of character builds and char-op?

 

[overgeeked]

On the one hand, no one is actually reading the theoretical fanfiction that people complain about.

I have. I will never do that again. The flood of backstories when trying to run 5E is one of the major reasons I quit and went back to old-school and OSR games.

But on the other hand, that is exactly what the neotrad GM is signing up for. If you mention your family, and tell the GM you want to protect them, the GM is obligated to specifically endanger them in a way you can specifically resolve. There's an underlying bargain, where the player cedes authority to make up the fictional world and generally drive the story, in exchange for the GM using that authority to let the player explore and/or show-off their character.

That does sound interesting. Maybe I just had a run of terrible luck. When I’ve done exactly that in 5E I get players rage-quitting not sinking their teeth in.

 

[jmartkdr2]

First of all, that article is kinda a mess--especially the OC/Neo-Trad part. Among other things, OC and Neo-Trad aren't quite the same thing. OC is more about what your character brings mechanically, tending (in at least one extreme) toward what someone with your stated preferences might describe as "winning the game at chargen." This is very much the typical approach by the end of D&D 3.x/PF1e. Neo-Trad is very much more aligned with the way 5e is built, where the character focus is, ideally, more narrative than mechanical. It's where the GM pulls material from the characters' backstories and builds adventures relevant to those backstories and other interests; the idea the players might have ideas about the setting (while still giving the GM primary authority over it) is very Neo-Trad, I think. There doesn't have to be a pre-constructed story--I'm probably the most Neo-Trad GM I know (at least the most out one) and I don't pre-write stories, everything that happens is a response to what the players do--but the focus of the story is very probably going to be on the characters, as opposed to Trad, where the story is the story no matter what characters the players bring.

Narrative Neo-Trad is Traditional but with character-focused stories.

Which can be a really hard distinction to define (there's always characters, and there's usually a plot) but the sensibilities are noticeably different.

Neo-Trad meshes better with more modern fantasy books Like Harry Potter and the glut of post-apocalyptic teen adventure stuff, Trad-Trad feels more like classic fantasy like Conan and LotR and such. But there's also ton of exceptions.

A really accommodating group could probably do both at once, really.

 

[TwoSix]

On the one hand, no one is actually reading the theoretical fanfiction that people complain about. But on the other hand, that is exactly what the neotrad GM is signing up for. If you mention your family, and tell the GM you want to protect them, the GM is obligated to specifically endanger them in a way you can specifically resolve. There's an underlying bargain, where the player cedes authority to make up the fictional world and generally drive the story, in exchange for the GM using that authority to let the player explore and/or show-off their character.

I have absolutely had players send me multiple pages of backstory prior to session 1. Doesn’t happen much anymore, but 20 years ago it happened pretty regularly.

I generally read it, too, except for the one guy who sent me 20 pages of really not good prose. That was….not great.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Got it.

What you describe here is how I’d describe OSR play. So what are the differences then? Between say OSR challenge-based play and neo-trad. Both use emergent play. Both create hooks and populate the world with interesting things for the PCs to do. Is it down the characters and their goals? Expected lifespan? The existence or not of character builds and char-op?

I would say it's the types of characters players are expected to bring. OSR is regular folk in a bad situation, neo-trad is heroes, or at least heroes-in-the-making.

Neo-trad is about the Avengers, OSR is about a squad of regular cops (at most!) in NYC while aliens invade.

 

[Reynard]

This thread has not helped me understand "OC" at all, except in terms of giving a name to.what CR does -- which is just D&D except Mercer makes sure the PCs are the protagonists in a literary way (which is not really something I do as the GM; players are responsible for making their PCs feel like the protagonists IMO).