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

[bloodtide]

How close is that? How far off the mark? Some pitfalls to look out for? General advice?

The big pitfall is the players. In both how honest they are with themselves and how articulate they are....

A lot of players will say they like the same default stuff, often whatever is popular or cool. Or if the group has a person that stands out as "cool", often other players will just suddenly like whatever they like. And they won't want to say what they really like.

Then there is the problem of getting them to even just say "what do you like". So many players give vague, incomplete answers.

In reality, independent adventure hooks aren’t more realistic, they just outsource to the player the work of finding a reason why their character should care about the adventure hooks the DM has created.

The reality part is:
Triad: the hook is generic. Nearly anyone can take the hook based their individual personality. A good character does good deeds, for example.
Neo Triad: The Hook is personal. The warlord of the evil empire is your Father, and he has the Force...and you the Son are the only other one in the galaxy that also has the Force and has a chance to stop him.....

It is unrealistic for some to have every bad guy in the world somehow directly related to the PCs as well as every hook tailored to the PCs too.

Depends on how you read rule 0:

1 The DM is Daddy and gets their say at all times
2 Any rule can be changed at the will of the group
3 No one can criticize the game's design because the real job of designing the game is up to the DM.

Agrees with one. Disagrees with two. Does not care about three.

I always thought "the DM arbitrarily screwing over the players" was Classic style-- using Tomb of Horror-style trap dungeons and stating that X number of spells just don't work for no discernable reason other than it would make it too easy for the players to get through all the DM's Saw-like traps that they expected the players to stumble through with no way of knowing how they were supposed to get past them other than trial and error.

Triad is more Hard Fun then "screwing over the players." But most players don't bother to make the distinction: anything they don't like is "wrong".

Even a lot of Classic is more Hard Fun then just "being screwed". Like when the characters walk into a dungeon and find teleport spells don't work....many players just toss up their arms and say "the DM is screwing us over". And it does not matter at all to the players that there is a teleport suppression field.

Maybe in some other neotrad games, the GMs are a little more constrained.

The thing is...it is not binary. Very little is. It is more a scale. Some Neo T games are where the players tell the DM what to do. Say 10 on the scale. Most games are in the middle at 5, where the DM does most of what the players want. Some games are at the other end of 1, where the DM just considers a player note or two. They are still all Neo T games.

The traditional game is: Dm does whatever they want at 10. The DM takes some of the vague suggestions of the players...maybe...and puts them in the game the way the DM wants too at 5. And down at 1, where the DM does a "fair amount" of what they players want.

So Traditional 1 is Neo T 4.....because they are "related".

 

[prabe]

The thing is...it is not binary. Very little is. It is more a scale. Some Neo T games are where the players tell the DM what to do. Say 10 on the scale. Most games are in the middle at 5, where the DM does most of what the players want. Some games are at the other end of 1, where the DM just considers a player note or two. They are still all Neo T games.

The traditional game is: Dm does whatever they want at 10. The DM takes some of the vague suggestions of the players...maybe...and puts them in the game the way the DM wants too at 5. And down at 1, where the DM does a "fair amount" of what they players want.

So Traditional 1 is Neo T 4.....because they are "related".

While I'm not sure the most-extreme form of neotrad you're considering exists, it's good to see that you seem to understand it's not a binary thing, that there's a range of possibilities both in trad and in neotrad.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well that might explain the confusion, cause that’s not what I’ve ever understood rule 0 to mean.

I think the confusion is that Rule Zero is often stated in a way that elides the stuff implicit to playing in "trad" style, where others make the implicit explicit.

Totally in the generic, Rule Zero is usually phrased as, "Ignore the rules if the rules don't work for you." But who ignores the rules? I've never seen any "trad" playstyle or system that would accept a player ignoring a rule that they didn't like. In that style, all responsibility falls upon the GM, for both narrative and mechanical result. So it is only the GM who actually uses Rule Zero; the players must always abide by the rules unless and until the GM tells them otherwise.

Obviously, in the best cases, this practice is only undertaken by a wise GM for noble reasons, backed by experience and in such a way that it actually will improve the player's experience every time it is done. The worst cases are like what was described above, the GM screwing over the players and using their unbounded authority however they like, whenever they like, for as long as they like. That's an inherent risk with any unilateral relationship that lacks checks and balances; you are completely dependent on how perceptive, attentive, respectful, and virtuous the person with uncheckable power is. My main concern with such things is not nefarious intent, but rather bungled intent, the well-meaning but merely mediocre/not-very-good GM.

When recast in a neo-trad lens, there may be rules which bind the GM unless and until the players agree to unbind them. That totally changes the dynamic. Each individual participant, even the GM, may now have actual limits on what they can or can't do; only the group as a whole can act with impunity, disregarding any rules as all see fit.

 

[prabe]

I think the confusion is that Rule Zero is often stated in a way that elides the stuff implicit to playing in "trad" style, where others make the implicit explicit.

Totally in the generic, Rule Zero is usually phrased as, "Ignore the rules if the rules don't work for you." But who ignores the rules? I've never seen any "trad" playstyle or system that would accept a player ignoring a rule that they didn't like. In that style, all responsibility falls upon the GM, for both narrative and mechanical result. So it is only the GM who actually uses Rule Zero; the players must always abide by the rules unless and until the GM tells them otherwise.

Obviously, in the best cases, this practice is only undertaken by a wise GM for noble reasons, backed by experience and in such a way that it actually will improve the player's experience every time it is done. The worst cases are like what was described above, the GM screwing over the players and using their unbounded authority however they like, whenever they like, for as long as they like. That's an inherent risk with any unilateral relationship that lacks checks and balances; you are completely dependent on how perceptive, attentive, respectful, and virtuous the person with uncheckable power is. My main concern with such things is not nefarious intent, but rather bungled intent, the well-meaning but merely mediocre/not-very-good GM.

When recast in a neo-trad lens, there may be rules which bind the GM unless and until the players agree to unbind them. That totally changes the dynamic. Each individual participant, even the GM, may now have actual limits on what they can or can't do; only the group as a whole can act with impunity, disregarding any rules as all see fit.

Somewhere between the endpoints of your range, I think, are things like: The player wants to perform an action not explicitly covered in the rules; the GM proposes rules for it and explains them to the player before the player commits to that action; the action is resolved per those rules. Or, something like a player with a druid from a desert city wanting to know (between sessions) what animals are available for wild shape and suchlike; and my response being to see what they have in mind--acting with the knowledge that "desert animal" is a larger set than most people realize. There's no reason to spring gotcha surprises on players needlessly.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the confusion is that Rule Zero is often stated in a way that elides the stuff implicit to playing in "trad" style, where others make the implicit explicit.

Totally in the generic, Rule Zero is usually phrased as, "Ignore the rules if the rules don't work for you." But who ignores the rules? I've never seen any "trad" playstyle or system that would accept a player ignoring a rule that they didn't like. In that style, all responsibility falls upon the GM, for both narrative and mechanical result. So it is only the GM who actually uses Rule Zero; the players must always abide by the rules unless and until the GM tells them otherwise.

Well, I mean, sure in a Trad game the DM would be the only participant who can utilize rule zero. Probably also true of most Classic and OSR games. I would think though that in a neo-trad game, as well as potentially in some Story Now games, the use of rule zero would be a group discussion. Someone brings up, perhaps in session zero, that a particular rule doesn’t mesh with what they want out of the game, or proposes a house rule they’re interested in trying, and the group discusses it and comes to an agreement about if/how to use that rule. That’s still rule 0 in my estimation, just a democratized use of it.

Obviously, in the best cases, this practice is only undertaken by a wise GM for noble reasons, backed by experience and in such a way that it actually will improve the player's experience every time it is done. The worst cases are like what was described above, the GM screwing over the players and using their unbounded authority however they like, whenever they like, for as long as they like. That's an inherent risk with any unilateral relationship that lacks checks and balances; you are completely dependent on how perceptive, attentive, respectful, and virtuous the person with uncheckable power is. My main concern with such things is not nefarious intent, but rather bungled intent, the well-meaning but merely mediocre/not-very-good GM.

That is a risk associated with the more hierarchical power dynamic typical of classic and trad play, yes. But, like, the democratization of that power in neo-trad doesn’t mean rule 0 doesn’t exist, it just means it’s being used differently.

When recast in a neo-trad lens, there may be rules which bind the GM unless and until the players agree to unbind them. That totally changes the dynamic. Each individual participant, even the GM, may now have actual limits on what they can or can't do; only the group as a whole can act with impunity, disregarding any rules as all see fit.

Seems like a great example, actually. If the rules constrain the DM in some way, and the players discuss and agree that they would prefer the DM not be constrained in that way, the lifting of the restraint would seem to be a use of rule 0 - deciding that a rule (the restriction in question) isn’t the right fit for their game, and choosing to ignore it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Thank you to everyone making positive contributions to the thread. It really does help, even if the ride is a bit...bumpy...at times. And I appreciate the patience.

So, a follow-up question. What are the best practices for setting up and running a neo-trad game?

Many of your questions already dive at the basic best practices, so I'll cover a side that's a bit more advanced but very important for long-term game stability: Mastering "yes, and...", "yes, but...", and "no, but..."

"Yes, and" builds on a foundation the player established, enhancing it further. As a canned example, a Fighter from a noble background establishes that her house has fallen on hard times and she wishes to restore it's good name; a "yes, and..." thing to do here is to make those hard times be the result of betrayal or sabotage from a rival noble house. Or, a player loves cooking IRL and likes being the party chef, and you build on this with cultural traditions that emphasize dining and meals as crucial forms of diplomacy (and make poisoning a scandalous offense against common decency).

"Yes, but..." is the art of adding complications. Player wants to swing from a chandelier because he's playing a dashing Errol Flynn swashbuckler? Great! But there are reasonable risks associated with such feats. The key is "reasonable," and that usually cashes out as problems or setbacks which make more story, rather than problems which derail or impede progress. Think of it like water, flowing down a new path (maybe a glacial dam broke and now it's finding it's way to the ocean). If water hits a rock wall, it's not just gonna sit there. It will beat against that wall and push to the sides. Maybe it forms a lake there, but sooner or later it exceeds the barrier and keeps going. The story should be like the river, never standing stock still, always flowing in some direction, just maybe not the direction anyone originally expected/intended.

Finally, "no, but..." is the art of digging down to find what players really care about, and making that happen, so long as it's appropriate. Some requests, at face value, are not acceptable for any of a zillion reasons. Maybe they contradict established lore, or badly break the tone of the game, or whatever. Instead of just putting a foot down and moving on, "no, but..." means listening to what the player asks for, asking questions, and trying to pry out the kernel of desire, because that can probably be fulfilled in other ways. As a real example I once had, a player once wanted to use a playbook that had a pet, but they (tacitly) felt the rules encouraged the GM to screw over the player, so they (explicitly) invoked a (perfectly valid) option to try to have a necromancer ghoul instead. Now...we had already established that necromancy is SUPER not okay in this setting. So I said "no, but..." by digging down and finding out what the player's real concern was. I made a promise not to do the things they feared the rules encouraged. Ultimately, the player chose a different option instead, but this was a major learning experience for me.

Mastering these three techniques goes a long way to making "neo-trad" fun and engaging for both GMs and players.

From the info in the thread so far, I'm assuming some variation of:

Talk to your players, make sure they're on board. Session Zero, lines and veils, stars and wishes, etc.

Yes. A full Session Zero is very important for this style. I argue Session Zero is good for every style, but it's especially important for this one, as it helps lay ground work and gives the GM lots of material to work with.

Get goals and plot hooks from the players, if not backgrounds that can be mined for ideas.

Further, get interesting "weaknesses" in the literary sense. A weakness does not need to be a place where a character sucks at something. Instead, it is something that can be leveraged against them. Superman from the DCAU has several weaknesses, despite being as fast as the Flash, invulnerable (except near kryptonite or red sun radiation), having heat vision, etc.: he doesn't really trust other people to get jobs done because he knows how fragile everyone else is, he never trusts Lex Luthor, he has to help someone in need even if he knows it's bait, etc.

Work with the players to make sure things gel together at least somewhat, there's no major problems or clashes re: theme. Though some internal party conflict is great.

Yes, keyword "some." Tension and needing to persuade your allies can be great, but being too fractious can really drag down the mood. Best to think of it like a team of friends; friends disagree quite often, but if they're barely getting along and often at each other's throats, then they aren't really friends anymore.

Incorporate all that into prep by making factions, NPCs, situations, potential quests, etc that reflect the players' & PCs' goals.

You can also do other stuff too, things that you fancy. This is part of the importance of Session Zero: the GM has stuff they want to see in the game too, and that shapes player responses. Best way to think of it is, make scenes that you think would be cool to see, and that weave in stuff that would excite the players. Some of that will be stuff they told you. But some won't. My players still talk about the "scrollem" (spell scroll golem) that was their first major challenge in Jewel of the Desert, six years ago now. Nobody asked for such a golem, nor an ancient alchemy lab carved out of obsidian that absorbs blood. But they loved being there.

Wind 'em up, and let 'em go. Emergent play. Play to find out. Poke the PCs in their feels. "Steer" things only in the sense of injecting drama, conflict, tension, obstacles, challenges, consequences, etc.

If you wish to have more plot, you can. I tend to thread the needle on this and prepare situations, which the party can address or not address as they like. Always just a little more than they can tackle all at once. This ensures that some threats grow in magnitude while others get dealt with, and that way, there's a diegetic reason why the Cultists are harder to deal with than the Gangers (because the players slapped down the Gangs, but couldn't simultaneously harm the Cult, which was able to advance its plans to a new stage.) Gotta be light touch with this though; go too far and players can feel punished for the crime of not being able to play three adventures simultaneously.

How close is that? How far off the mark? Some pitfalls to look out for? General advice?

Sounds like a good foundation to me.

 

[bloodtide]

When recast in a neo-trad lens, there may be rules which bind the GM unless and until the players agree to unbind them. That totally changes the dynamic. Each individual participant, even the GM, may now have actual limits on what they can or can't do; only the group as a whole can act with impunity, disregarding any rules as all see fit.

This might be a good point to add to the list.

Traditional: DM has all the power, players have none.
Neo T: The power is split equally around the group.

Like:
Traditional Game: Has no game rules that limit the DMs power.
Neo T Game: specifically has rules made to limit the DMs power

 

[Pedantic]

Well, I mean, sure in a Trad game the DM would be the only participant who can utilize rule zero. Probably also true of most Classic and OSR games. I would think though that in a neo-trad game, as well as potentially in some Story Now games, the use of rule zero would be a group discussion. Someone brings up, perhaps in session zero, that a particular rule doesn’t mesh with what they want out of the game, or proposes a house rule they’re interested in trying, and the group discusses it and comes to an agreement about if/how to use that rule. That’s still rule 0 in my estimation, just a democratized use of it.

That is a risk associated with the more hierarchical power dynamic typical of classic and trad play, yes. But, like, the democratization of that power in neo-trad doesn’t mean rule 0 doesn’t exist, it just means it’s being used differently.

Seems like a great example, actually. If the rules constrain the DM in some way, and the players discuss and agree that they would prefer the DM not be constrained in that way, the lifting of the restraint would seem to be a use of rule 0 - deciding that a rule (the restriction in question) isn’t the right fit for their game, and choosing to ignore it.

Without getting into the weeds of precisely how/why because that is easily it's own thread, rule zero has to imply more than a group level ability to alter the game rules. That's something that already exists without being named by any group of people playing any game, as anyone who's ever gotten money for landing on free parking can attest.

Rule zero as a concept specific to the TTRPG is implying more, either that the design is incomplete (some others would say necessarily incomplete) and will be iterated on during play, or that the rules aren't as binding as they are in other house-rulable games and should be given less consideration before being changed.

It's those secondary considerations that come with calling out rule zero or possibly even just by assuming it's a norm of TTRPGs that it's being suggested are likely to be put aside in neotrad designs.

Personally, I actually think that whole question is a bit orthogonal, in that the reason for it in neotrad seems to be almost entirely about the division of authority. Rule zero as a concept could be embraced, elided or specifically discarded in a lot of different play cultures for a lot of different reasons. I think it's honestly too broad to say going after it is somehow tied into neotrad explicitly.

 

[pemerton]

I just don’t understand how an RPG is functional without rule zero, and the fact that its ostensible absence is written off as “self explanatory” is particularly baffling. It certainly didn’t explain itself to me!

So first, to be clear: by "rule zero"/"golden rule" is meant the idea that the GM can suspend the resolution rules at any point in the interests of "the story".

And every RPG I play is functional without that rule: 4e D&D, MHRP, Prince Valiant, Burning Wheel, Torchbearer, etc.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'd quibble and say that's when Trad started.

Neotrad evolved as the general media landscape changed to more character-focused stories over plot focused stories, ttrpg players followed that trend.

Hmm... this makes some sense. And explains my biggest D&D bugbear - characters grow more powerful but don't change or learn new skills. It's classic TV storytelling; Kirk is always Kirk and Spock always Spock even if they get promoted. And at the end of the episode comes a reset. There's no Miles O'Brien doing different things on DS9 than he did on the Enterprise.

Gonna make a point. It is a nitpicky point, but still.

It is neo-trad. t-r-a-d. As in "traditional".

A "triad" is a group of three, or sometimes a form of crime syndicate.

Neo Triad makes me think of a Matrix rip-off.