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

[gban007]

Well, I explained what made it a poor adventure in a different post.

As for what made it poor Tolkien fanfic:

Bilbo was portrayed as a faded has-been obsessed with recapturing his former glory-days. The adventures were rooted in a selfish desire to relive a final adventure.

In the adventures, the Shire bore no resemblance to the rustic idyll portrayed in “A long-awaited party”. Instead, the adventures doubled down on Bilbo not just being reclusive, but actively being shunned by other hobbits as a “non-conformist”. The party (all native hobbits) are questioned and regarded with suspicion when in other hobbit villages. Their relationship with Bilbo is considered a black mark against their reputation.

The Shire generally feels like a particularly unpleasant HOA.

Is funny how opinions can differ on these - my friends and I ran through the adventures and quite enjoyed it.

We found it worked well at introducing us to the rule set overall, albeit only saw two races and none of the journeying aspect, but got a good feel of the mechanics in it, as it gradually introduced us to different parts of it, including combat, as we had no experience with the One Ring previously.

We also didn't find the Shire jarring, but then problem for us could be that as a group we all really like Lord of the Rings, it could be easy for us to sort of bypass the jarring bits subconsciously, and as the DM as such I may have also helped play into that - the feeling I got / evoked was more Bilbo trying to get the younger hobbits to have fun / look for adventure themselves, rather than a selfish final adventure, and the reactions people had was more around the general feel of Bilbo being different / potential bad influence on the hobbit characters (like in the books some people feared he was a bad influence on Frodo, though at same time others were thinking Bilbo would be a better influence on Frodo than the Bucklanders would have been if he stayed with them). So overall we enjoyed it, but may have unintentionally smoothed over some of the more jarring differences to the source material.

 

[GobHag]

Given that this is a + thread, I'd hope there weren't a lot of "pitfalls ... being emphasized" from people who aren't generally fans of the play style!

To your point here, as I've posted multiple times I think you need to separate "neotrad" from "OC." The former in my personal experience does absolutely lend itself to risks of the player feeling like they're the main character - especially if not all of the group is as invested or inhabiting their character. Since many groups tend towards having a bit of a default leader in social scenes or what have you, a strong OC player can get to take up a lot of spotlight time, for better or for worse. I know as a GM with two players who tend heavily towards OC play (again, commissioning artwork of their characters/writing fic in at least one case) I've had to gently work with them to ensure they don't overrun other PCs. However, that problem is hardly unique to neotrad, so I don't see it as a unique risk or pitfall there!

To the larger question of character disabling or switching or whatever. You can see in the new systems designed specifically to facilitate the style of character focused narrative play that defines Neotrad as I think we're using the term here that the mechanics are simply not there to do so. Something like Fabula Ultima prohibits the GM from killing a PC, has closed scene resolution for many status effects - and those that persist have the very simple effect of reducing your attribute die by one size (so elegant!). You're worse at doing a thing, but never out of the action. The very worst case is that your character winds up separated and you have a new challenge/scene to face and overcome.

The more I've read the rules of these new systems and thought about the play style, I'd go so far as to assert that in my opinion neotrad at its core is this: "a play style wherein the goal of play is to find out how the player characters will overcome the obstacles in their way and succeed in their goals, and how they will change and deal with setbacks along the journey." I think that's pretty cool, and am really excited about GMing more of that sort of story in systems like FU or Daggerheart that give the GMs and players the tools to really lean hard into that.

Not to me they aren't. OC and NeoTrad are the same. A more 'tragic' take on NeoTrad is very much possible and existing, I think Deviant The Renegades is a great example of a game intending for a darker neotrad/OC.

You will die, how do you make it beautiful or grotesque?

 

[Shardstone]

Heart as well.

Not to me they aren't. OC and NeoTrad are the same. A more 'tragic' take on NeoTrad is very much possible and existing, I think Deviant The Renegades is a great example of a game intending for a darker neotrad/OC.

You will die, how do you make it beautiful or grotesque?

 

[GobHag]

Where the scene breaks down, for me, is the overlap with OC play. You can play OSR games where the characters matter. It's no more difficult than finding out the PCs' goals and dropping those into the game. But, once the characters go from being important, from simply mattering, and become the central focus, things break down. For me.

In a weird twist, Professor DM of Dungeon Craft also dropped a video today. His is about the recent Vecna module. I think part of the video is relevant.



Around 10:00 is the relevant bit. He brings up two points. First, character stats do not dictate how epic the stories in your game can be. You can have epic stories with low-level characters. Second, things that happen in play, during the actual game, are wildly more relevant, memorable, epic, etc than any bit of lore or backstory will ever be.

I agree completely with both of those points. And I think the second one, despite being about villains, also applies to PCs. No villain you tell your players to hate is ever going to be hated as much as the villain your players learned to hate during play. No PC backstory is ever going to be as awesome as playing through those moments at the table.

This is one of the reasons despite understanding more about the neo-trad style now (honestly thanks everyone), I don't think it will ever be my style. I don't want a character with a detailed backstory telling me how cool they were before the game even starts. I want to see them be cool during play in a shared moment at the table. This is also why I prefer starting characters weaker than heroes or superheroes. I want to play through the character's backstory, I don't want to read about it. I want to experience it first hand. I want that zero to hero arc to happen in play at the table.

I agree, but to Neotrad/OC let's make that cool backstory/ability to come alive in the table. That backstory bit is there so that it comes into play, I put the fact that my dad left to fight the Lich King to either save him or to have a tragic fight with his reanimated body. Or that if I did already kill my reanimated dad I want stuff to tie back onto that.

Repeating Zero to Hero to Superhero can get boring, I want to just start with hero to superhero because I'm here to expereince being hero.

 

[FrozenNorth]

We also didn't find the Shire jarring, but then problem for us could be that as a group we all really like Lord of the Rings, it could be easy for us to sort of bypass the jarring bits subconsciously, and as the DM as such I may have also helped play into that - the feeling I got / evoked was more Bilbo trying to get the younger hobbits to have fun / look for adventure themselves, rather than a selfish final adventure, and the reactions people had was more around the general feel of Bilbo being different / potential bad influence on the hobbit characters (like in the books some people feared he was a bad influence on Frodo, though at same time others were thinking Bilbo would be a better influence on Frodo than the Bucklanders would have been if he stayed with them). So overall we enjoyed it, but may have unintentionally smoothed over some of the more jarring differences to the source material.

Part of what made it jarring was that most of the pregens weren’t young hobbits.

Paladin Took and Esmeralda Took are young: underage and just out of their tweenage years. Both of them are explicitly described as looking for adventure.

Drogo Baggins and Primula Brandybuck are older. They are in their forties and currently engaged to be married. Drogo’s write-up is pretty ambiguous about why he’s involved (beyond Bilbo being his cousin) and Primula’s explicitly states she’s there to make sure the younger hobbits don’t get into trouble.

Lobelia Bracegirdle is even older. In the books, she’s a spiteful and greedy minor antagonist. Her character sheet suggests that this remains the case in this adventure. It’s pretty unclear why she would be involved with Bilbo (except to suck up to him to gain part of the inheritance).

Rorimac Brandybuck is almost 60. He is married, has 3 children, and will shortly become Master of Brandy Hall. None of his children appear in the adventure, and no real explanation is given why he is spending time hanging out with his son’s future wife rather than what would normally keep a married man with 3 children busy in a pre-industrial society.

The first adventure is Bilbo telling us that he wanted to buy a map from other hobbits but they refused. He wants the map because he thinks that he can decipher the inscriptions to go on an ADVENTURE! He wants us to break into their house and steal it. When we arrive, we realize that the house is actually a local museum.

Bilbo comes off really poorly from the exchange, particularly since he is explicitly sending other people to do his dirty work. It isn’t realistic for Drogo, Primula, Lobelia or Rorimac to go along with this, and even Paladin and Esmeralda should have serious reservations.

Bilbo also insisted on coming with us in the 2nd adventure, which really undermined the idea that “he’s pushing younger hobbits to live a little before settling down”.

 

[zakael19]

Not to me they aren't. OC and NeoTrad are the same. A more 'tragic' take on NeoTrad is very much possible and existing, I think Deviant The Renegades is a great example of a game intending for a darker neotrad/OC.

You will die, how do you make it beautiful or grotesque?

I think you can have the style of play with or without whatever we choose to define in our heads as full “OC” engagement.

Concede the potential for tragic / bad outcome arcs being a goal of play, just not what comes to mind or what I’ve seen in my play so I didn’t think of it!

 

[GobHag]

I think you can have the style of play with or without whatever we choose to define in our heads as full “OC” engagement.

Concede the potential for tragic / bad outcome arcs being a goal of play, just not what comes to mind or what I’ve seen in my play so I didn’t think of it!

Power Fantasy has historically been, and will always be, popular. And even the Old-School ethos has a sort of 'striving towards' that will inevitably lead them to greatness, so deliberately designing one's own demise is strange and baffling until you realize that another way to see backstory is as a set of knives

 

[Umbran]

I would note your conditions. Bad things can happen to a character only if: 1. It narratively makes sense to the player 2. It only comes from the characters actions and 3. If the player does not "feel" the DM did some shenanigans. And I would sure say it sounds to me like the player must approve of any bad thing that happens.

I admit to not going through all 42 pages before this to see where you got these concepts, if indeed it was from the people in the thread. But, like several other places, this is talking about failure modes that would be failure in most kinds of RPG play - overly selfish players, and lack of trust among the participants.

Neotrad, just like all other modes of play, calls for all players to buy-in to the norms and expectations of play. And nigh universally, those norms are going to include what amounts to Wheaton's Law. Any analysis of a style that relies on people breaking Wheaton's Law is analysis of failure, not of success. "OMG, look at all the bad things that can happen," is an incomplete position. Bad things can happen in all styles.

So, in order to understand, you have to ask what success in neotrad play looks like. What happens when folks are not selfish, and have trust?

 

[FrozenNorth]

Neotrad, just like all other modes of play, calls for all players to buy-in to the norms and expectations of play. And nigh universally, those norms are going to include what amounts to Wheaton's Law. Any analysis of a style that relies on people breaking Wheaton's Law is analysis of failure, not of success. "OMG, look at all the bad things that can happen," is an incomplete position. Bad things can happen in all styles.

Is Wheaton’s Law “No game can survive contact with GMs or players trying to break it”?

 

[Umbran]

Is Wheaton’s Law “No game can survive contact with GMs or players trying to break it”?

Wheaton's Law is, "Don't be a jerk." (Wording changed to work within EN World language rules.)

What you have there is a corollary: "Games do not survive people purposefully being jerks."