Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9357194" data-attributes="member: 42582">Well, there you go. It's probably a bit reductive to say that that is all of it - ie that OC/neotrad is nothing more than the GM making sure the PCs are the protagonists in a literary way - but that's a good chunk of it.And as you say, it's not something that every GM sets out to do. Because not everyone is running a neotrad game.There are other approaches to player/PC protagonism, though - see further below.What you say - about staying out of the way and validating the players' story - is not entirely wrong. That's a key part of the difference between OC/Neotrad and (say) Apocalypse World and Burning Wheel. In those latter games, played according to the author instructions, it's legitimate for the GM to frame scenes that put pressure on the player's conception of who their character is (even to try and push the character to breaking point). Whereas in OC/neotrad, the situations and challenges the GM sets out should validate the player's character conception, and invite them to show it off.A very simple D&amp;D-ish example is that, in neo-trad play, if a player is playing a teleporter than the GM should frame scenes where teleporting is helpful. A more complex example (because it is about theme) is that, if a player is playing a character whose raison d'etre is saving orphans, then the GM should frame scenes which invite the saving of orphans, and that don't require the player to choose to trade off the saving of the orphans against other crucial values or relationships.It's character first rather than me first. There can either be spotlight rotation (&quot;OK, now we're doing this thing that is central to this PC&quot;) or spotlight integration (eg to rescue the orphans, which PC X is really committed to, will require PC Y the teleporter to teleport from here to over there).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9357194, member: 42582"] Well, there you go. It's probably a bit reductive to say that that is [I]all[/I] of it - ie that OC/neotrad is [I]nothing more than[/I] the GM making sure the PCs are the protagonists in a literary way - but that's a good chunk of it. And as you say, it's not something that [I]every[/I] GM sets out to do. Because not everyone is running a neotrad game. There are other approaches to player/PC protagonism, though - see further below. What you say - about staying out of the way and validating the players' story - is not entirely wrong. That's a key part of the difference between OC/Neotrad and (say) Apocalypse World and Burning Wheel. In those latter games, played according to the author instructions, it's legitimate for the GM to frame scenes that put pressure on the player's conception of who their character is (even to try and push the character to breaking point). Whereas in OC/neotrad, the situations and challenges the GM sets out should validate the player's character conception, and invite them to show it off. A very simple D&D-ish example is that, in neo-trad play, if a player is playing a teleporter than the GM should frame scenes where teleporting is helpful. A more complex example (because it is about theme) is that, if a player is playing a character whose raison d'etre is saving orphans, then the GM should frame scenes which invite the saving of orphans, and that don't require the player to choose to trade off the saving of the orphans against other crucial values or relationships. It's [I]character first[/I] rather than [I]me first[/I]. There can either be spotlight rotation ("OK, now we're doing this thing that is central to [I]this[/I] PC") or spotlight integration (eg to rescue the orphans, which PC X is really committed to, will require PC Y the teleporter to teleport from here to over there). [/QUOTE]

Verification