NeoTrad/OC Play, & the treatment of friendly NPCs (++)

S'mon

Legend
So in this post What Games do you think are Neotrad? I got to thinking a bit about what's called NeoTrad or OC (Original Character) type play style, which is defined by a focus on the PCs, their freedom of action, their self development. It is not primarily about exploring the world (as in OSR/sandboxing) and it is not primarily about challenging the PCs or the players. The settings are normally adventurous, but not particularly threatening to the survival prospects of the main cast; irrevocable character death is very rare. Players are interested in exploring the inner lives of their characters as well as their relations with other PCs and NPCs. Players usually see their PCs as "awesome" and want the world to see them that way too. This applies even if the character is a traditional "feminine protagonist" without traditional adventuring skills, like Bella in Twilight. Major influences I think include 1990s text-chat "Simming", Anime/Manga, the Superhero genre, to some extent female-centric Romance fiction, and (mostly female written) Fanfic to a greater extent I think. It's a style that very much centres the players and their interests, and takes a GM who is keen to accommodate these rather than impose his or her own vision too much, while also helping the players to work together - "Main Character Syndrome" is an obvious risk in this style, something I've definitely experienced myself.

The discussion of the new 5.5 DMG Bastion system got me thinking about the role of long term friendly/allied NPCs in OC style play, and how they are best used by the GM and players. I think it's very common for the OC to have a long term supporting cast of NPCs, the love/friend interests in Harem & Reverse Harem Anime is one that comes to mind. It seems to me that the 5.5 Bastion approach of "these are off limits to the GM" is not a good one. But neither is the the kind of 1990s/Trad approach of the GM/writer fridging the hero's girlfriend to create a motivation for revenge. These characters need to be treated with a certain degree of respect, a bit like the respect a GM should afford the Player Characters. So I was thinking a bit about how this works best in practice. If Goblin Slayer is the PC, is it ok to threaten Cow Girl or Guild Girl. To what extent is it ok to have disagreements, hostility, amusing misunderstandings, even have them fall in love with a rival. When would a player feel aggrieved, that the social contract is broken? Conversely, I think players probably get more annoyed if the GM deliberately ignores the supporting cast, perhaps from fear of doing it wrong, and focuses entirely on the Adventure.
If you enjoy this play style, what do you think? (If you hate this play style, that's fine of course, but I'm hoping for some positive feedback) :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

S'mon

Legend
In terms of games I'm actually running, my D&D/OSR Wilderlands games often tend somewhat to to this style. Any game with my published female author friend playing tends to develop in this style :) And most notably, running Cyberpunk Red for several months at the start of this year, I found it strongly inclines towards this style, and I enjoyed it a lot.
 

Piperken

Explorer
...And most notably, running Cyberpunk Red for several months at the start of this year, I found it strongly inclines towards this style, and I enjoyed it a lot.

I'd like to comment, but would feel more comfortable after reading more of the original thread you listed.

In the meantime, could you cite an example from play in this game, where you & players leaned heavily into this style and enjoyed? Ask mainly because on casual passover, the game (Cyberpunk Red, or rather its genre) allows for that play style to happen, but doesn't seem suited for it to be the main focus.
 

pemerton

Legend
The discussion of the new 5.5 DMG Bastion system got me thinking about the role of long term friendly/allied NPCs in OC style play, and how they are best used by the GM and players. I think it's very common for the OC to have a long term supporting cast of NPCs, the love/friend interests in Harem & Reverse Harem Anime is one that comes to mind. It seems to me that the 5.5 Bastion approach of "these are off limits to the GM" is not a good one. But neither is the the kind of 1990s/Trad approach of the GM/writer fridging the hero's girlfriend to create a motivation for revenge. These characters need to be treated with a certain degree of respect, a bit like the respect a GM should afford the Player Characters. So I was thinking a bit about how this works best in practice. If Goblin Slayer is the PC, is it ok to threaten Cow Girl or Guild Girl. To what extent is it ok to have disagreements, hostility, amusing misunderstandings, even have them fall in love with a rival. When would a player feel aggrieved, that the social contract is broken? Conversely, I think players probably get more annoyed if the GM deliberately ignores the supporting cast, perhaps from fear of doing it wrong, and focuses entirely on the Adventure.
My lens isn't OC - the games that I play, that feature supporting casts of NPCs, are more "story now" and so the NPCs are not off-limits, and the GM is allowed to put them (and thereby the PC) under pressure. The classic statement from Luke Crane is in the Burning Wheel rulebook (revised, p 109):

If one of your relationships is your wife in the village, the GM is supposed to use this to create situations in play. If you're hunting a Vampyr, of course its your wife who is his victim!​

Now I think the principle that's stated there is too "hard/brutal" for OC play; but still, I think there are some overlaps and lessons that can be transposed from the "story now" mode to the OC mode. A key one, I think, is to know limits of what is reasonable. In my sort of game, for instance, one important limit is set by the general resolution procedures: bad things happening to a liked NPC (eg the wife being seduced by the Vampyr) should only follow from failure, especially failure that implicitly stakes some interest of or connection to that NPC.

If we apply that limit to OC play, and then consider that in OC play failure is probably less common and stakes often lower, it follows that the incidence and seriousness of "bad things" probably needs to dial down correspondingly. So if the NPC falls in love with a rival - at the instigation of the GM - then (i) the situation should be easier for the player to change (ie less of a tendency to brutal finality than can be found in "story now" mode), and (ii) maybe the GM needs to seek implicit or even express permission to put the relationship at stake in the first place, rather than relying on just the fiction and the fact of the relationship. (I believe that these sorts of "meta-channel" communications are important in OC play; whereas in my games the permission generally has been given by signing on to play Burning Wheel or Torchbearer or whatever in the first place.)

I'm sure there are other principles and limits that could be stated, but I'd thought I'd start with this and see what you (and others) think.
 


S'mon

Legend
I just had a thought re treatment of NPCs - re evil monsters that surrender. I've seen OC-style players be furious when it turns out that having bugbears surrender to the PC does not give the player control over the behaviour and moral outlook of those bugbears. OC oriented players often hate the idea that the GM has sole authority over the world beyond the PC, and they often hate the idea that the player/PC can make a "wrong" moral choice such as trusting Bugbears to Be Good.

I think the worst thing for me is when the player/PC drives his (always been his) spouse absolutely nuts with (to me, & to spouse) selfish, short sighted, even downright evil actions. And the player insists that the spouse, who is a very well developed character with her own personality and motivations, ought to be going along with whatever the PC wants. I've seen this result in a complete breakdown of the GM-player relationship twice now.
 

thefutilist

Adventurer
There's a really good thread about OC play (Vincent calls it sim) on Anyway.



It's worth reading in its entirety but you only really have to read up to post 20 maybe to get the gist.


The social reward/cohesion in OC play is about affirming the rightness of a character. You show to the other person that you 'get it'. Having the wife call out the PC's actions is 'not getting it'. Then you have a genuine aesthetic disagreement in the group, how do you resolve it?


If I was doing OC stuff now. Then I'd just concede to the player. The GM is playing the wife wrong and should correct based on the players conception of her. The same with the Bugbears, concede to the players.



Contrast to:

In Narrativist mode, screw the player, the wife is mine (The GM's) and I get to say what's what. There shouldn't be an expectation of the GM playing her in the way I've conceived her. Same with the Bugbears.


Here's another, more congruent difference.

In oc/sim, Batman doesn't kill and that should work out for him.

In Nar, Batman is making the choice not to kill and it might not work out for him. Maybe killing really was the best option.


Back to the Bugbears. If I think the world we are in should reward my mercy with trust and faith. Then the Bugbears should be loyal. It's less about wanting control and more about our shared moral vision that we're re-enacting.

If a moral choice actually is up for grabs, then we're playing Narrativism and we might not want that.
 

Piperken

Explorer
So, I've combed through a majority of the original thread and considered this aspect specifically.

I've role played in this described style before, although not in a TTRPG that has rules which mechanically promote these goals.

Generally, what's happened IME with this playstyle is that if the npc happens to be a creation of another player, that player typically is the one who is the arbiter over that character's decisions, what "happens" to the npc and so on; though I'd describe this more as a spectrum and that depending, some choices e.g. the npc happens to be present in a scene, in the background with less consequences are readily encouraged.

Taking this example:
I definitely think turning PC's wife into a hostile vampire would be considered to be breaking the social contract in most OC groups. Turning her into a friendly vampire with superpowers might be ok

This would be an event that I'd envision being discussed on some level outside the game first; which one can see from the possibility that the player might be "ok" with their npc/pc wife being transformed into the agreeable vampire spouse (no more creative worry over what to feed them right, lol), who has superpowers.
 

GobHag

Explorer
Depends if the character is meant for 'At this part, we'll talk about the morality of killing vampires' while the other is 'At this part, this fucker is gonna die and we'll dance on his ashes'. My own perspective is that subverting the supporting cast's 'purpose' is generally considered bad form, having a PC's wife/son/battle butlet be a secret vampire all along is very much bad form but having them be threatened is usally fine.

While I think having those characters be ignored is not ideal, as long as the DM still allows interaction with them. Like, this scene is how I imagine it'd go. Nero gets put to the ringer throughout DMC V, but never is Kyrie(his practically wife GF) is put to danger. If during quiet moments they get to have some fun bits with their pet or family then everything is all right.

Of course if they put 'My dad mysteriously vanished when the Dark Lord appears' then confronting the dad is what they're looking for.

There was a reddit post about how backstory element can be like knives, but as time goes on those elements can be something else besides heartwrenching drama.
 

Piperken

Explorer
My own perspective is that subverting the supporting cast's 'purpose' is generally considered bad form, having a PC's wife/son/battle butlet be a secret vampire all along is very much bad form but having them be threatened is usally fine.

Ofc, that'd fall under what I feel I described; the issue is the subversion on part of the other player? If the game provides a rule set that discourages that or the table has that as an understanding, then that will occur less, or not at all.

While I think having those characters be ignored is not ideal, as long as the DM still allows interaction with them.

In my mind, this is an expectation of a player or players who desire to play in this style for the game. They should advocate for that, and the table person should attempt to facilitate it.
 

Remove ads

Top