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

[grankless]

-snip-

But all of that can still be true in other "cultures of play". Bringing characters to multiple games is something I think of as being part of Gygax's era and mode that the blogpost author is always posting about on Reddit being the Ultimate Gaming Experience.

 

[zakael19]

But all of that can still be true in other "cultures of play". Bringing characters to multiple games is something I think of as being part of Gygax's era and mode that the blogpost author is always posting about on Reddit being the Ultimate Gaming Experience.

I think it's pretty evident if you read The Elusive Shift that, as @GobHag notes, OC play is just the latest spin on people taking freeform role-play into a dice mediated system. You can look at concepts like "character destiny/fate" and NPCs linked into that from some of the early 'zine reports and trace a pretty clear line to player-side railroading or pre-requested plot beats in a neotrad/OC game. Likewise some of the early grump over some GMs being too precious with player characters - I've personally seen a bit of an assumption in neotrad/OC play that you're not going to TPK everybody because that ends the character exploration (unless you know, the character has culminated and feels its time to go out in a blaze of glory).

 

[thefutilist]

I would say it is. There is nothing at all obliging Erika to have Ame react the way she does. Her reaction is entirely up to her. The high roll simply served as a prompt for the GM to prompt her. And, the Insight check seems to have been prompted by Erika’s own reaction to something the GM said which was prompted by Erika’s declared actions.

I see it as a series of back and forths, accurately described by Mulligan as collaborative storytelling. There’s little game there.

At least, that’s how I read it.

For sure it is. I think the big thing that makes it look any different there is just the caliber of performers. I think they're absolutely playing in the space you call out in your earlier example with our two estranged brothers, it's just that the boundaries of that space are much bigger, due to their extensive storytelling/improv experience, and established performance chemistry, plus a lot of OOC work/review they talk about pretty openly in their associated media. The all know the themes/arc that Suvi is trying to hit, they know the kinds of themes that Ame is playing with, and they have a lot of practice onboarding even quite subtle suggestions from their fellow performers and rolling with them.

I would say they're definitely doing OC play, they're just doing it very performatively and very well. One thing I think you can take from WBN (and really Brennan's style in general) as a technique to support that kind of play is how all the players relate to the rules. They only go and look at them when they want input, or they want flavor. The mechanics are one of several paintbrushes, and they only pick them up and bind themselves to them when they feel that color will help the story they're trying to tell.

Edit: I just thought of a really clear example of that from later in the podcast. Lou is pointedly putting off selecting a subclass for Eursulon, until he feels a sufficiently appropriate moment for swearing an oath and/or invoking new mechanics occurs.

So I'd call it OC play as well. What's interesting is that Brennan is flat out telling a character about a revelation they had, crossing loads of lines but it turns out those lines don't actually matter much when the group is on board. Anyway I see why he's held in high esteem.

On the way Brennan uses the mechanics. There was a whole thing on Story games about Bricolage which basically amounted to OC trad apologia. It aggravates my modernist sensibilities and I used to argue that you're always better off just designing a more purpose fit system. Not sure if I still believe that though.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So I'd call it OC play as well. What's interesting is that Brennan is flat out telling a character about a revelation they had, crossing loads of lines but it turns out those lines don't actually matter much when the group is on board. Anyway I see why he's held in high esteem.

On the way Brennan uses the mechanics. There was a whole thing on Story games about Bricolage which basically amounted to OC trad apologia. It aggravates my modernist sensibilities and I used to argue that you're always better off just designing a more purpose fit system. Not sure if I still believe that though.

Yeah, he seemingly crosses a line by telling the player what the character feels… but it’s not binding in any way. It’s received positively because Erika is open to it and enthusiastic about it.

But what if she wasn’t?

She could either ignore this “revelation” and continue to role play her character exactly as she had. There’s nothing about this kind of play that obliges her to honor the outcome of the role.

Or she could feel that Brennan overstepped and defined an element of play that is the player’s to define. We’ve all seen examples of this… of the GM “overstepping” and telling a player what their character thinks or feels or does.

This is why, to me, what was happening was just a back and forth of shared storytelling. I’m not even sure what the roll really accomplished, or why the outcome reached should be called a success.

And although I like Brennan Lee Mulligan just fine… he seems like a nice guy and he’s enthusiastic about the hobby and helps bring it to many folks… I find some of the comments he’s made about 5e to be a bit off. His analogy to a stove, for instance, seems pretty simplistic and doesn’t really do the work he seems to think it does.

 

[pemerton]

What's interesting is that Brennan is flat out telling a character about a revelation they had, crossing loads of lines but it turns out those lines don't actually matter much when the group is on board. Anyway I see why he's held in high esteem.

Yeah, he seemingly crosses a line by telling the player what the character feels… but it’s not binding in any way. It’s received positively because Erika is open to it and enthusiastic about it.

But what if she wasn’t?

She could either ignore this “revelation” and continue to role play her character exactly as she had. There’s nothing about this kind of play that obliges her to honor the outcome of the role.

Or she could feel that Brennan overstepped and defined an element of play that is the player’s to define. We’ve all seen examples of this… of the GM “overstepping” and telling a player what their character thinks or feels or does.

So isn't this part of the mark of the GM's skill at this particular mode - ie he has a strong intuition as to where the boundaries lie, and of how to bring his players with him even when he's sailing close to the wind.

I find some of the comments he’s made about 5e to be a bit off. His analogy to a stove, for instance, seems pretty simplistic and doesn’t really do the work he seems to think it does.

I feel I may regret asking for some elaboration as to how 5e D&D resembles a stove . . .

 

[Pedantic]

So isn't this part of the mark of the GM's skill at this particular mode - ie he has a strong intuition as to where the boundaries lie, and of how to bring his players with him even when he's sailing close to the wind.

Precisely. The strong version of that point is that mechanisms of good OC play are meta-textual to the rules, which I'm not totally sure I believe, but I haven't actually seen mechanisms that achieve the desired results without breaking some other part of the experience.

I have a theory that good play in this mode is characterized not by shared storytelling so much as shared yearning. The players, explicitly or implicitly, aim to want the same things.

I feel I may regret asking for some elaboration as to how 5e D&D resembles a stove . . .

I'm sure there's exact quotes around, but generally he's spoken well of 5e as a means for resolving things like combat, precisely because it's grittier and more difficult to resolve with just shared storytelling. He's explicit about viewing the rules as a tool, treating RPG mechanics are effectively an add-on pack to storytelling/improv.

The problem with looking to Mulligan for insight is that it's not really clear how replicable what he does is for people who aren't doing it as a career.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So isn't this part of the mark of the GM's skill at this particular mode - ie he has a strong intuition as to where the boundaries lie, and of how to bring his players with him even when he's sailing close to the wind.

It would seem so, yeah! I didn’t listen to the actual episode of play, just read what was shared in the article, so some context is absent. I don’t know, for instance, if this self-realization was what the intent of the Insight roll was. I don’t know if the self realization was a wanted or unwanted thing prior to the roll. Et cetera.

But it absolutely involved the GM sussing out some point of interest of the player and folding that into play in a way that worked for the player.

I feel I may regret asking for some elaboration as to how 5e D&D resembles a stove . . .

He said that people talk about 5e as a combat focused game because so many of its rules revolve around combat. So it may look like it’s for combat, but really that’s just the bit that needs rules.

He then talks about how a stove’s true purpose isn’t obvious from looking at it. There’s nothing about food that’s obviously related to a stove.

So 5e may seem to be about combat, but its true purpose, according to Mulligan, is to facilitate shared storytelling. For which he and his players don’t need many rules.

It’s a pretty clumsy metaphor, if you ask me… for a few reasons.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Hmmm. In my X-MUX days, we always found combat entirely possible to narrate out largely rules-free. It might make a difference that it was very rarely lethal.

 

[pemerton]

He said that people talk about 5e as a combat focused game because so many of its rules revolve around combat. So it may look like it’s for combat, but really that’s just the bit that needs rules.

He then talks about how a stove’s true purpose isn’t obvious from looking at it. There’s nothing about food that’s obviously related to a stove.

So 5e may seem to be about combat, but its true purpose, according to Mulligan, is to facilitate shared storytelling. For which he and his players don’t need many rules.

It’s a pretty clumsy metaphor, if you ask me… for a few reasons.

Clumsy and confusing.

I mean, a stove is a bench that has "segments" that heat up. So vessels can be placed onto those segments - just as they might be placed onto a bench - and they and the stuff that's in them will get hot. And heating is pretty obviously related to food - cooking food is something humans seem to have been doing for a long time.

I mean, someone who had no familiarity with food preparation - and hence with ideas like benches and vessels - mightn't make the connection immediately, but it's hardly an obscure one.

In this "stove" model of 5e and its combat rules, I can't work out what is the heat, what the bench, what the vessel, etc. I mean, as per your first paragraph, it just seems to be a reiteration of the very old and commonplace idea that combat needs rules but other fields of activity don't. Which is true, if you don't intend to resolve combat via consensual freeform, while you do intend to resolve stuff in those other fields of activity via consensual freeform.

I don't see how the metaphor of the stove helps make that point any clearer!

 

[thefutilist]

Yeah, he seemingly crosses a line by telling the player what the character feels… but it’s not binding in any way. It’s received positively because Erika is open to it and enthusiastic about it.

But what if she wasn’t?

She could either ignore this “revelation” and continue to role play her character exactly as she had. There’s nothing about this kind of play that obliges her to honor the outcome of the role.

Or she could feel that Brennan overstepped and defined an element of play that is the player’s to define. We’ve all seen examples of this… of the GM “overstepping” and telling a player what their character thinks or feels or does.

This is why, to me, what was happening was just a back and forth of shared storytelling. I’m not even sure what the roll really accomplished, or why the outcome reached should be called a success.

And although I like Brennan Lee Mulligan just fine… he seems like a nice guy and he’s enthusiastic about the hobby and helps bring it to many folks… I find some of the comments he’s made about 5e to be a bit off. His analogy to a stove, for instance, seems pretty simplistic and doesn’t really do the work he seems to think it does.

I don't think she could ignore the revelation or she could but at that point play becomes outright dysfunctional. Otherwise we're pretty much in agreement.

And yeah his thoughts on system should be totally ignored or at least contextualised. He's working within the 2E tradition and they only really make sense within that tradition.

So isn't this part of the mark of the GM's skill at this particular mode - ie he has a strong intuition as to where the boundaries lie, and of how to bring his players with him even when he's sailing close to the wind.

Oh totally. I just found it a good example because it directly contradicts many of the claims about OC play which I'm coming to think is defined by reactions to Dungeons and Dragons. It wouldn't make sense talking about OC play amongst Vampire players in the 90's, that's just play.