D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Crimson Longinus]

In my opinion it's very much Trad. Neotrad is actually fairly coherent as a concept space, it's just not one people have considered before. It's usually characterized by strong rules and setting assumptions binding the GM. It's an outgrowth of OC play. I had trouble with it as well, took some extra reading to lock it in conceptually. I was lumping it in with Trad, but Trad play features GM setting control and GM rules control and aims more at the GM providing a story than characters interacting with the setting. Again, it's about where authorities and constraints lie. The GM doesn't have the same authority over the rules or setting in Neotrad as in Trad -- the constraints are much, much tighter. The other difference is that play in Neotrad often focuses on the story the players want to explore. This differs from Story Now because play is still very much backstory framed (as opposed to situation framed) and the players are expected to navigate the setting to achieve what they want. Really this is more about the GM not having a plotline at all. A good bit of supposed Sandbox play incorporates Neotrad ideals, but are often still run in a much more Trad manner. I believe that there's a reasonable amount of drift here -- Trad to Neotrad is actually more of a spectrum than some of the others.

Right. That makes sense. And I feel Critical Role and games similar to it have some strong neotread flavour in the sense that they focus on characters and their stories a lot, but are still trad in sense that the authority is still solidly on the GM's hands.

 

[Manbearcat]

But if you want to discuss these things on general message board (on D&D section, no less) then it might be good idea to acknowledge how a large section of readership of such boards actually plays.

On the bolded part:

There is nothing more D&D than a Moldvay Basic Dungeon Crawl.

There is nothing more D&D than an RC Hexcrawl.

These are seminal D&D works and playstyles. I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that discussing D&D as Pictionary (eg the two ways I have most played D&D in my life and are not "boutique D&D" in the slightest) is somehow a problem for D&D section message-boarding?

On the italicized part:

Why?

Why is that a good idea?

I'm genuinely curious why you think some form of deference to or acknowledgement of "modern majority share D&D" as a preamble to deeper discussion (like discussing RC Hexcrawl or Moldvay Basic D&D as kindred to Pictionary) is even in the slightest bit important?

Why?

 

[FrogReaver]

Right. It's just that your binary distinction omits how (I'd wager) most people actually play. Most people don't play gygaxian map and key dungeon/hex crawls anymore (and haven't for decades) nor do they play Story Now indie games. So it's not super helpful.

I think we really need to elaborate on what actual map and key play and what it looks like in the real world.

1. In the most idealized form of map and key play the DM creates all the backstory before the game and the players simply interact with that backstory while the DM acts as an impartial judge when it comes to deciding the effects of anything the players decide to do. (This would most closely resemble a classic dungeon crawl or megadungeon scenario). The DM may or may not take player input when establishing the before the game backstory. Typically, the player input on before play backstory is fairly minimal though.

2. However, in real world players tend to try to stray outside the before play crafted backstory box. This leads the DM to have to improvise. He typically does so in one of the following ways: (2a) the DM improvises content to steer/push the players back into the before play crafted backstory or (2b) the DM improvises content that allows the players to explore interesting things outside the before play crafted backstory. 2a vs 2b is essentially the difference in adventure path play vs living sandbox play.

3. When 2b occurs within a session of play - after that session of play the DM will then craft backstory, let's call this post session crafted backstory. The important thing about post play crafted backstory is that the DM can take player in game comments and actions (both in and out of character) and use that to create after session backstory that aligns with the players indirectly stated preferences. A very good DM may even be able to accomplish some of this in 2 when he's improvising interesting content for the player but not all DM's think fast enough to produce such improv scenarios.

The primary takeaway I hope everyone comes away from this analysis with is that even idealized map and key games leave open and often even encourages the DM to shape play into something more player driven via allowing the players to go and do things outside the before the game backstory via the process outlined above 1->2b->3. This is why talking about D&D play as if it's simply idealized map and key is so confusing to many modern D&D players - because idealized map and key play doesn't leave any room for player input into the map and key whereas generating backstory between sessions does leave room for exactly that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

On the bolded part:

There is nothing more D&D than a Moldvay Basic Dungeon Crawl.

There is nothing more D&D than an RC Hexcrawl.

These are seminal D&D works and playstyles. I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that discussing D&D as Pictionary (eg the two ways I have most played D&D in my life and are not "boutique D&D" in the slightest).

As much as I like the 80s, it's not the 80s anymore.

On the italicized part:

Why?

Why is that a good idea?

I'm genuinely curious why you think some form of deference to or acknowledgement of "modern majority share D&D" as a preamble to deeper discussion (like discussing RC Hexcrawl or Moldvay Basic D&D as kindred to Pictionary) is even in the slightest bit important?

Why?

OK. Don't then. If you don't want your contributions to be relevant then that's your choice.

 

[Manbearcat]

As much as I like 80s, it's not 80s anymore.


OK. Don't then. If you don't want your contributions to be relevant then that's your choice.

I mean lol...seriously Crimson Longinus of the internets.

That is your response. Is your friendly (lol?) public service announcement above indicative of a "relevant contribution?"

Here is a public service announcement for you: People see <shrug> emoji and "just sayin' ", and they don't think "definitely not douchey!" So, my advice to you for your contributions to be relevant would be to drop the shrug emojis! Particularly after sarcastic remarks!

Lucky for everyone at ENWorld, you don't get a vote on whose words are relevant and whose are not. I'm quite confident that my contributions over the years meet the standard of "relevant" despite not genuflecting in quite the way you would like me to (for whatever reason)!

And the 80s have a hell of a lot of purchase in all manner of culture, D&D included, in our world thank-you-very-much!


EDIT - And to be clear (because you didn't answer my question). You feel that if I don't genuflect sufficiently to your liking in an acknowledging preamble of some kind, that the ENWorld userbase will consider my contributions irrelevant. Why_is_that? Why is genuflecting to majority share D&D before I talk about my "old-ass 80s D&D" or my "newfangled ivory tower RPGing" the prerequisite for "relevant contributions?" How does that work? Draw me a map.

@Cadence , you xped this so I assume you agree? Could you elaborate on that? Could maybe @FrogReaver elaborate on that? Why must I submit a sufficiently ackowledging preamble to the hegemony of modern majority share D&D before my contributions should be considered relevant?

 

[Campbell]

I think the ways in which a significant chunk of those of us who enjoy OSR games choose to orient themselves towards D&D-like games should absolutely be relevant to a discussion with D&D General tag. As is Pathfinder Second Edition's attempt to merge more classic modes of play with more modern ones. Did Fifth Edition become the only edition of the game while I was sleeping last night?

Damn. I guess I should throw away Pathfinder Second Edition, World Without Number, The Nightmares Underneath, Moldvay B/X and Electric Bastionland. I guess we don't count anymore guys.

 

[FrogReaver]

I mean lol...seriously Crimson Longinus of the internets.

That is your response. Is your friendly (lol?) public service announcement above indicative of a "relevant contribution?"

Here is a public service announcement for you: People see <shrug> emoji and "just sayin' ", and they don't think "definitely not douchey!" So, my advice to you for your contributions to be relevant would be to drop the shrug emojis! Particularly after sarcastic remarks!

Lucky for everyone at ENWorld, you don't get a vote on whose words are relevant and whose are not. I'm quite confident that my contributions over the years meet the standard of "relevant" despite not genuflecting in quite the way you would like me to (for whatever reason)!

And the 80s have a hell of a lot of purchase in all manner of culture, D&D included, in our world thank-you-very-much!


EDIT - And to be clear (because you didn't answer my question). You feel that if I don't genuflect sufficiently to your liking in an acknowledging preamble of some kind, that the ENWorld userbase will consider my contributions irrelevant. Why_is_that? Why is genuflecting to majority share D&D before I talk about my "old-ass 80s D&D" or my "newfangled ivory tower RPGing" the prerequisite for "relevant contributions?" How does that work? Draw me a map.

@Cadence , you xped this so I assume you agree? Could you elaborate on that? Could maybe @FrogReaver elaborate on that? Why must I submit a sufficiently ackowledging preamble to the hegemony of modern majority share D&D before my contributions should be considered relevant?

Is it a relevant point that your descriptions of d&d play are based on a fringe segment of modern d&d play? Or would it be if the premise were true?

 

[Ovinomancer]

As much as I like the 80s, it's not the 80s anymore.


OK. Don't then. If you don't want your contributions to be relevant then that's your choice.

Do you find it a difficult job, being a guard at the gate? Does keeping the gate pay well, or does it have other compensations?

ETA: sarcastic humor aside, I very much dislike this kind of gatekeeping.

 

[Manbearcat]

Is it a relevant point that your descriptions of d&d play are based on a fringe segment of modern d&d play? Or would it be if the premise were true?

I know this is rich coming from me (fully cop to it)...but I can't parse your sentences (or how they relate to my question).

And after the "can't parse it", I don't see how a rhetorical question (regardless of what you're saying) answers my question.

I'll pose my question again. If anyone could answer it clearly and without a rhetorical question, I would appreciate it.

Why must I submit a sufficiently acknowledging/deferential preamble to the hegemony of modern majority share D&D before my contributions (on old school D&D or Story Now D&D or Storyteller Imperative or Skilled Play or competing play priorities or Force or whatever) should be considered relevant?

 

[Campbell]

I cannot speak for most players. I'm not sure why anyone would want me to try to speak for anyone except myself. All I can talk about from an informed perspective are the games I have played in and the games I have run. That's all any of us can reliably speak to.

Like am I supposed to in my own posts argue the points I think some mythical stereotypical gamer would make? How do I do that in any sort of accurate way when I don't hold those preferences or views myself? How do I avoid making a gross error in my depiction of this mythical gamer? Am I supposed to make other people's points for them? Argue with myself?