Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9235764" data-attributes="member: 71699">(Emphasis mine.) True, and per my arguments (in <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/rpging-and-imagination-a-fundamental-point.701162/post-9235171" target="_blank">#1,179</a>) GM as means of resolution (lusory-means) doesn't impinge on player as author/audience. It's GM as author that impinges on it. The only reason GM as means of resolution comes into it is that traditionally that's what's given force to whatever authorship they do. A common way of negotiating with that force is via strong bubbles of authorship around character, which I think is a hallmark of compromises in neo-trad designs.A concrete motive for displacing or subjecting to a constitution GM as means of resolution is to play the game by known rules; and that applies across the board. It certainly applies to S as much as GN. Achieving elevated appreciation can benefit from an objective form of play, particularly where the game designer has special knowledge and intent. Some groups may benefit from their GM holding special knowledge and intent, and I don't think neo-trad design has much to say about that. Neotrad design moves work more on player side than GM side (hence the misleading conflation with OC.)Neo-trad is also concerned with game goals. Goals that amount to - "what shall we imagine?" - are different from traditional game goals. What's addressed is the imagination of the players so the goals need to be embedded in that. Again, this need have nothing to do with GM, and strictly speaking GM as referee shouldn't set goals. Something sandbox GMs had already grasped. Neo-trad game designs include goals that will make the experience distinct - "you can imagine anything, but for the next couple of hours imagine something like this" And ideally provide means for players to set goals in light of the game's conceits, to connect their individual imaginings with the shared project in a more satisfying way. There's also finesse available around connecting goals with reward structures (most often, progression.)What you're describing here is OC and not neo-trad. The etymology of neo-trad attaches to design. That "Six Cultures" article mixed them up, confessed they got it wrong, and reverted to "OC" for what they were describing!100% agree with your last sentence here. Neo-trad is about the form of the game.</blockquote>

Verification