Thinking About the Purpose of Mechanics from a Neo-Trad Perspective

[niklinna]

This is something that Pathfinder 2e takes up, the class features are asymmetrical, and each class has core mechanics (with varying degrees of imposition on play-style) that create ludic texture for each one. A swashbuckler must do a cool thing (distilled into a skill check, usually attached to one of the other game's actions, or to an improves stunt) this gives them 'panache' which is a state that confers small bonuses, but it's also a currency that can be consumed for a big damage or condition-inflicting 'finisher.' In contrast, a Ranger selects a target and marks it for execution, then gets bonuses (reductions to multi-attack, extra AC, or extra damage) against that specific target giving it a focus-fire playstyle, in contrast a fighter gets a +2 to hit and so gets that same damage by hitting and critting more often, e.g. skipping the mechanic for a better-than-you base state that functions as its feel, meanwhile a rogue must somehow put the enemy off balance to get sneak attack damage, whether by coordination or a stunt. The balance is actually vital to maintaining expression in this instance, because it affirms that your ability to make expressive choices does not compromise your instrumental viability-- you aren't pressured to skip the playstyle that you want for one you need.

And while those expressive choices might be heavily focused on tactical combat, especially for the base classes, a number of archetypes do offer stuff around skills and even some roleplay-oriented features. If you're willing to sacrifice a little of your instrumental play potential for them.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

And while those expressive choices might be heavily focused on tactical combat, especially for the base classes, a number of archetypes do offer stuff around skills and even some roleplay-oriented features. If you're willing to sacrifice a little of your instrumental play potential for them.

Yup, though with the way optimization is chiefly limited by action saturation and hard limits on bonus stacking, any group playing in free archetype actually hits the optimization point with a minimum of class feats-- you can either take more that simply compete with your existing ones (and are more useful in a small variety of situations) or you can just move into the roleplaying/exploration/downtime space. It's a better instrumental play in that game, to take the non-combat ones after a foundation of instrumental combat feats has been established with a handful of feats.

 

[pemerton]

Contextually, it appeared it referred to asking questions to the GM until you've trapped them into a decision they don't want as a consequence of prior answers. In other words, a variation of "playing the GM"

This is getting closer to what I don't like (as per my reply to @Manbearcat upthread) - in my mind, because of my particular experiences, it's an approach I especially associate with CoC, Cyberpunk, TMNT, or some other modern-era RPG where there will inevitably be details of any situation that the GM hasn't initially set out and yet which, once elucidated (and as per Manbearcat's label of "realistic?/in-fiction-causal factors), can make a difference to difficulty and/or consequences.

But there's a reason other than bad players which makes this happen: in a system where resolution is based on granular detail (which is most RPGs before the year 2000, and plenty since), and where it's impossible for the GM to articulate all that detail up front (which is especially the case for modern-era RPGs), it makes absolute sense as a player not just to do what @kenada described upthread (ie play the GM's already-established fiction) but to do what you (Thomas Shey) describe, namely, trying to get more fiction established that will run your way.

Systems that use non-granular resolution completely sidestep all this stuff. (Examples I think of straight away are AW and MHRP.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is something that Pathfinder 2e takes up, the class features are asymmetrical, and each class has core mechanics (with varying degrees of imposition on play-style) that create ludic texture for each one. A swashbuckler must do a cool thing (distilled into a skill check, usually attached to one of the other game's actions, or to an improvised stunt) this gives them 'panache' which is a state that confers small bonuses, but it's also a currency that can be consumed for a big damage or condition-inflicting 'finisher.' In contrast, a Ranger selects a target and marks it for execution, then gets bonuses (reductions to multi-attack penalties, extra AC, or extra damage) against that specific target giving it a focus-fire playstyle, in contrast a fighter gets a +2 to hit and so gets that same damage by hitting and critting more often, e.g. skipping the mechanic for a better-than-you base state that functions as its feel, meanwhile a rogue must somehow put the enemy off balance to get sneak attack damage, whether by coordination or a stunt. The balance is actually vital to maintaining expression in this instance, because it affirms that your ability to make expressive choices does not compromise your instrumental viability-- you aren't pressured to skip the playstyle that you want for one you need.

Hmmmm, OTOH there is a VERY VERY long history of RPGs that have tried this "separate but equal" strategy before (I mean, including D&D, which absolutely assumed a baseline of parity between its archetypes early on; though arguably without the substance). There is an equally long line of games which failed to make it work. In fact I would say its virtually 100%. Now, maybe if you shift the relevant play process firmly enough away from this stuff then it will work fine. I mean, I could imagine a 'star trek' game where 'klingons' fight literally 10x better than humans, but the nexus of play is so much on the narrative and the consequences of actions and such that its kind of not really too relevant. Or maybe a game that is 100% neo trad in its orientation will simply not care because performance is performance and the fact that you crisped 20 goblins with your fireball while I only gutted 3 with my cool knife work is just fine, we both got to do our things.

But its hard to sustain such disparities, and when each type of character works on rather different rules there tends to be problems where certain game elements are overwhelmingly favorable to a certain type of character, or something like that. I have this feeling that PF2e will not long avoid that sort of problem, and in more trad games, or something like the most natural way of playing 4e, such disparity can create issues. I think a game like 4e that mechanically puts everyone on equal footing and handling and THEN gives you lots of descriptors to use to say "here's how I'm different" will always be more robust, if not perhaps always favored by some.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Hmmmm, OTOH there is a VERY VERY long history of RPGs that have tried this "separate but equal" strategy before (I mean, including D&D, which absolutely assumed a baseline of parity between its archetypes early on; though arguably without the substance). There is an equally long line of games which failed to make it work. In fact I would say its virtually 100%. Now, maybe if you shift the relevant play process firmly enough away from this stuff then it will work fine. I mean, I could imagine a 'star trek' game where 'klingons' fight literally 10x better than humans, but the nexus of play is so much on the narrative and the consequences of actions and such that its kind of not really too relevant. Or maybe a game that is 100% neo trad in its orientation will simply not care because performance is performance and the fact that you crisped 20 goblins with your fireball while I only gutted 3 with my cool knife work is just fine, we both got to do our things.

But its hard to sustain such disparities, and when each type of character works on rather different rules there tends to be problems where certain game elements are overwhelmingly favorable to a certain type of character, or something like that. I have this feeling that PF2e will not long avoid that sort of problem, and in more trad games, or something like the most natural way of playing 4e, such disparity can create issues. I think a game like 4e that mechanically puts everyone on equal footing and handling and THEN gives you lots of descriptors to use to say "here's how I'm different" will always be more robust, if not perhaps always favored by some.

It's a matter primarily of degree, we can suss out damage differentials on blocks of tofu right now, but they're fairly small and as a result it's fairly easy to assert that differences in play will be negligible, and functionally be a wash due to the variety of differing situations you experience in actual play. The designers have actually discussed the challenges of performing the kind of balance you're discussing. There's also been a push toward more frequent and potent errata, facilitated by a growing willingness in the playerbase to consult the rules digitally, so even as we get some oddities, they can get whacked.

In Neo-Trad terms, I think that there's a wide variety of framing, as was being discussed in that above conversation about the Folding Ideas video-- these optimization concerns create a degree of friction that heavily depends on:

1. How balanced the game is in real terms, in other words, how punished you might feel for actually using the game's expressive range rather than sticking with the single best selections.

2. The Neo-Trad Player's degree of acceptance of instrumental play practices: there are plenty of players who are happy to avoid possibly bad builds and temper their selection of concept to what works well in the game they're playing-- At that point they may not even feel much tension because at least a handful of their possible characters are perfectly valid options, more even than they might ever get to normally play.

3. The degree to which the Neo-trad player enjoys ludic texture that depends on granularity as a means of producing opportunities for tactical expression, e.g. the player might actually be disappointed when the resolution system doesn't contribute definition to their actions and communicate that definition to the rest of the game.

 

[pemerton]

The degree to which the Neo-trad player enjoys ludic texture that depends on granularity as a means of producing opportunities for tactical expression, e.g. the player might actually be disappointed when the resolution system doesn't contribute definition to their actions and communicate that definition to the rest of the game.

I think this is an interesting point of contrast between neo-trad and "story now".

I'll elaborate a bit (and will necessarily have to speak with a degree of generality, and assume certain paradigms of what neo-trad and story now are).

Let's take as a premise that the way a player expresses their character is via action declaration.

When we ask what is an action the answer is quite complicated. To allude to a famous example from the philosopher Donald Davidson, when I declare an action for my bard who is sitting in the tavern any and all of the following might be true of that single action:

*I wink;

*I wink at the barmaid;

*I make the barmaid smile;

*I gain an ally in the town;

*I melt the barmaid's heart;

*I make myself vulnerable to how the barmaid responds.​

In "story now" play, truths about the action that appear further down my list will tend to be important. These are what set up the scope for conflict in play, for challenges to the character, for rising action and climax, for dramatic fall out that leaves the character changed forever.

As a result, the actual process of resolution can probably focus on those things, which get their "texture" and their "definition" from the richness of the fiction and the dramatic trajectories that they are part of. It is not super-important that - for instance - making the barmaid smile have a different resolution process from threatening someone with a knife or even stabbing someone with a knife.

On the other hand, I think in neo-trad play it is descriptions closer to the top of my list that will tend to be important, precisely because of the general hesitance to push towards conflict or challenge to the character. In which case, the fiction on its own will tend not to generate the same degree of and distinctness of texture and definition, and the actual mechanical expression might therefore become more important.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I think this is an interesting point of contrast between neo-trad and "story now".

I'll elaborate a bit (and will necessarily have to speak with a degree of generality, and assume certain paradigms of what neo-trad and story now are).

Let's take as a premise that the way a player expresses their character is via action declaration.

When we ask what is an action the answer is quite complicated. To allude to a famous example from the philosopher Donald Davidson, when I declare an action for my bard who is sitting in the tavern any and all of the following might be true of that single action:

*I wink;

*I wink at the barmaid;

*I make the barmaid smile;

*I gain an ally in the town;

*I melt the barmaid's heart;

*I make myself vulnerable to how the barmaid responds.​

In "story now" play, truths about the action that appear further down my list will tend to be important. These are what set up the scope for conflict in play, for challenges to the character, for rising action and climax, for dramatic fall out that leaves the character changed forever.

As a result, the actual process of resolution can probably focus on those things, which get their "texture" and their "definition" from the richness of the fiction and the dramatic trajectories that they are part of. It is not super-important that - for instance - making the barmaid smile have a different resolution process from threatening someone with a knife or even stabbing someone with a knife.

On the other hand, I think in neo-trad play it is descriptions closer to the top of my list that will tend to be important, precisely because of the general hesitance to push towards conflict or challenge to the character. In which case, the fiction on its own will tend not to generate the same degree of and distinctness of texture and definition, and the actual mechanical expression might therefore become more important.

Plus it concerns narrative framing, stories themselves contain differences in narrative velocity (e.g. the speed that the events of the story transpire) and how many turns the narrative contains.

A story with a lot of "dramatic trajectories" e.g. where play is primarily concerned with what dramatic consequences each decision point has-- is very different than one with fewer long ones.

A phrase that comes to mind "a simple story told slowly" thinking literally of narrative beats that take time to play out, where each major thing prompts reflection, detailed exploration, or elaborate sequences of action rather than exploding in dramatic spiral.

Its interesting to think about in terms of the literal runtime of the text. Some are packed with plot, but there are others that are much... slower, that speak to me.

 

[pemerton]

@The-Magic-Sword

Another thought prompted by what you just posted; and perhaps it's what you have in mind:

If a game is going to use the mechanical process of resolution as one technique for slowing down the narrative velocity, then it makes sense that you might want those processes in themselves to provide definition and texture.

As I write this, I've just thought of one well-known example from "story now" design, though it's one I've read but never played: the stakes-raising "dice-as-a-hand-of-poker" approach of DitV. But the definition and texture that are provided are not oriented towards expression of the character but rather expression of the conflict.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

@The-Magic-Sword

Another thought prompted by what you just posted; and perhaps it's what you have in mind:

If a game is going to use the mechanical process of resolution as one technique for slowing down the narrative velocity, then it makes sense that you might want those processes in themselves to provide definition and texture.

As I write this, I've just thought of one well-known example from "story now" design, though it's one I've read but never played: the stakes-raising "dice-as-a-hand-of-poker" approach of DitV. But the definition and texture that are provided are not oriented towards expression of the character but rather expression of the conflict.

Essentially yes, the whole process of rolling initiative and then beat-by-beat following of the action in a game like DND/PF/Lancer falls into this category as well, the resolution on the moment to moment action increases to the extent that the story of who threw what punch when and how effective it was at contributing to the eventual victory or defeat is itself important.

I think the biggest key though, is that the conflict becomes a kind of setting where expression plays out, the dramatic question is there to be reflected on, rather than simply resolved. I think that's a pretty big hallmark of fiction actually, there are a lot of stories where we examine characters in light of some theme, some event.

Consider the way Father of the Bride functions, there isn't really a dramatic question besides "How will the Wedding go?" but it uses the events of the story primarily as a study of the titular character, his foibles, his sentimentality, his upbringing. Events don't spiral into more choices, and the characters don't even seem to change much over the course of the film, instead, we get to spend time with them and learn about their depths as the scenes they're in peel back each layer of their character.

In some ways, I think Vampire: The Requiem interacts with this space, while the story can spiral dramatically itself, the focus is on its humanity mechanics, and the interaction between blood potency and hunger, as well as it's system of doors. To become strong enough to do what they need to do, the Vampires need to raise their blood potency, which makes it harder for them to avoid losing their humanity because it changes how intrinsically messed up their feeding requirements are (among other things) so you have this temptation to be more of a monster to solve problems, and the game encourages you to explore that-- the plot is there, but the emphasis is on the way it pressures you to explore your character vis a vis humanity, but in and of itself your slide doesn't have to create more problems for the narrative to feed off of, the concept of a chronicle in VTR is still decidedly Trad.

 

[gorice]

Plus it concerns narrative framing, stories themselves contain differences in narrative velocity (e.g. the speed that the events of the story transpire) and how many turns the narrative contains.

A story with a lot of "dramatic trajectories" e.g. where play is primarily concerned with what dramatic consequences each decision point has-- is very different than one with fewer long ones.

A phrase that comes to mind "a simple story told slowly" thinking literally of narrative beats that take time to play out, where each major thing prompts reflection, detailed exploration, or elaborate sequences of action rather than exploding in dramatic spiral.

Its interesting to think about in terms of the literal runtime of the text. Some are packed with plot, but there are others that are much... slower, that speak to me.

I think this is a really important observation. With apologies to @pemerton , I think that viewing things at too fine a scale can lead to confusing preferred technique with motivation. My own preferences probably lie more toward the 'story now' than 'OC' side of things, but I'd often rather get there via more granular and naturalistic resolution techniques.