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

[The-Magic-Sword]

That is a fair point and consideration. Sometimes PbtA/FitD playbooks lean (sometimes heavily) into themes that aren't necessarily what players want their characters to experience, which I know from my own experience can be off-putting.

That said, while it may seem outside of neo-trad philosophy, it seems like one should make a character for the game played. It's like how we often here about players who create characters that aren't really suited for party play in D&D. The common go-to advice is that players should create characters who are party play-compatible. Likewise, it seems like if I was playing Masks that I should create a character that is conducive for playing at the table, whether that pertains to the other players or the system. That may mean creating a character that does have a conflict with their legacy even if that's not necessarily the primary conflict that I originally had in mind for my PC. I suspect that even the groups that inspire a lot of contemporaneous Neotrad (e.g., Critical Role, Dimension 20, etc.) take such considerations in mind.


Fate has Troubles that are meant to serve as the chief lightning rods that attract conflict for the PC. You can use Troubles for internalized conflicts of personality (e.g., Manners of a Goat); however, they can also be used for personalized story arcs: e.g., "Unsolved Murder of My Brother" and then finding out that it was the Red Foot Clan may lead to the new Trouble, "I'll Have my Vengeance against the Red Foot Clan!" But these may not be limited to Troubles either. A number of Fate games used Guided Aspects that are more thematic. Cortex Prime often employs similar guided prompts for its Distinctions.

Largely I agree with you, I typically create characters that fit the system I'm playing in, I tend to notice that the frustration some people have is that they don't really start with the idea of playing a given system as the goal act, they tend to start with a fantasy that the game nominally provides and discover as they learn and play the game that the game's interpretation of what that experience is supposed to be like is a heavier imposition on their experience than expected.

If one looks at Masks from a basic consumer perspective, its a game about teenage super heroes who fight villains and grow into the adult heroes they're becoming. It might not be clear until you start really playing the game, especially if it was the group's idea, that the game's idea of that experience involves mandatory emotional conflicts with others, and game mechanics telling you when you're angry or hopeless or what have you, and drive you into having flaws and foibles of the more sensitive kind (to be the sort of person that needs to change, rather than just overcome adversity.)

The issue at stake, I think, is that to many players the purpose of the game is to help them fulfill their fantasies of engaging in the activity whereas focusing on fulfilling the game's understanding of good play feels like having the player serve the game instead. You or I might say that 'serving' the game in that way is just a part of the process to get the fun experience it's trying to produce, but to the frustrated player it's primarily showing up and trying to get them to do things they don't want to do. To them, the rules themselves are like a controlling writer or director, saying "no no no, this is not what I meant" when they try to engage in their own fun ideas of what this should be.

Whether that's a valid and distinct style is probably a very polarizing question, because it probably concerns our sense of humility towards system, and what the goal of even having the system there at all is. Its why I emphasized the nature of 4e working so well as a support for our roleplaying as stepping into a supportive role, it performed the role of task resolution very well, but it was also important in that it didn't seek to restructure our storytelling, and break down if it couldn't. In that sense, I suppose I could say that the conflict between something like Masks and the Neo-Trad style boils down to a Neo-Trad preference for systems that supports freeform authorship of character (so that they can express their fantasy and structure narrative as makes sense to them), while Masks is a system that wants to drive expression of character (so that you can play to find out what that character becomes.)

Personally, compared to that other player, I can shift frames deliberately and say "Yes i know what kind of game this is, so I'll put aside my impulse and play it on it's own terms to enjoy the experience it's attempting to provide" and strive to bridge the gap with some success, but they have expressed a near-contempt for doing that when it's supposed to be fun for them, because fun things shouldn't require that emotional labor. To them, the purpose of mechanics is to support the things they want to do, not to ask them to do things, so mechanics should be a minimal imposition on their play. They confessed their favorite part of masks was that the combat moves were essentially free form and mostly just boiled down to "Do we need to even question if this worked? if Yes, roll to find out if it worked" because then they could describe their character's cool powers entirely as desired, they confessed that while they liked the tactical wargame of dnd/pathfinder and the granularity of game play that provides, it was freeing to not have to have the game provide the 'perfect' kit of powers they wanted to have and make do with the ones the system did provide.

Real talk, I half think I just need to sit down and play KoB (Kids on Brooms, but I think Kids on Bikes works the same way? I haven't read it) and they'll be happy as a clam.

 

[gorice]

Largely I agree with you, I typically create characters that fit the system I'm playing in, I tend to notice that the frustration some people have is that they don't really start with the idea of playing a given system as the goal act, they tend to start with a fantasy that the game nominally provides and discover as they learn and play the game that the game's interpretation of what that experience is supposed to be like is a heavier imposition on their experience than expected.

If one looks at Masks from a basic consumer perspective, its a game about teenage super heroes who fight villains and grow into the adult heroes they're becoming. It might not be clear until you start really playing the game, especially if it was the group's idea, that the game's idea of that experience involves mandatory emotional conflicts with others, and game mechanics telling you when you're angry or hopeless or what have you, and drive you into having flaws and foibles of the more sensitive kind (to be the sort of person that needs to change, rather than just overcome adversity.)

The issue at stake, I think, is that to many players the purpose of the game is to help them fulfill their fantasies of engaging in the activity whereas focusing on fulfilling the game's understanding of good play feels like having the player serve the game instead. You or I might say that 'serving' the game in that way is just a part of the process to get the fun experience it's trying to produce, but to the frustrated player it's primarily showing up and trying to get them to do things they don't want to do. To them, the rules themselves are like a controlling writer or director, saying "no no no, this is not what I meant" when they try to engage in their own fun ideas of what this should be.

Whether that's a valid and distinct style is probably a very polarizing question, because it probably concerns our sense of humility towards system, and what the goal of even having the system there at all is. Its why I emphasized the nature of 4e working so well as a support for our roleplaying as stepping into a supportive role, it performed the role of task resolution very well, but it was also important in that it didn't seek to restructure our storytelling, and break down if it couldn't. In that sense, I suppose I could say that the conflict between something like Masks and the Neo-Trad style boils down to a Neo-Trad preference for systems that supports freeform authorship of character (so that they can express their fantasy and structure narrative as makes sense to them), while Masks is a system that wants to drive expression of character (so that you can play to find out what that character becomes.)

Personally, compared to that other player, I can shift frames deliberately and say "Yes i know what kind of game this is, so I'll put aside my impulse and play it on it's own terms to enjoy the experience it's attempting to provide" and strive to bridge the gap with some success, but they have expressed a near-contempt for doing that when it's supposed to be fun for them, because fun things shouldn't require that emotional labor. To them, the purpose of mechanics is to support the things they want to do, not to ask them to do things, so mechanics should be a minimal imposition on their play. They confessed their favorite part of masks was that the combat moves were essentially free form and mostly just boiled down to "Do we need to even question if this worked? if Yes, roll to find out if it worked" because then they could describe their character's cool powers entirely as desired, they confessed that while they liked the tactical wargame of dnd/pathfinder and the granularity of game play that provides, it was freeing to not have to have the game provide the 'perfect' kit of powers they wanted to have and make do with the ones the system did provide.

Real talk, I half think I just need to sit down and play KoB (Kids on Brooms, but I think Kids on Bikes works the same way? I haven't read it) and they'll be happy as a clam.

Have you tried less structured (but still very 'narrative') games like maybe Sorcerer or Ironsworn?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I am having some difficulty with discerning your meaning regarding Fate as it feels like you are talking about Fate vaguely rather than concretely.

In the specific, it was that an Aspect is an Aspect is an Aspect. You can play games with their depth, but not their quality, because at the end of the day there's just not a lot of spread in a system where the resolution system is dealing with being a +/-4. As such, at least in the versions I'm familiar with, once you have an Aspect, its +2. That means you have, essentially a binary yes-or-no on what skill means; its important enough to matter, and once it does, you're done.

If its important to you that your character is professional level Driver but a world-class Archeologist, you're not going to at least have a steady-state meaning to that.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Have you tried less structured (but still very 'narrative') games like maybe Sorcerer or Ironsworn?

I haven't yet, we usually play Pathfinder 2e, we tried a couple of Masks games that petered out after a few weeks, I've got some Chronicles of Darkness sitting on a shelf waiting for the right time and the same for Avatar Legends and Blades in the Dark which I've now read, and we're on the third month of a Lancer/Battlegroup campaign that's a lot of fun. People have been looking at Cyberpunk and and an upcoming game called Convector Drive. I do have my actual freeform experience (as discussed in OP) but not with games in the tabletop space that are more freeform. We were also reading Cortex not too long ago when Xadia came out, but I'm not sure there's a big desire to play it, we realized we'd spend a lot of time tinkering with the modules to get it just right before play.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That said, while it may seem outside of neo-trad philosophy, it seems like one should make a character for the game played.

While I generally agree, never underestimate the player who's looking for a place to express the character they have in their head, and is using the closest thing they have at hand. I tend to think when this is done too heavily it leads to a degenerate version of the playstyle (because you'll try to force this into games totally not suited for it), but its absolutely a thing that happens.

 

[gorice]

I haven't yet, we usually play Pathfinder 2e, we tried a couple of Masks games that petered out after a few weeks, I've got some Chronicles of Darkness sitting on a shelf waiting for the right time and the same for Avatar Legends and Blades in the Dark which I've now read, and we're on the third month of a Lancer/Battlegroup campaign that's a lot of fun. People have been looking at Cyberpunk and and an upcoming game called Convector Drive. I do have my actual freeform experience (as discussed in OP) but not with games in the tabletop space that are more freeform. We were also reading Cortex not too long ago when Xadia came out, but I'm not sure there's a big desire to play it, we realized we'd spend a lot of time tinkering with the modules to get it just right before play.

Cool (I'm actually in a Lancer game ATM!). I guess my question is: are your players frustrated because the game is prompting their characters to address conflicts they don't want to address and/or feel forced, or because if forces them to address unexpected conflicts as such?

If it's the former (it sounds like it), you might have some success with games like Sorcerer, Apocalypse World, and some others I'm forgetting.

Thanks for your replies and this thread, BTW, it's been helpful to me.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Cool (I'm actually in a Lancer game ATM!). I guess my question is: are your players frustrated because the game is prompting their characters to address conflicts they don't want to address and/or feel forced, or because if forces them to address unexpected conflicts as such?

If it's the former (it sounds like it), you might have some success with games like Sorcerer, Apocalypse World, and some others I'm forgetting.

Thanks for your replies and this thread, BTW, it's been helpful to me.

In terms of that particular player, yeah I'd have to look more deeply into them, as for your question though, I think its the presumption of what the narrative focus is on so, maybe both? they don't necessarily mind a villain breaking through the wall like the kool-aid man to fight them or something, but I think its unexpected conflicts that sit core to the character's identity. Like, having their character get taken in truly surprising directions.

 

[niklinna]

Yes, this thread has been very helpful for me. Even though I try to accept the premise(s) when I play RPGs, there's often some unspoken thing I wasn't aware of that crops up to cause friction, or an event/interaction that causes me to infelicitously flip from one mode of play to another, some of which I've mentioned in this thread. I feel I'm much more able now to recognize such things, before or as they happen, for what they are, and to deal with whatever potential problems they might lead to. I'm not sure I have a full vocabulary to discuss it beforehand, but I feel I can at least bring it up as a group works out the premise(s).

[And by the way I am using "premise" in several senses simultaneously: What is the thematic premise of our shared story, what playstyles are we focusing on, how are we sharing authority/control, and more.]

 

[Aldarc]

If its important to you that your character is professional level Driver but a world-class Archeologist, you're not going to at least have a steady-state meaning to that.

Not sure if I agree with that but I already suspect that we won't see eye-to-eye on this.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not sure if I agree with that but I already suspect that we won't see eye-to-eye on this.

I'll try one more time.

The versions of Fate I've do not make mechanically distinct, well, distinctions between two different abilities they have where one is more profound in its magnitude than another. They can make a distinction between how frequently they're relevant, but in the end of the day, a +2 is a +2 and you aren't likely to get more than that out of one thing.
Now its fine to say that difference isn't important to you, but to some people it very much is. On top of that, they don't want to be at the mercy of Fate points to emulate it in roundabout ways.
So for those people, while Fate is otherwise a good choice since you can shape the character to suit yourself, the depth of the mechanics are just not going to be adequate, because they can't make distinctions that matter to them and work out that way in play reliably.