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

[AbdulAlhazred]

Edit: Rephrasing this because I think the first version was probably more grumpy than needed.

Essentially, I don't really buy the "less is more" school of rules, so I'm kind of not on board the premise here. If I'm going to want to delve into a character, I want the rules to actually engage with it, not via ad-hoc interpretation (to some extent this is an issue I have with self-defined traits in general, but at least in Fate and the like the fact the breadth of the trait is to some degree a negotiation is intrinsic in the text, not a solution after the fact to the text simply being mum on the topic).

Well, I'm not an adherent of OSR/FKR whatever minimalist ideas either. I'm just pointing out that from a taxonomic point of view, and effectively within certain communities of play, that things like ability score have worked much more like free descriptors than just mechanics as those who don't have the early play experience (and this was especially true EARLY IMHO) might think. I personally find FATE much more expressive than B/X, but both are more so than 3.5e...

 

[pemerton]

@chaochou's presentation of a neotrad character, and @The-Magic-Sword's discussion of the player who doesn't want the core of the character to be challenged, reminded me of an experience I've had: the GM who wants players to either be trad (ie follow the plot hooks) or neotrad (follow, and build on, the hooks that are there as tailored to their character) but gets frustrated by the player who keeps looking for thematic conflict or challenge for their PC.

When I was that player, the GM at first would keep trying to "neotrad" it, by narrating resolution and outcomes that would leave the character and (as a result) the overall ingame situation undisturbed; and then resorted to full-on "tradding" it, exercising massive authority over setting and plot to just make all the conflicts go away.

 

[The Shadow]

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.

I can attest that when you're rolling 4dF, the difference between a +2 and a +4 is quite noticeable. And stunts exist to provide a reliable boost to a skill in particular situations without Fate points. (The typical stunt is exactly equivalent to invoking an aspect.) Finally, of course, Create Advantage is your friend.

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.

I'll admit the distinction doesn't light a fire for me. If it matters to me that my character is world-class at something, I'll make it his apex skill, take an aspect of being world-class (remember, aspects are always true, even if you're not invoking them!) and probably a stunt or two. If I want him to be solidly competent at something but not stellar I'll make it one of his +2 skills. Or +1 and take a stunt, or whatever.

I'm not quite clear on what you think is missing. Do you want more steps between +0 and +4?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, I'm not an adherent of OSR/FKR whatever minimalist ideas either. I'm just pointing out that from a taxonomic point of view, and effectively within certain communities of play, that things like ability score have worked much more like free descriptors than just mechanics as those who don't have the early play experience (and this was especially true EARLY IMHO) might think. I personally find FATE much more expressive than B/X, but both are more so than 3.5e...

I don't doubt they did, but that's still a case of any tool functioning as a hammer if you swing it hard enough and aren't overly concerned about how good a job it does.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I can attest that when you're rolling 4dF, the difference between a +2 and a +4 is quite noticeable. And stunts exist to provide a reliable boost to a skill in particular situations without Fate points. (The typical stunt is exactly equivalent to invoking an aspect.) Finally, of course, Create Advantage is your friend.

I'm quite aware. Which is why at least the versions of Fate I'm familiar with don't let you just have a +4 as a steady-state result (the Stunts I saw were far more narrow than the sort of skills I'm talking about).

I'll admit the distinction doesn't light a fire for me. If it matters to me that my character is world-class at something, I'll make it his apex skill, take an aspect of being world-class (remember, aspects are always true, even if you're not invoking them!) and probably a stunt or two. If I want him to be solidly competent at something but not stellar I'll make it one of his +2 skills. Or +1 and take a stunt, or whatever.

I'm not quite clear on what you think is missing. Do you want more steps between +0 and +4?

I'd suggest that people who care would want more reliable ways to get +4 more frequently. I'm not actually in this picture at all. I'm just noting that people who, for example, want the detail level present in some build systems aren't going to find Fate adequate here (while, remember, still suggesting its a better tool for the "trying to express the concept in my head" player because it doesn't put things outside the possible. It just does so to some extent by painting in broad strokes, and broad strokes don't suit everyone).

 

[Manbearcat]

Involved an external conversation about the lines between Trad, NeoTrad, snd Story Now GMing. Figured I’d drop this in here as its relevant and fodder for conversation.

---

It can surely be a fine line. The best way to examine that line is the organizing principles of the content you’re introducing as GM. The following will all produce divergent results:

* What does my setting backstory and metaplot continuity say should happen here (?) > Introduce that content.

* How can the present situation give assured expression to the player’s conception of their PC’s thematic arc (?) > Introduce that content.

* How can the present situation test what this PC purports to be about (through their player and system) so we can discover the truth of it (?) > Introduce that content.

———

None of those give expression to Gamist priorities. That is a either a separate axis entirely to these thoughts or a coefficient attached to each.

* How can the present situation introduce a maximally compelling and consequential tactical or strategic decision-space (?) > Introduce that content.

IMO, the reason why Story Now play “plays disproportionately nice with Gamism (G)” is because (most of the time) I can integrate the answer to that challenge-centered bullet directly above with the organizing principle listed above for SN content. For the other two, there will be serious tension or competing priorities that have to be reconciled with:

Press the G button too hard and you threaten the integrity of a player’s conception of their character or threaten the expression of their thematic arc satisfactorily resolving in line with that player’s preconception.

Pressing the G button sufficiently hard to optimize compelling and consequential decision-space means going outside of metaplot continuity or setting extrapolation.

 

[Fenris-77]

To pile on to/with/around @Manbearcat I think there's a point where it useful to admit that every game presses the G button, and that at least a part of the difference outlined above is simply different rationale for why it gets pushed and exactly what happens when it does. I'm bending the notion of Gamist pretty far there, I know, but not to the breaking point I don't think. To steal 'maximally compelling and consequential', and I think to agree with the above, is that when you X after that phrase honestly, and in keeping with expectations and system, that it covers all the above example (with, as mentioned, some planning and thought).

 

[Aldarc]

I'm quite aware. Which is why at least the versions of Fate I'm familiar with don't let you just have a +4 as a steady-state result (the Stunts I saw were far more narrow than the sort of skills I'm talking about).

Expecting a +4 steady-state result almost seems like expecting to never fail at a d20 roll in most d20 games or even in PbtA (i.e., 10+) or FitD (i.e., 6) games. A person with the appropriate aspects, skills, and stunts will still succeed at a much higher rate than the person without those things, with aspects often also acting as fictional permissions. The "Archaeologist by Day, Speed Demon by Night" probably doesn't need to make every roll regarding their field of archaeology and driving. It's not as if Fate is into the atomic actions for skill checks that typically characterize games like D&D or CoC.

 

[Manbearcat]

To pile on to/with/around @Manbearcat I think there's a point where it useful to admit that every game presses the G button, and that at least a part of the difference outlined above is simply different rationale for why it gets pushed and exactly what happens when it does. I'm bending the notion of Gamist pretty far there, I know, but not to the breaking point I don't think. To steal 'maximally compelling and consequential', and I think to agree with the above, is that when you X after that phrase honestly, and in keeping with expectations and system, that it covers all the above example (with, as mentioned, some planning and thought).

Yup. The “G Factor” of a given game might be sufficiently remote that its just a background parameter of play (eg in Dogs you can affect your ability to resolve Conflicts and Towns via better or worse strategically Giving or tactically Escalating, manipulating fictional positioning, and Helping so an ally can artificially extend their dice pool and Reverse the Blow…but players shouldn’t be inhabiting a cognitive space bent on “winning the dicing game” and no one will ever confuse Dogs for a Step On Up engine rather than a Story Now engine), but virtually all games (though not all…some game’s decision-space is too shallow or incoherent or manipulated by factors external to the decision-space; eg “by GM Force”) have a “G Factor.” It just depends on “how remote vs how integrated” and “how deep amd consequential vs how shallow and inconsequential.”

Related and not related:

One thing that annoys me about discussing challenge-centered play in TTRPGs is that there is a rather vocal cohort of players who smuggles in “there is only one form of challenge-centered play in TTRPGs and outside of that scope is futile dysfunction” rather than appending “within this game’s particular parameters of challenge” to these discussions.

There is a whole host of parameters of challenge-based play in TTRPGs. Some of them play nice with one another. Some do not. An incomplete list:

* Play the fiction skillfully to open up your lines of play or amplify an existing one.

* Play the GM by “setting conversation traps” to constrain or alter their obstacle framing via introducing causality/realism scaffolding for your position.

* Pixel-bitching and/or “turtling” to maximally decrease your risk profile and grind play to a sufficiently slow pace to ensure your mental processing has “the space to work” while increasing the GM’s prospects of “revealing their hand.”

* Make intended PC build decisions to successfully capture archetype or paradigm for use in play.

* Manage <small unit of gameplay; scene or encounter> tactical resources and relationships to optimize game unit of play success.

* Manage <large unit of gameplay; adventuring day, arc> strategic resources and longitudinal relationships to optimize game unit of play success.

* Manage the intersection of <small unit> and <large unit> of play optimization.

* Thread the needle to optimize the Venn Diagram overlap of tactical/strategic/thematic decision-space to ensure that compelling play meets discovery/surprise meets advancement schema meets a desired matrix of success:failure play trajectory.


These are all different sites of challenge-based play. Conversation about challenge needs to not assume one (which it so often does). It needs to correctly index which one, or ones, the game in question includes as a parameter for play.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Expecting a +4 steady-state result almost seems like expecting to never fail at a d20 roll in most d20 games or even in PbtA (i.e., 10+) or FitD (i.e., 6) games. A person with the appropriate aspects, skills, and stunts will still succeed at a much higher rate than the person without those things, with aspects often also acting as fictional permissions. The "Archaeologist by Day, Speed Demon by Night" probably doesn't need to make every roll regarding their field of archaeology and driving. It's not as if Fate is into the atomic actions for skill checks that typically characterize games like D&D or CoC.

I don't disagree; that's why I've said the problem with expecting visible difference there is probably not practical because of the intrinsic coarseness of the system. But at the end, if that distinction is important to someone, then that's a reason its not going to serve them, even though its self-defining traits are good in other results.

Basically, I'm arguing that some expectations are simply not going to be supported there; the question is if the player has those expectations. But I've seen some neotrad people who absolutely did have those expectations, so I don't think its off to note that there's a limitation here for them.