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

[GobHag]

From what I've read of this thread so far, something I'm seeing is that games with a lot of setting elements or have settings as a draw seems to be the most likely to be 'good' at being Neo-Trad games. Like 4e and PF2 and CofD all have a lot of setting to play with... but also very malleable(or easily Silo'd and crossover'd) settings, much moreso than more freeform or setting-less games. In fact I'd argue that Lore of the Settings reflects a bit in how abilities are designed.

Not necessarily in that it follows the Lore but in how they're very.... mix-and-match legos. Maybe the setting also helps in grounding the OC to fit with the game community, and would then require a bit less carving and modification for a game table.

 

[GobHag]

Also going to be posting this reddit thread where the author of that blogpost is talking:
And just for ease of use and easier archiving...

Most modules for D&D prior to Ravenloft in 1983 are written with the norms of classic play in mind (Ravenloft is a transition to trad). Caverns of Thracia by Jenell Jacquays is an important early non-TSR module that is widely beloved, commercially successful, and frequently referenced as a model for other designers and DMs interested in classic play.
The Dragonlance DL module series from 1984-1988 is written with trad norms in mind. The early entries in the series were critical and commercial successes for TSR, tho' later ones are less well-regarded. Outside of D&D, I would point to Chaosium's Masks of Nyarlathotep (1984) and the Giovanni Chronicles (1995-1999) for Vampire: the Masquerade as other examples of modules that are set up to cater to the assumptions of trad play that are or were well-regarded (I think Masks holds up to its reputation, GC less so, personally).
For OC play, Kingmaker from Pathfinder 1e and Curse of Strahd for 5e both have positive reputations for allowing space for player individuality to express itself, tho' I haven't tried either personally and can't speak to them in detail.
Story games and Nordic Larp tend not to have modules / to have entire games as modules so it's harder to say for them.
Those are just a few suggestions, happy to bring up more if you'd like.
****
If I were to go back and rewrite the essay, I would have avoided linking to the Brattit essay this time around. The author there is talking about a school of designing games, whereas I'm talking about a play culture in my essay. I originally put it in to show that people were using the term at all, but I think it confused more than it helped.
I agree with your characterisation of the neo-trad school of design as basically taking mechanics from story games and integrating them into more traditional RPG systems. My take is that it's not a new play culture, but still part of trad culture. It's a good expression of the permeability of the cultures, how they're not about specific mechanics, but about the goals of play. Methods developed in story games can be adopted and used in trad play, and vice versa (IMHO, a good thing for all involved).
For the play culture, one reason I proposed using the term "neo-trad" was to highlight that it's a closer evolution from the trad play culture than most of the other successors (story games, etc.). I've taken to mostly calling it "OC" after a number of people shared the confusion over the school of design vs the play culture, but haven't altered the original essay to avoid rendering a couple hundred comments using the term unintelligible. When I'm eventually able to write the follow-up, I'm probably going to suggest uniformly calling it "OC".
------
5e modules are a bit weird to characterise because Mearls and co. working at WotC are mostly guys who came of age during the hegemony of trad play culture. Mearls' early RPG work at Fiery Dragon and Malhavoc (his first major RPG jobs) is connected into two of the most influential promulgators of trad play in the 1990s and early 2000s - White Wolf Games and Monte Cook, respectively. I think most of the team at WotC working on 5e would think of themselves as trad people if they had to pick one of these labels (I don't think any of them have ever actually read my essay, to be clear).
But yeah, their audience is majority OC (with admittedly small but substantial trad and OSR factions), and they're a commercial enterprise trying to produce content their audience wants. A lot of early 5e stuff from WotC seems to struggle to bridge that divide in expectations, whereas the third-party publishers seem much more attuned to OC expectations. It doesn't surprise me at all that they're producing purer examples of OC-supportive texts than WotC itself is.
-----
For my part, I play in a 5e game that has a mix of trad and OC aspirations, and guest-star from time to time in another 5e game that is more purely trad, but both are homebrew and don't use modules, so I only know what I can read about the modules (the texts and then comments online). Oddly to me, a number of people interpreted my essay as being anti-OC, whereas my overall goal was to help players who had OC expectations to better understand their position as a position so they can reflect on its commitments and strive to realise them more fully and consciously.
***

Funny you mention it, an examination of common grounds and things that have jumped between the culture is part of my planned follow ups, along with a discussion of the period from about 1973-1976 where there wasn't any particular culture and the lost styles of gaming that we only have traces of from that era, and finally, a discussion of the importance of VTM for the fall of trad's hegemony.
I've been delayed writing things up mainly due to the collapse of the Trove making it harder to find research materials and the demands of my job (I work for an org mitigating some of COVID's effects in the developing world, and it's been hard to scratch out the time for the kind of long, sustained reflection these topics deserve).
--------------
The reason for the short descriptions of story games and Nordic Larp is that I truly thought more of my readers would be familiar with them than turned out to be the case. Both have relatively extensive bodies of writing explaining themselves, and my error was to assume that more people had read that work. I assumed I'd just have to mention them and people would go "Oh yes, the Knutepunkt people" or "Oh yeah, I've read Edwards' fantasy heartbreaker essays".
I don't even think this was a wrong assumption per se - my blog normally has about 1K-1.5K readers, most of whom seem to be pretty nerdy about rpg history and theory (they'd have to be, to sit through my mostly pictureless walls of text). What I wasn't expecting was for this essay to go viral and get 43K+ views after posted in more general rpg spaces like r/rpg, shared in newsletters like the Glatisant, etc. that have much wider audiences.
The decision to mention Edwards and the brain damage claim was controversial, but I think it's essential to understanding the history of how story games became a distinct culture from trad. There were sharp lines drawn in the sand that were reinforced by new institutions (the Forge, the Lumpley.com discussions, the Big Model wiki, etc.). It was not a peaceable, convivial separation of the ways, or a new flower sprouting from the carcass of the old order, but a long, quite bitter fight across most RPG spaces then in existence. More or less everyone involved is not only still around, but is even more influential than they were at the time, tho' the polemics have mostly slowed down. I don't love Edwards, but as a polemicist building a movement he was very effective and I admire the skill he put into it, and consider the existence of story games a net positive. There's a certain amount of embarrassment and disavowal in story games about the proselytic snobbery of the early movement, but IMHO that kind of behaviour is not unusual for critical movements in their early days and not some unique sin.
The other element of the story game piece people seem mad about is that I didn't spend more time on Baker's contributions. Which, fair.
--------------
I'll admit I'm resistant to calling "OC" "Modern" just because I see all four of the post-trad movements as modern styles of play. They all emerge thanks to the internet lowering barriers to communication between what were previously isolated individuals and groups. They are all reactions to the hegemony of trad-style play in official publications, fanzines, and conventions. They all have strong paedogogical foundations which are actively teaching new players their values.
It's funny tho', because my original preference for a name for "OC" was "neo-trad", and I was basically talked into using "OC" by someone I was discussing the categorisations with (someone who likes OC play, in fact). I had told them I had a strong preference for autonyms whenever possible, and they came back saying that the way people would indicate they were looking for a "neo-trad" game would be to say "OCs welcome" or some variation on that in their LFG pitch. So the name was intended to adopt the language people were using to distinguish themselves already.

 

[Emberashh]

Thats pretty prejudicial, not to mention inaccurate to what I'm saying. English is a cruddy language but I'd hope we could recognize that just because the word "improv" has implications you don't like doesn't mean whats being said is wrong.



This suggests to me that you're letting your disdain for improv theater cloud your judgement. I've already defined what I'm saying more than once. Improv theater is an entirely separate kind of game from RPGs; that doesn't mean both aren't still improv games, as I defined them.



Incorrect. I've explained this more than once.



Also incorrect. Social interaction mechanics as defined by Adams aren't what improv mechanics are.



So the issue is that one feels compelled to resist the argument because I'm passing mild judgement, as though I'm not directly observing extremely common issues and utilizing a language and a theory that voices what that problem is, why its so common, and how it can be fixed.

Frankly, you're kind of illustrating the exact issue I'm pointing out. You don't like the implication of improv, and no matter what preemptive steps are taken to ensure clarity, the use of the word is just a step too far I suppose.

And honestly, I would say that's exactly what I'm pointing to when I say designers are refusing to recognize what these games are. You're too caught up in the cruddy imprecision of the English language leaving us with a lot of baggage in certain words.

Speaking for myself as an English major, I've long since just accepted that especially in the realms of theory, English just isn't going to always give us perfectly clean words to use for the things we mean.

But if we really need to drop the dirty, icky word "improv", how about reality management? Scene management?

Improv game is more precise than those, to be frank. Improv mechanisms were invented, or at least formalized, by what we colloquially recognize as improv games, so refusing to call a spade a spade because we think the word is icky is a waste of energy.



Then you should be more open minded.



Do you care to elaborate or?

An additional thought to this re: improv.

An easy way to grok the idea is to consider the idea that many believe that less rules means its easier to roleplay. When you think about why that is, it becomes a very poignant answer to point to it as an improv problem, where rules are considered to be fundamentally causing blocking.

I naturally don't agree that that is fundamentally true, but instead reassert that its more an unsolved issue of improper integration resulting from either ignorance of or a refusal to accept the improv game elements as being there, despite the fact that its in the name. Its very literally rejecting the mechanistic foundations of what roleplaying is.

 

[clearstream]

Also going to be posting this reddit thread where the author of that blogpost is talking:
And just for ease of use and easier archiving...

If one agrees with the distinction drawn between OC and neo-trad, then the OP is speaking of the former. To me that actually adds clarity.

 

[kenada]

Thats pretty prejudicial, not to mention inaccurate to what I'm saying. English is a cruddy language but I'd hope we could recognize that just because the word "improv" has implications you don't like doesn't mean whats being said is wrong.

This assumes an animosity towards “improv” that I do not have (see below). I should also like to say that I find the personal turn the rest of this reply took rather disappointing.

This suggests to me that you're letting your disdain for improv theater cloud your judgement. I've already defined what I'm saying more than once. Improv theater is an entirely separate kind of game from RPGs; that doesn't mean both aren't still improv games, as I defined them.

My disagreement is not because of whatever opinion I have of improvisational theater, which I would describe as neutral towards it. This is my disagreement:

• I do not like the appropriation of the language and techniques from another creative form. The problem is not with the thing being appropriated but with the appropriation; and
• The construing of said techniques as foundational and identifying deviances as things to be fixed rather than as new ideas to be studied and incorporated into a revised model.

Incorrect. I've explained this more than once.

A distinction is being made between “improv game” and “improvisational theater” even though the techniques from the former come from the latter, and the structuring of the RPG’s rules are such they should be designed to operate within the “improv game” — “The overall structure of the game is tied to the improv mechanisms, and the additional Rules act as a Player within those mechanisms.” It’s a distinction without a difference.

Also incorrect. Social interaction mechanics as defined by Adams aren't what improv mechanics are.

You seemingly agreed in post #256 when I made the same claim in post #255, but now it’s incorrect? They’re not physics, internal economy, progression, or tactical maneuvering. The only category left is social interaction mechanics. They govern the interaction of players with each other, so that seems like a sensible classification. (Unless you’re proposing a sixth type of mechanics that are “improv mechanics”.)

So the issue is that one feels compelled to resist the argument because I'm passing mild judgement, as though I'm not directly observing extremely common issues and utilizing a language and a theory that voices what that problem is, why its so common, and how it can be fixed.

Passing judgement is not (or should not be) an instrumental purpose of a theory. It would be arrogant to think the model one’s theory provides has enough answers to pass judgement on other designers and designs that fail to conform to it, especially if they weren’t designing according to that theory in the first place.

Frankly, you're kind of illustrating the exact issue I'm pointing out. You don't like the implication of improv, and no matter what preemptive steps are taken to ensure clarity, the use of the word is just a step too far I suppose.

The problem is when things conflict with the “improv base”, and they’re identified as problems to be fixed rather than differences to be investigated and understood. Typically, when something conflicts with a model, that means the model should be changed rather than that those things are wrong.

And honestly, I would say that's exactly what I'm pointing to when I say designers are refusing to recognize what these games are. You're too caught up in the cruddy imprecision of the English language leaving us with a lot of baggage in certain words.

Speaking for myself as an English major, I've long since just accepted that especially in the realms of theory, English just isn't going to always give us perfectly clean words to use for the things we mean.

But if we really need to drop the dirty, icky word "improv", how about reality management? Scene management?

Improv game is more precise than those, to be frank. Improv mechanisms were invented, or at least formalized, by what we colloquially recognize as improv games, so refusing to call a spade a spade because we think the word is icky is a waste of energy.

Would it matter what it’s called if it’s the same techniques with a different name that are being positioned as the base, and that designers should be conforming their designs to it?

My disagreement isn’t because of the particular jargon used (see above).

Then you should be more open minded.

Being open-minded doesn’t mean accepting everything proposed uncritically. Part of evaluating a tool is determining its fit for purpose. I see “improv” (with reference to techniques from improvisational theater) as one set of possible social interaction mechanics, and the model proposed positions them as more than that.

The problem you have identified as an “aesthetic” issue is one I would identify a cultural issue. While people aren’t wrong or bad for having trouble with a game that works differently from what they expect, there is a considerable RPG monoculture. Certain aspects of play (what I am identifying as social interaction mechanics) are passed down through oral tradition, and these may be taken as fundamental, which reinforces and propagates the monoculture.

It’s like if people had to be taught how to move their pieces in a board game, everyone was taught it involved a randomizer, and then a game was released that had you move a fixed amount. When I see an RPG design that breaks an apparently base loop, and people are playing it successfully and having fun in spite of that, that makes me want to say, “Cool, what new ideas can I take from this?”

That doesn’t mean the gameplay that came from existing loops and assumptions is bad or wrong either. Whatever theory is developed to incorporate the new development should definitely include existing practice as well. Otherwise, the new theory is just as incomplete as the old but in a different way.

(A significant problem with RPG discourse is a tendency to position particular ways of playing as more correct or above other ways of playing. That discourse is arguably not about RPGs anymore. It’s culture war garbage.)

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

That was very much my thought. It seems tricky though, to picture that there will be some core activity that needs rules while also not being a kind of activity falling within a character concept. Do you feel that this has the practical implication that groups preferencing this mode should start with their character concepts, and then choose rule set?


This represents a risk or at least problem to solve of the approach: what counts as needed core rules? They mustn't injure character concepts, and they must cover activities we expect to do often or that will be crucial enough to our play. Say I want to play a scout of some sort and the chosen "robust exploration" rules don't map to my take on exploration? The rules give way, right?

Yeah to be clear, there's a subjectivity there that I think naturally divides playerbases, and I don't think it's escapable-- its why I have a player who definetly likes PF2e enough to not mind playing it (and they're excited for Starfinder 2e), but then did simultaneously enjoy the freeform nature of combat in Masks while disliking essentially everything about how the game constructs character identity, playbook narrative, and interparty drama-- but also I can now report is really enjoying Vampire the Requiem, and reports that they find it less pushy and still a bit more freeform than our d20 stuff despite the presence of the humanity stat and the conditions.

But I guess that's ok because different games should exist? The wedge is just what parts of a character concept need to be non-negotiable. Whether the rules should give way in your example probably depends more on the group, it doesn't in our games because some of us generally like the system's take enough to outweigh how the player would prefer for it to be handled, but there's def some work happening there where like, the player doesn't like the way character death can happen (they are firmly 'combat as spectacle' oriented) but we cover some of that distance by maximizing the accessibility of resurrection options, and player undead options-- if that player's character dies right now in our west marches, they have a latent vampire archetype inside of them waiting to let them get back up, and other characters interested in resurrecting them, as well as a few different approaches for possibly doing so.

I would probably say the group wants to set their desires for what the game will and won't interface with before picking the system, rather than creating characters, with the understanding of what's going to be important to them when they do. Part of taking up Vampire was actually a big survey with all the Chronicles of Darkness games, and then choices between the many gamelines, and crossover vouchers so they could potentially go in a different direction from the majority-- one of the players doesn't like the 'essentially two-faced' nature of Masks and Dirges, and doesn't like humanity, so they ended up picking a splat that has something they prefer to that with a crossover voucher.

 

[Emberashh]

This assumes an animosity towards “improv” that I do not have

I didn't say you have an animosity towards improv. I said you clearly don't like the implication of improv being related to improv theater. (Which you clearly don't like)

I do not like the appropriation of the language and techniques from another creative form. The problem is not with the thing being appropriated but with the appropriation;

Thats very much like saying stir-frying is appropriating from deep frying.

And more to the point, it glosses over what you're implying by saying this: that you don't think roleplaying is a form of improv. Its okay to think that, but you'll have to do more to prove that assertion. I've already elaborated at length at why I see them as the same fundamental activity, and given multiple examples.

The construing of said techniques as foundational and identifying deviances as things to be fixed rather than as new ideas to be studied and incorporated into a revised model.

This to me comes off as though you just don't want to entertain that the problems I point to might actually exist, but rather than try to challenge those thoughts directly (ie, making an argument that they aren't problems), you've decided to just reject the conversation.

You may not like the turn in my attitude, but I've enjoyed talking to you up to this point because you were actually talking to me, and now you're increasingly not doing so despite continuing to reply.

It’s a distinction without a difference.

There's a big difference, actually, in gameplay. The same mechanisms are leveraged for very different experiences, and thats evident in the many different forms of improv, all the way up to roleplaying as its most complex form.

And it should be noted you continue to betray the idea that you're merely "neutral" to improv theater when you're making a logical leap from "these activities run off the same mechanisms" to "these activities are the same thing".

You seemingly agreed in post #256 when I made the same claim in post #255, but now it’s incorrect? They’re not physics, internal economy, progression, or tactical maneuvering. The only category left is social interaction mechanics. They govern the interaction of players with each other, so that seems like a sensible classification. (Unless you’re proposing a sixth type of mechanics that are “improv mechanics”.)

I don't consider that list to be comprehensive given the books focus on video games with a mostly tertiary consideration of tabletop games and virtually no consideration of any other game medium. Its one of those things I take with a grain of salt, in other words.

Improv mechanisms don't govern how players interact with each other. They govern how a scene or reality is managed; that this comes primarily through actual social interaction is entirely incidental.

Social Interaction mechanics as Adams uses it however refers to the capability to engage in social interaction in a video game, not how its done.

What we colloquially know as social interaction doesn't fall under either category, as social interaction isn't a game mechanic.

Passing judgement is not (or should not be) an instrumental purpose of a theory.

Analysis is critical for theory, of any kind. Its integral to how theory is applied, and moreover, getting better at whatever it is we're doing, whether thats writing poetry, designing a bridge, or designing a game. If you can't or won't analyze both your own work and that of others, you're doomed to mediocrity.

I've directly analyzed nearly 200 something TTRPGs at this point, and I've played about half of them enough to contextualize that analysis with actual gameplay. When I say that I'm observing a pervasive issue in TTRPG design thats going completely unanswered, thats not some veil I'm throwing over my dislike for certain games, its an observation from extensive and exhaustive experience, and given that doing this has near completely soured me towards the entire hobby, I don't feel particularly squeamish about sharing that analysis and passing judgement.

Most of these games weren't actually fun in what they actually put in the books, and what was fun is just the thing all of them implicitly make a part of the experience but never put a name to, all too often because of the same pervasive attitude that its "icky". You can guess what that is.

Typically, when something conflicts with a model, that means the model should be changed rather than that those things are wrong.

That's very much like saying there is no hole in the ship if we just close the door to that compartment and ignore it.

It also seems your positioning yourself in a perspective that seeks to model what current TTRPGs are, and despite my consistent arguments and evidence that points to the improv game being a part of nearly all of them, you'd rather reject it because you're not comfortable with the implications of certain words. These are contradictory behaviors.

Being open-minded doesn’t mean accepting everything proposed uncritically.

But it doesn't mean rejecting the dialogue either.

I see “improv” (with reference to techniques from improvisational theater)

Case in point. I believe this is the second time you've inappropriately conflated the activity (improv theater) with its underlying mechanisms (the improv game), in complete rejection of the many times repeated argument that positions roleplaying as a separate activity from improv theater, with the improv game as the mechanistic foundation that leads to both.

The problem you have identified as an “aesthetic” issue is one I would identify a cultural issue. While people aren’t wrong or bad for having trouble with a game that works differently from what they expect, there is a considerable RPG monoculture. Certain aspects of play (what I am identifying as social interaction mechanics) are passed down through oral tradition, and these may be taken as fundamental, which reinforces and propagates the monoculture.

It’s like if people had to be taught how to move their pieces in a board game, everyone was taught it involved a randomizer, and then a game was released that had you move a fixed amount. When I see an RPG design that breaks an apparently base loop, and people are playing it successfully and having fun in spite of that, that makes me want to say, “Cool, what new ideas can I take from this?”

That doesn’t mean the gameplay that came from existing loops and assumptions is bad or wrong either. Whatever theory is developed to incorporate the new development should definitely include existing practice as well. Otherwise, the new theory is just as incomplete as the old but in a different way.

This is all just talking at me, essentially. You're completely glossing over the points I've been making and missing why I'm even making them at all.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I didn't say you have an animosity towards improv. I said you clearly don't like the implication of improv being related to improv theater. (Which you clearly don't like)



Thats very much like saying stir-frying is appropriating from deep frying.

And more to the point, it glosses over what you're implying by saying this: that you don't think roleplaying is a form of improv. Its okay to think that, but you'll have to do more to prove that assertion. I've already elaborated at length at why I see them as the same fundamental activity, and given multiple examples.



This to me comes off as though you just don't want to entertain that the problems I point to might actually exist, but rather than try to challenge those thoughts directly (ie, making an argument that they aren't problems), you've decided to just reject the conversation.

You may not like the turn in my attitude, but I've enjoyed talking to you up to this point because you were actually talking to me, and now you're increasingly not doing so despite continuing to reply.



There's a big difference, actually, in gameplay. The same mechanisms are leveraged for very different experiences, and thats evident in the many different forms of improv, all the way up to roleplaying as its most complex form.

And it should be noted you continue to betray the idea that you're merely "neutral" to improv theater when you're making a logical leap from "these activities run off the same mechanisms" to "these activities are the same thing".



I don't consider that list to be comprehensive given the books focus on video games with a mostly tertiary consideration of tabletop games and virtually no consideration of any other game medium. Its one of those things I take with a grain of salt, in other words.

Improv mechanisms don't govern how players interact with each other. They govern how a scene or reality is managed; that this comes primarily through actual social interaction is entirely incidental.

Social Interaction mechanics as Adams uses it however refers to the capability to engage in social interaction in a video game, not how its done.

What we colloquially know as social interaction doesn't fall under either category, as social interaction isn't a game mechanic.



Analysis is critical for theory, of any kind. Its integral to how theory is applied, and moreover, getting better at whatever it is we're doing, whether thats writing poetry, designing a bridge, or designing a game. If you can't or won't analyze both your own work and that of others, you're doomed to mediocrity.

I've directly analyzed nearly 200 something TTRPGs at this point, and I've played about half of them enough to contextualize that analysis with actual gameplay. When I say that I'm observing a pervasive issue in TTRPG design thats going completely unanswered, thats not some veil I'm throwing over my dislike for certain games, its an observation from extensive and exhaustive experience, and given that doing this has near completely soured me towards the entire hobby, I don't feel particularly squeamish about sharing that analysis and passing judgement.

Most of these games weren't actually fun in what they actually put in the books, and what was fun is just the thing all of them implicitly make a part of the experience but never put a name to, all too often because of the same pervasive attitude that its "icky". You can guess what that is.



That's very much like saying there is no hole in the ship if we just close the door to that compartment and ignore it.

It also seems your positioning yourself in a perspective that seeks to model what current TTRPGs are, and despite my consistent arguments and evidence that points to the improv game being a part of nearly all of them, you'd rather reject it because you're not comfortable with the implications of certain words. These are contradictory behaviors.



But it doesn't mean rejecting the dialogue either.



Case in point. I believe this is the second time you've inappropriately conflated the activity (improv theater) with its underlying mechanisms (the improv game), in complete rejection of the many times repeated argument that positions roleplaying as a separate activity from improv theater, with the improv game as the mechanistic foundation that leads to both.



This is all just talking at me, essentially. You're completely glossing over the points I've been making and missing why I'm even making them at all.

I think the problem here (putting aside that Kenada is easily one of the most open-minded people on the forum in the first place because there isn't much point in getting personal) is that interpreting roleplaying as an act of improv in the way that you're discussing gives it certain baggage, and by appropriating the terminology, we're inviting that baggage in-- it would suggest that improv theater has the right answers, which for some RPGs it might, but for others it won't.

This is very much Elusive Shift territory, where the essential goals of roleplaying differ considerably in line with different movements, and therefore we must be suspicious of painting them with too broad a brush. Some prominent voices (Scott of the Angry GM for instance, and Matt Collville of MCDM) would reject the idea that roleplaying is about 'improv' at all, but would both tell you in their own way that it's about making choices, and expressing the self of the character through those choices. Within that context, improv vis a vis improv theatre is actually a little problematic, because it's goal isn't the expression of character, its to surmount the lack of planning to put on an entertaining show that maximizes spontaneity.

I suspect many of the RPGs were fun for people who were not you, and not because of some essential element of improv, analysis of the literary kind that you're discussing (and I should know, it's what my higher education revolved around) isn't about good or bad, fun or not fun, it's generally about meaning, impact, cause, nuance derived from seeing the subject through different lenses of analysis. The bottom kind of fell out when you started advocating for what was essentially a 'common sense practical approach' because it suggested that simplification would yield better answers than abstraction, but that only makes sense if you're prepared to elide the dissenting voices ex nihilo, and declare a kind of victory of authority.

 

[Emberashh]

Do you feel that this has the practical implication that groups preferencing this mode should start with their character concepts, and then choose rule set?

I think something OC/neo-trad games or whatever we want to call them could stand to do is recontextualizing what it means to progress away from character capabilities. The reason being that for people who want to play a character concept (rather than define them through playing), theres an inherent cross-purposes being introduced when a concept has to wait to come online.

That was something I heavily considered for my own game, when I was still nebulous on what I wanted the overall experience. I opted away from that, as I wanted Labyrinthian to be more about earning the character rather than coming to the table with it, but the same time, I have a whole other game concept in my backpocket thats going to embrace it.

Tentatively called VICTORIAN, it'd basically be a sort of League of Extraordinary Gentleman type of experience. Mostly mission based with more focus on curated narrative experiences rather than sandboxy story machines. It'd leverage a very first person, near real-time gameplay perspective that allows players to embrace and mix and match pretty much every classic lit trope imaginable to create unique characters.

And as part of the design, the idea of capability progression would be eliminated from the typical RPG loop, instead using an elaborate Life Path style character generation system to bring your character together. Play beyond chargen would be characterized by narrative progression mostly, though I imagine whenever I decide to start chewing on this game Ill have more ideas to diversify that.

 

[Emberashh]

is that interpreting roleplaying as an act of improv in the way that you're discussing gives it certain baggage, and by appropriating the terminology, we're inviting that baggage in

The thing is is that I'd hope if one is seeking to discuss theory that they, in turn, are willing to then accept a more objective discourse. Its not lost on me that improv has baggage as a term, but I can also put that aside and focus on whats actually being said through the word, and not what we colloquially associate with it.

Back in the day I used to run into the same issue with political theory, in particular the baggage of the word "anarchy" when it came to discussing anarchism. If one can't or won't be more objective, it just leads to the conversation being held hostage as we try to skirt around the least convoluted word to describe something because it has colloquial baggage.

Its a lot more concise to just say anarchy than it is to say anarchist society or whatever, and we can take the steps to ensure that contextually we understand whats being said.

The use of improv in this case is the same sort of situation.

I suspect many of the RPGs were fun for people who were not you, and not because of some essential element of improv,

It'd be a mistake to assume I'm the only one with my thoughts. I do interact with people in real life, and we collectively think the way we do for a reason.

But more than that, it misses what I meant by that, which is completely on me as I didn't elaborate. My bad.

When I said those games aren't fun, I was referring to specific core elements of them, rather than the overall experience. What we might call the "G" parts of the RPG.

The RP part is always consistently fun, and that tracks. The people I play with are all pretty good at it, even when entirely divorced from any sort of G, and that we all recognize that RP is what we're doing plays into that.

The G parts however are seldom that consistent, and this is related to another wide reaching opinion of mine that finds the fact that so much of the hobby is the same 5 or 6 game systems copy and pasted a million times over distasteful.

Too many games have more or less identical game loops, and even where the quality is at its best, its often not any more fun than the original was.

The bottom kind of fell out when you started advocating for what was essentially a 'common sense practical approach' because it suggested that simplification would yield better answers than abstraction

I was saying that simplification requires abstraction. The jargon laden crosstalk I was referring to is more or less the opposite.

analysis of the literary kind that you're discussing (and I should know, it's what my higher education revolved around) isn't about good or bad, fun or not fun, it's generally about meaning, impact, cause, nuance derived from seeing the subject through different lenses of analysis.

I'm using analysis in the colloquial sense, not the literary. If you don't believe analysis is necessary for game design, thats fine I suppose, but that is so incredibly flabbergasting a stance to take that I can't even engage with it on an objective level. Its patently absurd.