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

[pemerton]

Regarding the issue of improvisation in tabletop RPGs and its centrality to play, I would agree that it’s important. Coming up with and responding to things in the moment is pretty fundamental when playing a tabletop RPG. I even agree with the sentiment that games could do a better job of communicating how and when and why you should be creating or doing things on the fly.

There are some RPG rules text that tackle this directly - eg Apocalypse World, Torchbearer to quite an extent, Burning Wheel to some extent.

Of course there are other RPG texts that tend to proceed as if all resolution is map-and-key, even when those games also (via their PC build and resolution rules) present themselves as supporting tropes and situation in play (eg urban settings) that are not actually able to be established and resolved via map-and-key.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I can't say I am perfectly following this discussion, it has been long and many posts have been very long.

But I think there is pretty clear that RPGs are related to both improv theatre and boardgames/tabletop strategy games. In many ways they are amalgamation of these two. Some games may be nearer to one one of the spectrum some another. For example LARPs are obviously closer to the improv theatre end.

 

[clearstream]

mechanics don't always need to provide a game with focus, but instead they need to step in to support the areas of the game that need the most support, when doing them without support creates friction. In that sense DND 4e's combat rules fit neatly into applying a ludic lens to fight resolution, and allowing us to demonstrate our character's elaborate powersets, while still allowing us to perform roleplaying in a way that was very natural to us (being me, and mostly people I taught how to roleplay.)

I think that this fits in well with the description of Neo-Trad play, because that leaves the character arc and the desires of the participants as the base driver of narrative action (because at least in my case, games that step into the business of producing narrative structure or dramatic spirals are easy to trip over) while using game mechanics not necessarily to define what the game is about, but instead to structure things that are hard to actually structure by hand-- in other words a game can be about roleplaying, while the rules for roleplaying are negative space.

(Emphasis author's.)

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.

(Additional emphasis mine.) With reference to post #262 above, I'm going to label this approach OC for the moment, to separate it out from what several sources including the author of Six Cultures (on later reflection) define as neo-trad.

I currently understand the premise to be that character RP will occur in negative space shaped by the positive space of G mechanics. Said mechanics are chosen based on what we desire to playfully interface with. That could just as well describe how groups choose games in general, so here I think the word "shaped" is important, as the chosen mechanics for what we want to interface with will establish thematic spaces for characters to live in... limning but not strongly defining or restricting them. In the OP the example was given of a character that could teleport every six seconds: a capability inferred from 4e game mechanics.

It sounds like the mechanics chosen ought to robustly address the thematic space they target, without (or ignorably) saying anything too strong about what characters inhabiting that space will be like. I wonder if the likelihood that game texts that would fit the label neo-trad would be very suitable for this approach has driven the OC/neo-trad conflation?

 

[pemerton]

@clearstream, there seems to be some confusion as the author of the 6 Cultures blog uses OC and neo-trad interchangeably. In post 262 @GobHag quoted some subsequent writing by the same author explaining their usage:

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".​

So it's not clear what you are positing to be the difference between these two approaches/perspectives/playstyles.

 

[clearstream]

@clearstream, there seems to be some confusion as the author of the 6 Cultures blog uses OC and neo-trad interchangeably. In post 262 @GobHag quoted some subsequent writing by the same author explaining their usage:

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".​

So it's not clear what you are positing to be the difference between these two approaches/perspectives/playstyles.

I'm thinking of this article, which can be read to differ on some key points from the OP. Alternatively, one could take "They [characters] are not simply created as part of the fictional world, they have a close link with the game itself" to be reconciled with the OP by assuming that examples such as the teleporting swordmage are more about that close link with G than they are about the player's original conception. One could then say that just so long as the player's original conception is one that the game text chosen affords - such as teleporting every six seconds - there is no water between them.

My personal experience and conception of neo-trad has formed more around modern mechanics realising player characters / intentions, e.g. through how they afford privileges or fiats over the ongoing shared narrative, than G being detached from character concepts as on first reading I took the OP to advocate. Hence my question up thread about priority of character concept over mechanics. On the other hand, perhaps I wasn't attentive enough to the implications of negative space.

Thus, I had formerly taken OC and neo-trad to be closely connected if not the same (OC being in some respects the "why" of neo-trad design.) The OP included notions that to my mind suggested a degree of disconnect, i.e. that character concept should prevail over mechanics; e.g. that robust exploration rules should give way to my scout character concept. I had not formerly understood neo-trad to downplay mechanics: rather the reverse! The OP subsequently explained that such disconnect is forestalled through exercise of choice over rule set in the first place, so that presumably - if I had strong feelings on the matter - we would not choose Pathfinder but instead TOR or whatever text thematically fit with my prevailing desires.

In conclusion, I offered the distinction to make room for the OP's notion. I held fears about their notion being over-productive in terms of game texts. If their notion includes that "They [characters] are not simply created as part of the fictional world, they have a close link with the game itself" - which I can see that it very well could - then I would drop the distinction.*


*There might still be value in thinking of neo-trad as labelling game designs likely to satisfy OC prelusory goals, with in mind the possibility that such goals could be satisfied in theory through care in selection from among all designs.

 

[kenada]

I understood “OC” to be a reference to online OC culture where people create a character and mythos around it, then write stories, create art, etc involving that character. Those OCs would sometimes interact with other OCs, participate in exchanges, shared stories, etc. Neotrad play (as I understand it based on this thread) would be a safe space where you can inhabit the OC while keeping control over what happens (due to the negotiated arcs and not challenging the character’s conception without permission). It’s something akin to creating and experiencing a shared fanfiction.

The question that raises for me is how tied these two things are together. The author (as quoted by @GobHag and @pemerton) would use them synonymously, but is it possible to do neotrad (as described) without adopting the persona of an OC? Can you negotiate the desired arcs and experiences without adopting one? The interest in that case would be in experiencing the a particular set of story beats rather than the character itself. The difference would seem analogous to the levels of immersion that can be seen in other play cultures.

 

[clearstream]

I understood “OC” to be a reference to online OC culture where people create a character and mythos around it, then write stories, create art, etc involving that character. Those OCs would sometimes interact with other OCs, participate in exchanges, shared stories, etc. Neotrad play (as I understand it based on this thread) would be a safe space where you can inhabit the OC while keeping control over what happens (due to the negotiated arcs and not challenging the character’s conception without permission). It’s something akin to creating and experiencing a shared fanfiction.

That is what I mean to indicate in saying "OC being in some respects the "why" of neo-trad design." That is, OC is nearer creative agenda than design manifesto. In that light, it seemed valid to separate it out e.g. to say "There might still be value in thinking of neo-trad as labelling game designs likely to satisfy OC prelusory goals, with in mind the possibility that such goals could be satisfied in theory through care in selection from among all designs."

The question that raises for me is how tied these two things are together. The author (as quoted by @GobHag and @pemerton) would use them synonymously, but is it possible to do neotrad (as described) without adopting the persona of an OC? Can you negotiate the desired arcs and experiences without adopting one? The interest in that case would be in experiencing the a particular set of story beats rather than the character itself. The difference would seem analogous to the levels of immersion that can be seen in other play cultures.

@The-Magic-Sword potentially - assuming I am not misreading - ties them together in rather a nice way. It is the job of the neo-trad design to create the negative space in which the OC can thrive. I find it interesting to think about the work being done prior to play... that in grasping our prelusory goals, we go ahead and select the lusory means that satisfies them. Obviously we always choose that game-as-artifact we believe to be the right tool to serve our goals: this is a sub-act within that.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

That is what I mean to indicate in saying "OC being in some respects the "why" of neo-trad design." That is, OC is nearer creative agenda than design manifesto. In that light, it seemed valid to separate it out e.g. to say "There might still be value in thinking of neo-trad as labelling game designs likely to satisfy OC prelusory goals, with in mind the possibility that such goals could be satisfied in theory through care in selection from among all designs."


@The-Magic-Sword potentially - assuming I am not misreading - ties them together in rather a nice way. It is the job of the neo-trad design to create the negative space in which the OC can thrive. I find it interesting to think about the work being done prior to play... that in grasping our prelusory goals, we go ahead and select the lusory means that satisfies them. Obviously we always choose that game-as-artifact we believe to be the right tool to serve our goals: this is a sub-act within that.

Yes, with the additional possibility that the game might also succeed if the positive space happens to already be ideal for the emulation of that concept, that's just difficult because frequently a concept and set of activities that concept engages in will be nuanced enough to be hard to target in the context of different players-- but like if your character touchstone is Peter Parker hanging out with other troubled heroes, then yeah maybe the Janus playbook in Masks is exactly what the doctor ordered, and even when you're playing to find out what happens, what happens never leaves the comfort zone, but it requires you to be pretty much exactly in tune with the expected vibe. But that has to do with how the player interprets the desired fiction, if they want the actual drama of comic book peter's secret identity that works great, but if it's more about the fantasy of a webslinging hero running around kicking face and just solving crimes, the secret identity social stuff is potentially impositional so an OC game would let you choose via the deployment of that negative space, or just not include it.

But part of what we're grappling with as well in this thread, is a separate distinction: Where does the inspiration for an OC, their concept, and their requirements come from? That question is clearly mutually inclusive of different answers, there's the example of a player emulating characters from movies and tv and video games in whatever system even if its a tough fit (this comes up a lot with characters that don't do progression in games about progression), there's people who are reading through TTRPG manuals and getting inspired so they're on the right page, there's people inspired by the meta in a game where a combo that is extremely crunchy essentially sells its own flavor as a new or otherwise unintentional trope (ever see someone get super attached to an implementation of a build in a particular game and not be able to let that go?), there's people who kind of get a vibe from something TTRPG but didn't read it super closely either so what they imagined is not quite on point, or even people who say "I always play this sort of thing, what's the closest I can get to X in these other games."

There are a lot of different answers even for a single person, and they influence what I think we could consider the prelusory-to-lusory pipeline in your terminology. Then there may or may not be flexibility, I've taken an OC up through her third entirely different implementation-- she started as a 4e enchanter build, then eventually became an Order of Whispers Bard in 5e because I wasn't happy with enchantment wizards, and has 'finally' become an Occult Healer Witch in PF2e; my flexibility in performing that process of reinvention per system is higher than some I've seen.

Edit:

I'd even go so far as to say there are two distinct prelusory stages, one where there's a vague notion of playing a game and what it should be like, that culminates in the picking of a system, followed by a second prelusory stage where the system has been selected and characters are being produced. Character concepts can emerge in either or even evenly in both, and that might dictate the directionality of the causative relationship between concept and game-- the difference between having a concept and needing to pick a system that lets you do that, having a concept and picking the best fit to crystallize it in the language of the game that will be played, picking a concept after game selection where you're looking through the options and deciding what to use as expression ex nihilo and prompting an OC based on that, or even hacking a game that has been selected to produce accommodation; particularly since a best-fit for a selection 3-6 people isn't the same as the best fit for 1 person.

 

[Aldarc]

Yes, with the additional possibility that the game might also succeed if the positive space happens to already be ideal for the emulation of that concept, that's just difficult because frequently a concept and set of activities that concept engages in will be nuanced enough to be hard to target in the context of different players-- but like if your character touchstone is Peter Parker hanging out with other troubled heroes, then yeah maybe the Janus playbook in Masks is exactly what the doctor ordered, and even when you're playing to find out what happens, what happens never leaves the comfort zone, but it requires you to be pretty much exactly in tune with the expected vibe. But that has to do with how the player interprets the desired fiction, if they want the actual drama of comic book peter's secret identity that works great, but if it's more about the fantasy of a webslinging hero running around kicking face and just solving crimes, the secret identity social stuff is potentially impositional so an OC game would let you choose via the deployment of that negative space, or just not include it.

But part of what we're grappling with as well in this thread, is a separate distinction: Where does the inspiration for an OC, their concept, and their requirements come from? That question is clearly mutually inclusive of different answers, there's the example of a player emulating characters from movies and tv and video games in whatever system even if its a tough fit (this comes up a lot with characters that don't do progression in games about progression), there's people who are reading through TTRPG manuals and getting inspired so they're on the right page, there's people inspired by the meta in a game where a combo that is extremely crunchy essentially sells its own flavor as a new or otherwise unintentional trope (ever see someone get super attached to an implementation of a build in a particular game and not be able to let that go?), there's people who kind of get a vibe from something TTRPG but didn't read it super closely either so what they imagined is not quite on point, or even people who say "I always play this sort of thing, what's the closest I can get to X in these other games."

There are a lot of different answers even for a single person, and they influence what I think we could consider the prelusory-to-lusory pipeline in your terminology. Then there may or may not be flexibility, I've taken an OC up through her third entirely different implementation-- she started as a 4e enchanter build, then eventually became an Order of Whispers Bard in 5e because I wasn't happy with enchantment wizards, and has 'finally' become an Occult Healer Witch in PF2e; my flexibility in performing that process of reinvention per system is higher than some I've seen.

Edit:

I'd even go so far as to say there are two distinct prelusory stages, one where there's a vague notion of playing a game and what it should be like, that culminates in the picking of a system, followed by a second prelusory stage where the system has been selected and characters are being produced. Character concepts can emerge in either or even evenly in both, and that might dictate the directionality of the causative relationship between concept and game-- the difference between having a concept and needing to pick a system that lets you do that, having a concept and picking the best fit to crystallize it in the language of the game that will be played, picking a concept after game selection where you're looking through the options and deciding what to use as expression ex nihilo and prompting an OC based on that, or even hacking a game that has been selected to produce accommodation; particularly since a best-fit for a selection 3-6 people isn't the same as the best fit for 1 person.

Surprised that I didn't see another origin for OCs: "I saw some awesome art on the internet, and I want to make a character like this one from the art!"

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Surprised that I didn't see another origin for OCs: "I saw some awesome art on the internet, and I want to make a character like this one from the art!"

"the difference between having a concept and needing to pick a system that lets you do that," but lmao yes, that is what it could simplify to.