One reason I think this question is provocative is this:
If we think about what gets called "neo-trad" play - at least as I understand it - the background/setting/context has been pre-authored (by the GM or module writer or whomever). And the character has been pre-authored, the background/setting/context being a "stage" on which the character conception is portrayed and fully realised. But not discovered.
If that abstract characterisation is fair, then what is the scope of the play-generated shared fiction in neo-trad play? It starts to seem quite narrow.
I read this last week, but didn't really fully grasp the implications until I re-read it earlier this morning.
This is more interesting / provocative than it might seem at first glance.
So, just to make sure I'm following what "neo-trad" play actually means --- as I understand it, "neo-trad" play follows "trad" play on the GM side (largely GM pre-authored fiction and situations), but on the player side it deviates from "trad" assumptions. It's not gamist/challenge based, nor is it merely about the players' characters being vehicles to the GM executing their plot. "Neo-trad" doesn't believe a player should subsume their character into the GM's "world" so that the GM's plot gets executed as the GM envisions.
From the player side, "neo-trad" is more about the player being able to express or achieve realization / idealization of
who and what their character is. In other words, they've created this character that's supposed to be their own personal "OFC" or "OC" that's going to live inside the GM's world, but the world should (as much as possible) treat the "original character" as a fanfic writer would.
Anything that would cause the player to have to change or deviate from their envisioned realization of the character isn't just annoying or distracting, it's almost a violation of one of the core purposes of play.
Okay, so assuming I'm even close to understanding "neo-trad" play, I can see what
@pemerton is getting at.
If the GM-side of things is largely pre-authored, with little deviation from the GM's established canon, and the player side of things is almost entirely pre-authored, where characters aren't expected to evolve, grow, or otherwise face the possibility of failure in regards to their ultimate "realization" . . . then what exactly is happening in play?
I mean, obviously, there's going to be encounters, and combats, and die rolls, and action declarations . . . but there's no real growth.
Interestingly, I'm suddenly making a connection to the thread I posted last year wondering why it was
so hard to produce real character narrative arcs.
Because a character narrative arc requires creating characters with internalized weaknesses and vulnerabilities --- and players being willing to let those elements become a real part of play. And not just in token or shallow fashion, but to have a real mindset of allowing their own idealized vision of the character fall by the wayside.