What Games do you think are Neotrad?

[thefutilist]

These are so normative, as like, general rules of solid GMing, that I feel they must be inadequate to your point. I do these things, and I'd put the rational down to maintaining a knowable and consistent board state. I would describe failure to do them in terms of "cheating," and no one has ever accused me of Narrativist leanings.

No it really is that easy. Remember though, I’m talking about a minimal viable structure. What you find fun and use the structure for, is your agenda.

 

[Emberashh]

Even if they do, if they see it as a different kind of fun, they're not necessarily going to want to do it. Not everyone finds the same fun things, well, fun.

At some point though, we just hit the thing Im always referencing. Its okay to not actually like RPGs, and one should try to identify what they do like, and do that instead.

The hobby can't be everything to everyone, otherwise it becomes nothing to everyone.

The fact the limits are self-imposed does not make them not there.

The implication of a self-imposed problem is that they are just as easily rectified as they were imposed. And as such, it stops becoming everyone elses problem to solve because Jimmy won't stop being anti-social and collaborate with what presumably are their friends.

 

[Thomas Shey]

At some point though, we just hit the thing Im always referencing. Its okay to not actually like RPGs, and one should try to identify what they do like, and do that instead.

The hobby can't be everything to everyone, otherwise it becomes nothing to everyone.

This assumes that they don't find what they're already doing fairly fun, if imperfect. I think that's an error most people with very specific wants here make regularly.

The implication of a self-imposed problem is that they are just as easily rectified as they were imposed. And as such, it stops becoming everyone elses problem to solve because Jimmy won't stop being anti-social and collaborate with what presumably are their friends.

I think that's implication only of people who find such changes both easy and acceptable to make, not one that the people actually involved do. Not being interested in doing anything but conventional player behavior doesn't make someone antisocial; it just means someone has particular things they get out of the game that don't happen to match what someone else may. And he most likely isn't the absolutely only one in the group that feels that way to one degree or another.


Basically, "You could easily fix this problem if you were all willing to do things my way" isn't a good look, and isn't particularly useful.

 

[Emberashh]

This assumes that they don't find what they're already doing fairly fun, if imperfect.

Then I don't see the problem that necessitates the discourse in question, where we treat hypothetical Player as though their entire experience is being downtrodden but then turn around and say "oh but they're actually having fun!".

Basically, "You could easily fix this problem if you were all willing to do things my way" isn't a good look, and isn't particularly useful.

See thats kinda backwards given you're stating the problem is a singular GM refusing to anything other than their way, and when I say they should stop doing that, now that is also just another imposition of a single persons way? The opposite of -1 is somehow -1?

Like, I don't see how you can reconcile that sort of horseshoe logic in any way other than you just not actually understanding what I'm saying and talking completely past me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Then I don't see the problem that necessitates the discourse in question, where we treat hypothetical Player as though their entire experience is being downtrodden but then turn around and say "oh but they're actually having fun!".

Notice the word "imperfect" in my response. They can want some things not to be the problem they are without wanting to completely reframe their playstyle to address it. This isn't an all-or-nothing situation.

See thats kinda backwards given you're stating the problem is a singular GM refusing to anything other than their way, and when I say they should stop doing that, now that is also just another imposition of a single persons way? The opposite of -1 is somehow -1?

Like, I don't see how you can reconcile that sort of horseshoe logic in any way other than you just not actually understanding what I'm saying and talking completely past me.

I'd argue you're doing the same.

 

[pawsplay]

If a group is playing through an adventure path-type module, this isn't true. The GM already knows what happens next.

Really? How?

 

[TwoSix]

Really? How?

This feels like a weird semantic game you're playing.

If an adventure play module has Chapter 1 in Neverwinter, and Chapter 2 in Waterdeep, the characters aren't suddenly going to go to Thay.

If they do decide to go to Thay, then we're not playing the module anymore.

There's generally an agreed-upon social contract that if a group is playing a module, they're not going to ruin the DM's work by suddenly breaking in a different direction.

 

[pawsplay]

This feels like a weird semantic game you're playing.

If an adventure play module has Chapter 1 in Neverwinter, and Chapter 2 in Waterdeep, the characters aren't suddenly going to go to Thay.

If they do decide to go to Thay, then we're not playing the module anymore.

There's generally an agreed-upon social contract that if a group is playing a module, they're not going to ruin the DM's work by suddenly breaking in a different direction.

What if they do? What if they don't even anticipate the direction they're "supposed" to go? What if they try rigorously to follow the "plot" and all the bright glowing question marks they find, but they break something? What if one of PCs absolutely won't do something the PCs are presumed to do, or absolutely will do something the modules assumes they won't? What if they roll badly? What if they don't know the name of the module, and they think they are supposed to go to Thay?

Like, I don't know what your social contract is, but I've always assumed you don't generally do stupid stuff. Randomly going to Thay can be stupid. But so can sticking to a module that doesn't account for reasonable, and more to the point, interesting behavior. And if the players don't have the freedom to do what they think they should do, they're not really playing an RPG. And that, to me, is a very serious breach of the social contract. If the module, or properly the DM, insists the players do something that is just unappealing or stupid, just to move things along, that is just an abject failure of design.

If doing A instead of B "ruins the DM's work," I question how much work the DM really did.

 

[TwoSix]

What if they do? What if they don't even anticipate the direction they're "supposed" to go? What if they try rigorously to follow the "plot" and all the bright glowing question marks they find, but they break something? What if one of PCs absolutely won't do something the PCs are presumed to do, or absolutely will do something the modules assumes they won't? What if they roll badly? What if they don't know the name of the module, and they think they are supposed to go to Thay?

Like, I don't know what your social contract is, but I've always assumed you don't generally do stupid stuff. Randomly going to Thay can be stupid. But so can sticking to a module that doesn't account for reasonable, and more to the point, interesting behavior. And if the players don't have the freedom to do what they think they should do, they're not really playing an RPG. And that, to me, is a very serious breach of the social contract. If the module, or properly the DM, insists the players do something that is just unappealing or stupid, just to move things along, that is just an abject failure of design.

If doing A instead of B "ruins the DM's work," I question how much work the DM really did.

I assume that's probably bad. I don't run modules, personally, for precisely the reasons you mentioned.

But I think we're all aware that module and adventure path play is SUPER common (see Pathfinder, or the modules that get created for 5e), and it's generally agreed upon that if you're playing a module you stick with the module.

 

[pawsplay]

I assume that's probably bad. I don't run modules, personally, for precisely the reasons you mentioned.

But I think we're all aware that module and adventure path play is SUPER common (see Pathfinder, or the modules that get created for 5e), and it's generally agreed upon that if you're playing a module you stick with the module.

What does "sticking to the module" mean?