What Games do you think are Neotrad?

Emerikol

Legend
To me any Trad game can be run as NeoTrad and vise-versa, but the difference in terms of games boils down to one single question: "Does the game routinely use mechanics that reflect intangible or social qualities about the character? Mechanics such as social status, reputation, allies, willpower, bonds, etc.?"
Maybe I'm missing something (honestly) but I would think those sorts of things could be trad or neo-trad? And I admit I just heard these terms very recently so a good definition everyone agrees upon would be helpful. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.


I've been treating it like - spotlight on the party vs spotlight on the world.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Thomas Shey

Legend
Maybe I'm missing something (honestly) but I would think those sorts of things could be trad or neo-trad? And I admit I just heard these terms very recently so a good definition everyone agrees upon would be helpful. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.


I've been treating it like - spotlight on the party vs spotlight on the world.

I think the issue is that a number of those will tend to intrinsically drag the spotlight toward the PCs.
 

TwoSix

Master of the One True Way
Maybe the game styles bleed together at some point. But I'm thinking Game of Thrones is mostly trad whereas Lord of the Rings is clearly neo-trad. Epic fantasy is neo-trad in it's assumptions. Whereas perhaps Fafrd and Grey Mouser are more trad.

So a compelling subplot involving a PC is not enough to be neo-trad I wouldn't think. Those things happen in trad games too. The difference is whether the goal is for the PCs to be overwhelmingly important in the world or not.
I wouldn't put it that way. You can have a game oriented towards local concerns that's still neo-trad. Neo-trad doesn't need to be epic.

Here's an example. Let's say the party is staying at an inn, and you take 2 minutes of DM time to have the party overhear some inn patrons discussing rumors about political happenings in the next country over. None of the PCs have an origin in that country, or have any current plans to travel in that direction.

If you're taking that time because "it makes sense for the inn patrons to discuss news, and hearing about the events in other countries enhances the verisimilitude of the setting", you're playing in trad orientation. If you add this scene because you expect the PCs to start asking questions, and maybe change their plans based on these rumors, you're operating in more of a neo-trad manner.
 

Emerikol

Legend
I think the issue is that a number of those will tend to intrinsically drag the spotlight toward the PCs.
I would think a lot of this though relates to DM intention. If the PCs just up and kill the King, in one sense the spotlight will be upon them. I don't think though that is what is meant. For me, I'm guessing it means "Can this DM designed campaign house many groups over the years with vary levels of impact?" or is it "This campaign is designed top to bottom to spotlight a particular chosen group with a special destiny in the world?"
 


Emerikol

Legend
If you're taking that time because "it makes sense for the inn patrons to discuss news, and hearing about the events in other countries enhances the verisimilitude of the setting", you're playing in trad orientation. If you add this scene because you expect the PCs to start asking questions, and maybe change their plans based on these rumors, you're operating in more of a neo-trad manner.
That is a really helpful example. I'm definitely trad. I just think it adds verisimilitude to a game if the world seems to be moving around them.
 

TwoSix

Master of the One True Way
I would think a lot of this though relates to DM intention. If the PCs just up and kill the King, in one sense the spotlight will be upon them. I don't think though that is what is meant. For me, I'm guessing it means "Can this DM designed campaign house many groups over the years with vary levels of impact?" or is it "This campaign is designed top to bottom to spotlight a particular chosen group with a special destiny in the world?"
To my mind, it's absolutely about intention. A ruleset can frustrate or facilitate certain intentions, but the core is about what the group, especially the DM, wants the focus of play to be.
 


Maybe I'm missing something (honestly) but I would think those sorts of things could be trad or neo-trad? And I admit I just heard these terms very recently so a good definition everyone agrees upon would be helpful. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
NeoTrad in particular is almost never pure and Trad rarely is, and this is a strength of both - while the mechanical focus is different. (There's a lot of OSR mechanically in 2e). And that's why I mentioned routinely using the mechanics; 5e has the flaws, ideals, and bonds (and whatever the fourth was - virtues?) but they almost never get used in actual play IME.
 

Emerikol

Legend
NeoTrad in particular is almost never pure and Trad rarely is, and this is a strength of both - while the mechanical focus is different. (There's a lot of OSR mechanically in 2e). And that's why I mentioned routinely using the mechanics; 5e has the flaws, ideals, and bonds (and whatever the fourth was - virtues?) but they almost never get used in actual play IME.
I think the example above about the conversation in the Inn helpful. I agree the boundary is fairly fluid.
 

Remove ads

Top