Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9315422" data-attributes="member: 6696971">This is what I wrote for reference (your "this" in the first sentence):* Its very important to me that system have a robust and immutable "say" that cannot (and will not) be subverted by either player-side or GM-side railroading or Force.I'm not 100 % certain what your implication here is, but if you're saying that games that feature Force to move the gamestate/fiction forward aren't RPGing...well, then the majority of play out there in the wild since the late 80s wouldn't constitute RPGing.I may personally not run games that entail GM's subverting one part of system or another (often various action resolution manipulation, but sometimes just strategic exposition dumps, deus ex machina, or various forms of funneling/breadcrumbing), but it's so ubiquitous that setting No Force Allowed as a purity test for playing an RPG at all is not likely to get much traction in the community-at-large!  I do think there is a very interesting conversation to have around what % or magnitude of Force deployment sends an RPG into Calvinball-land, though.  I've discussed that in the past, but that isn't for this thread.For this thread, the novel feature of Neotrad play as it pertains to Force is that the authority over ensuring outcomes emerge onscreen (possibly in the defiance of system) is shared by players in the form of either Systemization (which comes in various forms from PC Build dynamics allowing the system to be overwhelmed or "outcome swaps via breaking the currency dynamics" or so much player fiat loaded into the system that an intended or unintended dynamic of unfettered authorship emerges) or Social Contract (quid pro quo of "you do my metaplot/setting tourism and I'll do your character arc" or "hey let's just ignore that outcome because it's bad for what you/I want" or elaborate Session 0 mapping onto play that falls outside of System).Agreed.  Some games do this.  Blades in the Dark is definitely not one of them (a quick look at Player's Best Practices reveals a player orientation that is diametrically opposed to Neotrad; Build Your Character Through Play among plenty of others).  I'm not clear on what you have in mind here.  I mean, Tier 0 to Tier 2, orthodox Blades in the Dark play (where the GM is using system to put pressure on the Crew as they are supposed to) is about as anathema to OC as it gets.  Stuff going morbidly wrong for Character/Crew during that time is everywhere.  The trick is for them to skillfully manage the game of "spinning plates", endure/"right the ship"/"get back off the canvas"...if they can.  Tier 3 its still there in that same sweet spot of play, but towards the end it gets wobbly.Now Tier 4 and 5?  At that point, we get a sort of play like I mention above; the system's loop which is intended to put relentless pressure on players and impose continuous suites of hard choices gets overwhelmed by the PC/Crew build dynamics (especially in concert with Gang Scale and Cohorts).  So I would say, Tier 4 and Tier 5 Blades in the Dark definitely tilts toward a Neotrad dynamic (which is why I've said before that I feel like Blades needs a My Life With Master endgame before Tier 4/5).As [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] mentions in response to you, in Forge terms, Neotrad is definitely High Concept Simulationism (HCS).  However, the novel feature of Neotrad (as it pertains to HCS) is that ubiquitous Player Fiat or even Player-side Railroading or Quid Pro Quo between players and GM.Last thought on the matter, the interesting thing about D&D 4e and one of the primary reasons it got so much hate (and love from me!) is because it elegantly toggles between Neotrad and (along with Blades in the Dark, Torchbearer, and certain PBtA games where the GM is aggressive and knows where/how to apply pressure; like DW) a Story Now + Gamism hybrid (that delivers on both).  The dial is trivially:* If you want Story Now + Gamism, then up the Encounter Budgets and difficulty in battlefield arrays/rosters and hard choices in terms of nested Skill Challenges for combats.  If you want Neotrad, do the inverse.* If you want Story Now + Gamism, while still following Fail Forward's constraints, when players suffer Skill Challenge micro-failures or macro-failures, "make as hard a move as you like (to borrow Vincent's AW language)" should tilt toward punishing/hard choices.  If you want Neotrad, do the inverse.The first approach generates dynamic evolution of character, story, setting, follow-on conflicts.  The latter approach ensures that player preconception of character and attendant arc "stays online."</blockquote>

Verification