What Games do you think are Neotrad?

[AbdulAlhazred]

There's a difference, but "big" difference assumes he's writing whatever material he's doing completely in a vacuum without any awareness of his players and what interests they have. Basically, I think you're excluding a fairly large middle here.

From my perspective where this errs is in that you just don't appear to have seen the full range. You imagine a version of play where trad techniques are used to get narrativist play, but you haven't seen what lies beyond that, which is unreachable from there. It puzzles me, because there's nothing wrong with stating that there are certain things you can't do using one set of techniques, that require a different set. It's not like you're missing out on anything if that wasn't your goal in the first place.

 

[clearstream]

From my perspective where this errs is in that you just don't appear to have seen the full range. You imagine a version of play where trad techniques are used to get narrativist play, but you haven't seen what lies beyond that, which is unreachable from there. It puzzles me, because there's nothing wrong with stating that there are certain things you can't do using one set of techniques, that require a different set. It's not like you're missing out on anything if that wasn't your goal in the first place.

This comment by Baker has weighed on me

I was developing the idea of technical agenda as the technical component of creative agenda, and the further I developed it, the more patent it became to me that G, N and S were arbitrary, not reflective of real divisions in actual design or actual play. That while you can, if you want, assign a given instance of gameplay to G, N or S more or less consistently, you do so by asserting false similarities and ignoring some true similarities between other instances of gameplay. GNS is a convenient stand-in for what's actually going on. -Baker

Consider in relation to

the production values, ease of use and plentiful campaign material of a traditional RPG, combined with the kind of clever and thematic rules design usually found in the indie games -Härenstam

and

Players Characters are created with a specific mission or assignment, or other meaningful tasks to fulfill in the game. They are not simply created as part of the fictional world, they have a close link with the game itself. -Härenstam

As I said elsewhere

This "close link with the game itself" implemented into a design delivers strong utility to OC, but neotrad designs can also demonstrably favour non-OC play. An apposite example is Härenstam's Forbidden Lands, which favours sandbox/OSR-ish play with a lethality that works against OC play. -yours truly

But this idea that indie game rules - even more specifically storygame rules - can't be synthesized to yield all kinds of play? It reads like an argument for exceptionalism...

As far as rpg exceptionalism goes, my view is that any medium of play (eg video games, ttrpgs, sports, casino games, mind games, jigsaw puzzles) has its own array of features and drawbacks, available to design for (or against) and play with (or against). They aren’t interchangeable, but they aren’t fundamental either, they’re just the beautiful technical qualities of the medium. -Baker

TTRPGs are no more fundamentally alike than video games, sports, or any other arbitrary game category. Take three ttrpgs and in principle they might be as different from one another as triathlon is from baseball is from hacky sack. Or as different from one another as Mario Kart is from The Wolf Among Us is from Minesweeper. -Baker

 

[Thomas Shey]

From my perspective where this errs is in that you just don't appear to have seen the full range. You imagine a version of play where trad techniques are used to get narrativist play, but you haven't seen what lies beyond that, which is unreachable from there. It puzzles me, because there's nothing wrong with stating that there are certain things you can't do using one set of techniques, that require a different set. It's not like you're missing out on anything if that wasn't your goal in the first place.

The problem is I don't agree with the premise.

Do I believe some effects are going to be easier with one mechanical set-up than others? Absolutely, since I'm distinctly in the System Matters camp. Do I believe they're necessary? No.

I'm also firmly of the opinion that frequently someone is wanting to serve multiple masters, and when doing so its going to be necessary to make the mechanics at hand serve more than one purpose, and that that's not impossible, but its going to be easier to use some mechanics to do this than others, and often that systems that are aimed heavily to a specific purpose really will make that harder.

Now, you can argue that if all you're interested in is that particular play experience that you might as well use the tool intended for the job, and I'll buy that. But is it necessary? I don't think so, and playing a version of the No True Scotsman card as you appear to be doing above isn't likely to convince me.

 

[Campbell]

I'd likely say the personal story of the characters and reinforcing players' conceptions of their characters taking precedence over rules as GM rather than just story generally taking precedence (where GM directed plot is a norm of middle school (1990s design) / trad design).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In modern GNS terms, where we get rid of the S and so are left with G and N. Then, let’s say about half of how of all play involves people trying to achieve an N agenda. Whether they know it or not and most of them don’t.

So seen through a GNS lens, most groupings of play style are really just dysfunctional N but the dysfunction may take predictable forms. Predictable because of how the systematic failures of common play systems tend to warp/condition the story instinct.


O.C and genre sim are two such dysfunctions and through the GNS prism you’d get something like:


Both play styles developed because of how authority is distributed (badly) and they’re both reactions to that core dysfunction.

Genre sim: So because of how authority is distributed we end up with weird ideas about what a story is and technical issues because we can’t make the story ‘go’. The fix is basically to use genre as our social guiding light and the reward for play.

O.C: Is one common reaction to sts (Vampire/2E/message board play). Given that authority break down can’t make play ‘go’, you just end up investing and day dreaming about a character. The fix is that the other participants recognise the character and that becomes the social reward for play. (princess play is here)

So on a design level, you see a lot of fixes of secondary dysfunctions. If the primary dysfunction is fixed you play Sorcerer (I’m throwing a bone to those who vehemently disagree with me)

So O.C play tends toward just investing the GM with authority and the secondary fixes are all about getting rid of the superfluous stuff. Thing is, why bother? You don’t actually need to design for O.C play.

Genre sim has seen a variety of designs. I think FATE is the break through game but a lot of PbtA can be put in this category (which is why I think Eero puts Dungeon World here). If you go back in time then Feng Shui might be one of the first genre sim games.

I’ve given my thoughts on how neo-trad plays into this elsewhere in the thread. The brief version is that it’s Vampire but taking the peripheral rules more seriously.

If you don’t buy into GNS then you’d need a different analysis and many such are given in this thread. I do buy into GNS and this shows how extreme it is. Also why it’s hated. You can have all these really emotional, cathartic experiences, weep at the gaming table, have a genuine connection with the GM as they understand your character. Exult together as you hit the perfect notes of a genre, that you’ve mutually created. And an N dude will come along, put a hand on your shoulder, look at you sadly and say ‘are done with the pastiche yet?’

It’s really patronising.

I gotta admit I'm baffled by this... Genre Sim is a dysfunction? Fubbida wubbida!!!???? I think we've taken a 90 degree turn into POPPIES! POPPIES! POPPIES! But maybe I'm a bit high on cold medicine? Could be...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The problem is I don't agree with the premise.

Do I believe some effects are going to be easier with one mechanical set-up than others? Absolutely, since I'm distinctly in the System Matters camp. Do I believe they're necessary? No.

I'm also firmly of the opinion that frequently someone is wanting to serve multiple masters, and when doing so its going to be necessary to make the mechanics at hand serve more than one purpose, and that that's not impossible, but its going to be easier to use some mechanics to do this than others, and often that systems that are aimed heavily to a specific purpose really will make that harder.

Now, you can argue that if all you're interested in is that particular play experience that you might as well use the tool intended for the job, and I'll buy that. But is it necessary? I don't think so, and playing a version of the No True Scotsman card as you appear to be doing above isn't likely to convince me.

Well, I'm not 'playing a card' so to speak, I really abhor most rhetorical devices. I don't think your response is bad, you have given a reasonable defense. I personally am still of the opinion that some kinds of play can't simply be achieved by practice without specific techniques. Whether that involves a certain set of rules or not is kind of a different topic I guess.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, I'm not 'playing a card' so to speak, I really abhor most rhetorical devices. I don't think your response is bad, you have given a reasonable defense. I personally am still of the opinion that some kinds of play can't simply be achieved by practice without specific techniques. Whether that involves a certain set of rules or not is kind of a different topic I guess.

I did say "appear" for a reason; it was possible that was just an artifact of phrasing, but when someone opens with something that could be read as "If you really knew what the real experience is..." let's just say I approach it with suspicion.

 

[thefutilist]

I gotta admit I'm baffled by this... Genre Sim is a dysfunction? Fubbida wubbida!!!???? I think we've taken a 90 degree turn into POPPIES! POPPIES! POPPIES! But maybe I'm a bit high on cold medicine? Could be...

Well so the theory goes. Non dysfunction is treating the moral choices as open and consequential. Genre play treats them as set dressing because we all know your super hero isn’t going to kill anyone.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well so the theory goes. Non dysfunction is treating the moral choices as open and consequential. Genre play treats them as set dressing because we all know your super hero isn’t going to kill anyone.

Yeah, I don't think RPG analysis is about deciding that my pleasure in adorning my character, Super Beetle, with a stock inconsequential secret identity subplot is 'dysfunctional'. It might not meet your goals for Narrativist play, but it could be entirely functional and intended neo-trad play. I think there's probably a question about identifying Zilch Play in here somewhere though...

 

[pawsplay]

The problem with a identifying a "neotrad" form of play is every simple: it's predicated on the idea of some kind of post- trad play, something that is distinct from the trad play that has gone before. But the description of "trad" play being offered is pure nonsense. It's a muddle of stereotypes of play from the 90s with little basis in fact, Edwards' criticism of a heavy-handed prederminate "story" as sometimes espoused in games like Vampire, and an assumption that GNS is coherent, universal, and applicable enough to talk about trad typlogies (I would argue none of those are true; GNS is interesting, but not coherent; broad, but not universal; and has known deficiencies which are relevant when talking about playstyles that hinge more on models of distributing fictional duties rather than the purpose, or agenda, of the fiction).

There isn't any such thing as trad, and all the things people try to claim "trad is," were inconsistently and probably uncommonly present in games from the late 1980s to the early 200s, supposedly the heydey of "trad." We certainly did play some Vampire back in the day, but if anyone was trying to map out where a chronicle was "supposed" to go, most people would have said they were trying too hard. The standard way of playing Vampire was "vampires doing what vampires do," with meandering character development, and insofar as a model "story" was presnt it certainly was about addressing a theme, not "telling a story." The refrain throughout the 90s when someone would ask, "How do I keep my players on track?" was "Go write a novel."

Insofar as "trad" means something distinct from "Story Now," it's a question of format, not game. Not even style or intention. The premise of a bunch of players stitting down and "sticking to the module" and the GM "directing" the story is 99% at the social contract level. And I still gag when I hear something called "trad" that was not ever the dominant, "traditional" model of runnning RPGs. You can try to tell me otherwise but I literally can't even track how many game systems I've played or how many groups I've played with. There was a lot of variation. That is very important to understand, every group is so different. But the few groups I was in where the GM had a plan and expected the players to stick to it were the outliers.

What the GM brought was an agenda. The extent to which they may or may not conform to "story now" or "trad" expectations varied, but the simple fact is that what a GM brought to the table was ideas, not a "plot." Typically, if anything heavy-handed occurred, it related more to the GM's sense of genre, or morality, not adherance to a three-act structure or whatever. I've known GMs who would absolutely WRECK a session simply to make a point about "correct" behavior. They would rather put Batman and Green Lantern in jail than let them act "not like superheroes" however that looked in the GM's mind.