What Games do you think are Neotrad?

[Thomas Shey]

There's a bunch of excluded middle ground there, but I personally prefer a conception as "GM as toymaker." That, and you can simple make it a principle (to borrow the language) that the GM-as-worldbuilder and GM-as-animator-of-NPCs should be held separately in the GM's mind. I have no idea where you'd get the resources from, but it would be an interesting design to actually separate those roles into multiple people. I've seen some experiments with rotating NPC duties amongst players, but that basically just moves it from "get two people with an interest in GMing" to "get 5 people with an interest in GMing" and that isn't really any better.

I've mentioned on more than one occasion that GMs often wear at least four hats (setting (and to some degree, scenario) designer, rules adjucator, NPC operator and combat manager), and I'm not sure that does games the biggest favors in the world. But separating those out would require more people, and some of them as individual jobs might be even less attractive for most people that the collective job is.

 

[pawsplay]

Right: at its heart all GNS said was you can have 3 basic flavors of what you're focused on. You can be focused on RPG-as-game, where the players are trying to find a way to win or beat each other, or at least where 'good' and 'bad' play are highly delineated and the rules and conventions allow the players to determine what 'moves' they should attempt in a fairly deterministic fashion.

Or you can be focused on the aspect of the PCs as protagonists within the narrative arising from play. Here the game is built around player's choice of situations to engage and a focus on their choices shaping the narrative at a deep level.

Thirdly you could be focused on the content of the imagined play for itself, its qualities, topics it incorporates, etc. PFS is included here in that it focuses on play-as-process and how the game generates things like setting details and choices.

Edwards also groups ALL of these under 'Exploration', there's no separate agenda for that, you are 'exploring game play', 'exploring narrative/premise', or 'exploring setting/system/milieu'.

Edwards basically said "Story Now" is a specific agenda. But I slice the pie quite differently. For me, "story now" pretty much underlies ALL RPGs from the mid 1980s on that cleave to the soul of what an RPG is. That's one reason I object to the trad/neotrad terminology because IME, "trad" in the sense of a "story" flowing from a "storyteller" or what have you was mostly a sideline to the main RPG experience. I think most players are looking to find out "what happens next" in an organic, authentic, way. The whole Exploration conversation took a weird turn... if I were anything, back in the day, I would say I was an Immersionist and I take issue with the idea that "exploring the premise" and simply experiencing the premise are two different things. Nobody plays an RPG purely to recreate a genre, but that's what Edwards claims happens in Simulationist play. So anyway, the GNS model was played out years ago, the Big Model as well. I think it's fine if people want to use familiar terminology when it's helpful to the discussion.

GNS had to adopt a specific, highly technical vocabulary. Partly this was for the purpose of internal discussion, but I myself think a lot of the reason is that it doesn't map closely to what people actually do.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I think you’re focussed on the wrong things, a lot of what you’re talking about is down stream to the issue of sts v narr.

You’re pretty earnest so I’ll try and be honest and upfront.

When I was playing sts I found my relationship with the GM was they were the entertainer rather than a fellow participant in seeing how the story unfolded. This was maybe one of the bigger factors in getting me to abandon it.

For a GM to actually be a participant they need ways of disinvesting themselves. There’s actually two really simple ways that get you pretty much to Narrativism, structurally, without much work at all.

One: As a GM just play the NPC’s as you would play a player character.

Two: Don’t fudge the dice.

For a player to disinvest themselves they need to, and I quote myself ‘play the character as a human being and be responsive to the unfolding situation in terms of how it changes the character. Don’t plan out arcs or anything, discover them.’

Putting aside all theory, all talk of specific rules, do you see how that changes the creative relationship?

Everything else, for me, is subordinate to that.

My experience is that this doesn't hold up in practice, if it did my message-board RP days would have had static, centralized, Game Masters and they almost never did-- if no one expects to look at a Game Master for content, then the responsibility simply diffuses to everyone, and pools a bit on those who are playing the most. The presence of a Game Master in the hobby is distinct from the necessity of having a Game Master in the hobby, unless the only goal is the experience provided by a static Game Master anyway, but that's trying to make the conclusion a premise. In other words, you don't need those procedures to have a different creative relationship.

 

[pemerton]

Edwards basically said "Story Now" is a specific agenda. But I slice the pie quite differently. For me, "story now" pretty much underlies ALL RPGs from the mid 1980s on that cleave to the soul of what an RPG is.

I'm not sur what you regard as the soul of what an RPG is.

But from the mid 1980s on most RPGing that I've been aware of has been based around GM-authored "adventures". This is what is found in the published texts. And this is what you see people posting about. (For instance, in the "how was your last session" thread.)

I think most players are looking to find out "what happens next" in an organic, authentic, way.

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

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I've mentioned on more than one occasion that GMs often wear at least four hats (setting (and to some degree, scenario) designer, rules adjucator, NPC operator and combat manager), and I'm not sure that does games the biggest favors in the world. But separating those out would require more people, and some of them as individual jobs might be even less attractive for most people that the collective job is.

One key is that you don't need the same person to wear the same hat each time it needs to be worn, the rules adjudication can be the entire table running to the book or taking a quick vote or simply being like "I decided last time, we'll do what Timmy says this time" scenario designer can be performed ad hoc by someone saying "hey actually I know what I'd like to show up in the next room" or "hey guys, we decided to follow up on this dungeon I mentioned, let me design it" and people can volunteer to run NPCs as they appear, or based on what plotlines they're relevant to. You'll also have people naturally gravitate toward things they like doing, and away from things they don't, and humans are pretty good at divvying up chores if there are any.

 

[mamba]

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

at most they have a pretty good idea, there are always the players to screw that up… no plan survives contact with the enemy

 

[Manbearcat]

@darkbard already gave you an excellent, full answer, but I'm going to answer this in a way that is a commentary on the thread's premise + how Tier 4/5 Blades in the Dark play diverges from Tier 0-3 (and especially 0-2).

Why Tier 0-3 Blades in the Dark is one of the only few successful Gamist/Narrativist systems:

* (When the game is run well/correctly and played well/correctly...drop this preamble in for all of these) The decision-spaces a player navigates is persistently consequential and persistently intricate in its engagement at both the tactical and strategic layers where lines of play evaluated and selected are trivially evaluated for skillfulness (employment of system, examining and managing connected risk profiles, managing precious resources, playing the fiction, and creative/lateral thinking that involves the integration of both of all of those simultaneously).

* The bulk of play features you, as a player, persistently saying something both chunky and consequential about your character, your connection to Friends/Rivals/Vice Purveyor/Crew/Crew Ally & Enemy Factions & Contact/Duskvol/Deathlands/Supernatural Entities. There are consistently pivotal moments of character evolution (which often features dissolution in some shape/form) where you're prioritizing one of tactical, strategic, thematic/premise-based over the other in which you have to make a sacrifice due to the inherent tradeoffs and incentives baked into the game engine.

Why Tier 4/5 Blades in the Dark suddenly falls down in those Gamist/Narrativist aspects and veers Neotrad:

* Scale just fundamentally breaks the game at these Tiers of play. The volume of Cohorts/Gangs/Experts (including your access to Allies' Scale) under your control is staggering. The game engine just can't handle it. At the same time, the same volume arrayed against you via your Enemies does the same work but in the opposite direction.

* Powerful Sorcerers or high Magnitude supernatural entities (see Lord Scurlock) add their Scale to their Tier? I mean...what does that even mean in the fiction? Its basically a numerical patch to make someone like The Emperor completely untacklable; (Tier 6 + Scale 6 = 12 total Magnitude...its impossible to, within system, get the Position : Effect matrix to anything that isn't You're Dead : No Effect).

* Action Dots + Resistance Dots + Special Armor access + all the various add-ons/multipliers (on multiple axes) just overwhelm the system. At Tier 4/5, if you're tackling anything that isn't just absurdly devastating (with ridiculous fiction that is hard to even array the imagined space with such that you're generating the intimate and compelling decision-spaces of Tier 0-3), you're basically mapping your preferred PC/Crew conception & arc onto play. Your ability to resolve situations/obstacles becomes effectively stakes-free fiat. Stakes-free fiat = player-side railroading even if every aspect of the rest of the system forbids it. You're no longer Going Boldly Into Danger and Embracing the Scoundrel's Life. You're overwhelmingly just generating your preferred fiction and gamestate.

I'm quoting myself here because I forgot to include my "solve" for Tier 4/5 Blades in the Dark to keep it Gamist/Narrativist.

I've run 3 games that entered this Tier (another that had one session at Tier 4, so I don't count that). The best way I've found to counter the issues here is to (a) move away from The Crew game and (b) run solo Scores that are basically exclusively or overwhelmingly about the individual PC's dramatic needs (rather than engaging with the premise of The Crew scrapping and striving in Duskvol). Individual operators (or maybe one PC operator + a beloved Cohort/Friend) are enormously capable...but Scale is still a real problem for that individual (or duo). So I find that Tier 4/5 Blades in the Dark really needs to just embrace the individual operators at this point, focus in on their dramatic needs and resolve those until the game reaches its completion.

Every time the game goes back to The Crew, the engine struggles again for the reasons listed above.

 

[pemerton]

at most they have a pretty good idea, there are always the players to screw that up… no plan survives contact with the enemy

The whole notion of "screwing up", even in jest, makes the point, doesn't it?

 

[Thomas Shey]

One key is that you don't need the same person to wear the same hat each time it needs to be worn, the rules adjudication can be the entire table running to the book or taking a quick vote or simply being like "I decided last time, we'll do what Timmy says this time"

You'd think, but I've spent at least 20 years fighting to get people to accept that might be okay, and its only accepted a little better now than it was when I started; in particular the first two are apparently a terrible imposition on game pace I've been told.

scenario designer can be performed ad hoc by someone saying "hey actually I know what I'd like to show up in the next room" or "hey guys, we decided to follow up on this dungeon I mentioned, let me design it" and people can volunteer to run NPCs as they appear, or based on what plotlines they're relevant to. You'll also have people naturally gravitate toward things they like doing, and away from things they don't, and humans are pretty good at divvying up chores if there are any.

Its abundantly clear there's waaay too many people in the gaming world who are too uncomfortable with those not to get pushback when you try. And its not limited to people who have otherwise been traditionally GMs either. And of course, there can be some questions of practicality if your game experience includes information control.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

You'd think, but I've spent at least 20 years fighting to get people to accept that might be okay, and its only accepted a little better now than it was when I started; in particular the first two are apparently a terrible imposition on game pace I've been told.

Its abundantly clear there's waaay too many people in the gaming world who are too uncomfortable with those not to get pushback when you try. And its not limited to people who have otherwise been traditionally GMs either. And of course, there can be some questions of practicality if your game experience includes information control.

I don't think any format is really perfect for every person, the most I can say is that I've seen them work well with enough different people, there's certainly something to be said for siloing the knowledge to create the sense of archaeology you can get from uncovering something you don't have control of. I also question how much of that is the existing culture of having had a GM, expecting that to come from a person with authority, as well as the desire to resist the person in front of you trying to get you to try a new way of doing things, I know that gamers are traditionally famous for their open-mindedness and willingness to try new ways of doing things, but I imagine even they might have moments where change is too hard to stomach.