What Games do you think are Neotrad?

[Aldarc]

Much like @schneeland noted, the original sense of "Neo-Trad" came out of Free League publishing. In the original sense "Neo-Trad" basically amounted to a "traditional game" influenced by narrative games. In Free League's catalogue of games this was usually reflected in things like how XP is gained by the players leaning into narrative elements of their characters or doing particular things in the game: e.g., secret agendas, character vices, discovering a thing, protecting someone, earning money, etc.

However, the popular usage of "Neo-Trad" has invariably drifted from its original meaning, though the above is also still true. So in the wider spectrum of "neo-trad games" out there, Free League's games look pretty traditional. Whereas if you look at a game like Fabula Ultima, it cites many of the greatest hits of narrative games as its influences - Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel, Blades in the Dark, Sorcerer, Fate - plus D&D 4e and 13th Age, which are two games that @TwoSix mentions earlier as the closest that Fantasy d20 has ventured towards Neo-Trad.

 

[GobHag]

CoD is a bit of a hybrid system, to my mind. It has the crunch level and character differentiation I associate with neotrad, but the "drive your character into oncoming traffic" XP motivations are almost pure storygame.

But also, having a horror focused game, especially a vampire game, without some kind of "push the character into corruption" mechanic would be a bit of betrayal of the source material. You could probably run Mage CoD more easily as a pure neotrad experience while keeping within the broad thematics of the source material.

I think it's just a consequence of wanting to fulfill the fantasy of being tragic/horrified, alongside the more common power fantasy when you play the monster splats.

 

[gorice]

Much like @schneeland noted, the original sense of "Neo-Trad" came out of Free League publishing. In the original sense "Neo-Trad" basically amounted to a "traditional game" influenced by narrative games. In Free League's catalogue of games this was usually reflected in things like how XP is gained by the players leaning into narrative elements of their characters or doing particular things in the game: e.g., secret agendas, character vices, discovering a thing, protecting someone, earning money, etc.

However, the popular usage of "Neo-Trad" has invariably drifted from its original meaning, though the above is also still true. So in the wider spectrum of "neo-trad games" out there, Free League's games look pretty traditional. Whereas if you look at a game like Fabula Ultima, it cites many of the greatest hits of narrative games as its influences - Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel, Blades in the Dark, Sorcerer, Fate - plus D&D 4e and 13th Age, which are two games that @TwoSix mentions earlier as the closest that Fantasy d20 has ventured towards Neo-Trad.

Yeah, this.

As described in this thread, what I'm seeing as the salient features of OC/blorby play are:

• Strongly character-driven play, with player authoring of both the past and parts of the future. (question for @GobHag : do players work together when making their characters, or is it OK to show up with a weird blorb that doesn't ft the group or setting?)
• A strong sense of character ownership, up to and including authority over their death.
• An element of collaboration among the group in working towards certain types of outcomes, with those desires being flagged (probably including the old 'passing notes the DM').

Is this accurate?

I don't think this is a thing that exists on the same axis as what we used to call story now/gamist play (with all the provisos you can imagine about categories being imperfect and internet geek culture wars having ruined everything).

My advice for the OP, if you're interested: if you want a game where the player-led 'railroading' is subtle or limited, look toward games like the ones @Aldarc listed above. Basically, character-driven games with implicit or explicit ways of flagging dramatic issues. I've seen people play Apocalypse World in a way that matches what I think your preferences are, and it can work, though the game won't provide all the 'flags' for you. I think playing games like this will help you to develop a clearer idea of what you like and don't like, and what you want to change in order to achieve that style.

OTOH, if you're talking about a higher degree of player railroading (like, full dramatic arcs), I think that's just 'trad', or maybe online OC chat play. I've never played Chuubo's, so I can't comment on how that fits in here.

 

[GobHag]

As described in this thread, what I'm seeing as the salient features of OC/blorby play are:

• Strongly character-driven play, with player authoring of both the past and parts of the future. (question for @GobHag : do players work together when making their characters, or is it OK to show up with a weird blorb that doesn't ft the group or setting?)
• A strong sense of character ownership, up to and including authority over their death.
• An element of collaboration among the group in working towards certain types of outcomes, with those desires being flagged (probably including the old 'passing notes the DM').

Yeah very much correct.

While coming in raw with utterly wild characters that doesn't fit the party is a recipe for disaster, there are tables where that's fine--not in any that I've player though but I have seen it occasionally. But also usually NeoTrad play cultures does lead to complete weirdos working together to fight the bad guy, like let's look at an important work of art that's important to understand this culture: Final Fantasy 7 where you have a cutesy ninja, a fursuit drone, Cloud Strife, and a cyborg eco-terrorist with a machine gun hand. That's a pretty ecletic collection of characters no?

While finding a new game to play would be nice, I'm pretty satisfied with the tables that I'm in right now. I'm just very curious at what systems and/or community of those system that follows this kind of playstyle(Also just to inform users here of this culture too as a distant third goal,) @The-Magic-Sword 's thread a few months back was pretty inspiring to me

 

[Manbearcat]

Here are some quick testimonial (via bullet points and strikethroughs signifying what agenda/design I'm not interested in) about myself as a GM that might do some work in helping distinguish between Trad, NeoTrad, Story Now, and Gamism. This is not an indictment of Trad or NeoTrad play. My hope is that it delivers some context for what people who want a NeoTrad play experience would want in terms of game engine, social contract, and participant duties and what would be kryptonite for those NeoTrad priorities.


* 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. Therefore, Trad and NeoTrad.

* Its very important to me that "System's Say" (the premise of play, the superstructure of play, micro play loops, incentive structures/reward cycles, build/roster dynamics, resolution mechanics/techniques) persistently generates dynamic, unforeseeable play regarding (i) character, (ii) situation, and (iii) setting; system as metaplot (this includes character metaplot) kryptonite. Consequently, every participant must "hold on lightly" to those i-iii and that fundamentally means eschewing preconceptions of play; everyone gives up some measure of control (to system and to each other as defined by system) in order to sustain curiosity and have that curiosity paid off in the blow-by-blow of play. It is a no go to be precious about or possessive of anything beyond fulfilling your system-novel duties around pushing hard/putting your chips in as a protagonist and provoking/pushing back just as hard as opposition. Therefore, Trad and NeoTrad.

* I don't want to GM a game where either (a) the difficulty is medium to easy or (b) the system can be pretty trivially gamified such that you can trade out low stakes consequences for currency/means/fiat power to ensure high stakes consequences (those types of consequences that seriously perturb trajectories) never materialize. Another version of this is there is so much player fiat power baked into the game engine/PC build dynamics and/or "writer's room" conceits express themselves with an eye toward generating outputs of play (contrast with players having huge and direct impacts upon the inputs of play exclusively) that nature and shape of climax and denouement are already significantly concretized prior to their actual happening. In effect, this paradigm I'm envisioning here is a hallmark of proper, high-functioning systemization of NeoTrad priorities, participant duties, and game engine dynamics.

 

[pemerton]

PbtA is not neotrad. It puts characters at far too much risk. There's way too much of a chance for your character being forced to evolve in ways narratively that may conflict with a player's initial conception.

Like Monsterhearts and Fabula Ultima (or Daggerheart?) are both character-focused games, but I think they're very separate streams of game design. PbtA games, in general, I don't view as having strong neotrad characteristics other than characters being the primary focus.

I don't think Apocalypse World has a neo-trad bone in its body. But the way I see some posters talk about their approach to other PbtA games, even including Dungeon World, does suggest much more of a neo-trad (or, in some cases, even trad) orientation.

 

[gorice]

Here are some quick testimonial (via bullet points and strikethroughs signifying what agenda/design I'm not interested in) about myself as a GM that might do some work in helping distinguish between Trad, NeoTrad, Story Now, and Gamism. This is not an indictment of Trad or NeoTrad play. My hope is that it delivers some context for what people who want a NeoTrad play experience would want in terms of game engine, social contract, and participant duties and what would be kryptonite for those NeoTrad priorities.


* 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. Therefore, Trad and NeoTrad.

Isn't this just play as such? If there's no system, even an informal one, just force, I don't think we're even talking about RPGs anymore. Certainly not in a sense in which it matters much which system we are nominally playing.

* I don't want to GM a game where either (a) the difficulty is medium to easy or (b) the system can be pretty trivially gamified such that you can trade out low stakes consequences for currency/means/fiat power to ensure high stakes consequences (those types of consequences that seriously perturb trajectories) never materialize. Another version of this is there is so much player fiat power baked into the game engine/PC build dynamics and/or "writer's room" conceits express themselves with an eye toward generating outputs of play (contrast with players having huge and direct impacts upon the inputs of play exclusively) that nature and shape of climax and denouement are already significantly concretized prior to their actual happening. In effect, this paradigm I'm envisioning here is a hallmark of proper, high-functioning systemization of NeoTrad priorities, participant duties, and game engine dynamics.

I think some 'indie' or 'story' games actually do just this. Is Blades in the Dark really an OC game?

I don't think Apocalypse World has a neo-trad bone in its body. But the way I see some posters talk about their approach to other PbtA games, even including Dungeon World, does suggest much more of a neo-trad (or, in some cases, even trad) orientation.

I think the problems we're having are that (a) neotrad isn't a discrete thing, certainly not an 'agenda' in the old Forge sense; and (b) no system is bound to an agenda anyway.

That's why I've been trying to identify the OP's particular priorities and suggest games that might support them.

 

[pemerton]

I think the problems we're having are that (a) neotrad isn't a discrete thing, certainly not an 'agenda' in the old Forge sense

In the Forge sense, I think neo-trad is a species of high concept simulationism, or in some contexts perhaps it is exploration-heavy gamism where the stakes of "loss" for the player are very low. But in establishing exploration (in the Forge sesen) as its primary concern, or as a significant concern, it uses a different authority structure from that present in the examples that Edwards talked about 20 years ago. This different authority structure is partly a matter of "ethos" - centring the player more than is traditional - but also is established and mediated, at least to some degree, by new techniques that have been developed, or at least become mainstream, over that two-decade period.

This blog - What does it take to be a “neotrad” role-playing game? - identifies some of the techniques that are present in neo-trad oriented RPGs but absent from trad-oriented ones.

Asymmetric gameplay; a "Chekhov's gun" approach to mechanics; "bounded bookkeeping" and other means of supporting the GM's role in framing and adjudication; and no rule zero: these are primarily about rejecting the purist-for-system design legacy that remains common in many trad-oriented RPGs. By making the GM's job easier - with more support/scaffolding for decision-making, and reducing the technical challenges inherent in implementing a decision (for instance, no need to have drawn up complex maps to support wargame-style action resolution) - these also permit the shift of authority towards players without that impeding the actual processes of play.

Clear agency for PCs and shared party creation: these mean that "world/setting exploration", "fish out of water" PCs, "hunting for the adventure" and similar aspects of much trad RPGing are foregone: the focus of exploration shifts to character and situation, where the situations are clearly drawn. In addition, these technical innovations further support the realignment in authority to players, without that realignment pulling the rug out from under the GM, because the GM can see what the players' concerns are and can know where they are heading in the play of their PCs.

The incorporation of these techniques is summed up thus:

"it’s got 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”, he said. . . .

a tabletop roleplaying games need to be abreast of the times, requiring less time and effort, cutting downtimes, taking some useless responsibilities away from the master job and, generally speaking, be competitive with other entertainment media. “Modern” RPGs (or indie, or new wave) are a very good answer to these needs but they offer a different game experience so many gamers are not comfortable with their approach.​

That "not comfortable" is about departures from sim, or exploration-heavy gamism. Neo-trad remains in the "comfort zone" but changes the ethos and techniques.

I think understood in the above terms, neo-trad is broadly identifiable as a thing: an ethos/orientation to RPGing that certain games set out to support.

 

[gorice]

In the Forge sense, I think neo-trad is a species of high concept simulationism, or in some contexts perhaps it is exploration-heavy gamism where the stakes of "loss" for the player are very low. But in establishing exploration (in the Forge sesen) as its primary concern, or as a significant concern, it uses a different authority structure from that present in the examples that Edwards talked about 20 years ago. This different authority structure is partly a matter of "ethos" - centring the player more than is traditional - but also is established and mediated, at least to some degree, by new techniques that have been developed, or at least become mainstream, over that two-decade period.

This blog - What does it take to be a “neotrad” role-playing game? - identifies some of the techniques that are present in neo-trad oriented RPGs but absent from trad-oriented ones.

Asymmetric gameplay; a "Chekhov's gun" approach to mechanics; "bounded bookkeeping" and other means of supporting the GM's role in framing and adjudication; and no rule zero: these are primarily about rejecting the purist-for-system design legacy that remains common in many trad-oriented RPGs. By making the GM's job easier - with more support/scaffolding for decision-making, and reducing the technical challenges inherent in implementing a decision (for instance, no need to have drawn up complex maps to support wargame-style action resolution) - these also permit the shift of authority towards players without that impeding the actual processes of play.

Clear agency for PCs and shared party creation: these mean that "world/setting exploration", "fish out of water" PCs, "hunting for the adventure" and similar aspects of much trad RPGing are foregone: the focus of exploration shifts to character and situation, where the situations are clearly drawn. In addition, these technical innovations further support the realignment in authority to players, without that realignment pulling the rug out from under the GM, because the GM can see what the players' concerns are and can know where they are heading in the play of their PCs.

The incorporation of these techniques is summed up thus:

"it’s got 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”, he said. . . .​

​

a tabletop roleplaying games need to be abreast of the times, requiring less time and effort, cutting downtimes, taking some useless responsibilities away from the master job and, generally speaking, be competitive with other entertainment media. “Modern” RPGs (or indie, or new wave) are a very good answer to these needs but they offer a different game experience so many gamers are not comfortable with their approach.​

That "not comfortable" is about departures from sim, or exploration-heavy gamism. Neo-trad remains in the "comfort zone" but changes the ethos and techniques.

I think understood in the above terms, neo-trad is broadly identifiable as a thing: an ethos/orientation to RPGing that certain games set out to support.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, then. I don't see any point in the article you linked that isn't either good advice for running/designing RPGs as such ('clear agency for PCs' and 'Chekov's gun' in particular), or an incidental technique that doesn't imply any particular agenda ('asymmetric gameplay').

Honestly, every time I read a post about neotrad, I become less convinced that it's a thing. That's not an attack on people who profess the enjoy that style of game; it's entirely possible that the label is associated with particular styles of play or subcultures. But it means that we need to be more specific about what exactly we are talking about in each instance (which is why I've been such an insufferable pedant in this thread).

If we look at Fabula Ultima, it's designed by the same person who did Blood Red Blossoms, which looks pretty straightforwardly like a 'story' game in my books. I think any well-designed, character-driven game with mechanics for flagging important themes or giving players strong control over their PCs would be a good bet for the OP.

 

[pemerton]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, then. I don't see any point in the article you linked that isn't either good advice for running/designing RPGs as such ('clear agency for PCs' and 'Chekov's gun' in particular), or an incidental technique that doesn't imply any particular agenda ('asymmetric gameplay').

Well, "Chekhov's gun" applied to mechanics isn't good advice for purist-for-system design or play, and nor is assymetric gameplay.

And clear agency for PCs is not good advice for traditional GM-driven "fish out of water", "hunt for the hook" RPGing. Which is still very much a thing, given that every few weeks I find myself posting in ENworld threads where the failure to use such an approach is characterised as railroading the players, or as mollycoddling them.

Honestly, every time I read a post about neotrad, I become less convinced that it's a thing. That's not an attack on people who profess the enjoy that style of game

Well I don't have any particular fondness for neo-trad, though I would generally take it over trad. But I do think it's a thing, as per my post. In my thinking, I see it as the difference between Fate (neo-trad) and Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World ("story now"/'indie").

And if I see someone group Fate and BW/AW together as "story games" then I can be pretty confident that their main play experience and expectation is either classic dungeon crawling, or Hickman/post-Hickman trad.