Neo-trad and Story Now!

Hello! Long time lurker, first-time poster...

I had a question about some comments on another thread and didn’t want to derail it, so I’m starting a new thread.

Here are some quotes from the the “Trad Reformation” thread:

For me, the third option (OSR [and proto-OSR like the Knights of the Dinner Table] and Story Now games being the two other ones) has been neo-trad games a la Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark.

and

Although I think the “neo-trad” games (like Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, maybe FATE, and others) seem to be mostly derived from the story game tradition, curving back towards traditional play rather than the other way around.


This something I’ve seen said on this forum a few times, which is that games like Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark aren’t “Story Now” games, but something more traditional (or Neo-traditional).

So I guess I don’t understand what counts as “Story Now”. I’ve read Ron Edwards essays, I’ve lurked on forums, and from how I understand it, Story Now is a style/agenda/whatever in which:

A.) The main goal of play is to create an meaningful narrative that at least approaches what could be considered a “good story” (i.e. Characters do something and are changed by the experience, there is some kind of premise addressed, and the structure at least of sort resembles a traditional story with rising action/climax/denouement, and there is a satisfying conclusion of some sort, with “meaningful”, “premise” and “satisfying” being highly subjective terms.)

B.) The story created is in no way prewritten or controlled by one member of the play group. Player decisions control where the story goes, and there is no foregone conclusion or expectations of moving towards a particular outcome. You “PLAY TO FIND OUT”. It is shared creation of the narrative that happens organically.

C.) Decisions made (in play and in design) prioritize story-creation (as described in A.) over the immersion in/exploration of the shared imaginary world (Simulationism/The Right to Dream) or the overcoming of challenges by the players (Gamism/Step On Up).

So when I run a PbtA game, for instance my own fantasy hack (SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION!), I think it conforms to the above. The narrative is improvised on the spot, based on the characters’ starting premisses and driven by their decisions, and the mechanics are designed around pushing the story forward (altering the narrative in one interesting/meaniful direction or the other) rather than “balance” or “verisimilitude”.

I find this to be true of most PbtA games, Fate, and Blades in the Dark... or I think I do?

( I’ve seen some criticism of Dungeon World on this front that it “doesn’t do PbtA right”, but in this case let’s leave that for another discussion and take PbtA to mean games like Apocalypse World, Monsterhearts, and Masks - games I think most would agree “get” PbtA.)

So, what am I not seeing?

Am I wrong about what Story Now means?

If not, how do the games mentioned not qualify?

What games out there do qualify as Story Now? (And how are they different?)
«1

Comments

  • Story Now, as originally constructed, means a game in which the players make a moral statement through play. They "address the premise" in a very narrow sense of premise established by Lajos Egri. So while you could do (say) an Apocalypse World Story Now game in which play is centered around a moral premise and the play of the characters addresses that premise, certainly you don't have to.
  • If AW and Blades are Story Now games, and JDCorley makes a case that they aren't necessarily, they would be a subset worthy of their own name/category, hence neo-trad.
  • Welcome to Story Games!!
  • Thanks!

    So what are some games that address a moral premise, and what rules do they use to ensure that this happens? Or is it a function of the mechanics at all? Is it all in the subject matter the group chooses to explore and independent of mechanics?

    Also, (and I realize I'm opening a gigantic can of worms) if there is a whole subset of games whose mechanics are generally aimed at the creation of story instead of providing challenge or simulating physics/genre conceits, (which would be Neo-Trad), and within that group of games some focus on addressing a moral premise, as opposed to the rest that address premises like "Can we save the princess? Who will control the throne? How the war affect the kingdom," etc. Then why is Story Now not just a subset of Neo-Trad games and instead it's own category?

    It seems like (to make a music analogy) dividing popular music into Rap, Country, Pop, Rock, and Late 70's Prog Rock. One of those seems like it's obviously just a specific subset of another category?

    Or is there something (besides the type of question being answered by the story) that sets Story Now further apart from other story-based games?

    Or do I just not like these categories?

  • It seems like (to make a music analogy) dividing popular music into Rap, Country, Pop, Rock, and Late 70's Prog Rock. One of those seems like it's obviously just a specific subset of another category?

    My book case, an Expedit (got the last batch before they switched over to Kallax) has shelves that are around 12 inches wide. I have five such shelves available for records.

    All the hip hop obv goes in one (Wu-Tang clan ain't nothing to mess around with! Dead Prez, Super Saïan Crew etc), The second one is for country, First Aid Kit and of course my precious Emmylou collection and those American Recordings by Cash. The third one is for pop, sure, Bangles, Madonna… All the SAW stuff like Bananarama (A Linn my favorite drummer). Then I have two shelves left for rock. Need to put my Opeth and my Grateful Dead and my Ebba Grön and my Crass and my Sisters of Mercy and my Wolves of the Throne Room in there. At first I just split the rock collection up in two halves; had it sorted alphabetically and A-O in one shelf and P-Z in the other. But theeen it dawned on me that if I looked specifically at all the ELO (God I love that Time record so much), Supertramp (so so so so logical), Pink Floyd, Alan Parsons Project, Van Halen etc etc etc post-1976 prog-inspired subset of rock—there was enough of it to fill an entire shelf! The other rock stuff I had was so eclectic, there was no rhyme or reason to it.

    Long story short genres become genres because Apocalypse World was a massive hit and spawned many derivatives.
  • For me it looks like the Story Now type of games has evolved a lot since Forge days. There's Chuubo's marvelous wish-granting engine for example, where (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't played the game) players decide how the story will evolve before playing a scene, so there are no surprise twists while players are roleplaying their characters. Instead they are trying to build up drama around the scene premise discussed until the twist appears in a more natural way.

    The game also incentivizes players to introduce short scenes of their characters interacting with the world in simple but meaningful ways, to show characters change or growth.

    This is so different from PbtA and so far from old trad games that it makes sense to call PbtA Neo-trad, yet Chuubo is still too close to roleplaying to not call it an RPG.
  • The terminology itself is rather arbitrary. For the record, I would never call something like AW a "neo-trad" game myself, despite using the term in my own rpg history writing; I reserve that term for games that are fundamentally traditional while distinguishing themselves from earlier stages of the tradition by adopting minor ideas and influence from progressive design. Generally published by mid-size houses like FFG, Mongoose and such. AW is in cultural history terms a straightforwardly Forgite indie game in comparison. You might as well call Sorcerer a "neo-trad" game. The argument for AW being trad basically amounts to it having character classes and a GM, as far as I can see.

    Apocalypse World is rather clearly a narrativist game, which maybe makes it a "Story Now" game as well? As people enmeshed in the PbtA movement should know, the "PbtA" label in itself doesn't mean much, so there's no guarantee that any given game under that rubric is also "Story Now" or "narrativist", but for AW itself I don't see any controversy - insofar as rpg theory even is a thing, such that any analytical claims can be made, AW is as narrativist or Story Now as just about any game you'd care to name.

    That said, Jason is of course right in saying that you don't have to play AW - or any other game - in a narrativist way. Games are only "Story Now" in the sense that they support and harmonize with the intent to play them in that way, not in a mandatory sense where it would be impossible to do something else with the game instead.

    In general, though, I would suggest that juxtaposition between an analytical theory term like "Story Now" and a cultural history concept like "neo-trad" will probably only get confusing if you insist on treating them like somehow equivalent categories.

    The fact that "Story Now" is something of a marketing label that Ron coined for his own narrativist game design doesn't help the confusion. You could understand is as strictly a synonym of "narrativism" in the Big Model sense, or you could understand it to mean "the particular kind of narrativist game that Ron Edwards makes", and I frankly don't know which way you should go. Is Prince Valiant a "Story Now" game?

    In the end it's just a stupid terminology squabble. Probably not worth worrying over unless you're doing marketing and need to establish cultural context.
  • So... the categories (and I'm referencing the Trad Reformation thread) are:

    Storygames (Chuubo's and Sorceror and...?)
    OSR (probably all on the same page for that)
    Neo-Trad (which includes D&D 5E and PbtA?....that doesn't seem right?)

  • Eero is right, it's even more confuse to use tags since you can play any game in different ways, even without breaking the rules.
  • Apocalypse World is rather clearly a narrativist game, which maybe makes it a "Story Now" game as well? As people enmeshed in the PbtA movement should know, the "PbtA" label in itself doesn't mean much, so there's no guarantee that any given game under that rubric is also "Story Now" or "narrativist", but for AW itself I don't see any controversy - insofar as rpg theory even is a thing, such that any analytical claims can be made, AW is as narrativist or Story Now as just about any game you'd care to name.

    It just won a lot of trad heads over and scratched their trad itch in a way that Fiasco and Montsegur had never done.

    Is Prince Valiant a "Story Now" game?

    More than Sorcerer which is just a plain old trad 90s game with hubris. Sort on the same shelf as Wraith the Oblivion.

    Real story now games are more in the vein of Psychodrame, Durance, Svart av kval vit av lust etc.

    So... the categories (and I'm referencing the Trad Reformation thread) are:

    Storygames (Chuubo's and Sorceror and...?)
    OSR (probably all on the same page for that)
    Neo-Trad (which includes D&D 5E and PbtA?....that doesn't seem right?)

    5e isn't neo-trad. @Deliverator, we have been using the phrase neo-trad for AW & ilk over on WRNU for many years now. 5e is closer to OSR games like LotFP and, uh, what's the other one everyone likes?

  • Putting AW and Lady Blackbird in with jeep games and Danish larps is just a big whiskey tango foxtrot in my book
  • edited May 20
    Long story short it's confusing because there are three different and mutually incompatible opinions here on how to sort the game. Eero vs Sandra vs Matt
    every living thing pushed into the ring fight it out to wow the crowd
  • 2097 said:

    Putting AW and Lady Blackbird in with jeep games and Danish larps is just a big whiskey tango foxtrot in my book

    Three seconds later she remembered that her own revelatory, official and canonical RISS model sorted all that stuff into the same sorry corner
  • I find the RISS model a lot more intuitive...
  • edited May 20
    Here I am, your friendly neighborhood anarchist, reminding you that categories do not exist and objects in the world owe no fealty to any reductionist schema. To put it in philosophical terms: there are no Pure Forms, and objects are differentiated by exhibiting their own unique combinations of Qualia. But further: that these qualia do not adhere to any particular scale, field, or schema among themselves. Worse than comparing apples and oranges, this is more like comparing apples and flying.

    Thus, the approach taken to the classification of complex systems should be more molecular than categorical. There will always be multiple axes along which to parse these objects, many of which not be reliably mappable to the qualia of other objects in the sample. The resulting taxonomy will resemble a multi-dimensional collection of "tags" (which themselves will exhibit a lot of gapping and overlapping along different dimensions), and will still fail to define a universal and contiguous spectrum.

    And from a creative standpoint, that's good news.
  • :bawling: @AsIf…
    Joe says "What they forgot to kill went on to organize!"
  • 2097 said:

    2097 said:

    Putting AW and Lady Blackbird in with jeep games and Danish larps is just a big whiskey tango foxtrot in my book

    Three seconds later she remembered that her own revelatory, official and canonical RISS model sorted all that stuff into the same sorry corner
    On second thought I think those jeep games and Danish larps and Montsegur or Fiasco style games have several things in common with the Rails corner even though there's no DM. It's all about that pre-written "story frame". Something AW manages to dodge.
  • I don’t like the impronitfol category very much but that’s because while I like ‘story now’ play, I think making decisions on the basis of what creates a good story is vague and tends to be lame. I want to make decisions that are in the best interests of my character, the countervailing force is if my character would make that decision given the situation. Put another way, me and my character can disagree about what their best interests are.

    In practice this means I tend to prefer games that hew a bit more closely to the trad model. Although MonsterHearts works really well for my mode of play.
  • Scratch that, bad reading comprehension on my part. I think I’ve just been traumatised by agenda clashes with people who make decisions for ‘the story’.
  • Put another way, me and my character can disagree about what their best interests are.

    Could or shouldn't? This sentence seems to contradict the rest of your post…?
  • Neurotrash, you're right about Story Now except for (C) in your OP. The main distinction between the RGFA Threefold and the Forge's Creative Agenda (i.e., GNS) is that where the Threefold imagined Gamism, Dramatism, and Simulationism to be describing priorities for individual decision-making at given moments of play, the Big Model strictly speaking saw GNS as serving as a communal (group level) orientation to the game over longer arcs of play or "reward cycles." So an orientation toward Story Now didn't mean that individuals made decisions based on what was "good for the story"; rather, it meant what generated the most payoff or satisfaction for the group as a group was the sense that the arc of play as a whole was meaningful--versus faithful to its source (Right to Dream), versus challenging to its players (Step On Up). A group's Creative Agenda doesn't have to be all-encompassing; it just has to emerge as an overarching orientation toward the game.
  • 2097 said:

    Put another way, me and my character can disagree about what their best interests are.

    Could or shouldn't? This sentence seems to contradict the rest of your post…?
    I’ll give an example.

    Me and my character could disagree. Like if my characters a heroin addict who thinks confronting his past is a stupid idea, but I think he should get clean and face his demons, then me and my character have conflicting ideas of what is in his best interest.

    In terms of making actual game decisions, then it’s the characters best interest (shoot heroin) that holds the most weight.
  • It just won a lot of trad heads over and scratched their trad itch in a way that Fiasco and Montsegur had never done
    But reception of a game, a priori, means nothing about how's the game designed. I'd rather analyze it's own rules, than that. But besides, how could we fit Burning wheel of even The Shadow of Yesterday into "Story now" if all of a sudden AW is Neo-trad? Both BW and TSoY are a lot more trad, to my perception, than AW.

    I think the comparison isn't appropriate, because "story now" belongs to a theory. You could have a story now game that's fairly traditional in it's feel (like BW), or you could do it with a GMless game (like, idk, Polaris?).

    Not even "Story Game" is a precise term to classify games, but I'd rather use an umbrella term like it, than mess with theory concepts.
  • AW is definitely Story-Now-supporting (aka "narrativism!"). However, contrast it with something like My Life With Master or Fiasco or Polaris or Primetime Adventures. All those other four games have a lot of explicit structuring around scenes, scene framing, who has authority when, etc. And those rules are necessary to the way those games go about supporting Story Now play.

    Lady Blackbird, Burning Wheel, Shadow of Yesterday, Riddle of Steel, and a whole other strand of games don't necessarily mess with the GMing authority structure, but have whole economies based on character flags. Flags are basically things on the character sheet that tell the rest of the play group, but especially the GM, what the player is interested in exploring regarding that character.

    So, AW doesn't just "have a GM and character classes." It's also flag-less, has no explicit scene structure, etc., so it doesn't really require players to break actor stance in the way that earlier Forgite games did. That's why neo-trad is a reasonable label for it, though it's certainly very explicit in the text about rejecting certain of the most common aspects of trad play, especially GM fiat.

    Personally, I don't love the neo-trad label. I just set out to examine what was happening in RPG design *outside* of indie circles in 2000-2006 or so, and called that the Trad Reformation.
  • I'd say it has flags, but it uses subtler techniques for the GM to discover them. Does the game need to adhere to the first wave of technologies developed by story now games, for it to be a story now game too? I don't think so.
  • Me and my character could disagree. Like if my characters a heroin addict who thinks confronting his past is a stupid idea, but I think he should get clean and face his demons, then me and my character have conflicting ideas of what is in his best interest.

    In terms of making actual game decisions, then it’s the characters best interest (shoot heroin) that holds the most weight.

    Right, they need that sweet sweet insp / fate points (not to mention that the good old never a frown isn't an primary motivator in and of itself), but the other stuff you were writing seemed to indicate that you were dissatisfied when there was such dissonance; I guess I misunderstood. Now I really really wanna drop some flashlights & some tabs, not necessarily in that order.
  • I’m with @AsIf on this one; there are trends and similarities between games that share cultural influences, but ultimately you can make an argument to draw the line almost wherever you wish.

    For instance, is Sorcerer the first Story Now/Narrativist/story game? Or is it the last traditional game? (In other words, the least “trad” rpg before we started making the transition into full blown “story games”?)

    @Deliverator explains the reasoning for labeling something like AW “neo-trad” quite well: compared to “story games” of the same time period, it has relatively few obvious markers of a typical “Story Now” game, a traditional GM role, and no explicit directions towards Theme and moral conflict, no explicit scene economy or scene framing rights, etc, etc - and it’s true, I’ve run AW for trad gamers and they don’t “notice” that they’re playing anything different. It’s quite possible to play the game entirely from actor stance, and it has no “pretentious” or “weird” elements (like a Self-Loathing stat or Monologues of Victory).

  • edited May 21
    The hx stat is pretty weird. Also the weird stat is pretty weird. ← uh why am I nitpickning you're basically arguing for my position rn, that "neo-trad" is blades, AW & derivs. John Harper & Vincent Baker pretty much. still in the purple "stories are interesting" half of the the official poster for the RISS kumbaya of FRIENDSHIP:
    the official poster for the RISS kumbaya of FRIENDSHIP
  • I dunno! I remember lots of games from the 90s with some kind of “weird” stat, it seems to me. Hx is definitely odd, though! I agree there.

    Where are you getting your information about Mutant Year Zero from? I don’t know much about the origins of the game; I’ve only read a bunch of reviews and had several story gamer PbtA fans tell me that they played it and found quite good but a little too traditional for their tastes.
  • I know some of the Fria Ligan and Järnringen dorks. The layout guy from Symbaroum played in our Lamentations game for a while. Also his GF played roller derby on the same team as my ex. Two of my other friends work in the event dept for Fria Ligan.

    PbtA and BW are just games that the Fria Ligan folks are very familiar with; maybe BW/MG more so than PbtA. However, ofc them being familiar with a game doesn't dictate to what extent they let that familiarity influence them. I'm not the biggest expert on MY0 myself so if folx wanna jump in here and correct me.
  • Cool, thanks! Very interesting...
  • 2097 said:

    Me and my character could disagree. Like if my characters a heroin addict who thinks confronting his past is a stupid idea, but I think he should get clean and face his demons, then me and my character have conflicting ideas of what is in his best interest.

    In terms of making actual game decisions, then it’s the characters best interest (shoot heroin) that holds the most weight.

    Right, they need that sweet sweet insp / fate points (not to mention that the good old never a frown isn't an primary motivator in and of itself), but the other stuff you were writing seemed to indicate that you were dissatisfied when there was such dissonance; I guess I misunderstood. Now I really really wanna drop some flashlights & some tabs, not necessarily in that order.
    I think I’m explaining myself badly.

    The easiest way to put it, is that I make decisions for my character based on what my character would do.

    Most games with Insp/fatepoints don’t work for me because I see them as weird non-diegetic cues. It almost defeats the purpose of play.

    If my character slumps against the wall, rolls up his sleeve and shoots up, when the goblins are attacking. I want that to be because it’s an expression of that character in that situation, not because I’ve been offered a fate point to cause trouble.
  • I think, ideally, that it's both. You (I assume) chose "junkie" as an aspect when you created the character so that you could explore that issue and be compelled to end up making bad choices at inopportune times...

    In other words, you're being offered a fate point to cause trouble because that's the kind of trouble you chose for your character when you made them.

    Right?
  • The easiest way to put it, is that I make decisions for my character based on what my character would do.

    Most games with Insp/fatepoints don’t work for me because I see them as weird non-diegetic cues. It almost defeats the purpose of play.

    If my character slumps against the wall, rolls up his sleeve and shoots up, when the goblins are attacking. I want that to be because it’s an expression of that character in that situation, not because I’ve been offered a fate point to cause trouble.

    Gotcha. This is an interesting POV that I'm gonna want to think some more about & mull over for a few hours.

    The history of fate points being a way to solve the problem of never really knowing exactly how much a specific GURPS flaw was worth because you didn't know how often it would come up in play; fate points give you the "payment" for the flaw as it comes up. Also anytime I can add some mechanics to that sweet texture-like-sun I'm up for it man this thread is really really making me want to use ⚞slaps self⚟ snap out of it twenty!
  • edited May 21
    Here's a question...@AlexanderWhite

    Does it change your feelings if, instead of the GM offering you a fate point to shoot up, you just have a "power" on your character sheet that says, "Whenever you choose to engage in your addiction in a situation that puts you or your allies in danger, you earn a fate point."?

    Then it's always your initiative to engage in a behavior that is true to your character, but there is still a mechanical reward to push you towards doing so?
  • @Neurotrash great way to phrase it! I also wonder that. I have been thinking of rephrasing my insp rules to follow suit.
  • When designing reward cycles, we should all meditate quite intently on this mantra:

    "External rewards interfere with intrinsic motivation."
  • I'm gonna have to give some serious thought to whether I agree with that statement or not...
  • As I recall, last time it came up there were massive differences depending upon where in the world you grew up.
  • Interesting. Where were the two sides of the issue generally from?
  • Jeph said:

    When designing reward cycles, we should all meditate quite intently on this mantra:

    "External rewards interfere with intrinsic motivation."

    I disagree with the implication that in-game rewards are external rewards.

    External reward:
    Giving $5 to the player who played the most tragic character.
    The player whose character kills the most monsters gets to choose the next game we play after this campaign.

    In-game rewards:
    You get 1 Loot per Monster you Kill.
    You gain 1 Influence at the end of the session if your character advanced in station.
    You get a Fate point when your aspect makes trouble for you.
    You get a Persona point if your character accomplished their goal.
  • Interesting. Where were the two sides of the issue generally from?

    From what I could tell, Americans were fine or at least "Meh, I don't care that much but am not offended", while the anti side mostly was from Scandinavia.
  • Jeph said:

    When designing reward cycles, we should all meditate quite intently on this mantra:

    "External rewards interfere with intrinsic motivation."

    That’s my fear.

    So "Whenever you choose to engage in your addiction in a situation that puts you or your allies in danger, you earn a fate point."?

    Is fine in theory. In practice the mechanical reward can displace the agenda reward. I don’t think it has to, but it often does, and so you need a really compelling reason to include mechanics that incentivize behavior.
  • Here to remind you all that the actual point of handing out Fate points or whatever for engaging in your character flaws, or pursuing your character's goals, isn't actually "rewards" but just as a tool for communication. Flag-less games often suck due to aimlessness.
  • edited May 21
    If you are rewarded in-game ... that is, IN the actual fiction ... for something, then it's an intrinsic reward. So if you like to act in character, the reward should be more opportunities to act in character, not a +1 to your skill roll or a point to spend later. Giving that kind of extrinsic reward does either nothing, or CAN decrease the excitement for acting in character. Not everyone sees the reward as a tool of communication; they actually see the reward ... as a reward separated from the act, and when they start to try to earn the reward instead of enjoying the act in the first place, the intrinsic reward for doing it decreases.

    The two exceptions of when extrinsic rewards influencing the intrinsic rewards negatively, and instead can affect the person's intrinsic reward positively:
    • If the reward is a social one. Like, "I notice you". Likes in Facebook are extremely powerful.
    • If the reward is part of a competition. Like, a combat.
    • The task is boring to begin with.

    People need to understand this, instead of just designing with rewards in mind because that's what a really successful roleplaying game has been doing for forty years. Where the designers who is designing rewards in the same matter haven't realized that that the said popular game's reward system is successful because the whole game is – in its mechanical design – about competition.
  • Ya'll, an intrinsic motivation means something very specific in the psych literature. Intrinsic rewards are internal to a single person's psyche. Satisfaction from a job well done. The joy of learning something new. The sense of belonging that comes from interacting with friends and community.

    The GM giving Alice a fate point is very, very, very, very much not intrinsic to Alice. You wanna say otherwise, you're making up a new definition for "intrinsic" and attaching it to a word with an established meaning, in a rather confusing way.

    The full story on extrinsic reward / intrinsic motivation is indeed a lot more complicated than "X destroys Y," and it's much more subtle than "americans vs other folks." The nature of the interaction is more mediated by a person's internal framework for motivation, and whether external rewards are seen as affirming internal choices or imposing external constraints. (Note that a single reward framework can usually be viewed both ways, depending on mindset.)

    But the fact is, the interaction between extrinsic reward and intrinsic motivation is A Thing. A Complicated Thing. "My game gives points that encourage behavior Foo" is often completely insufficient to actually encourage behavior Foo; for at least some people, it will actively discourage behavior Foo.

    Here's two mechanics:

    Every time a player is forced to make a hard bargain or ugly choice, give them Inspiration.

    When the players turn to you to see what happens next, give them a hard bargain or ugly choice.

    How are they similar? How are they different?
  • What about as a fiction-emulation/pacing mechanism?

    You have to build up points by engaging in negative character behaviors or experiencing/accepting negative situations before you can confront your personal demons...or a real demon for that matter.

  • (continuing my thought process) so in other words, fate points as HP - something you have to whittle down or accrue in order to "unlock" certain abilities/situations that otherwise would be anticlimatic if they occurred immediately?
  • edited May 21
    When it comes to Apocalypse World, my point of view is that the game is trad, but seen from a different perspective.

    When we used neo-trad over at wrnu - the largest online Swedish roleplaying game community that spawned a lot of RPG theory, it was mostly in the sense of "traditional games that borrowed stuff from The Forge" or "traditional games with a large amount of player influence". Feng Shui, Mutant: Year Zero, and Over the Edge are some examples.

    We stopped using neo-trad on wrnu, however, because most Swedish games produced are neo-trad. It's possible that Trudvang is still traditional, and I say that because I know how the creators are, but that game would then be in a minority.
  • That's very clumsy pacing.

    Fate-style entices players to act based on rational. Very calculatory. Meh
    AW-style punishes players (and maybe they don't know why). Very visceral (but you should tell them the principle beforehand for it to be effective)
Sign In or Register to comment.