A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto

[Yora]

Ultimately, everything really comes down to what you want to accomplish with a game. Once you have determined that, you can start thinking about the best way to get there through game mechanics. Applying game mechanics or more abstract rules because they are good practice won't really get you anywhere.

Any game design has to be goal oriented to produce useful results.

When thinking about good design principles to support neo-trad play, it first has to be established what exactly you are trying to accomplish.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Ultimately, everything really comes down to what you want to accomplish with a game. Once you have determined that, you can start thinking about the best way to get there through game mechanics. Applying game mechanics or more abstract rules because they are good practice won't really get you anywhere.

Any game design has to be goal oriented to produce useful results.

When thinking about good design principles to support neo-trad play, it first has to be established what exactly you are trying to accomplish.

I’ve talked about this example in other ways before, but I think that the Background Features of 5e are very neotrad/oc in origin. At least, they are if taken as presented and not overruled by the GM.

It’s the granting of narrative authority to the players in a way that shapes the game world and isn’t (or shouldn’t be) subject to GM approval. It allows the establishment of a contact or favorable responses from NPCs and so on.

It’s reinforcing the player’s conception of their character more than the GM’s conception of the game world.

 

[tetrasodium]

I’ve talked about this example in other ways before, but I think that the Background Features of 5e are very neotrad/oc in origin. At least, they are if taken as presented and not overruled by the GM.

It’s the granting of narrative authority to the players in a way that shapes the game world and isn’t (or shouldn’t be) subject to GM approval. It allows the establishment of a contact or favorable responses from NPCs and so on.

It’s reinforcing the player’s conception of their character more than the GM’s conception of the game world.

Mearls talked about their introduction with a "proto5e" ruleset during a 5 generations of d&d talk... I want to say it was around the 1:21:20 timestamp to the recording but could be gibberish numbers stuck in my brain too. That version of them had a rather pushy type compel attached to them to counterbalance things like "narrative authority" being placed in the hands of players. The shattered vestigial husk of implied unilateral authority that was left in place is not an example of good design.

 

[schneeland]

It’s the granting of narrative authority to the players in a way that shapes the game world and isn’t (or shouldn’t be) subject to GM approval. It allows the establishment of a contact or favorable responses from NPCs and so on.

It’s reinforcing the player’s conception of their character more than the GM’s conception of the game world.

I tend to agree. Minimum it establishes a point of collaborative world building and shared authorship (within an RPG with otherwise rather traditional distribution of authority over the narrative).

Based on my experience with the of the games in the starting post, I would even argue that this is a more defining feature of neo-trad games than the general restriction of GM power.

 

[Yora]

So, this is a player asking something about the world and the GM returning "I don't know. You tell us!"?

 

[clearstream]

I think a DM both is and is not a player, depending on which meaning of player is being used at the time in the discussion. It's like the term "brother"- generally, we can all agree that if I share the same birth mother and father as a guy, he is my brother. Most (but not all) would also agree that a guy adopted by my parents counts.

But there is a spectrum here, which depends partly on the observer. What if we share one parent? What if the person assigned male at birth is now a trans woman, or conversely, if they were assigned female and are now a trans man? What about a close friend who I call "brother" but to whom I am not related (except inasmuch as we're all distant cousins)? What about my parents' male dog, who they treat as one of their children?

Likewise, is the referee of a basketball or soccer game a player? Is a person who writes adventures a player of those adventures? Does it matter if there is a procedure for writing those adventures?

I'm not sure that most people would say yes. I acknowledge that a GM/DM is a different sort of referee, a much more active participant in the game than an adventure writer or football referee, but I'm wondering how far the notion goes, and, like you, how useful it is. Different rpgs have different degrees of DM freedom, but generally, they all- as far as I know- put a far larger portion of the responsibility for there actually being a game on the DM. Generally, an rpg can go on if one player is missing, but not if the GM is missing. Generally, the GM does far more work to make the game actually happen. If I am running a campaign, it is my game, nobody else's. Without me that game doesn't happen. Whereas if Bob or Dan are sick and can't come, but we still have a quorum, the game can go on (although some groups cancel if not everyone can make it). I see the difference as pretty fundamental.

Yes, it's possible that GM needs to be seen in an entirely new light.

I'm morally certain that it's right to see GM in at least some mainstream modes of play as part of "lusory-means", i.e. part of the mechanisms of play. But what does this mean in terms of rule-following? If one's view is that "rule zero/golden rule" power is essential to make TTRPGs work, then they're not only part but also fabricator of lusory-means.

GM is often characterised as "referee" - interpreter and upholder of rules. But referees ordinarily do not follow the rules or enact them, they only see that they are followed/enacted. They may validate the goals of play, but do not set or pursue them.

GM is often characterised as a "player". One view is that this is a plain mistake. Best read as a synonym of "participant." If taken in earnest, as I suggest, it gives GM skin in the game. They are rule-followers and game goal pursuers. Although not necessarily the same rules or goals as other players. Once asymmetry us embraced, I see no reason at all why GM cannot satisfy every function required of them, as a player.

On surface, GM as player is rather efficient: no constitution is needed to say how GM should wield power... the background norms that enable game play at all, with the game text, covers it. What counts as GMing can be engineered into the design of each game, to suit the design intent. Hence it's placement in a manifesto for TTRPG design.

Where GM is not player, I'd argue one ought to have a coherent idea of what they are. One coherent idea is that they are referee and lusory-means, at most signatories to a constitution. So it's a choice, that depends on purposes and preferences.

 

[clearstream]

I tend to agree. Minimum it establishes a point of collaborative world building and shared authorship (within an RPG with otherwise rather traditional distribution of authority over the narrative).

Based on my experience with the of the games in the starting post, I would even argue that this is a more defining feature of neo-trad games than the general restriction of GM power.

So from there, I go one step further. In order to make that true it is ideal to reposition GM as player. If one does not, then one may put reliance instead on some sort of constitution binding GM. Either way, one cannot just hope that it happens without saying something about GM role.

That offers motive for why the indie-games that achieve said collaboration also characterise GM as player. It makes such framing meaningful rather than platitudinous.

 

[schneeland]

So, this is a player asking something about the world and the GM returning "I don't know. You tell us!"?

This is possible, but I was thinking more of Dark Secret and Pride in Forbidden Land, which allow the player to declare something they want to see or hold true about their character in relation to the world. So I could declare my dark secret as "In my past, I worked with the Rust Church" and establish that I have a direct tie to that faction in the game world. Or my pride could be "My skill with the axe is unmatched", which would might be true or just something that my character believes to be true - but in any case it becomes part of the shared narrative.

And adjacent to that, you have things like Darkness Points in Coriolis, which build up through players wanting to improve their chances of success, but then give the GM permission to alter scenes in ways that would be considered bad style without such a mechanic (e.g. magazine of PC's gun is empty).

 

[Yora]

I completely forgot about the Darkness Points.

In a strictly classic game, those would be seen as a problem for being a highly dissociate mechanic. There is no direct causal relation between the cause and the effect. Other than vague allusions to some kind of karmic balance being restored.

I can see that being a neo-trad element with storygame origins.

 

[schneeland]

So from there, I go one step further. In order to make that true it is ideal to reposition GM as player. If one does not, then one may put reliance instead on some sort of constitution binding GM. Either way, one cannot just hope that it happens without saying something about GM role.

That offers motive for why the indie-games that achieve said collaboration also characterise GM as player. It makes such framing meaningful rather than platitudinous.

I have sympathies for thinking about the GM as a player, because a) I don't think the GM should bear the burden of creating a narrative alone and b) just like everyone else at the table, the GM is supposed to have fun with the game.
However, in neo-trad games (as opposed to some games with heavier storygame influence) the GM role is still notably different from the player role, and much of the traditional asymmetry is still present.
Now in practice, when I played neo-trad games in the last couple of years, we often incorporated incorporated more player authority over the narrative in scenes (but rarely in world or story) - mostly in the form of leading questions, but sometimes also as direct suggestions. But IMO there's also nothing in the Free League games that prescribes this, and except for the aforementioned handful of specific mechanics, their design is rather traditional and it's very much subject to group consensus how much player agency is present at the table.