RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[Lanefan]

If you want to call the players' knowledge that those principles apply a meta-channel, well that's up to you. I don't see it as being very "meta" for the GM to (eg) tell a player what a NPC says to them, and to refrain from providing any cues that that information is false.

What would be meta is if the GM told the players the info was false even though their characters as yet had no reason to believe it to be so.

 

[pemerton]

What would be meta is if the GM told the players the info was false even though their characters as yet had no reason to believe it to be so.

In conflict resolution, the player will know if they failed to obtain what's at stake. How this is conveyed in the fiction will depend on the details of the system and the particular fiction at issue.

 

[clearstream]

What would be meta is if the GM told the players the info was false even though their characters as yet had no reason to believe it to be so.

Here again, GM can signal duplicity diegetically. Either acting it out, or telling player what their character notices.

Still, if "meta" information is defined as that which players may use to make choices for their characters, that those characters could not have obtained from their fictional positioning until now, then some techniques that have been described fit that bill.

 

[clearstream]

We clearly have different experience. I think the problem is when you have a player/GM structure where the GM curates and the players exercise purely in character knowledge and authority, then the players will habitually push to occupy every bit of authority space they can get,

Some may. In my experience rarely. Maybe it's a sign of unsatisfied preferences?

but the same players actually, IME, can easily exercise narrative authority for ends other than simply exploiting every situation. I mean, I'm sure there are SOME players who might not do well in this different role of course, but most will be fine.

[EDITED] Edwards says he observed players over-exercising their new powers (e.g. going too big with stakes), but I observe initial hesitations and self-regulation. Additionally, the challenges become more matters of art than strategy: the goals of play shift.

Part of why I've been finding value in using neotrad to label a design movement rather than a player purpose. But that's a different conversation.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Some may. In my experience rarely. Maybe it's a sign of unsatisfied preferences?

I am certainly not going to go into the territory of claims about which sets of RPG techniques/styles of play/game might be better or worse at satisfying people's preferences in a general sense. I would say that exposure to and genuine open-minded exploration of a number of possibilities is most compatible with discovering what is most satisfying to any given individual. In terms of this kind of 'pushing' I think we see a deep concern about it underlying the preferences/opinions of many trad GMs I've talked to here. I mean, the very focus on the 'meta-channel' and extreme concern about that smacks of an extremely orthodox "Its cheating to bring in non-diagetic information" kind of stance.

[EDITED] Edwards says he observed players over-exercising their new powers (e.g. going too big with stakes), but I observe initial hesitations and self-regulation. Additionally, the challenges become more matters of art than strategy: the goals of play shift.

Part of why I've been finding value in using neotrad to label a design movement rather than a player purpose. But that's a different conversation.

Yeah, I don't know exactly where one would draw boundaries between 'trad', 'neo-trad', and 'story now' play. I am not sure these labels are really ultimately all that useful. I'd go back to using GNS agenda labels, it's just too tiresome to get sidetracked into yet another iteration of THAT nonsensical debate. I will just say that the successful indy game developers have put forth a set of models that demonstrably WORK and elucidate principles of design that have proven highly successful.

 

[clearstream]

I would say that exposure to and genuine open-minded exploration of a number of possibilities is most compatible with discovering what is most satisfying to any given individual.

100% agree with you here.

I think we see a deep concern about it underlying the preferences/opinions of many trad GMs I've talked to here. I mean, the very focus on the 'meta-channel' and extreme concern about that smacks of an extremely orthodox "Its cheating to bring in non-diagetic information" kind of stance.

I see "it's cheating contrary to premises to bring in meta info" as a technique rather than a preference. I mean, it is a preference in the sense that it is part of an overall mode of play that some prefer. But it's a technique for achieving that preference.

Yeah, I don't know exactly where one would draw boundaries between 'trad', 'neo-trad', and 'story now' play. I am not sure these labels are really ultimately all that useful. I'd go back to using GNS agenda labels, it's just too tiresome to get sidetracked into yet another iteration of THAT nonsensical debate. I will just say that the successful indy game developers have put forth a set of models that demonstrably WORK and elucidate principles of design that have proven highly successful.

The label "neo-trad" has I think a solid provenance; to a game designer's characterisation of their design approach.

In 2015, Tomas Härenstam speaking about his Mutant: Year Zero roleplaying game, defined it “neotrad” game for the first time. “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.

And on reading through the thread here on Enworld about OC, I perceive a really clear design space for "neo-trad" versus the described "OC". Neo-trad game texts will have utility for OC, via the principle that

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.

That "close link with the game itself" implemented into a design delivers that strong utility to OC. But you could design a game with heavily committed characters leaving insufficient scope for OC, at least insofar as it is described (or at least according to my reading of what is described) in the Enworld thread. 4e would be an example. 100% agree it has good utility to OC. And have multiple times observed it being played in other modes. Other examples would I believe include FF L5R and ToR. These are game texts with broader utility than the manifesto explained in the thread on these boards.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

100% agree with you here.


I see "it's cheating contrary to premises to bring in meta info" as a technique rather than a preference. I mean, it is a preference in the sense that it is part of an overall mode of play that some prefer. But it's a technique for achieving that preference.


The label "neo-trad" has I think a solid provenance; to a game designer's characterisation of their design approach.



And on reading through the thread here on Enworld about OC, I perceive a really clear design space for "neo-trad" versus the described "OC". Neo-trad game texts will have utility for OC, via the principle that

That "close link with the game itself" implemented into a design delivers that strong utility to OC. But you could design a game with heavily committed characters leaving insufficient scope for OC, at least insofar as it is described (or at least according to my reading of what is described) in the Enworld thread. 4e would be an example. 100% agree it has good utility to OC. And have multiple times observed it being played in other modes. Other examples would I believe include FF L5R and ToR. These are game texts with broader utility than the manifesto explained in the thread on these boards.

As I said, I don't think you end up learning a whole lot that is useful about agenda this way as it bears on play. Its not that I think the taxonomy is necessarily invalid, just that I doubt it has high utility. Certainly when considering actual game design from the "how do I make this work?" end of things, GNS sorts of thinking, or Baker/Harper type analysis is much more useful, granting I'm not publishing RPGs, so I don't know anything about what is most utilitarian from an "I can sell this" perspective.

 

[clearstream]

As I said, I don't think you end up learning a whole lot that is useful about agenda this way as it bears on play. Its not that I think the taxonomy is necessarily invalid, just that I doubt it has high utility. Certainly when considering actual game design from the "how do I make this work?" end of things, GNS sorts of thinking, or Baker/Harper type analysis is much more useful, granting I'm not publishing RPGs, so I don't know anything about what is most utilitarian from an "I can sell this" perspective.

I've often observed a forefront of theory, taking risks and doing great innovation. Professional designers are typically interested, knowledgeable, and admiring of those in that forefront. They look for ways to integrate what they're learning into their own designs. Making neo-trad in a way quite foreseeable. Usual design moves include focus on accessibility and production quality.

Harenstam's comments fit the above. Free League use their Year Zero Engine for other games like Forbidden Lands, which I haven't played but take to lean into sandbox with an OSR feel. Editions of D&D draw on successful experiments around them. Notably 4e, and I can see it in 5e, too. They're always limited by needing to make the game open to all comers. A commercially motivated conservativism.

EDIT Out of curiousity I dug up the original article. Here is a fuller quote (Harenstam)

To the expert, I would say that Mutant: Year Zero is a post-apocalyptic game straddling the line between Gamma World and Apocalypse World, with a bit of Civilization added to the mix. It’s a game very much in the „neotrad“ part of the spectrum – 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.

And later on in the piece

The Mutant franchise has a long history in Sweden. The first edition came out in 1984, and was very much a Gamma World clone but with a ruleset from Basic Roleplaying. In the years since, there have a number of expansions and new editions, each giving the franchise a new spin and flavor. Mutant: Year Zero is something of an homage to the original 1984 version, albeit with a very much modernized rules system and an even greater focus on true post-apocalypse, where the PCs need to fight to survive and to build a new civilization on the ruins of the old...

Other inspirations – if we talk about RPGs – are Urchin, The Quiet Year and some of the OSR hexcrawl systems.

You're right that the "how" benefits from learning what makes it work from the innovators themselves. Through study and play. But then the work is the plain craft of design. The challenge isn't innovation but integration and playtesting. Seeing what the purpose is of each element, and not stranding elements pointlessly. (I'm sure we can both think of examples of that!) Done well, it results in comments like this

Mutant offers in my opinion a fine blend of traditional and indie roleplaying elements combined with a interesting sandbox metaplot approach. Furthermore, the ‚comic‘ presentation of the two available books is beautiful.

It would be a d*** shame if designers weren't doing it. I absolutely want to see brilliant ideas jolting enduring modes into updated forms! You may have noticed me introducing the label "neosim" into some of my posts... that's in the direction of what I'm thinking of.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've often observed a forefront of theory, taking risks and doing great innovation. Professional designers are typically interested, knowledgeable, and admiring of those in that forefront. They look for ways to integrate what they're learning into their own designs. Making neo-trad in a way quite foreseeable. Usual design moves include focus on accessibility and production quality.

Harenstam's comments fit the above. Free League use their Year Zero Engine for other games like Forbidden Lands, which I haven't played but take to lean into sandbox with an OSR feel. Editions of D&D draw on successful experiments around them. Notably 4e, and I can see it in 5e, too. They're always limited by needing to make the game open to all comers. A commercially motivated conservativism.

EDIT Out of curiousity I dug up the original article. Here is a fuller quote (Harenstam)

And later on in the piece

But NONE of that tells me much of anything about how Mutant Year Zero plays. I mean, I have no experience or point of contact with the game, so I have zero opinion on it. The term 'neo-trad' however is almost useless to me. Over the past 40 year that style of game (though the label is newer) has existed, but they're all over the map in terms of important game play factors. Frankly I don't even see it as really being a coherent categorization. Yes, there's some vague generalizations you can make, but in fact if you were to subject these games to analysis in terms of Baker or Edwards' you would learn vastly more. All I learned from 'straddling the line between Gamma World and Apocalypse World' is that it pro ably (as if the name didn't convey this) takes place in a post-apocalyptic milieu. Is the focus of play on reproducing some aspect of post-apocalyptica? On survivalism? On environmental exploration? Tactical combat challenges ala Aftermath? What? You're invoking 'neo-trad', but all that tells me is there's likely more of a focus on player-driven characterization than, say, Gygaxian player challenge. That's SOMETHING but not a lot. How that intersects with AW is kind of anyone's guess though.

The second quote in fact makes me doubt there's anything at all similar to AW there. It sounds more like an old-school survivalist game in the same vein as Aftermath or Twilight 2000.

You're right that the "how" benefits from learning what makes it work from the innovators themselves. Through study and play. But then the work is the plain craft of design. The challenge isn't innovation but integration and playtesting. Seeing what the purpose is of each element, and not stranding elements pointlessly. (I'm sure we can both think of examples of that!) Done well, it results in comments like this

But, again, this mostly evokes the old school. I'm getting an idea, yes, but it could have been concisely conveyed in terms of game design concepts by calling it a GNS S-type post-apocalypse genre survivalism focused game. Now, maybe there are additional elements, I'm not sure what 'indie RP elements' he's talking about, but sandboxed meta-plot, well, I'd have to see it to understand, that's for sure. I mean there's no way to know what all sorts of unique combinations of game elements MIGHT be possible, but overall given the BRP-like core design and very trad-sounding statements I'm in the dark and I'd guess overall we're probably looking at limited coherency '90s style 'trad with a currency' or something. Could be totally wrong of course...

It would be a d*** shame if designers weren't doing it. I absolutely want to see brilliant ideas jolting enduring modes into updated forms! You may have noticed me introducing the label "neosim" into some of my posts... that's in the direction of what I'm thinking of.

So do I, and IMHO, and my limited RPG game design experience, the way that I've found which points in a direction that is fruitful is to go look at the works of Baker/Edwards/Harper/et al and how they think about play, and design around that. It WORKS! I mean, my game may not be some brilliant work, I can't say personally, but it WORKS. It is coherently playable as it stands, and each part contributes. Where it falls down there are clearly diagnostic lessons to be drawn from the above experts which point towards improvements. GDS, 6 cultures of play, etc. never really did any of that for me. I can try to classify the design, and our resulting play, in those terms but it doesn't really lead to any conclusions about game design decisions or play techniques!

 

[clearstream]

But NONE of that tells me much of anything about how Mutant Year Zero plays. I mean, I have no experience or point of contact with the game, so I have zero opinion on it. The term 'neo-trad' however is almost useless to me. Over the past 40 year that style of game (though the label is newer) has existed, but they're all over the map in terms of important game play factors. Frankly I don't even see it as really being a coherent categorization. Yes, there's some vague generalizations you can make, but in fact if you were to subject these games to analysis in terms of Baker or Edwards' you would learn vastly more. All I learned from 'straddling the line between Gamma World and Apocalypse World' is that it pro ably (as if the name didn't convey this) takes place in a post-apocalyptic milieu. Is the focus of play on reproducing some aspect of post-apocalyptica? On survivalism? On environmental exploration? Tactical combat challenges ala Aftermath? What? You're invoking 'neo-trad', but all that tells me is there's likely more of a focus on player-driven characterization than, say, Gygaxian player challenge. That's SOMETHING but not a lot. How that intersects with AW is kind of anyone's guess though.

I am not advocating attempting to understand YZE on the basis of a couple of quotes in an Enworld post.

The second quote in fact makes me doubt there's anything at all similar to AW there. It sounds more like an old-school survivalist game in the same vein as Aftermath or Twilight 2000.

Apply the same rigour we've advocated for games like AW, DitV and DW. Play the games, then judge.

But, again, this mostly evokes the old school. I'm getting an idea, yes, but it could have been concisely conveyed in terms of game design concepts by calling it a GNS S-type post-apocalypse genre survivalism focused game. Now, maybe there are additional elements, I'm not sure what 'indie RP elements' he's talking about, but sandboxed meta-plot, well, I'd have to see it to understand, that's for sure. I mean there's no way to know what all sorts of unique combinations of game elements MIGHT be possible, but overall given the BRP-like core design and very trad-sounding statements I'm in the dark and I'd guess overall we're probably looking at limited coherency '90s style 'trad with a currency' or something. Could be totally wrong of course...

Could be. Comparing successful and more coherent designs with less successful ones helps see what works.

So do I, and IMHO, and my limited RPG game design experience, the way that I've found which points in a direction that is fruitful is to go look at the works of Baker/Edwards/Harper/et al and how they think about play, and design around that. It WORKS! I mean, my game may not be some brilliant work, I can't say personally, but it WORKS. It is coherently playable as it stands, and each part contributes. Where it falls down there are clearly diagnostic lessons to be drawn from the above experts which point towards improvements. GDS, 6 cultures of play, etc. never really did any of that for me. I can try to classify the design, and our resulting play, in those terms but it doesn't really lead to any conclusions about game design decisions or play techniques!

Six Cultures would be a different conversation. As I've said a few times now, I don't apply the label "neo-trad" to cultures of play - OC serves better there IMO - but to the trend in contemporary TTRPG design. I can fruitfully investigate what designers are prioritising and how they're managing the rules and principles to make it work in play. For example, many games now use flags to drive mechanics for advancement, moments of narrative authority, and making it so "when the player means it the character means it." Many games now use a momentum mechanic to feed individual act results into resolution of narrative arcs. Canvassing relevant games, playing and observing play of them, reading critiques, are basic design steps toward understanding how to make advances on valued modes of play.

Labels that characterise game texts and relate them to one another are useful. If you don't think so, then perhaps that isn't true for you. Let's simply agree to disagree on this one.