A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto

[clearstream]

They’re based on the Year Zero Engine, which was described by its creator as neotrad.

Here’s a pretty good summary:

Neotrad Elements



Looking at the article in the link I posted above, I think that the idea of “GM as player” is about reducing the focus on the GM as the primary storyteller. Their role as a participant in the game may be different, but no more important than the players.

Agreed. I see other beneficial consequences, once "no more important" is achieved. (No more important doesn't mean a symmetrical or weaker role!)

I think it’s also about the final element in the list in the article. That there’s no rule zero… the GM is not above the rules. They’re as bound by them as the other participants.

Once GM is as bound by rules as the other participants, it seems a shame to deny them goals...

I think the importance of this varies among neotrad games,

Agree!

and I also think it’s not an element unique to neotrad.

Does that refer refer to the indie-games that innovations in those directions originated from? Or are you thinking of games texts that aim for the things you described, but achieve them without appeal to such innovations? Or maybe games that are neither traditional nor indie...?

 

[Laurefindel]

nice thread

I find the "no rule zero/no golden rule" to be a bit of a misnomer, insofar as many such games do have a rule zero/golden rule clearly stated at some point. They usually go along the way of "this is your game, if a rule goes in the way of what your group considers fun, remove it or change it".

I think in the context of a neotrad game, the golden rule basically means "the rules are there to let each player party (GM and PCs) know what to expect from one another. We propose these rules but you are free to change them as long as the covenant is respected thereafter", but there is a golden rule nonetheless.

One of the ramifications of that is that most neotrad games I know propose a "complete game", as in the rules contained there should cover all situations; GMs are told they shouldn't have to make up rules on the fly in a classical Gygaxian way. But I also know of a bunch of very short, rather minimalist indie games fitting in 1-10 pages, but never really played any. These surely can't propose rules to cover all situations unless they are very broad, and encourage the GM to make stuff up using the little rules they have. Are those considered neotrad, then?

 

[clearstream]

nice thread

I find the "no rule zero/no golden rule" to be a bit of a misnomer, insofar as many such games do have a rule zero/golden rule clearly stated at some point. They usually go along the way of "this is your game, if a rules goes in the way of what your group considers fun, remove it or change it".

That's true. Earthdawn for instance spells out the whole rules-can't-cover-everything / make-the game-your-own-thing, even though it hasn't got anything labelled "rule zero" or "golden rule". The signal question is whether only GM as referee is expected to own that?

I think in the context of a neotrad game, the golden rule basically means "the rules are there to let each player party (GM and PCs) know what to expect from one another. We propose these rules but you are free to change them as long as the covenant is respected thereafter", but there is a golden rule nonetheless.

One of the ramifications of that is that most neotrad games I know propose a "complete game"; the rules should cover all situations, GMs are told they shouldn't have to make up rules on the fly in a classical Gygaxian way. But I also know of a bunch of very short, rather minimalist indie games fitting in 1-10 pages, but never really played any. These surely can't propose rules to cover all situations unless they encourage the GM to make up stuff using the little rules they have. Are those considered neotrad, then?

That is a darned good question. The easy answer might be that the "neotrad manifesto" targets traditional modes like OSR, sandbox, sim and trad; but surely one can point out in response that just about any RPG can hit situations no rule covers.

The innovation one would draw on then, would be those for permissiveness where rules don't apply, such as "say yes, or roll the dice". If it fits a rule, do what the rule says, otherwise say yes.* Words in AW position GM as player, but then encourages adding and revising rules. However, to my reading it makes that a thing anyone can do. The text addresses MC, but the examples reference a bunch of folk. I can't recall if it states it expressly, but my sense is that rules in play at session start would ride. In Avatar, all players - GM especially - are licensed to create custom moves - "you might be interested in creating moves of your own, especially if you're the GM!"

So another answer would be that a) you need a general rule that covers cases not covered by specific rules, and b) a procedure for adding/revising rules that any player can access.

 

[Emberashh]

why can't GM as referee just follow the rules? Why must they be counted among players?

GMs are and always have been Players. Thats true whether you look at the game as elaborate Improv, a board game, or the nebulous non-game-thats-better than those icky board and video games that some people want to believe in.

The rub comes from the fact that GMs have a significantly different role from a colloquial Player, serving in some capacity as the underlying engine for the gameworld. Whether that means simulating a gameworld or just filling in whenever NPCs have to do something is immaterial; GMs facilitate there being a gameworld through rules that enable them to do so.

Even FKR works the same way in this respect, and the only games that defy this structure are solo and co-op games, that shift and distribute that role across the game's procedures and/or other players.

Id argue that historically, the single biggest reason people break from the rules is just rooted in bad game design. I know people typically don't appreciate me passing judgement on their favorite games, but fact of the matter is, people don't go out of their way to break the rules of a game they enjoy unless they have a neurotic compulsion to cheat, which isn't something we can solve with game rules.

Ergo, if so many are refusing to follow the rules, it can be argued the reason lies in the game itself.

Anecdotally, I can point to my favorite two games, as examples. DCC and Ironsworn are games that, relatively speaking, didn't induce any desire in me to change anything about them compared to something like 5e, which I modded to hell and back, or something like Masks, which I so firmly rejected I didn't even bother trying to address it.

Why those games work for me in that way is that they're simply inherently fun in a way pretty much everything else isn't, and while surely a lot of that is rooted in a matter of taste (I clearly enjoy the gonzo nature of DCC, and Ironsworns focus on solo allows me to grok its PBTA-esque design in a way others in its heritage don't), a lot of it is rooted in how the games work mechanically and the overall gamefeel that both produce.

DCC in play is everything DND wants to be and theres seldom a dull moment as other players turns are actually fascinating to watch, especially if they're magic users. Ironsworn, unlike most of the PBTA heritage, is practically always in a first person perspective and this produces a very satisfying aesthetic that works well with its mechanics, making it feel less like I'm following an obligate path and more like I'm playing in a real sandbox, which is my ultimate preference.

Design wise, I personally think its a waste of effort to worry much about people breaking or otherwise ignoring the rules, as what we're really talking about is the game coming into contact with players, and even sans any rule breaking or ignoring, the game is likely going to be played differently from what was expected or intended, and as a designer you have to be willing to accept that that is going to happen.

Video game people learned this decades ago, and this is the underlying logic of design methodologies that focus on chasing the fun. In an rpg, if it can be observed that enough people are consistently ignoring a rule, the simplest solution isn't to try and force the matter but to simply remove that rule.

But, if the rule is important, then we can start examining why it isn't working and what sort of issues is it causing in the game feel.

This methodology was actually the entire point of how I approached Crafting and Degradation in my game.

It was desirable given my game's overall theme that Crafting be elaborate and powerful, and that lead to the design solutions that has Craftables sharing ~50% of the load in terms of combat balance, and in turn necessitated a means of encouraging crafting to be a continual part of gameplay, rather than a one-off activity you do as early as possible.

Hence, Degradation mechanics, that I designed to specifically counteract the most common complaints other games have produced with such mechanics. You can use your items at 100% effectiveness for at least some amount of time, and losing an item permanently is always a choice rather than an obligation. You're simultaneously encouraged to stick with specific items over time, but also to eventually move on to new ones, and its a choice which way you go.

Now, no doubt, if my game takes off, there won't be a shortage of people who would still try to ignore these rules. But that can be understood to just come with the territory, so there's little reason to try and fight it. And that is why I'm very, very careful about not designing the game with breaking points; rules that, if ignored, make the game completely break down and be unfun. Thats why my game is a tactics game for combat; you can't cheat your way around player skill being necessary, regardless of whether you made the party OP by letting them ignore some of the balancing mechanics.

Ideally, the only wrong way to play a game should be to just not play it at all.

 

[tetrasodium]

I feel like the words you responded to had a meaning opposite to the words that I wrote. I might be able to respond to individual points if that can first be elucidated upon.

For example, I've said that players follow rules. No detours around that. In fact, it's a motivation for positioning GM as player.

I don't think that you really can respond to "individual points" because there was really only one. Players notably outnumber their gm nearly 100% of the time at any given table*. As a result of that outnumbering any healthy style of play capable of being defined or catered to should be able to speak about the actual play more verbosely than how it tries to limit the gm.

As long as proponents of neotrad as a gameplay style continue to focus efforts so narrowly at defining the play style with a near total focus on how the gm should be limited the entire hypothetical play style is presented as little more than a shield for poorly behaving players with unreasonable expectations to defend their behavior with.

Every time I've shown the six cultures of play thing to a (problem) player they proudly announce that they are a neotrad player and that everything they were doing is only a problem because someone else (usually the GM) needs to get on board with them. They are able to do that because the 6cultures thing and nearly every effort to build neotrad into something more tries to absolve players from any responsibility for a breakdown in gameplay or story by focusing so exclusively on disempowering or even status stripping the gm.

* solo RPGs exist and sometimes a parent will one on one gm for their little kid or whatever.

 

[pemerton]

I GMed a session of Torchbearer 2e today.

At one point at least, maybe more than once, the players reminded me of some particular rules aspect that constrained me as GM. (I can't remember the details of the one case I clearly remember occurring: I do remember, at the time, thinking that many ENworld posters might be shocked by the idea that I, as GM, could be held to account by a player referencing the rules.)

I personally don't think this creates or illustrates any interesting GM-as-player vs GM-as-"lusory means" distinction. The GM is not a means in any sort of RPGing I'm familiar with. Even in Gygaxian dungeon-crawling they are an active participant making many decisions about the content of the fiction, using only the means permitted by the rules (eg a GM who is refereeing (say) White Plume Mountain is not at liberty just to change, on a whim, the fiction of some particular room, nor the stats of some particular monster or NPC).

On a different point, in another recent thread I characterised neo-trad design as the adaption of certain techniques from "indie" RPGs to a more trad-type high concept sim play; I note that one coiner of the term seems to agree, As per post 42 upthread,

Neotrad A hybrid between simulation games and Story games (below). Often looks like traditional simulation games (expensive books), but contains a lot of inspiration from the indie games mainly in terms of mechanics.​

 

[the Jester]

Even in Gygaxian dungeon-crawling they are an active participant making many decisions about the content of the fiction, using only the means permitted by the rules (eg a GM who is refereeing (say) White Plume Mountain is not at liberty just to change, on a whim, the fiction of some particular room, nor the stats of some particular monster or NPC).

I mean, I have seen or heard of this happening a ton over the years. "In my version of White Plume Mountain, instead of a vampire, I used a specter!" Or "the pcs were doing so well, I had to double the number of monsters to challenge them!"

 

[pemerton]

I mean, I have seen or heard of this happening a ton over the years. "In my version of White Plume Mountain, instead of a vampire, I used a specter!"

If I was playing WPM, and a GM made this sort of change after we had started play, I would be pretty unimpressed.

Or "the pcs were doing so well, I had to double the number of monsters to challenge them!"

And even moreso in this case!

If I'm playing "beat the dungeon" D&D, then I expect the GM to stick to their prep, much as Lewis Pulsipher talked about 40-45 years ago.

 

[the Jester]

If I was playing WPM, and a GM made this sort of change after we had started play, I would be pretty unimpressed.

And even moreso in this case!

If I'm playing "beat the dungeon" D&D, then I expect the GM to stick to their prep, much as Lewis Pulsipher talked about 40-45 years ago.

Personally, I agree. I'm just saying that the practice is pretty common, whatever you (or I) might think of it. Also, it's usually invisible from the player side of the screen- how do you know the DM didn't make those changes in advance (assuming they don't 'fess up)? And there is a school of thought that modifying things to make them "appropriately" challenging is good DMing.

 

[clearstream]

I don't think that you really can respond to "individual points" because there was really only one. Players notably outnumber their gm nearly 100% of the time at any given table*. As a result of that outnumbering any healthy style of play capable of being defined or catered to should be able to speak about the actual play more verbosely than how it tries to limit the gm.

As long as proponents of neotrad as a gameplay style continue to focus efforts so narrowly at defining the play style with a near total focus on how the gm should be limited the entire hypothetical play style is presented as little more than a shield for poorly behaving players with unreasonable expectations to defend their behavior with.

Integrating innovations from indie-games in the design is going to speak most to the actual play. Flag mechanics come to mind. And once you're using those the game tends toward more collaborative. Certainly the goal isn't to provide "a shield for poorly behaving players with unreasonable expectations".

Every time I've shown the six cultures of play thing to a (problem) player they proudly announce that they are a neotrad player and that everything they were doing is only a problem because someone else (usually the GM) needs to get on board with them. They are able to do that because the 6cultures thing and nearly every effort to build neotrad into something more tries to absolve players from any responsibility for a breakdown in gameplay or story by focusing so exclusively on disempowering or even status stripping the g.

Seems to come back to the mix up in terms I mentioned in my OP. They're (claiming to be) an "OC" player, really.