A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto

[tetrasodium]

Though I think it's fairly unambiguous that this is highly controversial within the Classic play style. It's a position that you have to defend against strong opposition, which I would regard as strong evidence of it not being part of the culture itself.

That cuts both ways though.... How does the player know that the gm changed the vampire on page xx out for a wraith or whatever unless they are somehow metagaming? Even if the player is innocently using knowledge from having played or run it before, the gm can simply state that as the reason he or she decided to change it to something else from the outset pending judgement of how much value players were getting out of previously playing the module.

 

[Emberashh]

A lot of this argument just highlights why I consider embracing sandbox play so important.

And why its so important for sandbox play to embrace the possibility of losing, and for losing to not be the end of the game.

It kinda cuts both ways; on the one hand, players, gms and colloquial players, need to be more willing to just go with what happens, and to let go of the obsessive desires to force stories to happen.

On the other, games need to do better at being designed to do a circular gameplay loop. Eg, the game's only endstate is willingly stopping play.

 

[the Jester]

Actually, as a lifelong GM, I don't have an issue with counting the GM as a player in a sense; I just think the role they serve is different enough as a player I don't see that characterization as particularly significant.

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.

 

[the Jester]

Though I think it's fairly unambiguous that this is highly controversial within the Classic play style. It's a position that you have to defend against strong opposition, which I would regard as strong evidence of it not being part of the culture itself.

I'd say the presence of the debate itself makes it clear that it is a part of the culture. It's one valid playstyle of many.

 

[Yora]

A lot of this argument just highlights why I consider embracing sandbox play so important.

And why its so important for sandbox play to embrace the possibility of losing, and for losing to not be the end of the game.

It kinda cuts both ways; on the one hand, players, gms and colloquial players, need to be more willing to just go with what happens, and to let go of the obsessive desires to force stories to happen.

On the other, games need to do better at being designed to do a circular gameplay loop. Eg, the game's only endstate is willingly stopping play.

Story in an RPG should be the outcomes of the PCs' actions and decisions.

I feel everything else is missing the entire point of RPGs.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

I think the GM should have goals for play. I just think that, in a neotrad game, those goals should be either sufficiently broad or sufficiently focused on the characters.

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...?

Yes!

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

I mean… there could also be a game where there’s one GM and one player that’s not out of necessity. I’ve played this way plenty of times, and although it requires some different techniques, it’s a perfectly valid way to play.

That the players typically outnumber the GM may be true, but I really don’t think it matters.

If the goal is not simply being a shield for poor player behavior, why are the terms accepted and in use by semi-mainstream ttrpgs using them being rejected?

What? Who is rejecting what in the above?

The idea that neotrad is just “a shield for poor player behavior” is really odd. I’ve played in and GMed plenty such games. I’d say the bulk of my earliest play was neotrad, well before the term was even coined.

Those games didn’t involve poor player behavior at all.

Though I think it's fairly unambiguous that this is highly controversial within the Classic play style. It's a position that you have to defend against strong opposition, which I would regard as strong evidence of it not being part of the culture itself.

This is an area I’m not quite clear on. Is adjusting challenge in that way trad or neotrad or both?

It seems more trad to me, but I think it’s probably a practice that generally sees a lot of overlap between the two. I mean, there aren’t hard and fast lines between these cultures and how folks implement their elements into their games.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It kinda cuts both ways; on the one hand, players, gms and colloquial players, need to be more willing to just go with what happens, and to let go of the obsessive desires to force stories to happen.

Why should they be forced to change if they’re enjoying what they’re doing?

I mean, my own preferences tend to run that way… I want story, such as it is, to be emergent from play. At least, I prefer that most of the time.

This past week in one of my games, our regular GM wasn’t able to make it, so another player stepped up and ran a one shot. That one shot was very much designed with a story in mind. And it was perfectly fine… we all knew that going in, and we were perfectly happy to take part. And it was enjoyable.

Likewise, you seem to be advocating for removal of adventure path games… which is one of the most popular play modes in the entire hobby. Saying that folks really need to be willing to stop playing this way… I can’t agree.

 

[overgeeked]

Yeah. I think there's just a whole lot of talking past each other going on.

My objection to the notion of the referee as a player stems from the disparity in authority and responsibility involved. My objection to referee as bound by the rules stems from the fact that for RPGs to function the referee must exercise their own judgement, even when that contradicts the rules. I've played, collected, ran, and otherwise engaged with the hobby for about 40 years. I read widely in RPGs and I've yet to see a single RPG that's so perfectly designed that the referee's role as arbiter is not required for the game to run. The difference between playing a video game and playing an RPG is the referee. If you don't want a human referee there to make decisions, make calls, and yes...sometimes changes the rules to make things work, you probably don't actually want to play an RPG.

I'll bow out here as we're already deep into the same pointless loop as every other time this comes up.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah. I think there's just a whole lot of talking past each other going on.

Agreed.

My objection to the notion of the referee as a player stems from the disparity in authority and responsibility involved.

But the disparity is acknowledged. It’s understood that these different roles have different input on the game. Just as a quarterback and a kicker have on football, or a goalie and a midfielder in soccer. And so on. They’re all still players.

My objection to referee as bound by the rules stems from the fact that for RPGs to function the referee must exercise their own judgement, even when that contradicts the rules.

I don’t think this is entirely true. I think that a GM must use judgment, yes, but I don’t think that such judgment must at times contradict the rules.

I think if we want to avoid talking past each other, we have to accept that there is not just one type of play. That different games do some things differently, despite having other things in common.

Instead of fighting the premise, maybe accept it and discuss? Perhaps that would reduce the amount of talking past one another?

 

[Aldarc]

My objection to referee as bound by the rules stems from the fact that for RPGs to function the referee must exercise their own judgement, even when that contradicts the rules. I've played, collected, ran, and otherwise engaged with the hobby for about 40 years. I read widely in RPGs and I've yet to see a single RPG that's so perfectly designed that the referee's role as arbiter is not required for the game to run. The difference between playing a video game and playing an RPG is the referee. If you don't want a human referee there to make decisions, make calls, and yes...sometimes changes the rules to make things work, you probably don't actually want to play an RPG.

I'll bow out here as we're already deep into the same pointless loop as every other time this comes up.

This function does not need to be solely the GM's responsibility. A number of games, such as Fate and Fabula Ultima, talk about having the GM discussing these matters openly with the players and the table deciding together. The GM may make the final call, but others at the table are also exercising their own judgment.

Edit: Notice the language used in Fate's Silver Rule, which speaks to making judgments that contradict the rules:

The Silver Rule​

The corollary to the Golden Rule is as follows: Never let the rules get in the way of what makes narrative sense. If you or the players narrate something in the game and it makes sense to apply a certain rule outside of the normal circumstances where you would do so, go ahead and do it.

The most common example of this has to do with consequences. The rules say that by default, a consequence is something a player chooses to take after getting hit by an attack in a conflict.

But say you’re in a scene where a player decides that, as part of trying to intimidate his way past someone, his PC is going to punch through a glass-top table with a bare fist.

Everyone likes the idea and thinks it’s cool, so no one’s interested in what happens if the PC fails the roll. However, everyone agrees that it also makes sense that the PC would injure his hand in the process (which is part of what makes it intimidating).

It’s totally fine to assign a mild consequence of Glass in My Hand in that case, because it fits with the narration, even though there’s no conflict and nothing technically attacked the PC.

As with the Golden Rule, make sure everyone’s on the same page before you do stuff like this.