A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto

[Thomas Shey]

Football referee's are bound by the rules. They aren't players. They even make judgement calls that can often seem very arbitrary.

To say it a little more clearly - 'Players follow the rules pertaining to them. Refs follow the rules pertaining to them - rules which typically require them to serve as a player rules enforcer', but sometime the rules may also pertain to how they are required to do things as well.

I think referring to referees as players just because games typically have rules around the referee role only serves to muddy the waters. However, there is a way the GM is like a player (a way that the football ref isn't) and it's got nothing to do with following rules - it's about them playing the opposition.

I realize that this is probably calling-back to an earlier post drawing a football analogy that I skimmed over, but I'm not sold sports refs are a good comparison to GMs; the latter have far more player-like actions they participate in, in the form of the creative elements and things like operating NPCs. I think thinking in terms of them as referees (though in classic usage that's certainly part of their position) mostly muddies the water of the discussion (especially since part of the question is whether their refereeing element being unique to them is actually necessary).

 

[clearstream]

I don't think it is helpful to confuse the issue to say that the GM is a player.

Would it be right then to say that by your lights games such as Forbidden Lands, Apocalypse World and Torchbearer 2 that expressly call GM a player, must be using the term as a synonym of "participant" as GM is never a player?

 

[tetrasodium]

I do intend making GM a player to imply that players may become more like GMs. Once a GM is a player, then it is the case that GM powers are held by players.

But you are trying to mark out a play style rather than a gm style. You can't wait to get gm buy-in before taking the first steps towards thinking about nailing down the player side of things. That's even more critical to do in the right order when the play style is pretty much disempower the gm and give that power to the players

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Would it be right then to say that by your lights games such as Forbidden Lands, Apocalypse World and Torchbearer 2 that expressly call GM a player, must be using the term as a synonym of "participant" as GM is never a player?

While I have written on the topic before (and before, and etc.), I think that it it fairly easy to understand.

All people involved in the game are "participants." So, to the extent that certain people want to engage in semantic games to score debating points, it is a truism that every participant in the game (the "players" and the "referees") are all ... playing the game. Which means that they are all "players." Because ... wait for it ... they are all playing. But this is akin to someone saying that the the umpire in a baseball game is also a player because ... yes, they are also "playing" baseball- technically correct, but also not how anyone would use the word. No referee of a basketball game (for example) would say, "I am a player!"

Under the general conventions that I previously discussed, TTRPGs have always defined two different roles within the game, and those roles have always been ... Players and Referee (GM, DM, etc.). To the extent that the few games that do not have referees (Fiasco) explicitly are denoted as such.

Now, there are certain people who want to confuse this long-standing delineation that everyone else understands in order to make a certain ideological point regarding their style of gaming. As you note, "games such as Forbidden Lands, Apocalypse World and Torchbearer 2 ... expressly call {the} GM a player{.}" The reason for that is not because of the long-standing understanding within TTRPGs, or even because those games don't recognize the distinction (they do!), but because they are making an ideological point about the division of authority within those games.

But instead of just being explicit about that, we get endless debates about the definition of a "player," even though this is a meaningless distraction about what is going on. It's like a lot of the debates we get ... it's just certain people trying to force terminology that is not used on to others. Which I am generally against.

 

[clearstream]

But you are trying to mark out a play style rather than a gm style.

More a design move. It would give the text a certain utility, which groups may avail of

You can't wait to get gm buy-in before taking the first steps towards thinking about nailing down the player side of things. That's even more critical to do in the right order when the play style is pretty much disempower the gm and give that power to the players

Taking you to mean "disempower GM" as referee, that can't occur once GM is player. Rather, a new and intentional, rules-based division of power comes into being. GM as referee is no longer extant.

 

[FrogReaver]

I realize that this is probably calling-back to an earlier post drawing a football analogy that I skimmed over, but I'm not sold sports refs are a good comparison to GMs; the latter have far more player-like actions they participate in, in the form of the creative elements and things like operating NPCs. I think thinking in terms of them as referees (though in classic usage that's certainly part of their position) mostly muddies the water of the discussion (especially since part of the question is whether their refereeing element being unique to them is actually necessary).

Right, I wouldn’t count the creative elements as part of the referee role. Things like operating NPCs is the DM playing the opposition and that makes him a player as well.

Being a referee and a player is somewhat of an odd marriage. Yet, that’s what we see time and time again across games, even pickup basketball - and it’s competitive.

So referees don’t need to be separate from players. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t the ideal state. There’s a reason league sports have referees separate from the players.

Circling back around to the GM being a player - he’s not a typical player. He’s not playing the opposition to try and win - or at least needn’t be. He has goals that completely supersede winning. As such he’s a special type of player, different from all the others. He’s the GM.

 

[FrogReaver]

While I have written on the topic before (and before, and etc.), I think that it it fairly easy to understand.

All people involved in the game are "participants." So, to the extent that certain people want to engage in semantic games to score debating points, it is a truism that every participant in the game (the "players" and the "referees") are all ... playing the game. Which means that they are all "players." Because ... wait for it ... they are all playing. But this is akin to someone saying that the the umpire in a baseball game is also a player because ... yes, they are also "playing" baseball- technically correct, but also not how anyone would use the word. No referee of a basketball game (for example) would say, "I am a player!"

Under the general conventions that I previously discussed, TTRPGs have always defined two different roles within the game, and those roles have always been ... Players and Referee (GM, DM, etc.). To the extent that the few games that do not have referees (Fiasco) explicitly are denoted as such.

Now, there are certain people who want to confuse this long-standing delineation that everyone else understands in order to make a certain ideological point regarding their style of gaming. As you note, "games such as Forbidden Lands, Apocalypse World and Torchbearer 2 ... expressly call {the} GM a player{.}" The reason for that is not because of the long-standing understanding within TTRPGs, or even because those games don't recognize the distinction (they do!), but because they are making an ideological point about the division of authority within those games.

But instead of just being explicit about that, we get endless debates about the definition of a "player," even though this is a meaningless distraction about what is going on. It's like a lot of the debates we get ... it's just certain people trying to force terminology that is not used on to others. Which I am generally against.

Welcome to the linguistical semantical gymnastics!

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, in some cases, that is a practical consequence of no one else being willing to GM.

So what, a game isn’t required.

 

[Emberashh]

Given I've literally never seen anyone do that--no one acted the least surprised that there were expectations when they got into a game based on general setting and genre--I'm not buying it. Even the people who see to think a game isn't an RPG unless its an open sandbox expect borders of some kind on the experience.



Extreme outliers are just that. Unless you can demonstrate they're otherwise, you're presenting that as though it says anything about the general hobby experience. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Given the most popular game in the world is a rulings game, I don't think I need any particularly extraordinary evidence.

An open-ended border (eg what the DM is willing to allow) isn't really a border, because we can't make generalizations about what a generic GM would or wouldn't allow, as thats to the individuals taste, so the most minimal generalization we can derive is that players could theoretically do anything, which isn't much of a distinction.

Particularly when the actual point is that the perception is the issue, not whether or not its literally true.

 

[tetrasodium]

More a design move. It would give the text a certain utility, which groups may avail of


Taking you to mean "disempower GM" as referee, that can't occur once GM is player. Rather, a new and intentional, rules-based division of power comes into being. GM as referee is no longer extant.

There is no need for this linguistic hair splitting pedantry and implied ELI5 in order to continue trying to nail down step two or three before starting on step one. We all know what the 6 cultures of play says about the GM in the neotrad section and you were not exactly subtle about the gm's role in this or any of your other threads you started on neotrad. You need to stop talking about the GM and start talking about ways the players need to step up if the goal is anything other than a vehicle for an unreasonable player to sit back with arms crossed and call for the GM to make it work while accepting responsibility or blame for failure.