A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto

[kenada]

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).

The muddling is because there’s an inherent conflict of interest between being both an adjudicator and a player (of the world, opposition, etc). There are traditional ways of addressing it, but I think there’s design space to explore different ones as well. It’s something I’ve touched on a few times here as a motivation for exploring systematic approaches in my homebrew system (often inspired by indie games, hence my comments in post #91).

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

The muddling is because there’s an inherent conflict of interest between being both an adjudicator and a player (of the world, opposition, etc). There are traditional ways of addressing it, but I think there’s design space to explore different ones as well. It’s something I’ve touched on a few times here as a motivation for exploring systematic approaches in my homebrew system (often inspired by indie games, hence my comments in post #91).

More softly, it also throws off the alchemy for some players-- they feel like they didn't explore if they're participating in it being generated, they want it to be part of a vision so that someone's curating it, and they want to push their problem solving ability to the fringe without concern for 'holding back' by not using narrative authority over the world around their character.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

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.

This is really a wider problem in the space, where the feedback patterns of players and their relationship with their GM are beginning to echo consumer ones, which are much more demanding, even at unpaid tables. I suspect it has more to do with changing social scripts out in the wild, and how those inform people's ability to understand the distinctions between amateur hospitality (as, a dinner party) and professional hospitality (as, a restaurant.) Traditionally it's considered a faux pas to become overly critical of amateur hospitality, or to insist upon 'alternative service' without a 'need' reason like an allergy or some such. GMing has traditionally fell somewhat into that dinner party category.

But I could be overestimating the difference, I grew up with what I'm perceiving to be the change.

 

[Pedantic]

The muddling is because there’s an inherent conflict of interest between being both an adjudicator and a player (of the world, opposition, etc). There are traditional ways of addressing it, but I think there’s design space to explore different ones as well. It’s something I’ve touched on a few times here as a motivation for exploring systematic approaches in my homebrew system (often inspired by indie games, hence my comments in post #91).

I agree that it's a bit too simple to draw the line at "GM is a player" and call that the bright border that defines or guides this as a school of design. I, for example, would contend there's an important difference between the GM playing the opposition, and the GM creating the world and that how one divides those responsibilities between participants has a more significant impact on play than the whole question of adjudication. You can muddle all three of those together (and one could argue that happens most often in the wild), but that's not contingent.

And adjudication isn't particularly clear either; when we discuss the GM as a referee, do we mean they'll be the final authority to resolve unclear rules, or do we mean they'll be designing rules in real time? If they are designing rules, does that authority extend only to places not covered by existing rules, or does it include continuous review of established rules to some other outside metric?

Personally, I think I think what @clearstream is driving towards may be more about the guiding questions that lead to the design. Those narrative and indie game influences he identifies are not positioned as they are in their source materials; the driving question of the design is not "who has the authority to say what happens next?" That's sidestepped or often explicitly still assigned to the GM, and it isn't boiled down to that question, instead still referencing all those other roles the GM has. You're still playing the opposition, making choices for them that are separate from the PC's actions, and still creating a setting, but additional rules exist to influence what the GM should create, or to limit the opposition's palette of actions.

The question is more "does the GM need unlimited authority over the rules, the setting and the opposition?" and having decided the answer is no, the next question becomes "what is the effect of setting different limitations on that authority?" I don't think it's really worth getting caught up in the mechanism underlying that limitation; quickly you get to the constitution of a game itself and you start having to justify the rules for how a knight moves, which is a separate, not particularly germane discussion.

If you take it as a given that if you tell the GM they must, for example, respect something like a death flag from a player, and can only make choices for the opposition that will result in the player's death when it's indicated, then you end up in a "trad, but" space, which I think is what's being called for, with the design question ultimately being "but what, and why?"

 

[hawkeyefan]

I cannot fathom how you could have possibly interpreted what I said any other way.

Because of your take about expecting to be able to "do anything" and how literal you seem to apply that. Generally, I don't think that is an expectation that most people have.

Aka, the games aren't actually designed for what they're being pitched as.

What games are you talking about? There are plenty of games that don't sell themselves with "you can do anything". There are few that do.

I never said anything relating to what a given game is about.

You can't claim that its only what you were talking about only to then, 5 minutes later, assert its somehow related to what I said.

It isn't. Its a non-sequitur and you're doubling down on it. Let it go or respond to what I actually said, and leave your non-sequiturs out of your replies to me. Thats not an egregious request.

I didn't say it's only what I'm talking about. The two things are related. I'm talking about what games are about... their settings and themes... and how that limits what you were talking about... what the game allows the player to do.

If I join in a classic dungeon crawl game, there's an expectation I engage with the GM's material... namely the dungeon, or at the very least the world in which the dungeon exists. I'm expected to select from the options allowed in the game for the type of character I have and the abilities and gear available to them. And so on.

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, as @kenada pointed out, the comparison falls down because in most sports, the referee isn't simultaneously providing the opposition. There are multiple teams or competitors requiring a neutral third party to adjudicate. So although one of the roles of a GM is that of being a referee, the idea of thinking of them more as a player isn't about the label. It's not about trying to muddy the classification... clearly, everyone knows there is a difference between players and the GM. The definition of neotrad acknowledges the asymmetry of the roles.

What I think it's most about is removal of the primacy of GM as the main storyteller. And that the GM is not above the rules. For many people, these aren't desired, and so they resist even the ideas, whether they desire a type of play for which these ideas are suitable or not.

The GM must remain supreme!

 

[Yora]

More softly, it also throws off the alchemy for some players-- they feel like they didn't explore if they're participating in it being generated, they want it to be part of a vision so that someone's curating it, and they want to push their problem solving ability to the fringe without concern for 'holding back' by not using narrative authority over the world around their character.

Very much true.
But that's exactly why the concept of play cultures was proposed in the first place. And why it was put as play cultures instead of game types.

That's Classic and Oldschool. Neo-trad is specifically about people who don't want that.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Very much true.
But that's exactly why the concept of play cultures was proposed in the first place. And why it was put as play cultures instead of game types.

That's Classic and Oldschool. Neo-trad is specifically about people who don't want that.

Yesn't, in the sense that you're broadly right, but they can still want it in specific places-- they might want a character arc designed around their backstory and a set of plot beats, but still want combat as sport as opposed to combat as spectacle. They may want combat as spectacle so that their arc is assured, but they still want the GM sticking mysteries in the setting for them to piece together that would be ruined if they wrote it.

These things aren't firmly correlated, is what I'm getting at.

 

[Emberashh]

Because of your take about expecting to be able to "do anything" and how literal you seem to apply that. Generally, I don't think that is an expectation that most people have.

Then you must not interact with people new to the hobby. One of the most common ways to get someone on board is the idea that they aren't limited in what they can do like they are in video games.

Thats been the case for decades at this point, so I don't really buy the sudden confusion or doubt.

What games are you talking about? There are plenty of games that don't sell themselves with "you can do anything". There are few that do.

Im going to need you to reread what Ive said, because I've addressed this already. (And i mean everything I've posted, fyi)

I didn't say it's only what I'm talking about. The two things are related. I'm talking about what games are about... their settings and themes... and how that limits what you were talking about... what the game allows the player to do.

If I join in a classic dungeon crawl game, there's an expectation I engage with the GM's material... namely the dungeon, or at the very least the world in which the dungeon exists. I'm expected to select from the options allowed in the game for the type of character I have and the abilities and gear available to them. And so on.

See above. You are talking past me and not actually engaging what I've been saying in this topic.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Then you must not interact with people new to the hobby. One of the most common ways to get someone on board is the idea that they aren't limited in what they can do like they are in video games.

Thats been the case for decades at this point, so I don't really buy the sudden confusion or doubt.

There's no confusion. I realize that sometimes people say that as an element of RPGs, but I don't think that makes it true, nor do I think the games sell themselves as that.

Im going to need you to reread what Ive said, because I've addressed this already. (And i mean everything I've posted, fyi)



See above. You are talking past me and not actually engaging what I've been saying in this topic.

I've been reading what you're saying. Perhaps you've not been as clear as you think?

If you don't think what I've said in response makes sense, I'm not going to try to convince you any further.

 

[Yora]

I believe referee is merely a holdover from a time when people did not yet have a proper name for gamemasters and helped themselves with the next best thing that was somewhat familiar.

RPGs grew out of mini-games within wargames. And in wargames, you often do have an actual referee. Two players, or two teams of players are playing against each other, controlling all the units that are in the game. And the game can have an actual referee who is not participating in the play at all and not controlling any of the units, but simply making neutral, disinterested judgement calls on whether the moves that the players want to make are within the rules of the game.
Once the Special Agent Doing Spying And Sabotage minigame appeared, it was logical to have the decisions what these special agent units would learn or could accomplish made by the same person who was also refereeing the battles. At that point, the role was no longer "just the referee", but still primarily the referee. And once people were doing special mission play without the battles, the role no longer included any refereeing. But as these games where played by people who mostly had been playing wargames, and been calling the people who set up the battlefield and make judgement calls referees for decades, many still continued calling them referees. Out of habit.

But a gamemaster running an RPG is not doing any refereeing. A GM is an active participant in the play. Continuing the use of the term referee in discussions about RPGs is misleading, and I would even go as far as to say factually wrong.