A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto

[Thomas Shey]

I agree that there are players who are more and less proactive about developing plot and such associated with their characters, but all of them WILL do it, and seem to have fun doing so when it is present as an option. As I say, aside from WAY back when in the '80s when I remember a very few "this is my GF, she's playing an elf" type players that really just had no interest at all.

I'll just note token play has always been a thing, and I don't have much sign its vanished, even if its not large.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The same people who will be utterly appalled at someone saying they don't extend a GM unlimited trust seem very unwilling to do even halfway that for players. The double-standard can be kind of striking.

To briefly address this- this just isn't true. When discussing games in the abstract, I think it is always best to assume good faith ("trust") in all participants in the game- GM and players.

That said, as a matter of reality, we've all had bad experiences with other participants at one time or another. One point that I've reiterated about the division of authority is that different games simply have different failure points and tolerances regarding this.

Think of a six-person game. One GM, five players.

In a standard (or traditional) division of authority, you have to have a high amount of trust in the GM. But you don't require the same amount of trust in the players- not just GM to player, but also player-to-player. The upshot of this is that there is only one point of failure (the GM). The downside is that failure ... well, as well known, failure can be catastrophic.

On the other hand, games with high trust required to be established among all the participants may not fail as spectacularly, but they are likely to fail more often since you have more points of failure. In a six-participant game, you can have different points of failure.

I've often noted that this is why D&D (and similar systems) work better with "mixed" tables- you don't need everyone to "bring it" or be equally involved, or even equally, um, trustworthy. On the other hand, other systems work great too, but usually are harder to find groups for consistent play. IMO, etc.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

To briefly address this- this just isn't true. When discussing games in the abstract, I think it is always best to assume good faith ("trust") in all participants in the game- GM and players.

That said, as a matter of reality, we've all had bad experiences with other participants at one time or another. One point that I've reiterated about the division of authority is that different games simply have different failure points and tolerances regarding this.

Think of a six-person game. One GM, five players.

In a standard (or traditional) division of authority, you have to have a high amount of trust in the GM. But you don't require the same amount of trust in the players- not just GM to player, but also player-to-player. The upshot of this is that there is only one point of failure (the GM). The downside is that failure ... well, as well known, failure can be catastrophic.

On the other hand, games with high trust required to be established among all the participants may not fail as spectacularly, but they are likely to fail more often since you have more points of failure. In a six-participant game, you can have different points of failure.

I've often noted that this is why D&D (and similar systems) work better with "mixed" tables- you don't need everyone to "bring it" or be equally involved, or even equally, um, trustworthy. On the other hand, other systems work great too, but usually are harder to find groups for consistent play. IMO, etc.

This, another thing that I've noticed is that trust for something like this doesn't really come down to good faith and bad faith, it usually comes down to competing visions, or competing notions of their own responsibility to anyone else. People aren't making active choices not to agree on things like tone, people just act rather than seek consensus. They're all bringing "it" but they all think "it" is different things, and that represents a bunch of points of failure.

Its inevitably easy to have players who see things differently, even midstream, who are unwilling to offer compromise ("I'm here for what I'm here for man, I don't really think about anything else") or leave ("This is something I do with my friends, its the best way to hang out with ya'll, I'd probably drift away otherwise!"), and instead just pull things in their own sort of direction-- the limitations on their authority are what make them compatible with other players, because I'm the usual GM and I kind of work with everyone's tastes and say "This is where the compromises are, taking everyone into consideration, your other recourse is to stop playing" then maybe adjust the alchemy a bit as I see opportunities to give each person a little more of what they want.

Its just kind of like, a deferral of responsibility for achieving sympatico without a middleman to weave it together-- it happens when I'm picking a game system, it happens when I'm designing content, hell, it happens when I'm a player-- my roleplaying is still helping to stitch the group together somewhat. They aren't even really problem players, everyone's polite to one another and laughing and having a good time at the table when I'm doing this well, and have fun working together in the game. Its specifically the creative sympatico on vision and tone that just isn't super valuable to them, so it produces friction.

This renders my creative direction, largely an act of social mediation, itself somewhat mediated by my love for problem-solving and when it makes sense, worldbuilding. Equal authority would just make conflict for us more of an impasse, and like I recognize there are people who would treat our group as a classic case of "Break up and go find different groups that are more specific to what you each want" but I think we'd all struggle to find it, and as I said, I can thread the needle enough to produce a lot of fun experiences for everyone.

 

[clearstream]

I find the idea of answering questions to tell me which mechanics I should be using pretty strange. It feels exactly backwards compared to established methodologies (e.g., MDA has you start from aesthetics, figure out and model dynamics, then decide on mechanics).

One of the basic assumptions of the MDA approach to design is that designer creates and players consume.

What are your thoughts considering that with TTRPG (unlike the videogames the approach is oriented toward), participant imagination is a mechanism of play, dynamics arise solely to the extent participants process mechanics, and players who do said imagining and processing are, recursively, consumers of the experience (aka aesthetics)?

Consider in that light the arrow of designer intent. And then too, what questions one might encourage designers with a range of target aesthetics to have in mind? I'm not dismissive of a toolkit of design patterns etc. Only that their ability to achieve neotrad piecemeal depends on what you consider its goals to be? Härenstam outlined a  reconciliation.

 

[clearstream]

This renders my creative direction, largely an act of social mediation, itself somewhat mediated by my love for problem-solving and when it makes sense, worldbuilding. Equal authority would just make conflict for us more of an impasse, and like I recognize there are people who would treat our group as a classic case of "Break up and go find different groups that are more specific to what you each want" but I think we'd all struggle to find it, and as I said, I can thread the needle enough to produce a lot of fun experiences for everyone.

To my reading we're not contemplating symmetrical roles in this thread, but only asymmetrical. So without disagreeing, it seems tangential. Or perhaps someone (@Snarf Zagyg?) can clarify why not?

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

To my reading we're not contemplating symmetrical roles in this thread, but only asymmetrical. So without disagreeing, it seems tangential. Or perhaps someone (@Snarf Zagyg?) can clarify why not?

I think at this point we're contemplating a spectrum of symmetricality as suggested by @Thomas Shey in their discussion of utilizing meta currencies to gain authorship in super hero games, the word equal in the quoted section is an overstatement, but when read as 'a greater degree of equality' it functions contextually, the role is still asymmetrical (and therefore, the conflict I'm discussing would be mitigated by my creative direction) but would be less so (and therefore the conflict would arise at a higher rate than it would in a game that doesn't use authorship mechanics in that way.)

 

[kenada]

One of the basic assumptions of the MDA approach to design is that designer creates and players consume.

I mentioned MDA to sidestep questions of my own design experience, though I have worked as a BA and currently work as a software engineer. In a sense, aesthetics are your requirements and dynamics your acceptance criteria, so it seems analogous to practices I have used professionally for quite a while.

I am struck by this comment because it reminds me of criticism of agile I have seen. There are arguments that it doesn’t apply in this or that situation, or a particular project is special or unique in some way. I haven’t found that to be true (but there are problems with implementing agile that are real, which is out of scope for this discussion, but it would be remiss of me to fail to acknowledge that they exist). I don’t see anything about tabletop RPGs that makes them incompatible with an approach like MDA. It’s just that’s not how they’re usually discussed.

What are your thoughts considering that with TTRPG (unlike the videogames the approach is oriented toward), participant imagination is a mechanism of play, dynamics arise solely to the extent participants process mechanics, and players who do said imagining and processing are, recursively, consumers of the experience (aka aesthetics)?

This is tricky because it’s using aesthetics and dynamics differently than MDA does. An aesthetic in MDA is essentially a type of fun. It’s not about what the mechanics feel like or how they manifest — that’s dynamics. From my perspective, I’m starting from the fun I want to capture (“what is this game about?”), and then I’m answering how I want that to manifest.

For example, I could¹ describe my homebrew system as an exploration-oriented sandbox game. In terms of aesthetics, that’s stuff like challenge, discovery, fantasy, expression, fellowship, narrative. Notably, I exclude submission and sensation. I’m not going for experiential, immersive, or curated play. It may or may not work, but I consider supporting those things as non-goals.

The first order dynamics model involves the referee and the players. These are the participants. The referee operates according to certain procedures, and the players engage with the game in certain ways. The referee can exercise discretion (what I will probably refer to as arbitration), but how and where that is done is handled procedurally. If the players win in a conflict, that victory must be respected. There is a “story”, but it must emerge from play rather than being curated by the referee. That’s why discretion is handled via procedure. And so on (for combat, zoom, framing, etc).

From there, I can start picking out actual mechanics: how I operationalize skill checks and their results, how combat works, the various procedures that are followed in play. In a way, System Does Matter is my sanity check. (Yes, I think there is some RPG theory that can be used to reconcile MDA with tabletop RPGs. I also find Baker helpful as well as some of the discussions about things like authority.) Do the mechanics support my outlook (the aesthetics)? Are they appropriate (supporting my dynamics)? If yes, then I’m on the right track. If not, I have work to do. Of course, you actually have to play the system.

I’m a really big fan of getting something working then iterating on it. Early designs started off as OSE/WWN hybrids before evolving away from that to where I am today. Getting an MPV quickly lets you see how things work in actual play, which is important. Something may seem good in theorycraft but suck badly in play. It can also reveal gaps you didn’t expect. (And historically, that’s how D&D evolved out of Arneson’s Blackmoor game.)

Consider in that light the arrow of designer intent.

Hopefully the above clarifies my perspective. I would put the way you describe “imagination” and the way it is used by participants at the table in the dynamics category because there are different ways we can operationalize it. I think the inclusion of “imagination” in its dynamics is what separates tabletop RPGs from adventure board games like Middara and video game RPGs. (Note: From a design perspective. It’s possible some dynamics could be optional depending on the game, and that may even be a design goal.)

---

1: “Could” does a lot of work here. I’m not approaching it quite this formally, but some of the dynamics are things I have thought about.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To briefly address this- this just isn't true. When discussing games in the abstract, I think it is always best to assume good faith ("trust") in all participants in the game- GM and players.

That said, as a matter of reality, we've all had bad experiences with other participants at one time or another. One point that I've reiterated about the division of authority is that different games simply have different failure points and tolerances regarding this.

Think of a six-person game. One GM, five players.

In a standard (or traditional) division of authority, you have to have a high amount of trust in the GM. But you don't require the same amount of trust in the players- not just GM to player, but also player-to-player. The upshot of this is that there is only one point of failure (the GM). The downside is that failure ... well, as well known, failure can be catastrophic.

I don't think I agree. A single player with an urge to sabotage things can do just as fine a job as a GM, its just that he can't hide under the aegis of the GM to justify it. And the fact some degree of trust in the GM is needed, does not mandate needing it to be unlimited; as I've noted before, I don't find trusting a GM's intentions and trusting their judgment the same thing at all. There's no way to address the former while letting the do what they need to do, but you absolutely can put in constraints on failures of the latter. Its just that some people are completely hostile to the idea.

On the other hand, games with high trust required to be established among all the participants may not fail as spectacularly, but they are likely to fail more often since you have more points of failure. In a six-participant game, you can have different points of failure.

Again, I think even conventional old-school games can have this happen--in some respects more if there's a hands-off ethic the way some hardcore old school GMs have. Unexpected treachery or Leroy Jenkins-ism can wreck a game right quick.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think at this point we're contemplating a spectrum of symmetricality as suggested by @Thomas Shey in their discussion of utilizing meta currencies to gain authorship in super hero games, the word equal in the quoted section is an overstatement, but when read as 'a greater degree of equality' it functions contextually, the role is still asymmetrical (and therefore, the conflict I'm discussing would be mitigated by my creative direction) but would be less so (and therefore the conflict would arise at a higher rate than it would in a game that doesn't use authorship mechanics in that way.)

I'm not actually sold it would be any more frequent, it just would have more process for addressing it. Bluntly, the only reason I think you don't hear about it with the conventional approach more is so many players are told to, essentially, suck it up.

 

[clearstream]

I mentioned MDA to sidestep questions of my own design experience, though I have worked as a BA and currently work as a software engineer. In a sense, aesthetics are your requirements and dynamics your acceptance criteria, so it seems analogous to practices I have used professionally for quite a while.

Here I will just observe that a BA and software engineer are operating at a layer of design above what I'm considering. They are soliciting requirements and designing the solution.

I am struck by this comment because it reminds me of criticism of agile I have seen. There are arguments that it doesn’t apply in this or that situation, or a particular project is special or unique in some way. I haven’t found that to be true (but there are problems with implementing agile that are real, which is out of scope for this discussion, but it would be remiss of me to fail to acknowledge that they exist). I don’t see anything about tabletop RPGs that makes them incompatible with an approach like MDA. It’s just that’s not how they’re usually discussed.

Well, MDA formally can't describe TTRPG design, but some later frameworks in the same family possibly can.

Ask agile how it feels about dependencies extending outside the putatively multidisciplinary team? That silence is analogous to MDA-family of frameworks silence on audience as format and author.

This is tricky because it’s using aesthetics and dynamics differently than MDA does. An aesthetic in MDA is essentially a type of fun. It’s not about what the mechanics feel like or how they manifest — that’s dynamics. From my perspective, I’m starting from the fun I want to capture (“what is this game about?”), and then I’m answering how I want that to manifest.

I think you are answering engineering questions, while the ones I'm asking are ludological. You're asking "how can I make an omelette", I'm asking "how does our conception and choice of chef relate to our food choices?"

The first order dynamics model involves the referee and the players. These are the participants. The referee operates according to certain procedures, and the players engage with the game in certain ways. The referee can exercise discretion (what I will probably refer to as arbitration), but how and where that is done is handled procedurally. If the players win in a conflict, that victory must be respected. There is a “story”, but it must emerge from play rather than being curated by the referee. That’s why discretion is handled via procedure. And so on (for combat, zoom, framing, etc).

How does one ensure that the story emerges from play? What does each participant need to be doing or not doing, for that to be true?

From there, I can start picking out actual mechanics: how I operationalize skill checks and their results, how combat works, the various procedures that are followed in play. In a way, System Does Matter is my sanity check. (Yes, I think there is some RPG theory that can be used to reconcile MDA with tabletop RPGs. I also find Baker helpful as well as some of the discussions about things like authority.) Do the mechanics support my outlook (the aesthetics)? Are they appropriate (supporting my dynamics)? If yes, then I’m on the right track. If not, I have work to do. Of course, you actually have to play the system.

Another analogy might be to ask - what is the impact of the chosen technology on the games that can be made. If your chosen format has consequences for the way your mechanics will translate to dynamics and thus aesthetics, you cannot design those away. Your intended aesthetic will not play as intended (or your intentions were formed within the envelope of those consequences.)

I’m a really big fan of getting something working then iterating on it. Early designs started off as OSE/WWN hybrids before evolving away from that to where I am today. Getting an MPV quickly lets you see how things work in actual play, which is important. Something may seem good in theorycraft but suck badly in play. It can also reveal gaps you didn’t expect. (And historically, that’s how D&D evolved out of Arneson’s Blackmoor game.)

Agreed! As Nintendo observes, game experience quality is closely connected with amount of playtesting. One class of problematic designs are those that need a lot to be put in place before you can start iterating.

Hopefully the above clarifies my perspective. I would put the way you describe “imagination” and the way it is used by participants at the table in the dynamics category because there are different ways we can operationalize it. I think the inclusion of “imagination” in its dynamics is what separates tabletop RPGs from adventure board games like Middara and video game RPGs. (Note: From a design perspective. It’s possible some dynamics could be optional depending on the game, and that may even be a design goal.)

Thank you for your patience! It feels like we're asking dissimilar questions.

EDIT I would assert again that it's imagination as mechanics that separates them! Look at Baker's diagrams. What happens in the clouds?

Mechanics are the various actions, behaviors and control mechanisms afforded to the player within a game context.

Of course some mechanics are cubes, but as a player I can control my fictional positioning with at times no reversion to cubes. I can act, in fiction... in imagination. Everyone else making updates to their draft, to match.

That aside, to see how the questions raised could matter to you as a designer, think how your design would be played under varying GMing assumptions. What changes? What design moves might some assumptions open up that other assumptions would shut down. How will aesthetics change as a result?