A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto

[Thomas Shey]

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the issue that I was describing, as well as the tradeoffs.

You have to start by acknowledging that I am not advocating for (or against) a particular model of play or distribution of authority; as I wrote before, all of them come with advantages and disadvantage- that is to say, that they come with tradeoffs. More fundamentally, I think it is best to examine these models of play assuming good faith (and high trust) with all the participants.

Unfortunately, people don't. Instead, people always assume that everyone playing their game is playing in good faith, while everyone playing the other game is playing the least-optimal version. Which makes conversations difficult. It's why you have the endless regress of:

I'd find that more credible if I was describing a game as I run it. Other than the fact I've never assumed the really hard edged rules and narrative control some gamers seem to do, I run pretty conventional games in most regards; at most some people would probably consider me "slack" on allowing rules challenges in a way that violate their sense of pace.

The gig is that while I don't assume malice in other participants characterization of how they run or think games should be run, I absolutely don't also assume their characterization of how things should and do work out is accurate. People are too capable of being blind to failure states in play, and there's often incentives for players to let things pass until they're utterly intolerable, and people who place a value in how things are already done are not heavily incentivized to see whether there's problems that are not obvious to them. I've seen enough of that over the years that claims of "I never see a problem with how I'm doing it" just don't hold heavy water (they also aren't automatically wrong; it can be entirely true in their person situation. Its just not terribly relevant).

As I wrote before, games with a more distributed authority model can be great! Depending on the table. Trouble is this ... if you have a "LeRoy Jenkins type" (or any of a number of other types) they can do a lot more damage in a model where you have more distributed authority. Different types of players, even bad players, or low-energy players, can have their disadvantages mitigated somewhat with centralized authority. Not to mention a lot of players simply don't want the authority. There is a reason that not every player can, or wants to, "bring it" every session.

And again, I'm still claiming that I don't see this as intrinsically the case. It (to be clear) can be the case, but as a generalization I'm simply not seeing a reason why it should be. At worst, it simply means that a subset of the participants in a distributed model are needing to do the heavy lifting, but I'm still not buying that's somehow more problematic than having one doing it. Everything else is just accepting the hobby's default expectations rather than setting new ones for a group.

Which is why (IMO) games with distributed authority continue to be great games, but tend to be the minority of the market. There are a lot of games I love that have give a great deal of narrative authority to the players, but I've found that you have to have the right group for them.

This requires an assumption leap in my opinion, since the historical weight of centralized authority in games would have to be overcome for it not to be the norm; the benefits a more distributed model would have to not only exist, but be ovewhelming to dislodge that cultural inertia (and isn't likely to be helped by the way hierarchical structures are taken as a given in so much else in modern life).

Different models work for different groups at different times, and that's a good thing.

Yes, the question is whether the default assumption of the top-down model is actually work best for the majority of groups, or is it just history and expectation talking? I don't find the arguments I've seen to date and observation of the hobby having made a strong argument for the former so far.

 

[Emberashh]

Alas, quite a bit of discourse is of poor quality. However, I think I feel less down than you regarding RPG theory. There’s some poor stuff (particularly anything overly concerned with taxonomies), but I think there’s some that can be useful or provide insight, especially when they are reconciled with other theories

I tend to find it more useful to look at what people care and complain about with different concepts and ideas, as that has tended to reveal the right sort of questions to ask when designing towards those ideas and concepts.

For my goals, I’m not trying to have something emerge that looks like a traditional narrative emerge. It may be possible to turn a particular sequence of events into something that looks like one, but it’s not a dynamic I’m trying to create per se. What I do want (and have seen) is for players to treat the events that have happened as something real. From there, you can get war stories, party mythos, etc.

Right, thats more or less the same thing. The idea behind an emergent trad narrative is that all the elements would be there, but not forced. Eg, a "dramatic twist" is just a systemic result that's suitably shocking due to the context of that system. If the Cute Bunny Rabbit is systemically lead to suddenly murdering the Party Paladin, thats the idea.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yes, the question is whether the default assumption of the top-down model is actually work best for the majority of groups, or is it just history and expectation talking? I don't find the arguments I've seen to date and observation of the hobby having made a strong argument for the former so far.

Well, at this point it's a rather bizarre statement to make. You don't seem to want to engage in, or accept, any discussions, do you?

I could (obviously) point out to the obvious- which is to say that the vast majority of games in actuality are run this way, despite the presence of other games.

I could point out the fact that there are many people (including me) who run both types of games, and have observed this in practice. In other words, not all groups (or players) are equally amenable to shared authority.

I could point out my repeated assertions regarding why this model is used in terms of numbers; when you have the shared authority, you are sharing the "GM role," and as we all know, there are far more people that are willing to play than are willing to have narrative authority. In fact, I assume that we all know people like this (even if it's just Brad, whose girlfriend drags him to the game).

But sure, at a certain point you can ignore all of this and just keep reiterating that GMs are bad. Which is exactly the point I was arguing against. I will say this one more time- different models are great for different tables.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, at this point it's a rather bizarre statement to make. You don't seem to want to engage in, or accept, any discussions, do you?

I'll engage with it. I don't think I'm required to accept it when I've heard it all before, though. Just because someone wants to make an argument doesn't require me to consider their argument valid. Maybe someone will bring up something new, but this isn't exactly my first rodeo on this topic; I've been discussing it with people for at least 30 years now.

I could (obviously) point out to the obvious- which is to say that the vast majority of games in actuality are run this way, despite the presence of other games.

The vast majority of games are D&D, which have exactly the sort of traditional back-pressure I was talking about. As I said, there'd not only have to be benefits to doing otherwise, they'd have to be overwhelming to displace that.

I could point out the fact that there are many people (including me) who run both types of games, and have observed this in practice. In other words, not all groups (or players) are equally amenable to shared authority.

And I don't think I've ever argued that they are. That's not the same as defaulting to centralized authority.

I could point out my repeated assertions regarding why this model is used in terms of numbers; when you have the shared authority, you are sharing the "GM role," and as we all know, there are far more people that are willing to play than are willing to have narrative authority. In fact, I assume that we all know people like this (even if it's just Brad, whose girlfriend drags him to the game).

This only seems an argument that makes sense if you assume GMs won't bother unless they have all the control, which doesn't seem to be particularly complimentary to them.

But sure, at a certain point you can ignore all of this and just keep reiterating that GMs are bad. Which is exactly the point I was arguing against. I will say this one more time- different models are great for different tables.

I've never said GMs are bad. I've been one most of my gaming life. I've said that assuming all the power has to be centralized in them as a default is bad more often than not (and it should be noted, that doesn't mean that full blown collective process is required to avoid it). There's a difference.

 

[clearstream]

I will reiterate what I stated before- by emphasizing this (and as you acknowledge, and as I have previously stated, this is an intensely ideological statement), you will be attracting some people, and very much signaling to others that they are not welcome to the conversation.

Take that as you will.

Well, it is a manifesto after all. If it wasn't provocative, what would be the point?!

It's also a manifesto for designers (as per my OP I take neotrad to be a trend in TTRPG design.) I'm saying that if Jo-designer simply imports a few mechanics from indie-games, well... that's not nothing, but it's also not "neo". The play observed will be traditional (and where it is not, that will be because the group itself have applied the prescription). In the past, I have argued that high GM-curation means that any traditional game can be redesigned at the table to neotrad. You've discussed this potential as "secondary design" (not to the same ends, of course.) Here I'm suggesting it's better if the neotrad-designer set things up to see the game played as they intended, rather than leave that to chance.

I picture designers to be fierce and thick-skinned, more than capable of inviting themselves in, using your favourite coffee cup, and lounging on your sofa for an indefinite period of time (are they really staying overnight uninvited, you wonder, tapping your watchface and frowning.) They're unafraid of ideological positions: they have a dozen themselves!

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

And again, this is worse than the same behavior when confronted with a GM making what seems bad decisions in...? Because you'll see people claim no one succumbs to the power of the GM in similar situations.

You only need one possible GM in a group who takes the fun of other people seriously, and by definition, groups self-select GMs who perform that role based on their willingness to run a game. It doesn't always work, but I'd be confused how it's possible to come to the conclusion that the percentage of selfish players and selfish GMs are equal because the incentives to be one or the other aren't the same and games, as well as the culture at large, prep them differently. There's also something to be said for the fact that a group can try out different people willing to GM to fix a GM problem and "getting a chance to play" is considered a good thing by GMs, so its frequently fixable by another player stepping up and wanting to run games.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'll engage with it. I don't think I'm required to accept it when I've heard it all before, though. Just because someone wants to make an argument doesn't require me to consider their argument valid. Maybe someone will bring up something new, but this isn't exactly my first rodeo on this topic; I've been discussing it with people for at least 30 years now.

Or maybe you just keep riding the horse, getting thrown off, and saying, "There is no horse."

This only seems an argument that makes sense if you assume GMs won't bother unless they have all the control, which doesn't seem to be particularly complimentary to them.

See, this is how you unintentionally show where you are coming from, despite your protestations. Look again at what I wrote- I was pointing out that far more people want to play than to GM- this is a completely unexceptional point. Heck, even a lot of GMs I know prefer playing, but default to GMing because no one else in the group is willing to do it. And somehow, you manage to turn that into ... whatever that statement is.

Yeah, we've all had an experience with a bad GM. I think I've acknowledged that. But this was supposed to be a discussion about different models and their tradeoffs. Given your style, it is apparent that is not possible. So you enjoy yourself.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well, it is a manifesto after all. If it wasn't provocative, what would be the point?!

It's also a manifesto for designers (as per my OP I take neotrad to be a trend in TTRPG design.) I'm saying that if Jo-designer simply imports a few mechanics from indie-games, well... that's not nothing, but it's also not "neo". The play observed will be traditional (and where it is not, that will be because the group itself have applied the prescription). In the past, I have argued that high GM-curation means that any traditional game can be redesigned at the table to neotrad. You've discussed this potential as "secondary design" (not to the same ends, of course.) Here I'm suggesting it's better if the neotrad-designer set things up to see the game played as they intended, rather than leave that to chance.

I picture designers to be fierce and thick-skinned, more than capable of inviting themselves in, using your favourite coffee cup, and lounging on your sofa for an indefinite period of time (are they really staying overnight uninvited, you wonder, tapping your watchface and frowning.) They're unafraid of ideological positions: they have a dozen themselves!

True, but different designers have different ideological positions. By labeling it as such, this is a conversation I know I will not have any interest in.

ETA- To be clear, I have previously stated that I find using that terminology to be needlessly obfuscatory, and I really don't like that. If you have a game with different roles, it's best to simply use the terminology that's already established. Otherwise, you end up saying, "Okay, everyone is a player. But one player is different than the other players. One player is a player, but also not ... a player, if you know what I mean!" And that's just a waste of time and energy.

 

[clearstream]

True, but different designers have different ideological positions. By labeling it as such, this is a conversation I know I will not have any interest in.

Agreed. I can't take responsibility for what designers end up doing. I can only call it the way I see it.

Recollect that my OP lays out it's aims pretty clearly. Those don't include persuading folk that it would be better this way. I don't think that's true, anyway! My aim is - should you want to achieve a game design that bridges between "trad" and "indie" (using both terms with criminal negligence) then you'll need to grasp this particular nettle.

A great post in this thread might argue its the wrong nettle to grasp (for achieving neotrad), or cite observations to the contrary, or demand greater clarity about what really amounts to neotradish aspirations?

It wouldn't get tangled up in whether trad GMing is done harm by GMing premised on other principles. It doesn't require getting into the weeds of the merits of one form of GMing against another form of GMing except to the extent that impacts on what is required to achieve effective neotrad game texts.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It wouldn't get tangled up in whether trad GMing is done harm by GMing premised on other principles. It doesn't require getting into the weeds of the merits of one form of GMing against another form of GMing except to the extent that impacts on what is required to achieve effective neotrad game texts.

Um .... don't you mean ....

It wouldn't get tangled up in whether trad GMplaying is done harm by GMplaying premised on other principles. It doesn't require getting into the weeds of the merits of one form of GMplaying against another form of GMplaying except to the extent that impacts on what is required to achieve effective neotrad game texts.



After all, if you want clarity in communication, haters gonna hate, but players gonna play.