A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto

[Emberashh]

There's a bit of a telling vs. showing problem in TTRPGs here though, especially given the additional filter of play at a table vs. a game text. We already struggle to constrain action declarations to specifically fortune in the middle or fortune at the beginning, even when a game has a strong stance on the subject.

Communicating anything more nuanced about what a resolution mechanic is supposed to represent to not only GMs but also players without mechanical reinforcement is quite hard, and I think it's still an open design question about what precisely that reinforcement should be.

I don't think so, at least insofar as what my system is doing. That fixed number is a passive, so if the DC is below it you wouldn't be rolling in the first place. If what the d20 represents in that context isn't clear, despite an included explanation, then there really isn't much to be done.

 

[Emberashh]

I don’t know how appropriate it would be for the DMG since it’s more of a designer’s tool or one for advanced tinkerers, but that would be better than it is now. Even just doing post mortems and retrospectives like you see done with other types of games would be an improvement.

I think it becomes important if you have a system or some rule or what have you whose benefit isn't immediately clear.

Though, on the otherhand, if thats the case that could arguably be because the system or rule isn't actually all that good.

Sometimes you'll still get that just because the dynamics are subtle, but thats why we playtest and iterate.

Its like with my idea for systemic cultures and questing. As I presented it, what it'd do is pretty subtle, but as I've been working on integrating it, it becomes a lot more readily apparent whats going on.

 

[kenada]

I was struck by this.

As I posted upthread, I'm groping towards an understanding of MDA. But to me, it seems that 4e skill challenges do change the dynamic of play - they change the capacity of the GM to manipulate "offscreen" fiction so as to make it the case that X happens next regardless of the outcome of the action resolution process. (This is one way of expressing the conflict/task resolution contrast.) Hence why @Manbearcat, I and some others have seen indie GM advice and GM-side techniques as helpful for 4e D&D (whereas these are largely irrelevant to AD&D and probably to 3E/PF1 as well).

I'd love to hear further thoughts from you on this.

It makes me wonder if one of the issues with skill challenges is that they were presented as form of an existing dynamic (as “an encounter in which your skills … take center stage”). If they had been presented as a new dynamic (like how the VP subsystem is treated¹ in PF2), would they have been received better? The fact that you and others were able to successfully apply ideas from indie games suggests maybe.

---

[1]: PF2’s description of the VP subsystem is very similar to BitD’s description of clocks. It’s about tracking progress rather than as a form of encounter.

 

[Pedantic]

It makes me wonder if one of the issues with skill challenges is that they were presented as form of an existing dynamic (as “an encounter in which your skills … take center stage”). If they had been presented as a new dynamic (like how the VP subsystem is treated¹ in PF2), would they have been received better? The fact that you and others were able to successfully apply ideas from indie games suggests maybe.

---

[1]: PF2’s description of the VP subsystem is very similar to BitD’s description of clocks. It’s about tracking progress rather than as a form of encounter.

It strikes me that the primary difference in presentation is that the VP structure calls itself out as a tool for designing custom subsystems, not as a normative part of resolution.

 

[Manbearcat]

I was struck by this.

As I posted upthread, I'm groping towards an understanding of MDA. But to me, it seems that 4e skill challenges do change the dynamic of play - they change the capacity of the GM to manipulate "offscreen" fiction so as to make it the case that X happens next regardless of the outcome of the action resolution process. (This is one way of expressing the conflict/task resolution contrast.) Hence why @Manbearcat, I and some others have seen indie GM advice and GM-side techniques as helpful for 4e D&D (whereas these are largely irrelevant to AD&D and probably to 3E/PF1 as well).

I'd love to hear further thoughts from you on this.

Agreed.

I think there is a very easy way to look at this by summoning Apocalypse World:

1) What is at stake and the opening framing of the conflict is a soft move.

2) The particular obstacle/threat you're framing right now is another soft move.

3) The way I run 4e Skill Challenges (and plenty of other games, particularly those of the conflict resolution variety) is to (a) frame an obstacle then (b) tell them the consequences and then ask (which is another soft move)...


The three above (along with the SC intra-scene widgetry and 4e's extra-scene fallout including mechanical and fictional impacts to resources and follow-on conflicts) work in concert to (i) both enliven and firm up the fictional and mechanical landscape and (ii) generate a prospective line of plays for players to load out their decision-tree with and then perform their OODA Loop (Observe > Orient > Decide > Act) necessaries.

 

[kenada]

I would say this is where the issue lies, but not in regards to TTRPGs specifically, but in an error in the framework.

The player should be considered as positioned inbetween the Dynamics and the Aesthetics.

The player is fundamentally always interacting with the games Dynamics, regardless of whatever aesthetic experience they're having. Ergo, aesthetics should lie somewhere beyond the player in the framework. (After all, two people could have very different emotions when playing with, say, a Durability mechanic)

It doesn't strictly make a difference in anything MDA is saying, but it does make it a bit more intuitive and easy to understand, particularly as a universal game framework rather than something specific to only some game types.

And as far as needing to understand the mechanics, thats a given in all games. Dynamics, per MDA, are things that only emerge as a result of those mechanics being applied through play.

Eg, a sniper rifle and a prone position are both mechanics, but the idea of camping as a strategy is a dynamic.

Dynamics in rpgs are going to be the difference in combat systems between an indepth tactics game and a narrative distillation down to a single dice roll, and anything inbetween. Likewise for other "Pillars", if you will. In social interactions, this could be a difference between improv roleplaying or a convoluted system of rollplay.

The underlying mechanics across these could all be pretty similar (and often are given the ubiquity of dice) if not identical, but that then, per MDA, combines with the Content of the game when it comes to what dynamics are created.

Eg, there's a substantial difference in dynamic when a 1d20 roll is positioned as the quality of your Action, as we might see in the typical d20 game, and when a fixed number is positioned as the quality of the Action, while the 1d20 roll is posied as how well you responded to the difficulty, as it is in my system. (Eg, your Action would take say the +30 you have for lockpicking, but your 1d20 roll is still the difference between flubbing an especially tricky lock and expertly picking it. You only fail if the Lock truly exceeds your base capability of +30 and if your 1d20 roll doesn't make up the difference)

I hadn’t really intended this conversation to take the direction that it did when I offhandedly mentioned MDA, but I appreciate that it happened and took the direction it did. In particular, it prompted me to rediscover the DDE paper, which I recall having liked more than MDA on its own before forgetting about it.

In practice, I’m approaching the design of my homebrew system fairly informally. I do think about things like how to structure the referee and player roles for the goals I have, but my primary guide is “does this do what I want?” This discussion has certainly tempted to look at things a more formally, though that comes down to available energy, which is not always what I’d like it to be.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Thank you for stating the core question so succinctly. I've put forward a prescription (in the form of a manifesto) that takes notice of language often used and observes that - by simply taking said language sincerely we could find an answer.


I agree, and really it's not about those semantics. I like the efficiency of counting GM as player, but the crucial step isn't that efficiency; it's far more that

Emphasis mine, and it is the latter point that most compels me. To my observation, folk designing games like @kenada are going to have to grasp that nettle. One way is to mark the contrast by stressing that the GM is a player, in the sense @pemerton has outlined. Folk recognise the ideological significance of that design move, as testified to by posts in this thread.

Take the manifesto like this - neotrad game designs ought to reposition GM by demarking them player. At the least, a neotrad game text will contain rules that constrain and compel GM's voice in the ongoing negotiation of play... and GM cannot "rule zero" themselves out of that.

All of the following is relevant


For convenience, this is how I recognise a candidate game text: i) first filter for every game text I understand to fit a traditional mode of play (OSR, sandbox. sim, trad) and then ii) filter for just those that also integrated innovations from indie-games (largely storygames) with a particular concern for how they treated GM powers and centered player authorship. One will find games that ought to be neotrad. Observe them in play (find actual play of such games and observe it.) Where they do not follow the manifesto, the prediction made is that they will not in fact bridge the experiential space between trad and indie as Harenstam hoped. I've given the example of the Beneath Ash and Snow, Forbidden Lands actual play. It's good quality OSRish-sandbox play, but the imported mechanics are not - in the hands of a trad-GM - doing the jobs they were designed for.

What then are the principles of and jobs done by a neotrad-GM, if it is not enough to say they are a "player"?

I don't really care in my game design about what the GM is. Define what the game aims to produce, and how you play. Make it all super transparent.

 

[kenada]

It strikes me that the primary difference in presentation is that the VP structure calls itself out as a tool for designing custom subsystems, not as a normative part of resolution.

That probably helps as well, though I believe Paizo has used VP-based subsystems in their adventures. I never ran pre-written adventures when I ran PF2, so I don’t know how they were operationalized there or how people received them. I used it once in my home campaign for a convince conflict, which went okay (though my players did observe that it probably should have been run table-facing). I’m curious what the experiences of those here who have run Paizo’s adventures are with it, especially if they ran 4e and skill challenges in adventures.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.



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.

How do you prevent milling through tons of uninteresting play then? I feel like if you want a given trait to be manifest in play, build it into play! That gets us to the nut, which is what the MDA discussion turns on. That is how do you figure out what process of play arises given certain mechanics and aesthetics? There could be other questions, but that one feels pretty central.

 

[Manbearcat]

I would postulate that you can preserve a game’s dynamics while incorporating “indie” mechanics. PF2 has social conflict rules. You can use the VP subsystem to run a social conflict like you would in Blades in the Dark. D&D 4e can do this as a skill challenge. Even D&D 5e has a limited from of social conflict (the social interaction rules on pp. 244–255 of the DMG, which @Manbearcat has written here about using for that). TIBFs and Inspiration are arguably an “indie” mechanic (since it’s kind of like a poor man’s aspects and Fate currency). Don’t forget consequences resolution.

Going to throw a few words at this in hopes that perhaps it helps this thread along.

I believe elsewhere you've seen my take on one of the primary juxtapositions of Neotrad play and Story Now play?

• Form (with intentionally removed function) of Story Now design where risk/stakes are reduced via the vectors of system and/or table conspiracy. This can mean things like (a) the game is not particularly difficult in terms of attainment of objectives or (b) that the system meta entails the means to ensure high-stakes objective attainment, typically at the forfeiture of low-stakes objective attainment (which might barely rise beyond the realm of color/texture rather than "toothy consequences"). An easy example of this is resolution framework + currency economy paradigm + difficulty dials that yield player opt-into forfeiture of low-stakes objective attainment in order to gain the necessary currencies to ensure high-stakes objective attainment later.
• GM Metaplot synergizing/working in concert with player-side railroading where there is either explicit or well-signaled conception of character from player to GM with the expectation that this conception gets mapped onto play via a character arc; this is the table conspiracy in the first bullet point. Sometimes, the player has profound or total control of this via system (see bullet point one above for an example).

So (IMO) one of the key areas where Neotrad and Story Now play diverge is not in form. They can "look" very similar to one another on the surface. Its in the function. Story Now games are supposed to be designed to be resistant to any railroading (by GM and player) or expectations of Story Before mapping onto play (like the ensured conception of character) so that all participants can "play to find out." Story Now games typically handle the function component of this by (a) flatly telling you where your headspace should be (players and GM) and (b) designing in a scheme of character > conflict > fallout > advancement ("advancement" here doesn't inherently mean "stronger", though it can) that cannot be gamed such that preplay character or plot conception can be successfully mapped. The game generates dynamism of outcomes and trajectories via its engine and both it and the text rebuke/foil efforts by any participant to circumvent this.

A bit of an aside, but this is one reason why I think 4e is such an excellent design. The "dial" for Neotrad vs Story Now is pretty straight-forward; difficulty. The difficulty curve of 4e works. Just turn the knob. There is a clear regime change at some point in 4e play where the engine will rebuke/foil player efforts to ensure preplay character conception/Power Fantasy gets mapped onto play.

EDIT: An easy short-hand might be that Neotrad play and Story Now play might both look like sparring in form (grappling or striking). However, the first is overhwhelmingly (or totally) choregraphed while the second is live.