A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto

[hawkeyefan]

Wrt to neotrad design: the thing I'm not sure I understand is where neo stops and trad begins.

Is Blades in the Dark with its character-driven narrative and plentiful fiddly bits a neotrad game? Yes? No? What if it had a dedicated combat subsystem? Yes? No?

I'm not stupid. I understand that there probably isn't a clear line, but there must be a sign that signifies "yeah, this totally isn't your mommy's indie rpg, this is neotrad land"

I don’t think Blades is neotrad.

My take on neotrad is that the GM is still the driving force of the game, just as in trad gaming. The difference is that in a trad game, the GM is driving toward their own ideas, in neotrad the GM is driving toward the players’ ideas.

I know it’s likely more complex than that for many people, but that’s the key difference to me. And I don’t think Blades fits either of those descriptions as intended. I expect there are folks out there who do in fact play it that way, but I think they’re shifting away from the game’s intent.

 

[loverdrive]

I don’t think Blades is neotrad.

My take on neotrad is that the GM is still the driving force of the game, just as in trad gaming. The difference is that in a trad game, the GM is driving toward their own ideas, in neotrad the GM is driving toward the players’ ideas.

I know it’s likely more complex than that for many people, but that’s the key difference to me. And I don’t think Blades fits either of those descriptions as intended. I expect there are folks out there who do in fact play it that way, but I think they’re shifting away from the game’s intent.

So, like: GM decides that there is a Dark Lord who can only be stopped with great magical artifacts. She knows that one of the PCs, idk, survived some kind of disaster but doesn't remember much. So GM decides that one of the magical artifacts is his heart that was implanted into him to save his life, and then will reveal this when the time is right.

Do I understand this correctly?

If yes, I'm kinda at loss, then how trad without neo- works? GM decides things and doesn't take PCs into account at all?

 

[Thomas Shey]

So, like: GM decides that there is a Dark Lord who can only be stopped with great magical artifacts. She knows that one of the PCs, idk, survived some kind of disaster but doesn't remember much. So GM decides that one of the magical artifacts is his heart that was implanted into him to save his life, and then will reveal this when the time is right.

Do I understand this correctly?

If yes, I'm kinda at loss, then how trad without neo- works? GM decides things and doesn't take PCs into account at all?

I've certainly know of GMs who played in what seems to be "trad" in the sense that's used that only paid attention to what the PCs did in play, not much of anything else about them. Given its evolutionary descent through some of the really old-school heritage, that's probably not that surprising.

 

[Pedantic]

So, like: GM decides that there is a Dark Lord who can only be stopped with great magical artifacts. She knows that one of the PCs, idk, survived some kind of disaster but doesn't remember much. So GM decides that one of the magical artifacts is his heart that was implanted into him to save his life, and then will reveal this when the time is right.

Do I understand this correctly?

If yes, I'm kinda at loss, then how trad without neo- works? GM decides things and doesn't take PCs into account at all?

Yes, basically? The GM's choices when playing as the antagonists and/or when creating elements of the setting are in trad play, in no way confined/defined by the PC's choices, and often confine the PC's choices. At the most basic, the GM might say you're all mercenaries of X social background, vs. a player indicates they are an ex-pat of a specific nation, which the GM then is obligated to fit into the setting.

The big dividing line is the mechanical formality of all that. I imagine it's considered reasonable practice in many trad games to incorporate player proposed elements into the setting, the idea of a neotrad design is that in some specific capacities, the GM is forced to do so by the rules.

At least, that's what it seems to mean in the sense this thread has covered.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So, like: GM decides that there is a Dark Lord who can only be stopped with great magical artifacts. She knows that one of the PCs, idk, survived some kind of disaster but doesn't remember much. So GM decides that one of the magical artifacts is his heart that was implanted into him to save his life, and then will reveal this when the time is right.

Do I understand this correctly?

If yes, I'm kinda at loss, then how trad without neo- works? GM decides things and doesn't take PCs into account at all?

Kind of . The way I look at it… and this is just my interpretation… is that in trad, the GM has a story to tell. In neotrad, PCs have stories to tell, and the GM then facilitates them.

Like in your example, the Dark Lord might be an element of either. In Trad, he’s simply be the focus because that’s like the adventure path or whatever. In neotrad, the Dark Lord will have connections to the PCs. Like one was his former apprentice, one was is the son of a wozard the Dark Lord killed, and so on.

So the players have some input on play and the contents, but those are still filtered by the GM and connected to or folded into his plans.

I think the “use of modern gaming mechanics” aspect from the Six Cultures essay tend to revolve around this. The mechanics are the kind that give the players some say about what happens in play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I feel like I'm often too lazy using GNS to characterise motivations for play. Baker said in later writing that "I don't think that the idea of Creative Agendas stands up after all, let alone G, N, and S as its representatives."

It seems so easy to me to see some of those other possible representatives. I see what could be designated P for a political agenda, often gender but also decolonisation. I see what could be designated L for lyric, which is poetic. And like you, I see agenda's proving to be compatible with one another given a design with appropriate utility. Speaking of utility, I see game texts with utility for multiple agendas, and multiple blends of agendas. Even within N, I see opportunities for other storytelling traditions, ones that don't prioritise dramatic protagonism.

The designations are helpful in developing and presenting lines of argument - it seems hard to get away from that - but they are also (merely) a construct. The construct is a model of a domain based on limited evidence that has some utility. That's all GNS is, I think.

But, what VB followed that with was Apocalypse World! In his subsequent discussion he emphasizes play as negotiation and draws an onion diagram of game structure. Now he's not claiming that onion is universal, but there's a strong implication that it's addressing fundamental concerns. Certainly he IS taking the position that all RPG play involves a conversation in which the imagined character experience is negotiated. It's in this context that PtFO is stated. VB doesn't call this 'narrativist' but it sure does comply well with that idea. I mean, I'm in no position to dispute with him, but I don't think it's necessary. The body of work and thought is actually quite consistent from Forge to now.

 

[tetrasodium]

In the 150-300ish post range, I think we got a pretty clear sense that the dividing line comes down to authority over the fiction. Neotrad places some portion of mechanical control that in trad play resides with a GM in the hands of PCs, especially as it relates to their characters, but still places most authority in the GM's hands and may still pursue many of the same ultimate goals of play as trad.

We had some back and forth over whether this can be achieved by classifying the GM as a player (I personally thought that was a bit of a sideshow) and how much/what authority can be moved without shifting past neotrad to something else altogether. A lot of focus came down to using specific techniques to constrain the GM, and how much of that authority was negative, vs. a more overt narrative system. Think things like death flags, that prevent the GM from saying "your character is killed" but do not otherwise constrain the GM's ability to determine what NPCs or the opposition do, or what the world contains. We ran all kinds of places with various levels of myth, and all the usual talking past each other diversions.

In so much as there is a consensus, I think it comes down to games that have the general shape of trad play, but give PCs and/or systems some specific constraints on the GM, usually coming down to protecting/guiding character development.

I offered the summary much earlier of "trad, but..." with the space after the but left open as the design question a "neotrad" game would be articulating a mechanism to solve, and a rationale for why it should be different; "but what, and why?"

Which portions of gameplay "some portion"? This seems to be the defining trait but it's buried deeply behind a mountain of vague & esoteric jargon that stands in for a silent but implied "I'll know it when I see it". Behind thst mountain is still unanswered questions like "At what point does a player making use of "some portion" of mechanical control begin stomping into unreasonable behavior?" alongside "When is the GM totally justified to call out a player for not pulling the weight of responsibility with their newly granted control"and what should be a simple answer "is it just choreographed or not?"

 

[Thomas Shey]

Which portions of gameplay "some portion"? This seems to be the defining trait but it's buried deeply behind a mountain of vague & esoteric jargon that stands in for a silent but implied "I'll know it when I see it". Behind thst mountain is still unanswered questions like "At what point does a player making use of "some portion" of mechanical control begin stomping into unreasonable behavior?" alongside "When is the GM totally justified to call out a player for not pulling the weight of responsibility with their newly granted control"and what should be a simple answer "is it just choreographed or not?"

I will, again, note that somehow asking these questions the other way around before providing GMs with the level of power they currently have is never seen as legitimate.

 

[Pedantic]

Which portions of gameplay "some portion"? This seems to be the defining trait but it's buried deeply behind a mountain of vague & esoteric jargon that stands in for a silent but implied "I'll know it when I see it". Behind thst mountain is still unanswered questions like "At what point does a player making use of "some portion" of mechanical control begin stomping into unreasonable behavior?" alongside "When is the GM totally justified to call out a player for not pulling the weight of responsibility with their newly granted control"and what should be a simple answer "is it just choreographed or not?"

You seem very concerned with how a neotrad game, in the understanding provided, might be played badly or degenerately. I think we're mostly operating under an assumption of goodwill and earnest engagement with whatever our theoretical game is doing, while we settle in the design guidance. The question of failure points is sort of a second order concern.

Plus, there's no reason to assume the players of such a game are the same players of a trad game, or will have the same interests. I think we sort off have to start from positive assertions about what actively supports the desired design, before we move into critiquing how it can go awry.

 

[tetrasodium]

You seem very concerned with how a neotrad game, in the understanding provided, might be played badly or degenerately. I think we're mostly operating under an assumption of goodwill and earnest engagement with whatever our theoretical game is doing, while we settle in the design guidance. The question of failure points is sort of a second order concern.

Plus, there's no reason to assume the players of such a game are the same players of a trad game, or will have the same interests. I think we sort off have to start from positive assertions about what actively supports the desired design, before we move into critiquing how it can go awry.

Quite the opposite in fact, there is no assumption of goodwill and no assumption illwill. I'd much rather hear about what sort of duties & responsibilities a "neotrad game" expects from or assigns to players but there are no ten foot poles carrying answers for that either. Absent answers to expectations & responsibilities carried by the newfound control players find themselves with the reversal is simply asking how to tell when they are not being met simply provides a point to backtrack to an answer for the original question.

We have the games with level of GM control we have because that dynamic enables a well established flow of gameplay. That control is not without well established & well known strings in service of keeping gameplay flowing either. The GM carries those strings of responsibilities and expectations to go with that control yet neotrad seems to assume those can simply be ignored & still have anything resembling a ttrpg. In this thread however there is a call for a new balance of "control" yet not a single person in support of that shift is willing to pull out their ten foot pole to talk about the player responsibilities expectations of their new role & where lines of reasonability should be drawn.