A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto

[pemerton]

Everything that players want to do makes them 'Mary Sue'. Horse Apples.

Their characters will die in the Tomb of Horrors and they'll like it, by gum!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Something I was thinking about in not calling that out in particular, is that the innovations have utility to (and are seen in) games where the heightened focus is on something other than character concept. Play of Forbidden Lands for example, does use flags for dark secrets, relationships, and pride, which matters to the structure and drives of the party, however it's distinctly sandboxey - the journey is a large focus of play. Immersion in character feels important, but not necessarily pushing hard on character concept. Attribute damage pushes things to a grittier, more dangerous feel, that works against that.

Right, it is perfectly possible to have narrativist play where the premise is not something internal to the PCs. I mean, that is usually the case to at least some degree. In BitD the whole setting itself has a pretty strong premise, and the PCs are essentially just reflections of that, with their own 'stuff' thrown into the mix and interacting with that. I think it's pretty easy to imagine games where it is even more like that. For instance a Narrativist Star Wars game might focus on the possibility of redemption, which seems to be a bit of a theme running through it. I could imagine a game where "can you defy your fate?" could be the central question, where the premise is "nobody can defy their fate!" and we play to find out if that is true or not. Now, the details of the fate would likely be largely up to the player of each character, but escaping it would obviously require success and probably have bitter costs associated with it. Maybe in the end what you learn is 'no, the cost of defying fate is too high, I won't do it!'

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yep. So if you didn't have my commitments regarding the lusory-duality and ludonarrative, observing them to apply to all TTRPG, you could get away with that and maybe it would feel satisfactory. The arguments that matter to my position will be around those commitments. For example showing that post-classical narratology has it wrong and some TTRPG falls outside the narrative overlap.

By 'narrative overlap' are you referring to your two sources of narrative (pre-determined and played I think is a succinct description of them, right?) I find it very hard to come to grips with any of this when it is all this very fuzzy set of concepts that are not accompanied by actual practice. This is what made The Forge so brilliant a place, they would just kick you right the heck out if you came in with nothing but WORDS, it had to be backed by actual play. I want to SEE in practice what this 'post-classical narratology' is saying about an actual transcript of play under a specific designated set of rules and procedures, and then iterations on play that test different possibilities. This is EXACTLY what you see in those old forums! The explosion of technique and advances in understanding of RPGs was not based in theorizing, the theorizing was used to explain what was actually observed in real play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Since this is your effort it falls upon you to expand upon that from the start. What are those responsibilities? While you are at it please continue by including expectations & so on.


Well you are pushing for a playstyle that grants players additional power of control. That right there is a change and requires you to be clear about the responsibilities and expectations that go with those powers of control. Nearly every TTRPG devotes anywhere between a chapter or two up to a full book or more detailing & supporting the expectations responsibilities duties & so on for the GM's role because that GM role carries power & control that you are trying to assign to players. When you can't even admit that those newly empowered players should even have responsibilities & expectations alongside those newfound powers without first questioning the very idea it reeks of an effort to shield players with poor expectations.

Ah yes, trad (nevermind the incredibly high rate of misplay that I see) is always 'right' and anything which varies from the formula is wrong unless proven otherwise to your satisfaction. Feh!

 

[Emberashh]

Can the GM cheat though, if they've above the rules? To paraphrase Nixon, it's not illegal if you're the GM.

We have to understand GM as constrained in some way... but this was all laid out pages ago.

Sure. We just call it railroading and fudging; forms of blocking in roleplaying.

People don't often like to think of these games like that, but I can't help but keep sounding that bell. All of these problems are improv problems, and just as easily solved.

If they’re interested in running a trad game

Thats the peculiar thing about this hamfisted otherizing; they make others out of the same.

That is, you're asserting that there exists a fundamentally separate game thats only played in such and such way, when the reality is that its all just the same game.

And more over, you didn't really answer the question, and in fact doubled down on it. Broadly gesturing towards nowhere in particular doesnt constitute proof of these GMs existing, nor does it conjure into truth that what these hypothetical GMs are doing is just a style of play and not just them being bad at running RPGs.

And it should be said too that all of this also flies entirely beyond the simple fact that none of this has diddly or squat to do with design, not even on a theoretical level.

All this fuss is spending a lot of effort and brainpower on a hyperfixation with a very small part of an overall experience that only becomes so problematic if you sit yourself on a mountain of assumptions about the people playing whatever game, whilst ignoring the game itself.

Honestly this six cultures stuff really just comes off as Hogwarts Houses; its fun to think about on a surface level but then theres people that will really overthink the differences between a Ravenclaw and a Slytherin when the source material is a half-inch deep on the subject.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The question is is how prevalent is it actually that GMs are like that?

Tetra might be floating an unreasonable assumption of neotrad people, but the thing is is that what I just quoted is also a rather uncharitable assumption thats levied at trad people.

Anecdotally, Ive never actually played with or even observed a GM that acted like this. And on the same token, I've also never seen the other side as Tetra posits with nightmare players who are every worst stereotype.

Part of why that is probably that my main group just isn't like that, and also that the people I've taught have perhaps just benefited from me being the one to get them into rpgs.

Either way, it still makes me question the overall point and whether or not this is actually a matter of producing a new kind of game, or if we're just assuming a new game will somehow prevent bad actors from ruining the experience.

If the problems being solved only exist in any meaningful way on r/rpghorrorstories I just don't see the point.

I think there's a rather small minority of games where a GM is just blatantly uninterested in anything the players have to say, but I've experienced it once or twice, and pretty much anyone who's played for a while will have an anecdote (I won't name the very obvious EW posters who would clearly be models of such GMs, I think you can come up with at least one very obvious example yourself). However, I think there is a VAST middle ground where even fairly experienced GMs fail to take player's aims into proper consideration. I'd actually say that this is the case in the MAJORITY of trad play. In fact it actually forms a MAJOR THEME in the quest of gamers and designers to 'figure out' the RPG experience and 'make it better'. To relegate it all to just some 'horror story' that is implied to be largely fictitious doesn't strike me as very credible.

 

[Emberashh]

However, I think there is a VAST middle ground where even fairly experienced GMs fail to take player's aims into proper consideration. I'd actually say that this is the case in the MAJORITY of trad play.

And what are those aims? Having a specially curated plot thats simultaneously as compelling as any tv show but also doesn't feel like you're being railroaded?

Shouldn't have to be pointed out that that is patently ridiculous, and no amount of "collaborative storytelling" shtick says otherwise; its a lot like saying a customer is collaborating with a Chef on a meal by ordering a bunch of crap that isn't on the menu whilst expecting to still use the 50% off coupon.

But even if we step back from hyperbole, the collaboration angle is just weak. Sure a player can pitch story directions and seeds, but that still puts the burden of creation on the GM, and its entirely uncalled for to say the GM is doing something wrong if they fail to do so, or even just decide not to. A player whose actually collaborating in a fair way is going to be creating, and driving, most of the experience themselves.

And that makes sense. Its not a secret that being a good player means being proactive, curious, and flexible; not so coincidentally the same fundamental qualities asked of improv players.

But of course, it also has to be said that the whole assumption underlying this is that the player is coming to the table with a story, and thats never been a good idea to begin with. If you've already got a story, just write a book.

It has to be said too that while your PBTAs and FATEs and what not are held up to combat this, you can also just do sandboxes in more typical games and start the game as nobodies, like basically every cRPG that doesn't force a specific character on you figured out decades ago.

That simple fact is what highlights how deep in the weeds this culture stuff gets. You don't need a brand new game to stop these problems, just stop trying to force a story to happen.

If the game isn't compelling enough on its own to just play for its own sake, find a better game to play. And if you still want to see a story happen, learn improv and start actually collaborating, don't just throw in 2 cents and demand the GM to deliver the other 98. And don't you dare start complaining about how the sausage is made. If you want to actually collaborate, you don't have the luxury of being merely an audience member.

Rules systems, meanwhile, can be designed to help this along. A suitably compelling game system will do so with ease, and as much as people like to complain about it, 5e is such a game. So is DCC, LFRPG, PF2E, GURPS, COC, BRP/Runequest, and scores of others. You might not get TV show plotlines, but these are games; we don't need to copy other narrative mediums.

And so are your PBTAs and BITD and all that, for the record. The key difference is mostly that where other games drive interesting stories by being compelling interactive experiences, these narrative games do it by just directly injecting microstories into your improv. Both are fine, and ultimately neither is nearly as fun trying to force a story than they are just playing them and enjoying them for what they are.

 

[tetrasodium]

Interesting point. What I've observed is GM authority stifling playing to find out what happens in relation to crux lusory-goals. I haven’t yet observed a single instance of the player malfeasance you describe. So working from what I know, I see GM repositioning as a high impact move.


I'm still working through my thoughts on compels.


On rereading I see significant claims in 270 that I don't agree with. The idea that neotrad play should be choreographed seems to be missing the point. It's the kind of design (or utilisation of the design) that I'm advising against. For example, why stitch attribute attrition into actions, spellcasting and combat, with harsh broken conditions, if in fact you mean to choreograph that?

You did not attempt to answer the questions in the post you quoted and another poster has already pointed that out.

Wrt that critical bolded bit central to supporting so much else in your 499 post... Maybe you got ninja'd while typing and posted without seeing it, maybe you scrolled past it, maybe you think it's an example of gold standard neotrad play, we have no idea... I point you to 495 as a literal example of that behavior while it was responding and quoting the same post as a your 499 post I'm quoting here.

In that post there is a player creating a PC that carries a story which would create entities in the world, possibly ones that require some degree of setting support even. It calls for "opportunities" that would shape adventures and /or the campaign on some level. It does that last one by calling for the gm to work with the player on creating NPCs who were involved in the PC's backstory with elements "leading" to the declared game shaping goals. Obviously 495 is talking about a rather unusual one GM one player ttrpg(which one?) and you can tell that with 100% certainty because at no point does it mention the gm needing to work with other players or the player who created the campaign shaping PC even speaking to a second player about any of that.

 

[Emberashh]

And anecdotally I once already shared my experience with trying to force stories in games. I quickly burn myself out in Kerbal Space Program trying to do it, but if I just let myself play, I'll quickly burn another 2000 hours on it. Same thing happens with cRPGs.

A million restarts on Skyrim, but the only time I play it at length is when I get off the endless mods and cheating in the perfect character and just play it on my Switch.

There's something to be said for just playing a game as intended, especially if you get caught in the chase for a good story, which is as fruitless as it is pointless. Games tell stories by being played.

 

[pemerton]

So if you didn't have my commitments regarding the lusory-duality and ludonarrative, observing them to apply to all TTRPG, you could get away with that and maybe it would feel satisfactory. The arguments that matter to my position will be around those commitments. For example showing that post-classical narratology has it wrong and some TTRPG falls outside the narrative overlap.

By 'narrative overlap' are you referring to your two sources of narrative (pre-determined and played I think is a succinct description of them, right?)

As I understand @clearstream, "narrative overlap" refers to this:

I have several times written that storygames are a sub-category of narrativist games. Hopefully, I have spelled out that I see the narrativist comprehension of the player duality (what I've called the lusory-duality) as crucial to ludonarrative, and that in agreement with post-classical narratology I place TTRPG into the narrative overlap of the game/narrative venn diagram. This absolutely preserves the distinct nature of storygames.

<snip>

In truth I am more placing storygames on a pedastal, by arguing that what those designers figured out - narrativism - matters to all TTRPG. This answers the question asked at the top of this post.