A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto

[FrogReaver]

This is a thread about games that aspire to be in the neotrad school of design - that is, games that aspire to deliver a gameplay experience that is recognisably neotrad.

Is it not the case that games designed with some other design aims in mind - such as fully trad games (perhaps the most archetypal being World of Darkness games) - will necessarily be worse at delivering a neotrad gameplay experience? Is it not the case that if your goal is to deliver a neotrad gameplay experience, then mechanics that increase player authority during gameplay simply are better at fulfilling that goal, compared to, say, mechanics (or the lack thereof) that fulsomely empower GMs?

The post I'm quoting seriously comes across as threadcrapping and trying to shut down discussion, whatever your intent may be.

Then you are not understanding me. If there’s a particular experience we want to achieve then there are better mechanics for that and worse mechanics for that. Pointing out that the experience we are choosing to design for is no better or worse than another isn’t threadcrapping - it’s an essential truth - and judging by the pushback here I’d say it bears repeating.

 

[Emberashh]

When it comes to very specific concepts like ludonarrative/dissonance, game design is not game design is not game design.

Yes, it is. The only cases where that doesn't apply is when Fantasy isn't a part of the game (as we see with most Sports as well as classical games like Go), or at minimum is weak to the point of non-existence. (Chess)

And to be clear, this is what I mean by Fantasy:

And in fact, this whole section of Elements of Game Design is extraordinarily apropros to this discussion. Im going to put the rest of it in a quote block, highly recommend reading it:

Very important to note in the above passages that no distinctions are made between video games, board games, visual novels, and others. Game design is game design.

Its utterly irrelevant to Pawn Stance Dungeon/Hex Crawling or to Story Now design or any challenge-based play that isn't sensitive to metaplot, or secret backstory/prompted/unprompted reveals centered around social intrigues and mysteries.

On the contrary, its very relevant to all of tthose. You might be picking up on consistency violations and, correctly, asserting them as different from ludonarrative dissonance, but that doesn't make LN irrelevant to these games, as those games are not inherently lacking a narrative.

In such games, LN is being caused by the player violating their own narrative. Eg, in a dungeon crawler, the point of the game might be to utilize strategy and/or tactics in decision making, as the experience is meant to be stategic and/or tactical. A player screaming Leroy Jenkins and just mindlessly attacking things will violate that experience, and when the game can't handle it, LN occurs.

Likewise in Story Now, LN arises from the same sort of behavior, just applied towards whatever narrative is being formed through play. If you're playing a bunch of diplomats off to secure a trade deal, and one guy decided to, instead of being a diplomat as originally understood, have his character get drunk, assassinate the King, and try to install himself as the new Emperor, thats LN.

Its actually pretty neat you picked those specific examples, as they're games where LN is actually a far worse problem than others, as LN typically is recognized as something that happens in the interface between a player playing the game and the player understanding the story being told.

In these games, LN is not only doing that for the one player, but for everyone one else.

Broadly, game design has architecture that translates and connects the various, disparate mediums of play (like those mentioned above), but some specific concerns and related concepts around specific rules instantiations/violations in physical sports have no bearing on TTRPG design or boardgame design or CRPG design. Same goes omnidirectionally between all of those.

That is just you doubling down on saying LN is video game specific, when it isn't, while inappropriately conflating LN issues with a rules violation in a sports game, which is about as apples to oranges as it gets.

Its like disputing that the Sky is Blue by incorrectly asserting that the Ground is Cranberry. You're not only incorrect but not even talking about the same thing I was.

Contesting the level of broad applicability of specific design concepts/terminology is not scornful derision. No one is scoffing.

The tone and continued doubling down on otherizing something into belonging strictly to a design space you have decided to ignore, for no good or even stated reason, says otherwise.

 

[niklinna]

While I encountered this uhm malicious/indifferent approach exactly once and the guy was a walking red flag anyway, I've seen more than enough times GM latching on a detail player did not intend and leaving the Actual Hook in the dust, because of misinterpretation, misunderstanding or player badly communicating their concept.

A more formalized system will certainly help with that.

Here's some decent advice on the matter! – https://bankuei.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/making-good-flags/

Several related posts flesh that out, just search for "flag".

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So far each time I've pointed to a case of actual play to observe, folk have explained that they lack the time to do so.

But rest assured, I am grounding my thinking in experience and observations of actual play.

I'm just going to say... Obviously I have no reason to doubt you. I am not doing so. More the opposite, pointing out what you can do to make your points much more convincingly. Frankly I've not run a lot of stuff in the past year or two, and more play testing bits of my own stuff, but I agree it would be better to stick more closely to real play examples. I'd note that @pemerton is particularly assiduous in that regard. @Manbearcat also has a great 4e thread here. I've seen little else of that sort.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I also will add.

It’s not just what fiction a game can produce but also how it produces it. That is, all the mechanics and omitted mechanics matter. One of my much earlier mistakes in such discussions was believing that narrative/story now games were being praised for being able to generate certain fictions that a game like d&d could not, but the actual claim was a bit more subtle, it wasn’t that the games generated different fiction, it’s that the mechanics behind the generation of the fiction made for greatly dissimilar gameplay regardless of whether the resulting fiction ended up the same. (This difference also affects the distribution of resulting fiction, such that usually the fiction generated by 2 different games is going to be different, it just need not be.)

I’ve said that to lead into this - the game is the mechanical bits. Changing any of the mechanical bits changes the game (the play experience). Obviously some changes are bigger impact than others.

So as Manbearcat said above, the moment to moment experience is different between different games! I fully agree. Yet there still are similarities and design patterns even with all those differences.

One of the most important takeaways here is that if we all agree that games with different mechanics provide different experiences, then saying something like mechanics that provide greater player authority are better is wholly out of bounds because changing the mechanic changes the play experience.

This leaves us in a bit of a rut, how do we determine what kinds of mechanics a game should have, when is more player authority good and when isn’t it - well that depends on the rest of the game mechanics and on the experiences you want your game to provide.

So now that all this is agreed upon, can we stop claiming some games provide universally better experiences than others. This goes both ways!

I think you have arrived at c. early 2000s cutting edge here. The answer I saw then was to analyze the goals of play (agenda) and figure out through actual practice what works for you.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don’t know what you just said or what you’re asking of me.

You tagged me with a claim in the post I quoted. I'd like that explained is extremely straightforward

I’ve described the game in a pretty straightforward way.

That's not the thing in question, stating lt says nothing. In 495 you made expectations of the player who is GM, that's a fact. Also in 495 you did not so much as mention the player who is a player so much as saying one word to another player through the entire process, that's also a fact. We can verify those two facts trivially by looking at post 495.hL. Things break down when you stop questioning assumed motivation and mindset to dismiss problems that stem from those facts.

The player in 495 does not extend the same expectations placed upon the GM to themselves and the other players. that is a step zero problem for neotrad to be open about without simply pointing at the gm because neotrad calls for players to be empowered with authority over new areas the GM is expected to abide by

• Because the player in 495 never asked about the gm's world there is no way to be sure that their character's described story fits the setting at all.
• Because the player in 495 never asked about the campaign there is no way to know if they have declared revenge on the new boss or whatever.
• Becausethe player in 495 never spoke to the other players there is no way to know if their story is compatible (or worse in conflict) with the. Back stories of one or more other players.
• Because the the GM is bound to honor the incompatible and conflicting backstories they are not capable of really doing anything about it. Lucky for the player I'm 495 they just need to hold firm longer than any other player to make sure their story wins.
• Because neotrad places zero responsibility on the player in 495 towards the other players they are being a model neotrad player when they simply point at the powerless gm while saying "you fix it" just as they are complaing when the GM fixes it by changing or refusing to honor the back story from 495.

Story games and narrative heavy games are clear and take pains to avoid all of these kinds of conflicts. Neotrad does not even see them as fit to discuss or clearly address without questioning motive or "mindset"

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, it is. The only cases where that doesn't apply is when Fantasy isn't a part of the game (as we see with most Sports as well as classical games like Go), or at minimum is weak to the point of non-existence. (Chess)

And to be clear, this is what I mean by Fantasy:

View attachment 343922

And in fact, this whole section of Elements of Game Design is extraordinarily apropros to this discussion. Im going to put the rest of it in a quote block, highly recommend reading it:



Very important to note in the above passages that no distinctions are made between video games, board games, visual novels, and others. Game design is game design.



On the contrary, its very relevant to all of tthose. You might be picking up on consistency violations and, correctly, asserting them as different from ludonarrative dissonance, but that doesn't make LN irrelevant to these games, as those games are not inherently lacking a narrative.

In such games, LN is being caused by the player violating their own narrative. Eg, in a dungeon crawler, the point of the game might be to utilize strategy and/or tactics in decision making, as the experience is meant to be stategic and/or tactical. A player screaming Leroy Jenkins and just mindlessly attacking things will violate that experience, and when the game can't handle it, LN occurs.

Likewise in Story Now, LN arises from the same sort of behavior, just applied towards whatever narrative is being formed through play. If you're playing a bunch of diplomats off to secure a trade deal, and one guy decided to, instead of being a diplomat as originally understood, have his character get drunk, assassinate the King, and try to install himself as the new Emperor, thats LN.

Its actually pretty neat you picked those specific examples, as they're games where LN is actually a far worse problem than others, as LN typically is recognized as something that happens in the interface between a player playing the game and the player understanding the story being told.

In these games, LN is not only doing that for the one player, but for everyone one else.



That is just you doubling down on saying LN is video game specific, when it isn't, while inappropriately conflating LN issues with a rules violation in a sports game, which is about as apples to oranges as it gets.

Its like disputing that the Sky is Blue by incorrectly asserting that the Ground is Cranberry. You're not only incorrect but not even talking about the same thing I was.



The tone and continued doubling down on otherizing something into belonging strictly to a design space you have decided to ignore, for no good or even stated reason, says otherwise.

I'm no expert on what certain people you hold as authorities think about it, but LND was long held to be a fairly specific mismatch between game play and presented narrative, that is pre-written material, cut scenes, dialogue, etc. In that sense LND is not possible in Story Now play, as a logical consequence of the lack of planned narrative! I suspect that the term has become overused and lost specificity over time, as often happens. Whether the broader uses are coherent enough to say something is a bit beyond my own study of your sources frankly, though I am always a bit suspicious of lumping at that level.

 

[Pedantic]

I'm no expert on what certain people you hold as authorities think about it, but LND was long held to be a fairly specific mismatch between game play and presented narrative, that is pre-written material, cut scenes, dialogue, etc. In that sense LND is not possible in Story Now play, as a logical consequence of the lack of planned narrative! I suspect that the term has become overused and lost specificity over time, as often happens. Whether the broader uses are coherent enough to say something is a bit beyond my own study of your sources frankly, though I am always a bit suspicious of lumping at that level.

That's substituting a tight, TTRPG specific definition of narrative. You see the term come up in board games that deploy randomness badly but present the outcome as a result of player skill, or sometimes in particularly spreadsheety eurogames with particularly badly pasted on themes.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's substituting a tight, TTRPG specific definition of narrative. You see the term come up in board games that deploy randomness badly but present the outcome as a result of player skill, or sometimes in particularly spreadsheety eurogames with particularly badly pasted on themes.

Yeah I feel like all of these have things in common, and 'dissonance' feels like a fairly descriptive term, though I don't think narrative applies to all of them. Like randomness and player skill for example, neither relates closely to story. Actually I think it is often being used similarly to RE's ideas of incoherency. I'd note that those notions have largely given way to ideas centered around a more complex mix of approach and technique. I'm sure there are discussions to be had, though again I desire to see them tied to instances of play and specific game play/constructs.

 

[Emberashh]

You sound bitter.

And you seem hesitant to provide an answer, in plain unambiguous language, to the question of what the aims are.

Let's examine Dungeon World for a minute. Is the allocation of work, not authority, all that unusual? No! The GM frames every scene, they can also generate material in advance, and have a central role in rules application. The only real difference is that the game clearly spells out how the process of play works and the sort of experience which is being aimed at. Yes, this certainly puts more of the narrative direction in the hands of players. Experience shows this works quite well!

And? This doesn't address anything in the quote its attached to.

Played as designed and intended players come with the raw uncooked character concept but no idea what narrative will arise.

Thats a clear contradiction, to be frank. A concept is still a narrative, unless we're working off the definition of a character concept as just being a broad trope or two like "Elf Wizard" or "Halfling Barbarian".

In such a case, we're not actually talking about a narrative at all period, so it becomes questionable what the throughline is from that on to paying off some sort of expected narrative during gameplay. You could say that its an issue of some sort of fantasy regarding being a Halfling and/or Barbarian isn't being met, but that comes down to LDN, and really just to DND specifically being chockfull of bad game design, and nothing thats been offered up about whatever "neotrad" is seeks to address that specific issue.

And meanwhile, character concept as its conventionally used comes with the expectations of story seeding as well as story writing. If your character is coming to the table with a backstory, you're pushing a narrative that the game and/or Game Master or may not be able to accomodate, and if not, will then arise in LDN.

Again your lack of deep experience is showing. We tried this for at least twenty years and it failed miserably.

If you spent 20 years trying and couldn't figure out sandboxes then that is genuinely, well, sad. Ive literally never played an RPG that wasn't nor couldn't be run as a sandbox.

No they're not and your insistance on this point simply once again shows you are apparently missing critical elements of understanding the issue.

Considering you decided to be vague I can only assume you're saying all those games I listed, which, mind you, are all the most popular RPGs on the market, are not compelling.

And thats not an argument I can take seriously.

but you clearly don't get what I am after

You haven't explained what you want.