-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto
- Thread starter clearstream
- Start date
Manbearcat
Legend
EDIT - Hit "reply" too early. Stand by...
EDIT 2 - tetra's laugh emoji on this post isn't mocking me by the way. He hit that laugh emoji after my screw-up of hitting "reply" accidentally waaaaaaaaaay too early. So just a friendly chuckle at my screw up. All good.
@tetrasodium , observing your back-and-forth with @hawkeyefan . Going to throw a few words out there and see if this does some work.
The Between is a PBtA Story Now game set in Victorian London inspired by Penny Dreadful, The Others, The League of Extraordinary Gentleman, Frankenstein, Dracula, The Picture of Dorain Gray etc. It is a game about a team of eccentric monster hunters who must deal with the horror within, succumb to or confront their haunted pasts as they are uncovered in play, while attempting to foil Threats and a Mastermind terrorize the setting.
@hawkeyefan is playing The Mother. Here is the purple prose for the playbook:
@Campbell is playing The Legacy. Here is the purple prose for the playbook:
A third player is playing The Vessel. Here is the purple prose for the playbook:
* There are always 2-3 Threats in play at any given time. The Mastermind Threat may also be in play. A players playbook Threat (The Orphan for the The Mother, The Beast for The Legacy, and The Coven for The Vessel) might also be in play.
* There is a structured play loop where the players (a) try to find clues to (b) develop a working theory as to "what is going on" and gain +'s for when they make their "Answer a Question" (its basically a "Solve a Myster" move; see below) move. Success on that move means (c) they get an Opportunity to confront and defeat (or not) the related Threat in the next (dangerous and feral) Night phase. In the course of all of this, they (d) suffer Conditions (enough of which can take them out), tick their Janus Mask of the Future/Past in order to resist down a Consequence (like from death to a bullet wound and all other brand of fictional fallout and harm-based consequences), (e) make new friends/enemies (Side Characters), (f) gain trophies/gear (Side Quarters), (g) "reveal their past" (when prompted), and (f) we collectively uncover/reveal Hargrave House (the monster hunters base of operations) and the various sides of London through the procedures of play and our individual input on that.
* The system structures impacts to the setting (and Mastermind) if the players don't resolve a Threat or don't resolve it in a certain number of play loops.
* The system and play structures when new Threats come into play, when each hunters personal Threat "comes online," and when The Mastermind "comes online."
Why is this game Story Now and not Trad or Neotrad?
1) There is no GM metaplot or plot points/nodes or sequence-of-events. The mysteries/Threats/Mastermind, the pasts of the hunters, and the nature of London are all emergent...all revealed through play via a collection of prompts, choices, and our personal inputs as GMs and players (framing, consequences, question-answering from system-prompts, following the structure, etc).
2) System has a LOT of say. A LOT. And its binding for all parties; players and GM alike. Through all of that system's say, we each get to find out the nature of the Threats, the Mastermind, the PCs, and London itself.
3) While players have plenty of input on the nature and trajectory of their characters, they are also beholden to a very large amount of system's say. There is no mapping of character preconception onto play...there is enough system-infusing entropy/dynamism to ensure that and the game is pretty lethal/brutal.
So what changes would be necessary to make The Between a Trad game instead of a Story Now game?
1) There would need to be GM metaplot, plot points/nodes, and a sequence of events that "go-off" and yield plot/backstory-centric exposition/reveals when that happens. The Threats and The Mastermind would be something only the players discover as the GM (who already knows their individual metaplot and its constituent parts) reveals them through play.
2) System would need a lot less say. The GM would need the authority to veto the significant entropy-and-dynamism-infusing aspect of the game's structure, prompts, and the player's authority to generate fundamental alterations to both (a) the GM's metaplot and (b) "what this game is about in the first place."
3) Despite the fact that "system's say" binds and focuses player input in specific ways, the type of say that players have to relentlessly say "the game is about this" and to generate mystery/Threat-defining and altering Clues is too much for (1). So the nature and amount of "player say" (via the dynamics of playbook choice, by the dynamics of questions/prompts answered with invest situation with energy/motif, via the injection of Clues, via the nature of the "Answer a Question" structure, etc) would need to be rejiggered and throttled back entirely.
Honestly, most of the game would just need to be gutted and rewritten. The nature of the Threats/mysteries would need total revision, the Answer a Question move goes away, the structure of Threats (particularly PC playbook Threats) resolving and entering play, Paint the Scene at Hargrave House can probably stay, The Unscene (which is significant framing motif and connective tissue for The Night Phase as we look in at an alternate scene playing out in London and smash cut back and forth to our own Night Phase scenes...kind of like a collective player-authored Kicker for situation motif and pacing device as things unfurl in The Night Phase..see the very bottom of the page for reference)...all of hardcore game tech that makes this game what it is would need to go. And the GM would to have hard veto rights instituted.
So what changes would be necessary to make The Between a Neotrad game instead of a Story Now game?
1) There would need to be GM metaplot, plot points/nodes, and a sequence of events that "go-off" and yield plot/backstory-centric exposition/reveals when that happens. The non-playbook Threats and The Mastermind would be something only the players discover as the GM (who already knows their individual metaplot and its constituent parts) reveals them through play. However, the GM MUST be malleable, agile, and deftly incorporate the player-protagonism defining input of the playbook Threats mentioned above (The Orphan, The Beast, The Coven).
2) System would need a lot less say or it would need to be able to be bypassed/vetoed by both players and GM when it interferes with their authorial rights (GMs conception of setting and curated metaplot/reveals and players conception of PC and their arc with their PC's Threat). Alternatively, the game's system needs to be designed such that it can be trivially gamed in so that "the important stuff" (that last sentence in (1) above) isn't perturbed by "System's Say." GM isn't beholden to system outputs that screw up their setting/metaplot mysteries and reveals and players aren't beholden to system outputs that screw up their character arc.
3) System's Say was already covered above. So now we need to get GM and Player "as coalition" but only specifically as it relates to the PC playbook and playbook-embedded Threat (the player's protagonism and PC-prescribed antagonism). This is a bit of a "writer's room" dynamic here. Depending upon how this is systemitized, it might be (i) full-on choregraphed (a transparent meta-conversation relating when/what/how as it pertains to the PC's arc/Threat) or it might be (ii) systemitized via player-flags or written quests and then a system that is amenable to ensuring these things happen "just so" (EZMode D&D 4e with player-authored Quests is one way this could work as well as certain versions of Fate).
I don't know if this helps you or the thread-at-large. But...words ^
An example of The Unscene
EDIT 2 - tetra's laugh emoji on this post isn't mocking me by the way. He hit that laugh emoji after my screw-up of hitting "reply" accidentally waaaaaaaaaay too early. So just a friendly chuckle at my screw up. All good.
@tetrasodium , observing your back-and-forth with @hawkeyefan . Going to throw a few words out there and see if this does some work.
The Between is a PBtA Story Now game set in Victorian London inspired by Penny Dreadful, The Others, The League of Extraordinary Gentleman, Frankenstein, Dracula, The Picture of Dorain Gray etc. It is a game about a team of eccentric monster hunters who must deal with the horror within, succumb to or confront their haunted pasts as they are uncovered in play, while attempting to foil Threats and a Mastermind terrorize the setting.
@hawkeyefan is playing The Mother. Here is the purple prose for the playbook:
@Campbell is playing The Legacy. Here is the purple prose for the playbook:
A third player is playing The Vessel. Here is the purple prose for the playbook:
* There are always 2-3 Threats in play at any given time. The Mastermind Threat may also be in play. A players playbook Threat (The Orphan for the The Mother, The Beast for The Legacy, and The Coven for The Vessel) might also be in play.
* There is a structured play loop where the players (a) try to find clues to (b) develop a working theory as to "what is going on" and gain +'s for when they make their "Answer a Question" (its basically a "Solve a Myster" move; see below) move. Success on that move means (c) they get an Opportunity to confront and defeat (or not) the related Threat in the next (dangerous and feral) Night phase. In the course of all of this, they (d) suffer Conditions (enough of which can take them out), tick their Janus Mask of the Future/Past in order to resist down a Consequence (like from death to a bullet wound and all other brand of fictional fallout and harm-based consequences), (e) make new friends/enemies (Side Characters), (f) gain trophies/gear (Side Quarters), (g) "reveal their past" (when prompted), and (f) we collectively uncover/reveal Hargrave House (the monster hunters base of operations) and the various sides of London through the procedures of play and our individual input on that.
* The system structures impacts to the setting (and Mastermind) if the players don't resolve a Threat or don't resolve it in a certain number of play loops.
* The system and play structures when new Threats come into play, when each hunters personal Threat "comes online," and when The Mastermind "comes online."
Why is this game Story Now and not Trad or Neotrad?
1) There is no GM metaplot or plot points/nodes or sequence-of-events. The mysteries/Threats/Mastermind, the pasts of the hunters, and the nature of London are all emergent...all revealed through play via a collection of prompts, choices, and our personal inputs as GMs and players (framing, consequences, question-answering from system-prompts, following the structure, etc).
2) System has a LOT of say. A LOT. And its binding for all parties; players and GM alike. Through all of that system's say, we each get to find out the nature of the Threats, the Mastermind, the PCs, and London itself.
3) While players have plenty of input on the nature and trajectory of their characters, they are also beholden to a very large amount of system's say. There is no mapping of character preconception onto play...there is enough system-infusing entropy/dynamism to ensure that and the game is pretty lethal/brutal.
So what changes would be necessary to make The Between a Trad game instead of a Story Now game?
1) There would need to be GM metaplot, plot points/nodes, and a sequence of events that "go-off" and yield plot/backstory-centric exposition/reveals when that happens. The Threats and The Mastermind would be something only the players discover as the GM (who already knows their individual metaplot and its constituent parts) reveals them through play.
2) System would need a lot less say. The GM would need the authority to veto the significant entropy-and-dynamism-infusing aspect of the game's structure, prompts, and the player's authority to generate fundamental alterations to both (a) the GM's metaplot and (b) "what this game is about in the first place."
3) Despite the fact that "system's say" binds and focuses player input in specific ways, the type of say that players have to relentlessly say "the game is about this" and to generate mystery/Threat-defining and altering Clues is too much for (1). So the nature and amount of "player say" (via the dynamics of playbook choice, by the dynamics of questions/prompts answered with invest situation with energy/motif, via the injection of Clues, via the nature of the "Answer a Question" structure, etc) would need to be rejiggered and throttled back entirely.
Honestly, most of the game would just need to be gutted and rewritten. The nature of the Threats/mysteries would need total revision, the Answer a Question move goes away, the structure of Threats (particularly PC playbook Threats) resolving and entering play, Paint the Scene at Hargrave House can probably stay, The Unscene (which is significant framing motif and connective tissue for The Night Phase as we look in at an alternate scene playing out in London and smash cut back and forth to our own Night Phase scenes...kind of like a collective player-authored Kicker for situation motif and pacing device as things unfurl in The Night Phase..see the very bottom of the page for reference)...all of hardcore game tech that makes this game what it is would need to go. And the GM would to have hard veto rights instituted.
So what changes would be necessary to make The Between a Neotrad game instead of a Story Now game?
1) There would need to be GM metaplot, plot points/nodes, and a sequence of events that "go-off" and yield plot/backstory-centric exposition/reveals when that happens. The non-playbook Threats and The Mastermind would be something only the players discover as the GM (who already knows their individual metaplot and its constituent parts) reveals them through play. However, the GM MUST be malleable, agile, and deftly incorporate the player-protagonism defining input of the playbook Threats mentioned above (The Orphan, The Beast, The Coven).
2) System would need a lot less say or it would need to be able to be bypassed/vetoed by both players and GM when it interferes with their authorial rights (GMs conception of setting and curated metaplot/reveals and players conception of PC and their arc with their PC's Threat). Alternatively, the game's system needs to be designed such that it can be trivially gamed in so that "the important stuff" (that last sentence in (1) above) isn't perturbed by "System's Say." GM isn't beholden to system outputs that screw up their setting/metaplot mysteries and reveals and players aren't beholden to system outputs that screw up their character arc.
3) System's Say was already covered above. So now we need to get GM and Player "as coalition" but only specifically as it relates to the PC playbook and playbook-embedded Threat (the player's protagonism and PC-prescribed antagonism). This is a bit of a "writer's room" dynamic here. Depending upon how this is systemitized, it might be (i) full-on choregraphed (a transparent meta-conversation relating when/what/how as it pertains to the PC's arc/Threat) or it might be (ii) systemitized via player-flags or written quests and then a system that is amenable to ensuring these things happen "just so" (EZMode D&D 4e with player-authored Quests is one way this could work as well as certain versions of Fate).
I don't know if this helps you or the thread-at-large. But...words ^
An example of The Unscene
Last edited:
I find it fascinating that you're pretending to not know sandboxes exist.
Dward Fortress and Wildermyth beg to differ, as does the entire concept of emergent narratives driven by systemic design. Hell, even in its own limited way, Bannerlord and its predecessors have a bone to pick here too.
Neither are TTRPGs unless you boil them down to raw improv, in which case you're just doing improvised storytelling with dice attached may be.
Thats like saying Avengers can't do what Citizen Kane does. You're taking two games that, disregarding any mechanics or medium, have basically nothing to do with what each does.
Civ IV is a strategy game that puts you in the abstracted fantasy of ruling an empire across the entirety of human history and beyond. Apocalypse World is an RPG that puts you in the fantasy of various character tropes in a post apocalyptic setting.
Yes, that is all narrative and its intellectually dishonest to try and say otherwise. If thats how you're starting then its clear what my next step is.
I've lost track of exactly what is going on in this thread. @Manbearcat, @hawkeyefan and @AbdulAlhazred, your posts don't seem that controversial to me: that different processes of play, perhaps mediated via or incorporating particular mechanics, produce different experiences. And that one sort of difference is that between prep or "pre-loading" the basic trajectory of the imaginary events, and establishing this in the course of play.
Did you generally agree with my post 556 upthread ?
Did you generally agree with my post 556 upthread ?
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
I think 556 was good, but its late and I'm going to just trust my memory and the fact that I don't recall the last time I thought one of your posts was NOT good. It may never have happened!
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
Only in part. It's loaded with premise, but the actual plot/narrative are emergent in play. Story Now play is all about defining and exploring loaded premises. We set the stage, but then we just let things play out and follow the momentum of play. There are multiple forms of emergent narratives. The aim once the stage is set is to just play our characters hard and let the dust settle. Not to tell a story.
hawkeyefan
Legend
Yes I would generally agree with it. Other than the use of the term ludically crux, which made me need a lie down.
Best wishes for your recovery!
niklinna
satisfied?
Similar Threads
