A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto

[Emberashh]

Of course we can. I don’t see how you can talk about games doing “anything” and then say there’s only one way. It doesn’t make any sense.

If a game is being pitched as one where players can do "anything", that game fundamentally is an improv game. But if the game wasn't actually designed to integrate improv, its going to cause problems.

We see it literally all the time, and this topic is describing one of those problems.

And there isn't "one way". There are two. You either do the sandbox properly, or you reject the idea that "anything" is a possibility.

Trying to do a middle ground doesn't work.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If a game is being pitched as one where players can do "anything", that game fundamentally is an improv game. But if the game wasn't actually designed to integrate improv, its going to cause problems.

We see it literally all the time, and this topic is describing one of those problems.

And there isn't "one way". There are two. You either do the sandbox properly, or you reject the idea that "anything" is a possibility.

Trying to do a middle ground doesn't work.

No one said that a specific game is about “doing anything”. Very often, games are about specific things. There is no intention of “doing anything”.

That specific thing can be defined in a number of ways. It can be defined by the GM, it can be defined by the players, it can be defined by the game’s designers, it can be defined by some mix of all these things.

Whether it’s to find out what happened to the Carlyle Group and avenge Jackson Elias, or it’s about living on the space station Prospero’s Dream, or it’s about defending the village of Stonetop, or retreating to Skydagger Keep from the hordes of the Cinder King, or about trying to disrupt the delicate balance of power in the district of Red Row in order to harm the criminal profits of the Aelfir who live in the heights of Spire… most games have some kind of goal of play. Having a goal doesn’t preclude player freedom or a sandbox approach to play.

All of those examples are from wildly different games in the RPG sphere. How those stories emerge works differently in each case.

 

[Emberashh]

No one said that a specific game is about “doing anything”.

Im speaking in general about why these issues come about. The idea that RPGs let you do anything is one of the single most common pitches for getting people interested.

It doesn't matter if a specific game does this; all of them are being pitched this way by the zeitgeist, and they all get hit by the problems this introduces if they aren't designed to actually do that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Im speaking in general about why these issues come about. The idea that RPGs let you do anything is one of the single most common pitches for getting people interested.

It doesn't matter if a specific game does this; all of them are being pitched this way by the zeitgeist, and they all get hit by the problems this introduces if they aren't designed to actually do that.

This assumes people take things hyper-literally, which I have remarkably little evidence is usually the case.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Im speaking in general about why these issues come about. The idea that RPGs let you do anything is one of the single most common pitches for getting people interested.

It doesn't matter if a specific game does this; all of them are being pitched this way by the zeitgeist, and they all get hit by the problems this introduces if they aren't designed to actually do that.

I think you’re combining three things here.

The first is about RPGs overall. I see RPGs as a specific medium being described this way, and although we can quibble about how literal that should be taken, I generally accept it.

The second thing is about any group’s specific game or campaign. Most of those are not about “anything”. They’re always about something, even if it’s just the ongoing lives of the PCs. They’re all constrained by setting at the very least, and very likely by many other factors as well.

The third is player freedom. That the players are “free to have their characters do whatever they like” in the game world. I think this is a general truth, but by no means absolute. The freedom granted by any game varies… by design, desire, necessity… any number of reasons.

So I don’t think your view that they need to be about “anything” all that relevant. I think you’re mixing up a few things in your analysis. I don’t think that it’s an expectation for anyone’s actual game.

 

[Emberashh]

This assumes people take things hyper-literally, which I have remarkably little evidence is usually the case.

That doesn't stand up to scrutiny; the burden of proof is on you to show that a given person is being unreasonable by taking the pitch at face value.

Meanwhile, there factually are games where you can do anything, so the pitch is not absurd hyperbole, just because it might be inconvenient.

Most of those are not about “anything”

I'm not talking about what a game is "about". Never once was I saying anything to that end. So the rest of your post is a complete non-sequitur.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That doesn't stand up to scrutiny; the burden of proof is on you to show that a given person is being unreasonable by taking the pitch at face value.

Meanwhile, there factually are games where you can do anything, so the pitch is not absurd hyperbole, just because it might be inconvenient.

Which games? You talk about the burden of proof… tell us about this game.

I'm not talking about what a game is "about". Never once was I saying anything to that end. So the rest of your post is a complete non-sequitur.

But I am talking about what games are about. That absolutely impacts what can be done in them. That was a big part of my point. Setting alone will limit what can be done a great deal… and that’s before we even get to other considerations.

 

[FrogReaver]

Except this ignores the wild disparity of authority possessed by the referee compared to the players. There's nothing to force the referee to follow the rules, except for an empty table. There's the referee to force the players to follow the rules, if they want to play a game.

While I agree with much of what you are saying, this is a no go. The only reason the referee has that power is the group has given him that power. The referee alone cannot boot anyone from the group.

 

[FrogReaver]

You put light on a significant point! Something to reflect on is how the rules can force players to do anything? When it comes to games, what I take to be the mainstream view is that players are those who choose to put rules in force for themselves for the sake of the experience it affords them. No doubt social contracts and learned norms steer them in this.

What I suggest then is that it is only as a player that GM will do likewise, and that doing likewise makes GM a player. Then all the other elements of neotrad design are able to provide their benefits.

Football referee's are bound by the rules. They aren't players. They even make judgement calls that can often seem very arbitrary.

To say it a little more clearly - 'Players follow the rules pertaining to them. Refs follow the rules pertaining to them - rules which typically require them to serve as a player rules enforcer', but sometime the rules may also pertain to how they are required to do things as well.

I think referring to referees as players just because games typically have rules around the referee role only serves to muddy the waters. However, there is a way the GM is like a player (a way that the football ref isn't) and it's got nothing to do with following rules - it's about them playing the opposition.

 

[clearstream]

One consideration is that largely, what we consider the GM, and the power afforded to the GM, has the most to do with the responsibility placed on the GM's shoulders. If players accept that a GM is responsible for following the rules, then a set of powers enabling them to bend, break, and redesign the rules for the purposes of some other goal becomes needless. The more broadly defined their goals are (say, to avert bad feeling), the more necessarily wide their powers become-- this can be restricted in such a theoretical constitution, but the possible discrepancy between responsibility and powers, is likely a source of pushback.

Your point regarding the specific engineering of each game as a tuning of the GM role is a good one, although there is a part of me unhappy with it, because the setting of expectations as happening only in the game feels like a perfectly spherical cow in some ways-- there's a lot of tension when a rulebook stakes a strong position because players often don't see their expectations as being on the table for the book to alter, so it's a non-starter. So you see this natural inclination to reload the GM with authority, and the driving responsibility is "present the experience we wanted it to be, not the experience the book is evangelizing." This can even be true for the book itself, which will essentially infuse the GM with the responsibility of carrying forward its evangelism "this game doesn't suck, your game sucks."

So to get rid of that authority, you have to get rid of the responsibility, and it kinda seems like things have been going in the opposite direction-- the emphasis of the OC thing that's been treated as co-mobid with 'Neotrad' design is about exerting that kind of control on the game in the first place, for a player-desire centric experience.

I think there is.

Making the GM more like the players reads to me like imposing restrictions on the GM via the ruleset while not shifting the unique burdens of the GM to the (other) players. For example, the GM must follow a certain set of procedural rules when creating a town or may not vary from the written text of an adventure when running it. It's about stopping the GM from exceeding his agreed-upon powers.

Making the players more like the GM reads to me like shifting some of the GM's duties to the players; for example, giving them the ability to declare that there is a chandelier to swing from in a given room, whether the GM put one there or not, is giving the players a certain amount of authorship over the setting. Or letting the (other) players make decisions about the culture they are from whether the GM likes those decisions or not.

I do intend making GM a player to imply that players may become more like GMs. Once a GM is a player, then it is the case that GM powers are held by players.