A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto

[Thomas Shey]

Sure. Being able to create your own VP-based encounters is useful. I generally like the VP subsystem. My question was more about how those instances played out in practice. I remember playing a 4e adventure once when we got to a skill challenge, and it felt pretty bad. We were supposed to clear a hallway or something. Maybe if the DM knew the techniques that @pemerton and others used, he could have done a better job, but he didn’t. Does PF2 suffer that problem, or do they feel more natural?

The one case where I've seen it in play it felt decent--and I understand what you mean, the 4e skill challenges I participated in felt, well, bland. I suspect they lacked enough moving parts to have any real nuance (the problem with a lot of comparatively simple skill based resolution processes; I think 4e tried to address it but just couldn't quite stick the landing).

 

[Thomas Shey]

That could be one place to start. Another thing to consider might be whether the game is using zoom appropriately. Perhaps the game is spending too much time focusing on situations lacking any kind of action and needs to do a better job of putting characters into exciting situations, so the intended dynamic is satisfied.

Well, sometimes the question isn't whether using a subsystem is exciting but whether its significant. Some use of clocks are like that, in my experience; they may be used over a long enough period that its hard to consider them exciting, but you still care very much about the running-out-of-time element. And of course you can bake in things like secondary costs or consequences that still let you proceed.

 

[kenada]

Well, sometimes the question isn't whether using a subsystem is exciting but whether its significant. Some use of clocks are like that, in my experience; they may be used over a long enough period that its hard to consider them exciting, but you still care very much about the running-out-of-time element. And of course you can bake in things like secondary costs or consequences that still let you proceed.

I think there’s some missing context? I was responding to post #275, which had replied to my discussion in post #273 of using MDA to examine where a hypothetical game purporting to be full of action was having problems.

 

[pemerton]

I remember playing a 4e adventure once when we got to a skill challenge, and it felt pretty bad. We were supposed to clear a hallway or something. Maybe if the DM knew the techniques that @pemerton and others used, he could have done a better job, but he didn’t.

To me, that sounds like trying to use a conflict-resolution framework (ie a skill challenge) in a context where (i) the players are probably not that invested in the stakes (that is, the clearness of the hallway) and (ii) the GM already knows what will happen next (ie the PC will get to the other end of the hallway).

So it is probably an illustration of the problem/question I've posed in this thread, which is how can a RPG use "indie" methods/mechanics/techniques, if it also wants to have a "trad" approach to overarching GM authority on how things unfold?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think there’s some missing context? I was responding to post #275, which had replied to my discussion in post #273 of using MDA to examine where a hypothetical game purporting to be full of action was having problems.

Ah, fair. I kind of lost the thread of that sub-discussion because I didn't understand the topic well enough to keep up.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So it is probably an illustration of the problem/question I've posed in this thread, which is how can a RPG use "indie" methods/mechanics/techniques, if it also wants to have a "trad" approach to overarching GM authority on how things unfold?

Depends on how tightly you define "indie methods" I'd think. As I noted, clocks do plenty of things that a trad approach can benefit from as long as the GM is willing to let the clock do its job.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That could be one place to start. Another thing to consider might be whether the game is using zoom appropriately. Perhaps the game is spending too much time focusing on situations lacking any kind of action and needs to do a better job of putting characters into exciting situations, so the intended dynamic is satisfied.

Yes, and another area where IMHO things like SCs and Clocks are quite useful as they really are pretty 'scale independent', both in time and space. For example an SC could be used as a classic training montage, can you learn the winning move before the big fight? Well, in my implementation the last bit of that would BE the fight, probably, but there you go, you can zoom in, and out, etc. If I want to do that with nothing but skill checks I basically have to invent the same sort of framework, even if informally in my head.

 

[pemerton]

Another thing to consider might be whether the game is using zoom appropriately. Perhaps the game is spending too much time focusing on situations lacking any kind of action and needs to do a better job of putting characters into exciting situations, so the intended dynamic is satisfied.

This might be an interesting domain of difference between video games and RPGs? (The question mark indicates tentativeness/conjecture.)

What I've got in mind is that - at least as I understand how they work - in a video game the designer has to create rules for starting and ending scenes as part of their design: they must program in the visuals, the technical details, etc that will permit a scene to occur and resolve.

(If the above is far too simplistic, or just flat-out wrong, apologies!)

Now, the classic D&D/Gygaxian approach to RPGing is (in a sense) quite close to how I've described the video game approach: the dungeon creator builds the scenes into their design, generally via the key and the way it interfaces with the map.

But in trad (post-classic) play, the participants have the responsibility for opening scenes, closing them, transitioning, etc, in real play time. How a game handles this is, in part, a function of its currency rules. (Eg the way that injury, associated penalties, and healing work in Rolemaster means that scenes are never fully closed; or think about the implications for scene closure of a fairly standard expectation that a character will salvage arrows after a fight.) But, as you suggest in your post, other aspects of the game (both design and play) might affect this stuff too.

I don't think a good RPG design will just punt this stuff to the GM. It will either provide methods (like map-and-key, or MHRP Action/Transition scenes), or guidelines (as AW does), maybe both - and also illustrations (whether of prep, like a sample dungeon; or a play example) that show how the game is meant to work.

And then the currency rules need to be designed not to subvert those methods and guidelines. Notice how Gygax's advice to GMs in his DMG, about "restocking" dungeons between adventures, tends to undermine the game's methods for managing scenes and hence managing pace and excitement in play. That advice is, in my view, the beginning of D&D's move from being officially "classic" to officially "trad", with resulting tensions between the formal and informal components of system.

 

[aramis erak]

nice thread

I find the "no rule zero/no golden rule" to be a bit of a misnomer, insofar as many such games do have a rule zero/golden rule clearly stated at some point. They usually go along the way of "this is your game, if a rule goes in the way of what your group considers fun, remove it or change it".

More of the games in the same mold as YZE use "Don't be a dick" instead. Everything by Thor Olavsruud I've seen except Tha 5 (Which is mechanically interesting, but I genuinely don't grok the setting) or Luke Crane uses DBAD as their prime rule.

Likewise, in Dragonbane, which is YZE adjacent and an adaptation by Tomas Härenstrom, I can find no mention of GM initiated changes, nor even table changes nor house rules... only of GM authority to write adventures...

The closest is the definition in the rules of the GM...

THE GAMEMASTER
The final player is the Gamemaster, or GM for short. The GM describes the world of Dragonbane to you, portrays the people you encounter on your treasure hunts (so-called non-player characters, or NPCs) and controls the monsters lurking in the depths.

The game is a conversation between the players and the GM, back and forth, until a critical situation arises where the outcome is uncertain. Then it is time to break out the dice – read more about that below.

It is the GM’s job to put obstacles in your path and challenge your player characters, forcing them to show what they are really made of. But it is not up to the GM to decide everything that happens in the game – and certainly not how your story is supposed to end. That is decided in the game. It is what you are playing to find out.

(Page 5 of the boxed set rulebook)
Note the explicit denial of universal authority of the GM...

But it is not up to the GM to decide everything that happens in the game – and certainly not how your story is supposed to end.

That's pretty clear about setting a boundary - tho' not as clear where it really falls.
All references to authority are in character archetype descriptions...

 

[kenada]

This might be an interesting domain of difference between video games and RPGs? (The question mark indicates tentativeness/conjecture.)

What I've got in mind is that - at least as I understand how they work - in a video game the designer has to create rules for starting and ending scenes as part of their design: they must program in the visuals, the technical details, etc that will permit a scene to occur and resolve.

(If the above is far too simplistic, or just flat-out wrong, apologies!)

It depends. Some games have systems that produce events autonomously. I linked Boatmurdered earlier, which was a shared game of Dwarf Fortress that produced an amusing recap based on how the various players interacted with it. These kind of emergent stories are pretty different from what a tabletop RPG would produce. Others work more or less as you described. For example, Cyberpunk 2077 is heavily scripted by the designers. There are different things that can happen based on your choices, but the designers had to implement them.