A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto

[Emberashh]

When I play, I don’t want to be able to do whatever I want. Why should GMing be any different?

The issue tends to be rooted in the same sort of distrust in the rules of the game that causes fudging and railroading and all that.

That and it can also be abrasive if the solution involves making the game break if the GM doesn't cooperate.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Interesting essay. Thanks for posting.

I've seen similar thoughts around here before but as yet no one's come close to explaining how the players can force the referee to do anything. The rulebook, as an inanimate object, has even less capacity to force the referee to do anything. At best you get this weird loop of the players saying, "But the rules say so!" and the referee responding, "Yeah, so?" The closest the players can come to compelling the referee in any way is with their choice to stay at the table and play or leave and not play. Beyond that, the players have no real capacity to "bind" the referee in any meaningful way.

There's an easy way to do that, symmetrical to how the GM can do it on the opposite way "If you're going to GM for this group, we expect you to stick to the rules." The only reason that seems strange is we're not used to it, but the GM only has more power than the players there if you either assume he can discard them to find other players who will not have that demand, or the players are expected to cede him that choice as a matter of expectation. Nothing intrinsically requires it; the only reason its taken as a given is the relative scarcity of GMs relative to players and a lot of years of cultural weight.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've often exercised my right to leave. (Haven't had to in the last 10 years.) I've also seen groups chastise a GM for not following the rules and browbeat them into adherence, with an alternative of (essentially blackmail via) complaint in local discussion fora. Going all the way back into the 90's. In the 80's, if someone was being dissed by his players for not using the rules, suddenly said GM couldn't even find a group to play in.

This may have been a bit of culture clash, but it's harder now to enforce solely because the player-base is bigger and less united.

There's also probably a bigger ration of only-players to GMs. Players were always the bigger group but at one time you could find a lot of areas where one person in 2-3 would GM at least some of the time. That seems to have shrank considerably over the decades.

 

[overgeeked]

There's also probably a bigger ration of only-players to GMs. Players were always the bigger group but at one time you could find a lot of areas where one person in 2-3 would GM at least some of the time. That seems to have shrank considerably over the decades.

Depends where you look. D&D 5E? You’re lucky if it’s as low as 10 players per referee. It’s generally way more players per referee. In the OSR and FKR scenes? It’s 3-4:1. If that. Crunchier games have fewer willing referees. Lighter games have more.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Depends where you look. D&D 5E? You’re lucky if it’s as low as 10 players per referee. It’s generally way more players per referee. In the OSR and FKR scenes? It’s 3-4:1. If that. Crunchier games have fewer willing referees. Lighter games have more.

Maybe now. In my younger days there was no meaningful difference; if people were willing to GM, they were generally willing to GM anything they were willing to play (note this does not say everyone appreciated crunchier games, but just that the GM/player ratios were about the same of each).

 

[Yora]

Reading the rules with a Classic/Oldschool perspective, I would most likely have been blind to many of the neo-trad elements in the text, but when I read Mutant, Coriolis, and Alien, I saw a game system that appeals very much to what I think I need from a rules system, and it's one I really want to try out in the near future. And I don't recall anything that would put the GM in the role of a player, or any kind of mechanisms that would track progress towards a roleplaying goal.

Maybe Mutant, which I did not read as much and I remember having some structure for how a campaign is paced, with the Ark and such. But I am almost certain there is nothing like that in Coriolis or Alien. Those two games (which I think are 95% identical) very much felt like straight up conventional trad games. Very 90s.

Anyone know what basis the claim was made on that these are neo-trad games?

 

[nyvinter]

Anyone know what basis the claim was made on that these are neo-trad games?

Neo-trad was coined in 2010, when Free League was designing Svavelvinter and the definition was something like "late 80s, early 90s RPG design that acknowledges that indie games have some pretty good ideas worth stealing."

Some of Thomas examples were The One Ring, Gumshoe, and Cortex Plus — non-constricting rules but still often with a specific theme in mind. So yeah, Free League games are very much what he had in mind when he coined the phrase.

 

[Yora]

With The One Ring I absolutely see the neo-trad elements.

But Coriolis and Alien seem just straight up trad games where the GM tells a story and the players make skill rolls to see if an action succeeds or fails.

 

[nyvinter]

As TH defined it, it just signifies a merger between simulationist and story-games with a focus on the characters and motivations — some closer to one than the other. And in Alien, the way the secret android works where the rules switch on discovery is in this vein, at least for me.

It's a Swedish RPG term, if you want a clear definition that can't be argued for a decade by people who are agreement, then you're naughty word outta luck. There isn't a "need this component from story-based games and this mix" requirement.

Edit: another important part is that trad here tends to be BRP-derived rather than DnD, especially before 5e where it had quite limited impact on the scene.

 

[Aldarc]

With The One Ring I absolutely see the neo-trad elements.

But Coriolis and Alien seem just straight up trad games where the GM tells a story and the players make skill rolls to see if an action succeeds or fails.

IMHO, one of the places where the influence of story games is apparent is with regards to how players earn experience in these games. Here is the criteria for Alien:

For each of the below questions that you can reply “yes” to, you get one XP:

• Did you participate in the game session? You get one XP just for being there.
• Did you risk or sacrifice something to further your Personal Agenda?
• Did you risk your life for your Buddy PC?
• Did you challenge or stand up to your Rival PC?
• Did you make a Panic Roll?
• Did you overcome a dangerous event, using violent or non-violent means?
• Did you make a significant discovery or revelation?
• Did you perform an extraordinary action of some kind?
• Did you earn any money?

You can only get one XP per question. Sometimes, the answers are not clear-cut. Discuss within the group, and try to reach a consensus. If you can’t, the GM has final say. Write down the XP on your character sheet.

These XP incentives are primarily story-based that are meant to encourage players to adopt certain character behaviors in order to gain XP. I know that there are also similar questions for Forbidden Lands.

This is entirely consistent with a lot of XP questionnaires at the end of a session, much like in a number of PbtA games. For example, here is the advancement questionnaire for Avatar Legends:

At the end of each session, each player answers the following questions:
• Did you learn something challenging, exciting, or complicated about the world?
• Did you stop a dangerous threat or solve a community problem?
• Did you guide a character towards balance or end the session at your center?
Each player also answers their playbook’s unique personal growth question.
For each “yes,” mark growth. When you have marked four growth, you take a growth advancement.

This is just about XP, off the top of my head, but I am fairly certain that there are other influences from story games.