A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto

[clearstream]

@innerdude @overgeeked @Emberashh @hawkeyefan @Thomas Shey

To my reading you've all raised in one way or another a question relevant to neotrad - why can't GM as referee just follow the rules? Why must they be counted among players? (@overgeeked This is a separate question from - why should we prefer GM as player over GM as referee? - which some of your comments speak to.)

That question - Why can't GM as referee just follow the rules? - is one I had in mind while writing. One could picture a sort of "constitution" binding the lawmaker (GM), and indeed you see that in some game texts. For example in PbtA texts, "always say what the rules demand". Such "constitutional" rules can selectively curtail GM powers, without making them a player. One catch is of course the regress: if I need not follow rules, what makes me follow rules about rules? If I can interpret and formulate rules, what makes me interpret the rules in the way designer envisioned, or prevents me formulating an out? One can make appeal to the power of social contracts and other norms, but @overgeeked at least evinces doubt as to their efficacy (i.e. that a referee is in practical cases still required to ensure that players uphold the rules, implying that social contracts and other norms cannot always be relied on.)

Another consideration is that perhaps players should be defined as those who both follow rules of play and pursue goals playfully. Suits' comments among others would justify this. GM as referee then may be one who follows rules but does not pursue goals playfully. The rules GM follows being presumably the ones considered ideal for helping players do both of those things. Design moves such as the AW text may be read in this light, too.

One could then assume that text such as in Forbidden Lands - "The final player is the Gamemaster" - is simply a mistake... a synonym for "participant". This may also cast doubt on what is meant in AW by - "Choose one player to be the Master of Ceremonies."

It was with all of the above in mind that I chose to present a manifesto for neotrad rather than a definition of neotrad.

 

[clearstream]

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.

Thank you for that link. It's worth pasting the text from TH's OP here in it's entirety (Google translate, I'm afraid.) This was from 2012.

Due to the discussions about indie and trad, I figured out which categories today's role-playing games can be divided into. By that I mean role-playing games that have an active release now, not all games that are played.

Below are some suggested categories. The list does not claim to be complete. The boundaries between the categories are not crystal clear, and there are guaranteed to be games that do not fit into any category.
I have tried to give a balanced description of each category and not to disparage or glorify anyone - but I may well have failed to do so. Feel free to comment!

D&D/Pathfinder
A narrow category it may seem, but D&D and Pathfinder have such a dominant position internationally that they deserve their own category. The game style, RPG with strong elements of character games, is also unique compared to other games. The focus is on combat and achievement, overcoming challenges. It is important to master the rule system, which contains many tactical elements. Game balance is important. Often thick books with high production value.
What to play: As a rule, adventurers in ready-made adventures, or at least dungeons.
Examples: D&D 3-4 ed, Pathfinder, Gamma World, more?

Simulation games
Mainly games based on the BRP system, but also others where the focus is on simulating a game world and empathizing with a character. There are often detailed rules for "everything" - the game doesn't dictate what to play (but also doesn't specifically support any particular type of story). Game balance and tactics are less important - that the rules produce realistic results is more important. Extensive and detailed world descriptions. Together, it often results in thick, and many, books.
What you play: As a rule, adventurers in pre-written adventures, and (long) campaigns. It is possible to play more openly and improvised, but the game does not directly support it.
Examples: Eon, Coriolis, Runequest 6, and many older games such as Mutant and Dragons & Demons in all incarnations.

Old School Gaming
Games that harken back to the childhood of the hobby and the style of play that was common back then. Mainly it refers to early editions of D&D, and many OSG games are retro-clones of those games, but there are also new games that adopt the same philosophy. Short starting distance, simple and spartan rules that basically only support combat. Great room for improvisation of rules, great power of SL to decide what happens. Less focus on rules and more on player choices and decisions. High mortality. Briefly described game worlds.
What you play: As a rule, adventurers in well-written, but simple and short, adventures.
Examples: Lamentations of the Flame Princess (and other retro clones of D&D), Fantasy!

Neotrad
A hybrid between simulation games and Story games (below). Often looks like traditional simulation games (expensive books), but contains a lot of inspiration from the indie games mainly in terms of mechanics. The rules are broad, but also written to highlight certain types of stories and themes. There are often rules for social conflicts as well, not just combat. More focus on individual characters and their driving forces.
What to play: Ready-made adventures in some games, in others the game provides support in how to improvise your own scenarios or campaigns. Usually you play something more specific than typical "adventurers".
Examples: The Gumshoe games (Trail of Cthulhu, Mutant City Blues and more), the Cortex Plus games (Marvel Heroic, Smallville, etc.). The FATE games (Dresden Files, Diaspora, etc.), The One Ring, Brimstone Winter.

Story Games with SL
Focused games made to create a particular type of stories and/or themes. The rules are focused on this particular theme, and are often concise. For things outside the theme of the game, rules are often completely absent. The game world is often described briefly, or not at all. Often relatively thin and spartan books. Often great focus on individual characters, rather than the group. Conflicts between characters are not uncommon. SL exists, but does not have as dominant a role as IT eg the simulation games. Often there are different mechanics for player influence.
What to play: As a rule, open-ended, improvised mini-campaigns that evolve using the tools provided by the game. The characters are closely connected to the theme of the game, and are almost never classic "adventurers".
Examples: Apocalypse World, which has become a trendsetter and spawned tons of hacks (Dungeon World, Monsterhearts, Monster of the Week, Saga of the Icelanders, etc.), The Mountain Witch, Trollbabe, Dogs in the Vineyard, Solar System.

Co-narrator games
Closely related to the Story games, but here they have thrown out the whole traditional structure with SL and players. These games lack SL entirely, or have rotating SL. Instead of SL, they often have a tightly controlled stage structure that gives the game its framework. Not infrequently, traditional rule mechanics are completely missing, instead a form of structured freeform is used. Conflicts between characters are very common, if not necessary. The games are often quite simply produced in small editions.
What to play: The game structure creates a story, often completed in an evening or two. The characters are intertwined with the theme of the game.
Examples: Fiasco, Durance, Dog eat Dog, Montsegur 1244, ]Polaris.

Freeform
In a whole lot of different senses: Games completely without mechanical rule systems, games that belong to the Nordic freeform tradition (which includes jeep form), games and game forms in the borderland between living and tabletop role-playing games.

Writing today, over a decade later, I would say that the neotrad compulsion to integrate innovations from indie games (largely, storygames) into enduring modes has payoffs beyond doing so only for sim. That said, we may have different ideas of what constitutes sim play, and have observed differing utilizations of neotrad game texts. One obvious challenge would be to show that the innovations have utility only to sim.

Elsewhere, I have suggested that "neosim" falls within the envelope of neotrad; an intuition influenced by Eero Tuovinen's updated understanding of sim. (From 2020.) As TH added in comments back in 2012

...the very purpose of the thread was to protest against the, in my opinion, destructive and unnecessary division into indie and trad. To give suggestions for other ways of looking at things, other categories.

 

[clearstream]

I'm lightly familiar with some of these games. My impression is that they allow for plenty of GM adjudication even in basic task resolution, but I could be wrong. What are games that you would consider neotrad?

My aims are toward a manifesto rather than a prescriptive definition. I'm discussing what TTRPG designers may and ought to be doing. In respect of which, individual game texts are glimmers illuminating parts of a vast design space.

But if I had to achieve a definition, then I would first filter for every game text I understood to fit a traditional mode of play (OSR, sandbox. sim, trad) and then I would filter for just those that also integrated innovations from indie-games (largely storygames) with a particular concern for how they treated GM powers and centered player authorship. (Hence calling attention to scene-closure-systems, flags, and striking rule zero.)

Does that help at all? My motives for suggesting that this ought to lead to repositioning GM as player are technical ones, around what rules are and what rule-following amounts to. EDIT Actually, there's another more important motive: I believe best practice design will not spatchcock a grab-bag of innovations into their game text, but be thoughtful about what those innovations mean! Why did they arise? Why did they matter to those who designed them? What project are those innovations intended to drive toward, and what form ought that project to take in the neotrad design?!

 

[Shardstone]

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.

No rules shall ever bind me

 

[tetrasodium]

That's part of the problem, it's assumed the referee is constrained by the rules, but that's not true. The referee enforces the rules but is free to change the rules as they are the one running the game. And players constantly ask them to change the rules. It's one of the central benefits of having a living human referee instead of playing a video game. The referee is the final authority and arbiter of the game, not the rules, not the rule book, and not the players.

Literally nothing. The rule book is an inanimate object. The rules are text on a page. Neither can ever do anything to force the players to do anything. However, the referee, in their role as referee, can. The players either follow the rules or they bounce. The rules don't do that. The rule book doesn't do that. The referee does. Equally, the players can walk away from the game. Or the players can ask another player to walk. But at no point can the players force the referee to do anything. Yet the referee can eject players from the game. That's part of the role.

This the same loop the topic always falls into. The best I can make out is it's mutually exclusive first principles.

Which again goes back to the main issue being skipped over. Without the referee, there is no game to be played. Granted, without the players, there is no game to be played. But that ignores the fact that you only need one referee and multiple players for the game to work. The referee booting a player has a nearly endless supply of players waiting to play. The players booting a referee have...not so much. It also ignores the massive disparity between the roles of player and referee, the massive disparity between the responsibilities involved in those roles, and the absolute dearth of referees compared to the overwhelming number of players. Players are more easily replaceable than referees.

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.

I think the trouble with "neotrad/oc" goes even deeper than that and the OP itself highlights just how far into The Nothing* it goes. While the OP goes to significant lengths about the importance of constraining and limiting the GM to the point of outright stating that the gm should not be considered a player while talking about them like a poorly trained minimum wage fast food worker allowed to handle truffles that and just about every post since has completely ignored the way this is a setup for Atreu to throw artac in the mud and just shrug while complaining the GM is overstepping by threatening artax. Neotrad seems to be mostly about justifying the use of a ttrpg to write personal fiction and cry foul on someone else if it doesn't work. Narrative/story games tend to have some pretty powerful tools like compels and similar available to the gm, but neotrad seems to be mainly an effort to claim that the gm should only be able to use them after asking very politely.

The way neotrad makes wide detours around ever talking about rules and responsibilities that should apply to neotrad players even while attempting to claim that the GM should not be considered a player puts the whole concept of neotrad as a healthy gameplay style into serious question

*From the 80s movie titled never ending story

 

[Yora]

NPCs' great personal story: Trad.
PCs' great personal story: Neo-Trad.

 

[Aldarc]

No rules shall ever bind me

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

They’re based on the Year Zero Engine, which was described by its creator as neotrad.

Here’s a pretty good summary:

Neotrad Elements

One could then assume that text such as in Forbidden Lands - "The final player is the Gamemaster" - is simply a mistake... a synonym for "participant". This may also cast doubt on what is meant in AW by - "Choose one player to be the Master of Ceremonies."

Looking at the article in the link I posted above, I think that the idea of “GM as player” is about reducing the focus on the GM as the primary storyteller. Their role as a participant in the game may be different, but no more important than the players.

I think it’s also about the final element in the list in the article. That there’s no rule zero… the GM is not above the rules. They’re as bound by them as the other participants.

I think the importance of this varies among neotrad games, and I also think it’s not an element unique to neotrad.

 

[clearstream]

I think the trouble with "neotrad/oc" goes even deeper than that and the OP itself highlights just how far into The Nothing* it goes. While the OP goes to significant lengths about the importance of constraining and limiting the GM to the point of outright stating that the gm should not be considered a player while talking about them like a poorly trained minimum wage fast food worker allowed to handle truffles that and just about every post since has completely ignored the way this is a setup for Atreu to throw artac in the mud and just shrug while complaining the GM is overstepping by threatening artax. Neotrad seems to be mostly about justifying the use of a ttrpg to write personal fiction and cry foul on someone else if it doesn't work. Narrative/story games tend to have some pretty powerful tools like compels and similar available to the gm, but neotrad seems to be mainly an effort to claim that the gm should only be able to use them after asking very politely.

The way neotrad makes wide detours around ever talking about rules and responsibilities that should apply to neotrad players even while attempting to claim that the GM should not be considered a player puts the whole concept of neotrad as a healthy gameplay style into serious question

*From the 80s movie titled never ending story

I feel like the words you responded to had a meaning opposite to the words that I wrote. I might be able to respond to individual points if that can first be elucidated upon.

For example, I've said that players follow rules. No detours around that. In fact, it's a motivation for positioning GM as player.

 

[clearstream]

View attachment 342799

I'm probably misunderstanding the intended irony. It would be more the following -

GM (as the witch king) - "Rules bind only players."
Neo-trad (as Eowyn) - "But you are a player..."