A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto

[clearstream]

You've made dozens of responses in this thread, the deluge of verbosity across them fails to provide this statement with anything shedding clarity. Since you mention earlier responses, you still never answered if neotrad is merely choreographed or not without a giant post analyzing something else.

I'm focused on a design trend, and a manifesto connecting it with a shift in GMing. I have written on that. If players are your concern, why not start a thread? If you do, there is a good chance I will post in it.

"principles" is a meaningless rabbithole that breeds whatever the reader wants it to. You need to be clear and explicit. Vague & needlessly verbose reams of text that leave meaning up to the reader to find accomplish nothing.

Were I writing on players specifically, then - in the (hypothetical) thread I commenced for that purpose - you should surely see you have no grounds for fears as to the verbosity I might deploy to that ends?!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You've made dozens of responses in this thread, the deluge of verbosity across them fails to provide this statement with anything shedding clarity. Since you mention earlier responses, you still never answered if neotrad is merely choreographed or not without a giant post analyzing something else.

"principles" is a meaningless rabbithole that breeds whatever the reader wants it to. You need to be clear and explicit. Vague & needlessly verbose reams of text that leave meaning up to the reader to find accomplish nothing.

Mod Note:

Speaking of verbose, that’s a lot of words to say “Your previous posts lacked some clarity. Can you break down your position more succinctly, please?”

Also, some of your word choice comes across as confrontational. Try to avoid that going forward.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm focused on a design trend, and a manifesto connecting it with a shift in GMing. I have written on that. If players are your concern, why not start a thread? If you do, there is a good chance I will post in it.


Were I writing on players specifically, then - in the (hypothetical) thread I commenced for that purpose - you should surely see you have no grounds for fears as to the verbosity I might deploy to that ends?!

You may be "writing about players", but an awful lot of that writing is how the GM needs to respect their authority & control over things. It's hard not to see the gaping void with regards to their responsibilities to each other or any aspect of fiction and gameplay. Near as I can tell you have made no effort to even mention things like the players being responsible for doing that themselves when it comes to another player. The entire focus there is rather clearly drawing a map to ensure that the GM alone is bound by that restriction ...yet the authority & control for managing those kinds of conflicts has been shifted from the GM to players under neotrad as put forth.

That responsibility to other players should be an obvious requirement for neotrad supporters to work out front & center from the start simply because there are more players at the table and the GM is somehow reduced to being a player with some fraction of the GM's control shifted to players so there wouldn't need for the GM to be called out specifically as the one needing to respect the player's authority & control. I raised this like 40ish pages ago when I used fate's compels binding players as an example only to get bewildered comments about how that was clearly trad and could not possibly fit the neotrad mold suggesting that players have no responsibility to each other's control over fiction in neotrad.

The choreographed vrs live point was originally raised way back in 270 in a comparison to "story now" type games, it got summarized there with "An easy short-hand might be that Neotrad play and Story Now play might both look like sparring in form (grappling or striking). However, the first is overwhelmingly (or totally) choregraphed while the second is live." That should be a simple one or two sentence "yes the goal there is this" or "no the goal there is that" confirming something unless the goal is to make use of the murk in some way.

 

[Emberashh]

"don't cheat" is an incredibly low bar as far as responsibilities & expectations go. You buried it in a thicket of text too.

For whatever reason a lot of RPG discourse simply refuses to be simple and to the point.

Granted, I personally can get very verbose, but thats also reflective of the amount of thought I put into my ideas; I can't boil them down to a sentence because they aren't 1 sentence ideas.

Can't really say the same for what seems to be the overall point here.

When I try to communicate my vision for say a systemic Living World on tabletop, I'm conveying a broad idea that interconnects several systems and ideas that, in of themselves, are complex to break down on their own. So it makes sense when that topic turns into a novel thats about to have a sequel.

Don't cheat, whether you're GM or player, isn't that complex an idea.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is not a thing that players need any extra powers of control over narrative or fiction to achieve even in "trad" play.

I didn't claim it was.

It does, however, need consideration, and mechanics are one of the ways that such consideration can be made.

To stick to my previous example, if I create a PC who is seeking revenge on those that killed my loved one, the GM will need to include opportunities for that to happen. Which means he will need to create the NPCs who were involved, and those that will lead me to them, and reasons for killing the loved one and so on. The player may have ideas about these things, so the GM will work with them to make it all work in the game.

Mechanics that facilitate this character concept can support that. Things like Backgrounds in 5e are examples of this. You see it manifest in other games in different ways... points that can be spent to introduce an element to play or to assist with certain tasks compared to others, and so on.

If a GM is set upon running a purely trad game, a player who has this character concept is entirely at the GM's whim to see it come about. The GM can simply look at it and say "Cool revenge story... too bad we're running Temple of Elemental Evil, and none of that will ever be relevant to play!"

You seem to have a view that this is very adversarial in nature, but in my experience it's not. It's not a case of the players forcing their ideas onto the GM... it's a case of the players and the GM collaborating on the elements of the game.

 

[Emberashh]

If a GM is set upon running a purely trad game, a player who has this character concept is entirely at the GM's whim to see it come about. The GM can simply look at it and say "Cool revenge story... too bad we're running Temple of Elemental Evil, and none of that will ever be relevant to play!"

The question is is how prevalent is it actually that GMs are like that?

Tetra might be floating an unreasonable assumption of neotrad people, but the thing is is that what I just quoted is also a rather uncharitable assumption thats levied at trad people.

Anecdotally, Ive never actually played with or even observed a GM that acted like this. And on the same token, I've also never seen the other side as Tetra posits with nightmare players who are every worst stereotype.

Part of why that is probably that my main group just isn't like that, and also that the people I've taught have perhaps just benefited from me being the one to get them into rpgs.

Either way, it still makes me question the overall point and whether or not this is actually a matter of producing a new kind of game, or if we're just assuming a new game will somehow prevent bad actors from ruining the experience.

If the problems being solved only exist in any meaningful way on r/rpghorrorstories I just don't see the point.

 

[clearstream]

Don't cheat, whether you're GM or player, isn't that complex an idea.

Can the GM cheat though, if they've above the rules? To paraphrase Nixon, it's not illegal if you're the GM.

We have to understand GM as constrained in some way... but this was all laid out pages ago.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The question is is how prevalent is it actually that GMs are like that?

My use of quotation marks wasn’t meant to imply a literal quote from the GM. More that they can effectively block any such attempts at character focused play. And that many will do so without even meaning it as overtly as the quote.

Look around this site and there are plenty of examples. The GM is in charge. Personal agenda for individual characters are described as being a distraction, something the other players have to put up with. References to the “main story” or adventure path.

I also don’t think it’s an unreasonable stance for a GM to have. If they’re interested in running a trad game, then that should be the expectation. If the player wants something more neotrad, then neither is wrong…both are perfectly acceptable styles of play. But they have some conflicting agendas, so the player and GM need to have a discussion and work it out.

 

[clearstream]

You may be "writing about players", but an awful lot of that writing is how the GM needs to respect their authority & control over things. It's hard not to see the gaping void with regards to their responsibilities to each other or any aspect of fiction and gameplay. Near as I can tell you have made no effort to even mention things like the players being responsible for doing that themselves when it comes to another player. The entire focus there is rather clearly drawing a map to ensure that the GM alone is bound by that restriction ...yet the authority & control for managing those kinds of conflicts has been shifted from the GM to players under neotrad as put forth.

Interesting point. What I've observed is GM authority stifling playing to find out what happens in relation to crux lusory-goals. I haven’t yet observed a single instance of the player malfeasance you describe. So working from what I know, I see GM repositioning as a high impact move.

That responsibility to other players should be an obvious requirement for neotrad supporters to work out front & center from the start simply because there are more players at the table and the GM is somehow reduced to being a player with some fraction of the GM's control shifted to players so there wouldn't need for the GM to be called out specifically as the one needing to respect the player's authority & control. I raised this like 40ish pages ago when I used fate's compels binding players as an example only to get bewildered comments about how that was clearly trad and could not possibly fit the neotrad mold suggesting that players have no responsibility to each other's control over fiction in neotrad.

I'm still working through my thoughts on compels.

The choreographed vrs live point was originally raised way back in 270 in a comparison to "story now" type games, it got summarized there with "An easy short-hand might be that Neotrad play and Story Now play might both look like sparring in form (grappling or striking). However, the first is overwhelmingly (or totally) choregraphed while the second is live." That should be a simple one or two sentence "yes the goal there is this" or "no the goal there is that" confirming something unless the goal is to make use of the murk in some way.

On rereading I see significant claims in 270 that I don't agree with. The idea that neotrad play should be choreographed seems to be missing the point. It's the kind of design (or utilisation of the design) that I'm advising against. For example, why stitch attribute attrition into actions, spellcasting and combat, with harsh broken conditions, if in fact you mean to choreograph that?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm going to cut past the preamble and cut to the heart of the matter... This is a meaningless declaration of power and control with no responsibility. You do not even alluded to basic obvious ones like working with other players to avoid stomping on each other's toes right out of the gate.

Oh no! My PEARLS!

Dude, it says it right on the tin, have you not been listening? Who's 'declaring power?' here? You aren't even making a bit of sense. I don't get what your fascination is with players as bad actors, but it clearly taints everything you post. Participants in RPGs negotiate who does what, how, and when, mutually. Maybe that takes the form of simply agreeing to play by a set of rules which spells those things out, but if that's a 'power grab' I'm an Ancient Huge Red Dragon.

Again this says nothing about responsibilities or expectations of players.All you've done is declare that Mary Sue and gary Stu is the goal.

This is all more empty noise that draws attention to the failure to make even the vagueist hint of even a single responsibility expectation or duty expected of players by neotrad

Why do I have to spell out every process that must be gone through, and every possible consideration or complication in order to simply describe what play consists of? You're the only one here who seems to be hung up on this. Are you really that incapable of playing collaboratively? Everything that players want to do makes them 'Mary Sue'. Horse Apples.