A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto

[AbdulAlhazred]

After your analysis of fate compels im 121 and 124 I'll just answer that question by stating that fate can be deceptively complex with aspects despite simple mechanics. Beyond that however... I have no interest in filling the request for providing rpghorrorstories fodder more detailed than what you quoted in a system that you yourself already tried to claim fate can not possibly be used for neotrad simply to demonstrate how a story/narrative ttrpg can have gameplay severely damaged by a player who feels like their character &actions don't need to meet the bar required by more narrative heavy systems. The reason there is simply because people with actual experience in playing/running those types of systems already know how critical player involvement is in them as at least one other poster pointed out around that time

I don't recall asserting that FATE cannot be used for neo-trad play. I think there has been an implication at least that it is not a good choice for narrativist play. @Manbearcat IIRC at least implied this when he touched on the ability to downplay consequences by accepting them in low stakes situations and then leveraging the currency generated in this way to guarantee, or at least maximize, success in high stakes situations. He diagnosed this as a trait favorable to neo-trad play styles. I generally agree with that analysis.

 

[pemerton]

This certainly seems to speak to my earlier characterization of Tolkien's Gondorian king lists in the appendices of LotR as not being, in and of themselves, narrative in character. As I said later, they might be held to contain an IMPLICATION of narrative, to suggest and perhaps even invite, the reader to imagine some story behind them, but such a narrative would only exist in the case of a reader actually reading the list and doing such visualization, whereas the narrative in the body of the main work is rather more concrete in form (although it is certainly a reasonable position to take that its character as a narrative depends on being interpreted by a reader).

Just about any sentence can have an implication of narrative in the sense you suggest. I mean, if I say "It was raining", and last night you watched the Daredevil film, then your mind might turn to Matt Murdock seeing Electra's face in the rain.

But that doesn't mean the assertion is an implied narrative about superheroes and their broken hearts!

In the context of JRRT, he actually does use a lot of implied narrative, but not simply by producing self-standing sentences. For instance, at one point Aragorn (? I think it is) refer to "the cats of Queen Beruthiel". I haven't gone back to find my book, but the internet gives me this quote, which seems right in my memory:

He is surer of finding the way home in a blind night than the cats of Queen Berúthiel.​

Now that has an implied narrative: a Queen, with cats who wander at night, but always find their way home. And JRRT does this a lot - with Earendil (a mariner, who tarried in <I can't remember where>, but we get the idea of a somewhat hesitant saviour, which is a common and powerful trope); with the White Tree in Minas Tirith; etc, etc.

I think that you are correct in post 624 to say that, in the context of a RPG, this sort of thing is setting backstory. An interesting question, in RPG play, is *who gets to flesh out the implications?" Compare, in this respect, orthodox Burning Wheel compared to orthodox AD&D.

Where "neotrad" is expected to fall, in this respect, is not clear to me, but I think probably closer to AD&D unless the backstory is fairly intimately connected to a player's character.

 

[niklinna]

Just about any sentence can have an implication of narrative in the sense you suggest. I mean, if I say "It was raining", and last night you watched the Daredevil film, then your mind might turn to Matt Murdock seeing Electra's face in the rain.

But that doesn't mean the assertion is an implied narrative about superheroes and their broken hearts!

In the context of JRRT, he actually does use a lot of implied narrative, but not simply by producing self-standing sentences. For instance, at one point Aragorn (? I think it is) refer to "the cats of Queen Beruthiel". I haven't gone back to find my book, but the internet gives me this quote, which seems right in my memory:

He is surer of finding the way home in a blind night than the cats of Queen Berúthiel.​

Now that has an implied narrative: a Queen, with cats who wander at night, but always find their way home. And JRRT does this a lot - with Earendil (a mariner, who tarried in <I can't remember where>, but we get the idea of a somewhat hesitant saviour, which is a common and powerful trope); with the White Tree in Minas Tirith; etc, etc.

I think that you are correct in post 624 to say that, in the context of a RPG, this sort of thing is setting backstory. An interesting question, in RPG play, is *who gets to flesh out the implications?" Compare, in this respect, orthodox Burning Wheel compared to orthodox AD&D.

Where "neotrad" is expected to fall, in this respect, is not clear to me, but I think probably closer to AD&D unless the backstory is fairly intimately connected to a player's character.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't recall asserting that FATE cannot be used for neo-trad play. I think there has been an implication at least that it is not a good choice for narrativist play. @Manbearcat IIRC at least implied this when he touched on the ability to downplay consequences by accepting them in low stakes situations and then leveraging the currency generated in this way to guarantee, or at least maximize, success in high stakes situations. He diagnosed this as a trait favorable to neo-trad play styles. I generally agree with that analysis.

I gave you the post numbers where you did so. The post you are recalling where msnbearcat corrected your horrifically incorrect understanding and characterization of compels being mentioned is noteworthy because the mere idea of a player being bound by a compel was what led to your initial protests when I described compels back in 113 where I used them as an example of player responsibilities linked to the sort of power neotrad tries to claim for them.

 

[pemerton]

View attachment 344142

This has gone over my head.

 

[niklinna]

This has gone over my head.

It's from an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation in which Picard encounters a member of a society who speak only in terse references to past events. How they learned enough language to do that is left as an exercise for the viewer.

Darmok (episode)

Picard is captured, then trapped on a planet with an alien captain who speaks a metaphorical language incompatible with the universal translator. They must learn to communicate with each other before a deadly planetary beast overwhelms them. "Captain's log, Stardate 45047.2. The Enterprise is en...

memory-alpha.fandom.com

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I gave you the post numbers where you did so. The post you are recalling where msnbearcat corrected your horrifically incorrect understanding and characterization of compels being mentioned is noteworthy because the mere idea of a player being bound by a compel was what led to your initial protests when I described compels back in 113 where I used them as an example of player responsibilities linked to the sort of power neotrad tries to claim for them.

Reviewing the posts subsequent to the one you mention here I am puzzled by this interpretation. At 121I comment on your post, but I mention nothing about compels at all. Then at 124 I'm simply saying I am unsure about compels and I don't venture an opinion about them at all specifically. I don't see how those two posts could possibly be interpreted as a "horrifically incorrect view" of ANYTHING AT ALL. At that point you responded with something that mystified me entirely and I just chose to move on. The last paragraph of your response to 124 makes sense at least, and the last sentence of the first paragraph "Collaborative shared narrative is practically fate's whole thing." I'll accept as a reasonable statement, I think the game generally, as I understand it having played very little, is intended to produce a type of collaborative story.

 

[tetrasodium]

Reviewing the posts subsequent to the one you mention here I am puzzled by this interpretation. At 121I comment on your post, but I mention nothing about compels at all. Then at 124 I'm simply saying I am unsure about compels and I don't venture an opinion about them at all specifically. I don't see how those two posts could possibly be interpreted as a "horrifically incorrect view" of ANYTHING AT ALL. At that point you responded with something that mystified me entirely and I just chose to move on. The last paragraph of your response to 124 makes sense at least, and the last sentence of the first paragraph "Collaborative shared narrative is practically fate's whole thing." I'll accept as a reasonable statement, I think the game generally, as I understand it having played very little, is intended to produce a type of collaborative story.

That bold bit is what you should have mentioned way back when you first bristled over the idea of compels being an example of a player responsibility binding them to story & narrative in fate

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That bold bit is what you should have mentioned way back when you first bristled over the idea of compels being an example of a player responsibility binding them to story & narrative in fate

I never 'bristled' at all. I stated I wasn't sure because I didn't know enough. I mean, I posted what I think is the gist of the thread you are objecting to, and it is up to others. Maybe I am unclear?

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure where compels fit into this landscape.

Reviewing the posts subsequent to the one you mention here I am puzzled by this interpretation. At 121I comment on your post, but I mention nothing about compels at all. Then at 124 I'm simply saying I am unsure about compels and I don't venture an opinion about them at all specifically. I don't see how those two posts could possibly be interpreted as a "horrifically incorrect view" of ANYTHING AT ALL.

I never 'bristled' at all. I stated I wasn't sure because I didn't know enough. I mean, I posted what I think is the gist of the thread you are objecting to, and it is up to others. Maybe I am unclear?

Next time you're not sure, I think that in order to avoid stating "horribly incorrect views" of the thing you're not sure about, you should go out of your way to state that you're NOT SURE, in order to avoid any lack of clarity.

Oh, wait . . . for the third time in fewer days, I find myself utterly confused by this thread!