A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto

[clearstream]

At one point at least, maybe more than once, the players reminded me of some particular rules aspect that constrained me as GM. (I can't remember the details of the one case I clearly remember occurring: I do remember, at the time, thinking that many ENworld posters might be shocked by the idea that I, as GM, could be held to account by a player referencing the rules.)

I personally don't think this creates or illustrates any interesting GM-as-player vs GM-as-"lusory means" distinction. The GM is not a means in any sort of RPGing I'm familiar with. Even in Gygaxian dungeon-crawling they are an active participant making many decisions about the content of the fiction, using only the means permitted by the rules (eg a GM who is refereeing (say) White Plume Mountain is not at liberty just to change, on a whim, the fiction of some particular room, nor the stats of some particular monster or NPC).

From Torchbearer

To play the game, one player undertakes the roles of the antagonists, supporting characters, setting and scenery. This player is called the game master. The other players take on the role of individual characters. They are the adventurers.

What are your thoughts on game text like that? See also my post #41.

The rub comes from the fact that GMs have a significantly different role from a colloquial Player, serving in some capacity as the underlying engine for the gameworld. Whether that means simulating a gameworld or just filling in whenever NPCs have to do something is immaterial; GMs facilitate there being a gameworld through rules that enable them to do so.

Even FKR works the same way in this respect, and the only games that defy this structure are solo and co-op games, that shift and distribute that role across the game's procedures and/or other players.

@Emberashh points there toward some of the ways in which GM may be counted among lusory-means.

Ideally, the only wrong way to play a game should be to just not play it at all.

That reminds of the "formalist" position: which is that one is not playing a game unless one is playing by the rules.

On a different point, in another recent thread I characterised neo-trad design as the adaption of certain techniques from "indie" RPGs to a more trad-type high concept sim play; I note that one coiner of the term seems to agree, As per post 42 upthread,

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.​

Clearly I diverge from TH on that. One way that pays out is he counts D&D 4e under "D&D/Pathfinder" whereas I would include it in neotrad. I linked his full post above, which says more about what he counts as "sim", which again I diverge from. A significant additional consideration for me is that the innovative indie-game mechanics he is speaking of can be profitably integrated into more than only sim designs.

 

[Thomas Shey]

@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.)

Actually, as a lifelong GM, I don't have an issue with counting the GM as a player in a sense; I just think the role they serve is different enough as a player I don't see that characterization as particularly significant. But if the GM expecting to be bound by the rules (at least to the same approximate degree other players are) makes them a "player" from some POVs, I don't have an issue with that.

 

[tetrasodium]

Integrating innovations from indie-games in the design is going to speak most to the actual play. Flag mechanics come to mind. And once you're using those the game tends toward more collaborative. Certainly the goal isn't to provide "a shield for poorly behaving players with unreasonable expectations".


Seems to come back to the mix up in terms I mentioned in my OP. They're (claiming to be) an "OC" player, really.

All of those games tend to use descriptive terms like narrative focused/ story forward/etc. Neotrad/oc is not descriptive, nor are those terms really even a useful area of shared agreement to begin a discussion over. If the goal is not simply being a shield for poor player behavior, why are the terms accepted and in use by semi-mainstream ttrpgs using them being rejected?

 

[tetrasodium]

Actually, as a lifelong GM, I don't have an issue with counting the GM as a player in a sense; I just think the role they serve is different enough as a player I don't see that characterization as particularly significant. But if the GM expecting to be bound by the rules (at least to the same approximate degree other players are) makes them a "player" from some POVs, I don't have an issue with that.

I generally agree but feel like the effort to disempower and restrict the GM while declaring them to be "not a player" is more akin to declaring someone is "only a drive thru employee" than drawing a line to indicate different needs and role at the table

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's true. Earthdawn for instance spells out the whole rules-can't-cover-everything / make-the game-your-own-thing, even though it hasn't got anything labelled "rule zero" or "golden rule". The signal question is whether only GM as referee is expected to own that?

Yeah, I'd say that would be the key difference. Traditionally its been something the GM reserves for themselves, and at best, takes it under advisement what the players think about it.

There's no obvious reason that has to be the case. Attempts to defend it as having to be that way, at best turn on the demand for speed and pacing, with the assumption that takes priority over everything else.

 

[Thomas Shey]

As long as proponents of neotrad as a gameplay style continue to focus efforts so narrowly at defining the play style with a near total focus on how the gm should be limited the entire hypothetical play style is presented as little more than a shield for poorly behaving players with unreasonable expectations to defend their behavior with.

Or, if one wants to play the dozens this way, a desire to have a game contract assumption that restrains the excesses unnecessary extension of uneeded power to GMs has lead to in many over the years.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And even moreso in this case!

If I'm playing "beat the dungeon" D&D, then I expect the GM to stick to their prep, much as Lewis Pulsipher talked about 40-45 years ago.

There was a great degree of debate over the validity of this (known as "flexkeying" at the time) at a certain period.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I generally agree but feel like the effort to disempower and restrict the GM while declaring them to be "not a player" is more akin to declaring someone is "only a drive thru employee" than drawing a line to indicate different needs and role at the table

I'm afraid if you're looking for someone to have an issue with that you've come to the wrong address.

 

[Yora]

There was a great degree of debate over the validity of this (known as "flexkeying" at the time) at a certain period.

Though I think it's fairly unambiguous that this is highly controversial within the Classic play style. It's a position that you have to defend against strong opposition, which I would regard as strong evidence of it not being part of the culture itself.

 

[tetrasodium]

Or, if one wants to play the dozens this way, a desire to have a game contract assumption that restrains the excesses unnecessary extension of uneeded power to GMs has lead to in many over the years.

"Play the dozens"? I googled it and even with the slang described still not sure I get what you are trying to convey... Especially coupled with your talk about the gm having "unneeded powers" because giving the gm's power to players is very much admitting that it is needed power. Take this example "Thus forming the manifesto: neotrad game designs ought to shift GM to or toward a role taken on by a player. At the least, a neotrad game text will contain rules that constrain and compel GM's voice in the ongoing negotiation of play... and GM cannot "rule zero" themselves out of that. No doubt the landscape is diverse and there are other hallmarks, too. I suggest that this one is central." That reads very much like"someone needs to be in charge, that someone should be me the player", it only omits "but players still need a gm to be responsible for making the game work and be fun"