A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto

[clearstream]

When playing Dead Gods as written and presented for play; or playing a CoC scenario; what is the "ludically crux" focus of play?

I will suggest an answer to this question:

*For the players, what is "ludically crux" is learning the pre-scripted story, but not in virtue of having it read or presented in a novelistic or movie-like fashion, but rather by imagining oneself "into" the story, and thus encountering it second-person ("You see that . . .", etc) and prompting those second-person revelations via first-person action declarations ("We go and visit the . . . ", etc).​

​

*For the GM, what is "ludically crux" is revealing the pre-scripted material in the manner just described, and then taking pleasure in the players' pleasure in experiencing the revelation.​

So one thing to note is that the GM and the players don't share a common "pre-lusory" goal. This asymmetry, I want to say, is almost definitional of "trad" RPGing.

I feel sure I wrote up-thread that pre-lusory goals would be asymmetrical. Either way, I agree with you that it's asymmetrical.

Another thing to note is that the game play really consists in the players providing the first-person prompts, and the GM providing the second-person responses. To borrow some language from Vincent Baker, the purpose of the game's mechanics is, primarily (and perhaps with combat as an exception in AD&D and in CoC) to "structure [the] group's ongoing agreement about what happens in the game".

I don't exempt combat from what game play may really consist of.

As far as the content of the fiction is concerned, the players' contribution is explained by Edwards, here:

the story [is] a feature of Exploration with the process of play being devoted to how to make it happen as expected. The participation of more than one person in the process is usually a matter of providing improvisational additions to be filtered through the primary story-person's judgment, or of providing extensive Color to the story.​

Player contributions of that sort can hardly be counted as ludically-crux.

Eero Tuovinen describes this sort of RPGing in these terms:

the purpose of the GM story hour is not to cheat and create an illusion of freedom; it is to exquisitely prepare nuanced literary material for intimate consideration. The strength of the railroading game structure is not in hiding the tracks, but rather in ensuring that those tracks travel through scenes worthy of spending some time in. You’re literally only bothering with the railroad tracks because you don’t want to waste time preparing complex content and then just have the other players skip it; it’s much better to take the track as a given and focus on how to make your content worth the trip.​

​

I’ve written about this in more detail elsewhere, but the key consideration is treating your game prep the same way an adventure video game does: your core strength is being able to prepare carefully, and the freedoms you give to the player are carefully constrained to ensure that you actually get to show off your stuff. It is still interactive, as the player has the primary control over the pace (how quickly you go over your material) and focus (what parts of your material are particularly observed) of play, even as the GM by definition holds primary content authority. The GM decides what play will be about, but the other players decide how they investigate that aboutness.​

​

The GM story hour is an appropriate game structure for games where a single player introduces specific subject matter to the other players. It is extremely important that the introduced matter is good stuff, creatively relevant to the participants. Tracy Hickman understood this in his magnum opus Dragonlance, pushing the AD&D content delivery chassis to its extreme ends and beyond in an effort to deliver a true high fantasy epic via a game structurally very poorly suited for the purpose; Hickman understood that if there was to be a measure of grace to the project, it would be in the fact that the GM would in his interminable story hour be delivering actually legit fantasy literature. . . .​

​

Respect yourself, respect your friends, and if you choose to play a game structured for the story hour, bring something you actually want to tell the other players about. Something that you can describe to them, and then let them ask questions, and then answer those questions gladly, confident that you’re engaging in an intelligent, meaningful activity.​

Tuovinen also adds some remarks about an alternative/variant, where the emphasis is less on literary merit and more on shared appreciation of the source material:

The better the game manages to portray its source material, the more accessible, the more powerful the portrayal, the greater our appreciation. The GM is of course core here . . .​

​

Substantial exploration pairs up well with GM story hour, of course, but they both can fare just fine without each other, which makes considering them distinctly quite meaningful.​

Notice how Tuovinen emphasises the point that the core of this sort of play is the prompt- revelation cycle, between players and GM.

I found a case in point in this RQ actual play from about 105 minutes in, and running for about an hour. GM characterises the sequence up front as less like normal play, and launches a protracted CYOA. GM places one player-character within the Godtime in the role of Ernalda as he relates how Orlanth slew Yelm. The other player-characters are at the table, but take no part in this.

This is the sort of delivery of narrative I believe RE was advocating against. I'm advocating against it, too. I say that even if one gains an appreciation of subject from say, reading a history book - even one that amounts to a CYOA! - that is falling short of the ludic ideal. In order to play game as game, one ought to settle what is ludically-crux through play. The characteristic design move of neotrad is to incorporate techniques discovered to drive that.

And from what has been said - by me, by Edwards, by Tuovinen - we can also see why "play to find out" is not particularly apt here. There is no particular, single thing that all the game participants are finding out. The GM already knows the material - they are revealing it to the players, not learning it for themselves. What they are "finding out" is how the player will respond, and (hopefully) the particular way in which the players' appreciation will manifest. The players, on the other hand, are finding out what it is that the GM is delivering to them, whether by way of story in the literary sense (eg DL, arguably Dead Gods) or by way of the second-to-first-to-second person way of presenting beloved source material (eg CoC, arguably Dead Gods).

I agree that PtFO isn't apt here. Here my sense is we hit a definitional argument that needs to be resolved. To my reading, you begin by including in the ambit of play things that I do not characterise as "gameful". You go on to assess that those things are not gameful. I cannot help but agree. I can illustrate by drawing this line

playing-game-as-game | doing-something-playfully​

I rely here on a longstanding distinction between games and play, the former being a subset of the latter. As we sit down to play, within the span of our session we do all kinds of things. Some are "playing-a-game-as-game", some are "doing-something-playful", some are work to support and drive all that, and some are no doubt digression. My manifesto takes on the job of elevating the left-hand side by advising designers what to foremost take into consideration to make space for it. What should they push to the left-hand side? Whatever they intend to be ludically-crux. Incorporation of the innovative mechanics referred to is assumed to put in place or at the very least illuminate techniques for achieving that. RE laid down a clear statement of something he thinks should be ludically-crux.

Thus, I define out of scope criticism of anything that is not-playing-game-as-game. It's not that I disagree with that criticism... indeed, I am ardently motivated by it. What you describe occurs within the ambit of play. The techniques of storygames push the story element where it occurs within the ambit of play to or toward the left-hand side. One could resist the definition I'm using (maybe you do?) or one could say that the innovations referred to lose their purpose when incorporated into texts that make something other than dramatic-protagonism ludically-crux; which seems more promising, but could amount to saying that "neotrad" is a chimera. Note that I resist a hard-conflation of neotrad with "OC" because I observe play of games explicitly characterised as neotrad (fitting the bill) that does not strike me as OC-ish. (And for that matter, OC-ish play of games that don't fit the bill for "neotrad".)

You might also notice that my suggestion that GM ought to be counted a player rather matters here. Say they are not? Then they cannot be included in PtFO as they are not playing. They are doing something else - judging, serving as lusory-means including inter-alia managing adversaries and adversities, managing mysteries if that is part of play, actively disclosing that which is not focal, fitting imagined actions to game rules. Thus if your contention were to be that there must be some single thing that all the game participants are finding out, I feel you need to say that in some sense GM is playing.

I don't know why one would then hesitate to call GM a player, but we've agreed not to get hung up on semantics. And besides that, I feel like with GM we're dealing with some new creature entirely. Not referee, in the way we've learned from sports. I have considered analogies with judges, who we expect to interpret law and sometimes write it, but not to be immune to law themselves. But a judge of a game wouldn't be expected to join the game: that seems to invoke an obvious conflict of interest. On the other hand, a player of a game is not expected to be a judge of that game, for the same reason.

(A footnote: In checking the above quote from Edwards, I also discovered Edwards' description of neo-trad, or proto-neo trad, here: "Players get to contribute tons of Color, even content, but never outcomes or final-resolutions, and playing the character as conceived is the first priority".)

So this is not "neotrad" by anything I have offered as a description. I diagnose it as an error: mixing up player-contributes-colour with player-plays-game.

 

[clearstream]

Only in part. It's loaded with premise, but the actual plot/narrative are emergent in play. Story Now play is all about defining and exploring loaded premises. We set the stage, but then we just let things play out and follow the momentum of play. There are multiple forms of emergent narratives. The aim once the stage is set is to just play our characters hard and let the dust settle. Not to tell a story.

One difficulty is seeing what the test is for how much designed narrative is too much. That seems subjective. Take Stonetop. 200+ pages of designed narrative (in various forms).

@Manbearcat's assertion that metaplot is an essential characteristic of neotrad is interesting and would matter. Forbidden Lands has a metaplot. Does the 4e game text (the three core books) have a metaplot? Or FF L5R (core book) for that matter. What happens if a group play 4e using SCs and all that, or L5R, but stop short of creating a metaplot? Do those game texts become not-neotrad in that scenario? The switch here is defining "neotrad" in terms of play, whereas in my OP I firmly defined it in terms of design. So that would be the argument to make, i.e. that I'm wrong about "neotrad" labelling a trend in design. Otherwise one is talking about something else: maybe OC-ish play? Or whatever play one thinks has a metaplot adhering to it.

 

[clearstream]

Yes I would generally agree with it. Other than the use of the term ludically crux, which made me need a lie down.

Please don't mock the language I'm using. That makes me feel belittled.

If you know a better term, please suggest it. I am trying to find language to get at what I want to communicate. In many cases, the right terms just don't seem to exist, but if you know of one, just put it forward and I'll adopt it.

 

[clearstream]

I propose that we limit the term 'ludo-narrative game' to those which center on this, commonly referred to as 'narrativist' or 'Story Now' games.

We'll have to agree to disagree with this. You would be helping yourself to a hard-conflation of ludonarrative with one sort of narrative. That would be both limiting, and at odds with what I understand to be the mainstream understanding of narrative.

Picture by analogy the same move proposed for written narratives. Only Western tradition protagonist dramatically resolves problematic features of human existence counts. That's hard to justify.

 

[Manbearcat]

One difficulty is seeing what the test is for how much designed narrative is too much. That seems subjective. Take Stonetop. 200+ pages of designed narrative (in various forms).

@Manbearcat's assertion that metaplot is an essential characteristic of neotrad is interesting and would matter. Forbidden Lands has a metaplot. Does the 4e game text (the three core books) have a metaplot? Or FF L5R (core book) for that matter. What happens if a group play 4e using SCs and all that, or L5R, but stop short of creating a metaplot? Do those game texts become not-neotrad in that scenario? The mistake here is to define "neotrad" in terms of play, where I in my OP firmly defined it in terms of design. So that would be the argument to make, i.e. that I'm wrong about "neotrad" labelling a trend in design. Otherwise one is talking about something else: maybe OC-ish play?

Just want to clarify what I’m pointing at and what I’m not pointing at when I use the term “metaplot.” All three of the below bullet points in concert:

* A sequence of plot points to be mapped onto play, as forcibly as required, which serve as a (or the) governing throughline.

* Significantly or wholly insensitive to system and/or player input. In fact, system might be the primary vector to ensure “the metaplot stays online” or is revealed; like exposition dumps or "access the plot point" via Knowledge checks or Fail Forward action resolution that indexes “what the plot needs” rather than player intent.

* The initial conditions are not an outgrowth of play and/or are typically insensitive to PC build.

---

So these do not apply:

* Conflict-charged sandboxes or settings with premise-and-character-centered obstacles/dangers/threats/problems (Blades in the Dark, Stonetop, Dogs in the Vineyard, 4e's Points of Light, Torchbearer's Middarmark, etc) which serve to provoke player action, which in turn generates bread crumbs for the GM to follow, which in turn generates momentum for play and ultimately generates throughline.

* Apocalypse World's (et al) prep which gives you situation-framing material and generates Fronts (like Blades generates Setting and Faction Clocks) which are sensitive to player and system inputs.

* The Between's Mastermind, Threat model, and the embedded Threats in most Playbooks as the shape these give play are both player-contingent and system & play sensitive.

* My Life With Master's tightly structured premise, setting, and loop as the Master is created by the table (which serves as the initial protagonist and the point of play is finding out if the Minions can wrest the protagonism away from The Master) and the course/shape of play is wholly player-centered and system-sensitive.

 

[clearstream]

Just want to clarify what I’m pointing at and what I’m not pointing at when I use the term “metaplot.” All three of the below bullet points in concert:

* A sequence of plot points to be mapped onto play, as forcibly as required, which serve as a (or the) governing throughline.

* Significantly or wholly insensitive to system and/or player input. In fact, system might be the primary vector to ensure “the metaplot stays online” or is revealed; like exposition dumps or "access the plot point" via Knowledge checks or Fail Forward action resolution that indexes “what the plot needs” rather than player intent.

* The initial conditions are not an outgrowth of play and/or are typically insensitive to PC build.

---

So these do not apply:

* Conflict-charged sandboxes or settings with premise-and-character-centered obstacles/dangers/threats/problems (Blades in the Dark, Stonetop, Dogs in the Vineyard, 4e's Points of Light, Torchbearer's Middarmark, etc) which serve to provoke player action, which in turn generates bread crumbs for the GM to follow, which in turn generates momentum for play and ultimately generates throughline.

* Apocalypse World's (et al) prep which gives you situation-framing material and generates Fronts (like Blades generates Setting and Faction Clocks) which are sensitive to player and system inputs.

* The Between's Mastermind, Threat model, and the embedded Threats in most Playbooks as the shape these give play are both player-contingent and system & play sensitive.

* My Life With Master's tightly structured premise, setting, and loop as the Master is created by the table (which serves as the initial protagonist and the point of play is finding out if the Minions can wrest the protagonism away from The Master) and the course/shape of play is wholly player-centered and system-sensitive.

I appreciate that. Unless the contention is that game designers incorporating innovations from a wave of indie-games are in all cases committing to metaplot, it isn't germaine to "neotrad" as the label for a trend in game design. Seeing as I see game texts that fit the bill and don't force groups to commit to metaplot, I don't see how metaplot adheres to the label. For one thing, the innovations referred to will often work against a metaplot, by disrupting the sequence of plot points.

What I think is happening is that you're thinking of a different definition for "neotrad". Contending that it is inherent to a "neotrad" game text that it instructs groups to create metaplot, or something like that. Or saying that regardless of what the game text says, the play will employ a metaplot.

 

[pemerton]

I don't exempt combat from what game play may really consist of.

Nor do I. But no one who loves DL or Dead Gods or a CoC module points to the combat aspects as the peak of these games. Indeed, there's a tradition ("roleplay vs rollplay") that treats wargame-style combat mechanics as a necessary evil (in that they don't know any other way, but appear to regret the way that they do know).

Player contributions of that sort can hardly be counted as ludically-crux.

<snip>

This is the sort of delivery of narrative I believe RE was advocating against. I'm advocating against it, too. I say that even if one gains an appreciation of subject from say, reading a history book - even one that amounts to a CYOA! - that is falling short of the ludic ideal. In order to play game as game, one ought to settle what is ludically-crux through play. The characteristic design move of neotrad is to incorporate techniques discovered to drive that.


I agree that PtFO isn't apt here. Here my sense is we hit a definitional argument that needs to be resolved. To my reading, you begin by including in the ambit of play things that I do not characterise as "gameful". You go on to assess that those things are not gameful. I cannot help but agree. I can illustrate by drawing this line

playing-game-as-game | doing-something-playfully​

I rely here on a longstanding distinction between games and play, the former being a subset of the latter. As we sit down to play, within the span of our session we do all kinds of things. Some are "playing-a-game-as-game", some are "doing-something-playful", some are work to support and drive all that, and some are no doubt digression. My manifesto takes on the job of elevating the left-hand side by advising designers what to foremost take into consideration to make space for it. What should they push to the left-hand side? Whatever they intend to be ludically-crux. Incorporation of the innovative mechanics referred to is assumed to put in place or at the very least illuminate techniques for achieving that. RE laid down a clear statement of something he thinks should be ludically-crux.

Thus, I define out of scope criticism of anything that is not-playing-game-as-game. It's not that I disagree with that criticism... indeed, I am ardently motivated by it. What you describe occurs within the ambit of play. The techniques of storygames push the story element where it occurs within the ambit of play to or toward the left-hand side. One could resist the definition I'm using (maybe you do?) or one could say that the innovations referred to lose their purpose when incorporated into texts that make something other than dramatic-protagonism ludically-crux; which seems more promising, but could amount to saying that "neotrad" is a chimera. Note that I resist a hard-conflation of neotrad with "OC" because I observe play of games explicitly characterised as neotrad (fitting the bill) that does not strike me as OC-ish.

This is not particularly easy to follow, but in response:

(1) I don't think that it is particularly helpful to argue that huge swathes of RPG play are not, in fact, the play of games. I don't see that that adds much to our understanding. People who play DL, or Dead Gods, or CoC modules, think of themselves as playing games (AD&D, CoC, or whatever). The fact that it does not satisfy some threshold you have nominated of being "gameful" as opposed to merely "playful" doesn't seem to me very relevant to how we should characterise what they're doing.

Children talk about playing a "game" or an "imagination game" which doesn't appear to meet your threshold of "gameful"-ness either, but there is no error of usage on the chidren's part.

In the case of the sort of game play I posted about, the game consists in this: the GM tells the players something about what they (the GM) have made up, in second person (eg "You see, in the distance and coming towards you, . . ."; then the players describe actions of characters in the fiction in first person (eg "We do <such and such> . . ."); and this prompts the GM to engage in more second person narration (eg "In response, they do <whatever>).

(2) I think you are mischaracterising Ron Edwards. I don't recall him ever using the phrase "ludically crux". And nor do I recall him denying that high concept sim play, including pastiche play, is game play. (Although I think it's fair to say that it is not game play that he particularly enjoys.)

(3) I don't see neo-trad as especially chimeric, if by neo-trad I understand what is mentioned in this blog: https://imbrattabit.wordpress.com/2019/12/09/what-does-it-take-to-be-a-neotrad-role-playing-game/

As I posted in another thread, in reply to you, about two weeks ago:

What I see here is, basically, the prising apart of the "Hickman revolution" as an approach to RPGing from the wargaming rules that Hickman was using, and that have tended to dominate mainstream RPG design since.

We can see this if we look at the dot points:

*Asymmetric game play makes perfect sense in Dragonlance, or even Ravenloft (if we focus on the thematic aspect rather than the wargame-y can we beat a Vampire in his castle? aspect). The GM is not playing a side; the GM's role is framing scenes and presenting the story.

*PC agency and shared PC creation: the party in DL is, obviously, not a random assemblage. They are related as brothers, friends, mentors, etc (and Tanis is also related to a key villain). And they have not just a place in the fiction, but a position in relation to the play of the game (ie saving the world from the dragon armies).

*Chekov's gun, bounded bookkeeping and GM support: DL doesn't need rules for the difference between a halberd and a glaive-guisarme (in one of the original books the author uses "hauberk" when they mean "halberd"; mediaeval weaponry is not a thing this story cares about); it doesn't need generic random encounter rules, given that the whole point is for the GM to move the PCs through the plotted encounters; etc, etc, etc.

*Once the players and GM are provided with proper rules as per my previous dot point, "rule zero"/"the golden rule" obviously is unnecessary.​

In GNS-ish terms, this design is adopting techniques superior to those that Hickman had available to him, in order to support high concept sim play. Some of those techniques seem to come from, or at least show some similarity to, PbtA (asymmetry; the approach to PC agency and creation; much of the approach to rules), but the GMing principles, and the role of prep, seem to be quite different and have much more in common with trad play. That is, it's sim, not narrativism.

This relatively non-radical understanding of neo-trad is reinforced by a remark from Eero Tuovinen:

Tracy Hickman understood this in his magnum opus Dragonlance, pushing the AD&D content delivery chassis to its extreme ends and beyond in an effort to deliver a true high fantasy epic via a game structurally very poorly suited for the purpose; Hickman understood that if there was to be a measure of grace to the project, it would be in the fact that the GM would in his interminable story hour be delivering actually legit fantasy literature.​

Neo-trad, as I understand it from that blog, aims to reduce the gracelessness, by improving the content delivery chassis to better fit what is desired to be done with it: hence asymmetry (the GM as author and the one who reveals, the players as prompts to that revelation); hence PC agency and shared PC creation; hence getting rid of cruft and any need for rule zero.

Whether neo-trad in this sense can be separated from OC play will depend a bit on more detail on PC creation, and who has control over all the Chekov guns. As I've posted upthread, GUMSHOE seems like it probably counts as neo-trad, and it may not count as OC.

But anyway, and setting aside the neo-trad/OC relationship, I understand that you to have something else in mind when you talk about "neotrad", beyond what I have described above, But I haven't really worked out what that is.

 

[clearstream]

Nor do I. But no one who loves DL or Dead Gods or a CoC module points to the combat aspects as the peak of these games. Indeed, there's a tradition ("roleplay vs rollplay") that treats wargame-style combat mechanics as a necessary evil (in that they don't know any other way, but appear to regret the way that they do know).

This is not particularly easy to follow, but in response:

(1) I don't think that it is particularly helpful to argue that huge swathes of RPG play are not, in fact, the play of games. I don't see that that adds much to our understanding. People who play DL, or Dead Gods, or CoC modules, think of themselves as playing games (AD&D, CoC, or whatever). The fact that it does not satisfy some threshold you have nominated of being "gameful" as opposed to merely "playful" doesn't seem to me very relevant to how we should characterise what they're doing.

Children talk about playing a "game" or an "imagination game" which doesn't appear to meet your threshold of "gameful"-ness either, but there is no error of usage on the chidren's part.

In the case of the sort of game play I posted about, the game consists in this: the GM tells the players something about what they (the GM) have made up, in second person (eg "You see, in the distance and coming towards you, . . ."; then the players describe actions of characters in the fiction in first person (eg "We do <such and such> . . ."); and this prompts the GM to engage in more second person narration (eg "In response, they do <whatever>).

(2) I think you are mischaracterising Ron Edwards. I don't recall him ever using the phrase "ludically crux". And nor do I recall him denying that high concept sim play, including pastiche play, is game play. (Although I think it's fair to say that it is not game play that he particularly enjoys.)

(3) I don't see neo-trad as especially chimeric, if by neo-trad I understand what is mentioned in this blog: https://imbrattabit.wordpress.com/2019/12/09/what-does-it-take-to-be-a-neotrad-role-playing-game/

As I posted in another thread, in reply to you, about two weeks ago:
This relatively non-radical understanding of neo-trad is reinforced by a remark from Eero Tuovinen:

Tracy Hickman understood this in his magnum opus Dragonlance, pushing the AD&D content delivery chassis to its extreme ends and beyond in an effort to deliver a true high fantasy epic via a game structurally very poorly suited for the purpose; Hickman understood that if there was to be a measure of grace to the project, it would be in the fact that the GM would in his interminable story hour be delivering actually legit fantasy literature.​

Neo-trad, as I understand it from that blog, aims to reduce the gracelessness, by improving the content delivery chassis to better fit what is desired to be done with it: hence asymmetry (the GM as author and the one who reveals, the players as prompts to that revelation); hence PC agency and shared PC creation; hence getting rid of cruft and any need for rule zero.

Whether neo-trad in this sense can be separated from OC play will depend a bit on more detail on PC creation, and who has control over all the Chekov guns. As I've posted upthread, GUMSHOE seems like it probably counts as neo-trad, and it may not count as OC.

But anyway, and setting aside the neo-trad/OC relationship, I understand that you to have something else in mind when you talk about "neotrad", beyond what I have described above, But I haven't really worked out what that is.

To try to simplify,

RE says that when playing a game what matters most ought to be settled by play (leading to the catchcry, play to find out what happens)​

​

RE says that what matters most, is P (protagonists resolve premises relating to problematic features of human existence)​

​

Therefore, says RE, P ought to be settled by game play​

​

From there

I say that when playing a game what matters most ought to be settled by play. (Agreement with RE.)​

​

I am agnostic on what matters most: I call whatever matters most to you, L ("ludically-crux"... it's what you want to play to find out.)​

​

Therefore, say I, L ought to be settled by game play.​

VB in DitV says that what matters most isn't setting details - actively disclose them (i.e. don't subject them to game play.) Very well, I say, we apply the rule that whatever doesn't matter most is a good candidate for not subjecting to game play. Additionally, I do not suppose this to be all or nothing. To provide a somewhat contrasting example

To Lucy, being told a story by Samantha (her GM) is what matters most. She most wants to be told a story. Being told a story isn't playing a game. However, Lucy wants to do some work to get the story (i.e. she desires ergodic literature.) The kind of work is a sort of guessing game with Samantha, punctuated by overcoming some strategic challenges to reach the next clue. When playing a game, what matters most to Lucy is L (guessing and overcoming strategic challenges.)​

​

Therefore, for Lucy, L is what ought to be settled in game play. Otherwise we lack explanation as to why Lucy is playing a game, rather than sitting down and listening to Samantha's story.​

​

In closing, I assume that only players, play. That itself may want challenging. In any event, I say that the "neotrad" project is: submit more of what matters most to game play. This contrasts with @Manbearcat, who I read to put in place permanent obstacles to such a project. One could reconcile metaplot with my view by presupposing that it's not ludically-crux. Counting it instead among narrative not submitted to game play that serves the purpose of framing and seeding the game play. In this way, no different from text adhering to the roles listed for The Between.

 

[Emberashh]

Only in part. It's loaded with premise, but the actual plot/narrative are emergent in play. Story Now play is all about defining and exploring loaded premises. We set the stage, but then we just let things play out and follow the momentum of play. There are multiple forms of emergent narratives. The aim once the stage is set is to just play our characters hard and let the dust settle. Not to tell a story.

If your character has any characteristics whatsoever prior to the game starting, that is a story being told. Doesn't matter if you made it up ad-hoc or if it was procedurally generated as part of chargen.

A backstory IS a narrative and it is, again, dishonest to try to argue otherwise because of some extreme hesitation with just admitting you're telling some stories.

I mean, for the love of god telling stories is how the whole hobby is pitched! Stop acting like its a bad thing!.

This is the kind of behavior that makes me believe half the motivation on the opposing side is just being in the cool kids club at any cost. Emergent narratives are posited as cool so any and all measures are taken to say thats whats happening, up to and including making nonsensical claims to combat any counter to contrary.

===

That spiel aside, as someone whose been working on an emergent narrative system, I can say the last thing Im concerned about is whether or not storytelling is a part of the storymaking.

Especially with regards to backstories. I didn't post about it in that topic (yet), as its a more recent development, but the system will have procedures to bake in and integrate character backstories, piggybacking off the base mechanics and the Quantum Quest (which I also didn't cover) to rigorously schedule and/or trigger events and such depending on the circumstances. These will then embed into the system and can start dynamically interacting as the stories progress.

While they won't always be as prominent or slow-burning as they might be in the typical RPG, it won't be a mystery as to how they can be set up and paid off.

 

[Composer99]

So, @clearstream, if I'm reading post 588 correctly, as an example of what you mean for what is ludically crux ("the important thing that is to be settled by gameplay" if that's a fair paraphrase?), in the Tyranny of Dragons adventure path, what has to be settled by gameplay is the answer to this question:

Can the player characters prevent the Cult of the Dragon from bringing Tiamat bodily into the world, and if not, can they defeat Tiamat, thus forcing her back into the Hells (or, in the worst case, weaken her enough that their allies can finish the job)?

Everything that happens in the AP is, in a sense, a lead-up to that question.

At first glance, it seems as if the AP is also asking the following question that must also be answered through gameplay:

Can the player characters, by dint of their adventures, hold together a coalition capable of defeating the Cult of the Dragon?

However, upon reflection, I would say that this question isn't really "settled through play", insofar as it's not clear to me that the AP actually cares about how it's answered! (I recently wrapped up running this AP, so it's fresh in mind.) It feels more like set dressing that is meant to give the player characters something to do in order to gain enough levels to be able to answer the first question.

Apropos of

In any event, I say that the "neotrad" project is: submit more of what matters most to game play.

It strikes me that Tyranny of Dragons, as written, does not submit very much of what matters to gameplay, and so as a piece of content for a particular game (5th edition Dungeons & Dragons) would not be neotrad in design or ambition. I am sure that comes as no surprise, since the mechanics of 5e are emphatically not neotrad.

Apropos of

Neotrad game designs ought to

Promote the lusory-duality of players​

Shift GM to or toward a role taken on by a player​

Because play is more likely to deliver on the former given the latter

I don't see 5e D&D as doing anything do promote the lusory duality of players or shift the GM role in any respect to something more closely resembling the other players.

Am I understanding what you're getting at?

---

(I will here have to admit to some ignorance as to whether "lusory-duality" has been defined upthread; it's not actually clear to me what is meant by that, but I assume it's been defined somewhere and I just missed it.)