A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto

[clearstream]

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:



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:



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


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


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?

Based on my reading of what you say here, I believe that you are understanding what I'm getting at.

The only slight adjustment I would make is this. 5e has a thin incorporation of "neotrad" elements (TIBFs/Inspiration, Social Interaction, "consequences resolution", possibly Background Features). However, these are usually thoroughly squashed under GMing norms. Thus 5e exemplifies both a (weakly) "neotrad" design, and what happens when the manifesto isn't observed. 5e APs doubly so.

Some groups could be playing an AP with their focus locked to "overcoming challenges in a combat minigame"; but generally I agree with your analysis, especially the part about not promoting the lusory-duality or shifting the GM role. To be a neotrad design fitting my manifesto, there would be words in the game text repositioning GM etc.

---

(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.)

So far as I know, a duality in player identity and perception was noted (although not under that label) by Sherry Turkle, Ron Edwards, Miguel Sicart, Laurie Taylor and others around twenty years ago. It takes two forms

Player is simultaneously author and audience. Arguably this is true of all audience experiences, but certainly in game play, players are more overtly authoring stuff. Additionally, there is usually a game interface that makes player authorings available to each other (i.e. they are each audience for each other, as well as themselves.) In video games this is the scene rendering. In TTRPG this is the conversation. Playing solo-RPGs (such as Ironsworn solo) may give insight into the experiential qualities of this duality.​

​

Player is simultaneously person and person-subject-to-game. Players must make themselves subject to the game in order to play it, but that doesn't result in them ceasing to also be themselves. What Sicart and others observe is that players develop a split personality, doing things in game that they're well aware they wouldn't do "themselves". For example, murder-hoboing. Safety principles, or "lines and veils" implicitly acknowledge this duality.​

​

I coined the term "lusory-duality" to describe the former (author/audience), not the latter (player-subject), based on remarks by Edwards in his landmark essay on narrativism. I chose the word "lusory" to connect with the philosopher Bernard Suits' description of play. Thus, players adopt prelusory-goals, enter play equipped with enabling lusory-attitudes (which is to adopt inefficient means to achieve their goals), employing and within the ambit of the lusory-means (the wherewithal of play.) Joining the dots from there to "ludonarrative" (the form of narrative in games), I suggest that in TTRPG's they do all that as simultaneously author and audience. I liberated "ludonarrative" from "ludonarrative dissonance" where it has a different implication.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think it's best to start with the underlying assumption that both GMs and players are running/playing games because they want to run/play the game in question. As a GM I enjoy games like Chronicles of Darkness (especially Vampire: The Requiem Second Edition), Exalted Third Edition, Dune 2d20, Legend of the Five Rings Fifth Edition and Classic Deadlands because the process of making a character requires players to create characters who are real people with real ties to the setting and the systems in play reward players for playing to their established concepts.

I like this for a couple or reasons. I don't enjoy world building or plot creation on their own. I need creative stimuli to build around. My investment into the game as a GM starts with the players' characters. I also want to avoid the natural inclination and social pressures towards expediency. Having the game reinforce concepts and encourage players to drive towards character specific goals and playing their flaws makes the game more entertaining and engaging for me.

I do think one area a lot of these designs could use some help with is building more bridges between characters. My home group has gotten a lot better at this over the years, but most games do a crap job of building in mutual interests between the characters and leave mostly up to the play group to figure out.

The Phase Trio • Fate Core

I've seen similar but different things on occasion in other narrative systems.most ttrpgs are not made with the goal of furthering narrative gameplay though. You could import that type of thing to most any game... But doing that comes with a big catch where you are as likely to wind up with an immediate descent into paranoia chargen vibes or the chaos of fiasco doing it absent the parts of fate that make it work. Even with those fate system elements a player who has mostly or only played trad games like D&D will often approach it akin to old school abusive wish wording in one hand with ruleslawyering in the other to avoid any chance of consequence.

EDIT - Hit "reply" too early. Stand by...

I was very confused originally till I saw the first edit . I've played/run lots of fate stuff and a bit of pbta among other narrative/story/etc games. All of those tend to be extremely clear about their collaborative nature both with guidance and supporting mechanics to both sides of the gm screen. You even demonstrate that in the eventual completion where you note that the system in the mentioned story game having a lot of say over both sides of the GM screen. After demonstrating that you go on to talk about how neotrad means that the system would need much less say.


In contrast to the up front "this is how it is" clarity on interactions & responsibilities & expectations neotrad and its discourse trends towards a focus on applying power only one side of the gm screen with responsibility falling exclusively on the other. When the obvious problems almost certain to bloom from that disconnect neotrad leaps into questioning mindset of the speaker or talk of bad players as the primary solution until eventually reluctantly gesturing at some vague barely defined broad social contract. That weird one sided focus plays out very much like what you tend to get when a player who only knows d&d starts playing those other games and wants the power over narrative they offer plus the freedom from it that d&d allows. It's hard not to be skeptical of neotrad's goal when it focuses so exclusively on splitting power and authority in different directions. Doing that while relying so heavily on the sort of silent must not be said unstated player responsibilities to the game and fellow players/gm like we keep seeing in this thread it practically begs for neotrad to be (mis)applied as a shield.

 

[clearstream]

The Phase Trio • Fate Core

I've seen similar but different things on occasion in other narrative systems.most ttrpgs are not made with the goal of furthering narrative gameplay though. You could import that type of thing to most any game... But doing that comes with a big catch where you are as likely to wind up with an immediate descent into paranoia chargen vibes or the chaos of fiasco doing it absent the parts of fate that make it work. Even with those fate system elements a player who has mostly or only played trad games like D&D will often approach it akin to old school abusive wish wording in one hand with ruleslawyering in the other to avoid any chance of consequence.

I was very confused originally till I saw the first edit . I've played/run lots of fate stuff and a bit of pbta among other narrative/story/etc games. All of those tend to be extremely clear about their collaborative nature both with guidance and supporting mechanics to both sides of the gm screen. You even demonstrate that in the eventual completion where you note that the system in the mentioned story game having a lot of say over both sides of the GM screen. After demonstrating that you go on to talk about how neotrad means that the system would need much less say.


In contrast to the up front "this is how it is" clarity on interactions & responsibilities & expectations neotrad and its discourse trends towards a focus on applying power only one side of the gm screen with responsibility falling exclusively on the other. When the obvious problems almost certain to bloom from that disconnect neotrad leaps into questioning mindset of the speaker or talk of bad players as the primary solution until eventually reluctantly gesturing at some vague barely defined broad social contract. That weird one sided focus plays out very much like what you tend to get when a player who only knows d&d starts playing those other games and wants the power over narrative they offer plus the freedom from it that d&d allows. It's hard not to be skeptical of neotrad's goal when it focuses so exclusively on splitting power and authority in different directions. Doing that while relying so heavily on the sort of silent must not be said unstated player responsibilities to the game and fellow players/gm like we keep seeing in this thread it practically begs for neotrad to be (mis)applied as a shield.

I found your post here much easier to follow. Two questions I would ask, 1) why is it expected that GM-follows-rules obviates the powerful standing norm that players-follow-rules?, and 2) where does your notion that a neotrad design will not put into words the desirable guidance and supporting mechanics arise from? I have some sympathy with your take on the second, although it doesn't seem to be necessarily the case (nothing about neotrad necessitates it... the converse, IMO.)

 

[Composer99]

Based on my reading of what you say here, I believe that you are understanding what I'm getting at.

The only slight adjustment I would make is this. 5e has a thin incorporation of "neotrad" elements (TIBFs/Inspiration, Social Interaction, "consequences resolution", possibly Background Features). However, these are usually thoroughly squashed under GMing norms. Thus 5e exemplifies both a (weakly) "neotrad" design, and what happens when the manifesto isn't observed. 5e APs doubly so.

Some groups could be playing an AP with their focus locked to "overcoming challenges in a combat minigame"; but generally I agree with your analysis, especially the part about not promoting the lusory-duality or shifting the GM role. To be a neotrad design fitting my manifesto, there would be words in the game text repositioning GM etc.


So far as I know, a duality in player identity and perception was noted (although not under that label) by Ron Edwards, Miguel Sicart, Laurie Taylor and others around twenty years ago. It takes two forms

Player is simultaneously author and audience. Arguably this is true of all audience experiences, but certainly in game play, players are more overtly authoring stuff. Additionally, there is usually a game interface that makes each player's authorings available to each other (i.e. they are each audience for each other, as well as themselves.) In video games this is the scene rendering. In TTRPG this is the conversation. Playing solo-RPGs (such as Ironsworn solo) may give insight into the experiential qualities of this duality.​

​

Player is simultaneously person and person-subject-to-game. Players must make themselves subject to the game in order to play it, but that doesn't result in them ceasing to also be themselves. What Sicart and others observe is that players develop a split personality, doing things in game that they're well aware they wouldn't do "themselves". For example, murder-hoboing. Safety principles, or "lines and veils" implicitly acknowledge this duality.​

​

I coined the term "lusory-duality" to describe the former (author/audience), not the latter (player-subject), based on remarks by Edwards in his landmark essay on narrativism. I chose the word "lusory" to connect with the philosopher Bernard Suits' description of play. Thus, players adopt prelusory-goals, enter play equipped with enabling lusory-attitudes (which is to adopt inefficient means to achieve their goals), employing and within the ambit of the lusory-means (the wherewithal of play.) Joining the dots from there to "ludonarrative" (the form of narrative in games), I suggest that in TTRPG's they do all that as simultaneously author and audience. I liberated "ludonarrative" from "ludonarrative dissonance" where it has a different implication.

Okay, so then if I have this right:

In a trad game, there is little lusory duality. If what is being authored is the goings-on in the in-game fiction, then a trad GM does a lot of authoring and very little experiencing (in the capacity of "being audience of other players' authoring"); the reverse is true for the other players.

(Parenthetically, it seems to me that on this basis, a lot of the arguments about things such as "railroading" or "illusionism", etc. etc. in discussions of trad play amount to disagreement over how much each "player role" is meant to author, how much it's meant to experience, and how obvious GM authoring ought to be to the other players, and the like.)​

A neotrad game aims for greater lusory duality - or, at least per your manifesto it ought to aim for greater lusory duality. That is to say, if what is being authored is the goings-on in the in-game fiction, the responsibility for such authoring is more evenly distributed among the player roles. Likewise, the responsibility (as such) of experiencing the in-game fiction (in the capacity of "being audience") is also more evenly distributed.

(Parenthetically, it strikes me that other "schools of design", as it were, might have similar distributions of lusory duality, but with different gameplay experiences in mind. For instance, "old-school"/classical play has a distribution of authorship/audience-ship that is similar if not identical to trad play, but has very different gameplay ends in mind. I'm not familiar enough with storygames/Narrativist games to say anything sensible about their distribution of authorship/audience-ship, save to say that it strikes me as more evenly distributed, but also with very different gameplay ends in mind when compared to neotrad games.)​

Per your manifesto, a neotrad game ought to "Shift GM to or toward a role taken on by a player". It seems to me that part of that imperative is in service of the first point of the manifesto ("Promote the lusory-duality of players").

In other words, neotrad games aim, or ought to aim, to change the function of the GM role, relative to trad games, in order to "promote the lusory-duality of players" - that is, more evenly distribute the responsibility for authorship among the players.

Again, am I understanding you correctly?

 

[pemerton]

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.

First. just let me thank you for putting up a concrete example for discussion!

Second, I am going to post the thoughts that this prompted in me. I've not played 5e D&D, nor read or played this particular adventure, nor been at your table, so my thoughts are based on what you said, plus my general familiarity with "trad" D&D play.

It seems to me that there is probably a lot of activity at the table - eg the GM narrating things, the players declaring actions (like "We go to such-and-such a place" or "We talk to such-and-such a person") - that does not really contribute to answering the question that is asked. Perhaps many hours of such activity. This impression is suggested by your reference to a "lead-up", and is reinforced by your remark about "set dressing . . . to gain enough levels to be able to answer the first question".

It also seems to me that the question that is posed is somewhat circumscribed in its stakes. What I mean by this is that, at least as I understand how the module is presented in the broader context of FR metaplot, there is no expectation that if the question is answered No, then the GM is to narrate the world ending, Tiamat taking control of it, etc. Rather, the GM is expected to use other "offscreen" elements of the setting/fiction to blunt the impact on the broader setting of the characters' failure.

If one or both of these thoughts is accurate, they would mark a strong contrast with "story now" RPGing.

 

[pemerton]

VB in DitV says that what matters most isn't setting details - actively disclose them (i.e. don't subject them to game play.)

I don't think Baker says this at all, and I wonder if you can quote any rules text.

The reason the GM is inveighed to actively disclose the setting in play is not because it doesn't matter, but because it does! It provides the premise to which the players will then respond, thereby creating theme. (I'm using "premise" and "theme" here as Edwards does in this essay: "Narrativist role-playing is defined by the people involved placing their direct creative attention toward Premise and toward birthing its child, theme. . . . Theme is defined as a value-judgment or point that may be inferred from the in-game events.")

There cannot be theme - the expression by the players of a value judgement, a "little something", through their play of their PCs - unless the premise is presented to them. And given the general form of RPGing, this presentation will be done by the GM, in their framing of situations. In DitV, the situation is the GM's prepared town. Hence, for the game play to happen the GM must actively reveal the town in play!

I think this is all pretty clear, and I think that you are misdescribing it, and attributing things to Baker that he does not say.

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)​

Can you tell me where Ron Edwards say this?

I mean, the phrase is from Vincent Baker, and it is used to describe a particular RPG (Apocalypse World). The AW rulebook notes that there are many ways to GM a RPG, but that it sets out one particular way, and "play to find out" is a component of that particular way.

So I don't see Vincent Baker setting up the slogan as a general norm; and I don't even recall reading Edwards using the slogan at all.

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

I don't recall Ron Edwards saying this either. He describes a certain sort of play - what he calls (interchangeably) "narrativism" and "story now" - in which the core goal of the RPGing is for the players, in playing their PCs, to express candidate resolutions to premises raised by the situations the PCs are framed into.

He doesn't say that "this is what matters most", except in the tautological sense that the presence of this goal in play is what underpins the labelling of some episode of RPGs as "narrativist" play.

Therefore, says RE, P ought to be settled by game play[/INDENT]

Again, I don't recall Ron Edwards saying this. He describes aesthetic, and resulting structural, features of RPGing. He does not set out norms for play, at least in the material I'm familiar with.

For instance, he notes that there is a type of RPGing - he calls it "high concept simulationism" - in which premise is resolved via game play, but is resolved by the GM in the course of prep and (perhaps) adjudication. He makes this point here and here:

In Simulationist play, morality cannot be imposed by the player or, except as the representative of the imagined world, by the GM. Theme is already part of the cosmos; it's not produced by metagame decisions. Morality, when it's involved, is "how it is" in the game-world, and even its shifts occur along defined, engine-driven parameters. The GM and players buy into this framework in order to play at all.

The point is that one can care about and enjoy complex issues, changing protagonists, and themes in both sorts of play, Narrativism and Simulationism. The difference lies in the point and contributions of literal instances of play; its operation and social feedback.

*****

What happens when you want a story but don't want to play with Story Now? Then the story becomes 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.​

Assuming I haven't badly misunderstood @Composer99's post not far upthread, that poster's experience of Tyranny of Dragons seems to be an example of exactly what Edwards is describing in these quoted passages. The question that is posed by the module already presumes theme - the evil dragon goddess Tiamat and her cult pose a thread to the world, and the protagonists will oppose this or die trying! And a significant (perhaps primary? @Composer99 will know the answer to that particular question) concern of the module is making sure that this happens by (i) "leading" the players (and thereby their PCs) to the situation in which this question is answered, and (ii) ensuring that the players earn sufficient experience for their PCs to gain sufficient levels that the question can be posed to them.

Now, as a matter of biography and personal taste, my (strong) impression is that Edwards himself prefers "story now" play to "high concept simulationist" play. But from the point of view of analysis, he identifies some key features of both, and he does not prescribe one over the other.

Hence why I feel that you are misquoting or mischaracterising Ron Edwards's contributions to the analysis of RPGs and RPGing.

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.​

Well, obviously you can assert this. I think a lot of RPG design, including rather popular RPG design, does not conform to it.

I personally find it a rather prescriptive, even implausible, assertion. For instance, when my niece plays D&D - in what I would describe as a broadly OC or neo-trad style, using the language of the six cultures of play - I think that what matters most to her is the portrayal of her character. And this is not settled by game play. The idea of her character is something that she brings with her to the table, and game play provides her with an opportunity to express that idea, to portray her character. It doesn't settle her idea of her character.

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.​

I find this very prescriptive, and personally I don't think it is a particularly good analysis of much trad play.

I think that the analysis I provided upthread, which draws upon my own thoughts and experiences, plus those of Edwards and Tuovinen, is more accurate to much of that play. Namely, that what the players want is the experience of the story in the second person, prompted by their first person prompts to the GM to narration. Thus, as Tuovinen notes, "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."

This is a completely different experience, for a group of people sitting around a table talking to one another, from one of them just regaling the others with a story. And it does not depend on any assumption that Lucy wants to work for the story - as opposed to prompt its second-person revelation to her by inserting herself into the fiction via a character and thereby providing first-person prompts - nor that she wants to be challenged by a "guessing game" punctuated by strategic challenges. In fact, in commentary I read from those who play in a "trad" style, it is often seen as a weakness for the GM to make the players guess what first person prompts they have to provide in order to trigger the revelation of more of the story. This is a fairly common way in which trad play grinds to an unsatisfying halt.

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

I don't think that the blog on "What does it take to be a 'neotrad' RPG" uses the label in this way, or that that blog expresses this prescription. As I already posted, in the post to which you replied, I think it implicitly responds to Tuovinen's critique of the AD&D game as a suitable vehicle for Hickman's aspirations, and offers more suitable vehicles for doing that sort of thing.

Nor, as I have posted, do I see support for your strongly prescriptive claims about RPG game play in the work of Edwards and Baker.

I think that your manifesto might be better expressed in your own name and on your own terms.

 

[clearstream]

Okay, so then if I have this right:

In a trad game, there is little lusory duality. If what is being authored is the goings-on in the in-game fiction, then a trad GM does a lot of authoring and very little experiencing (in the capacity of "being audience of other players' authoring"); the reverse is true for the other players.

(Parenthetically, it seems to me that on this basis, a lot of the arguments about things such as "railroading" or "illusionism", etc. etc. in discussions of trad play amount to disagreement over how much each "player role" is meant to author, how much it's meant to experience, and how obvious GM authoring ought to be to the other players, and the like.)​

A neotrad game aims for greater lusory duality - or, at least per your manifesto it ought to aim for greater lusory duality. That is to say, if what is being authored is the goings-on in the in-game fiction, the responsibility for such authoring is more evenly distributed among the player roles. Likewise, the responsibility (as such) of experiencing the in-game fiction (in the capacity of "being audience") is also more evenly distributed.

(Parenthetically, it strikes me that other "schools of design", as it were, might have similar distributions of lusory duality, but with different gameplay experiences in mind. For instance, "old-school"/classical play has a distribution of authorship/audience-ship that is similar if not identical to trad play, but has very different gameplay ends in mind. I'm not familiar enough with storygames/Narrativist games to say anything sensible about their distribution of authorship/audience-ship, save to say that it strikes me as more evenly distributed, but also with very different gameplay ends in mind when compared to neotrad games.)​

Per your manifesto, a neotrad game ought to "Shift GM to or toward a role taken on by a player". It seems to me that part of that imperative is in service of the first point of the manifesto ("Promote the lusory-duality of players").

In other words, neotrad games aim, or ought to aim, to change the function of the GM role, relative to trad games, in order to "promote the lusory-duality of players" - that is, more evenly distribute the responsibility for authorship among the players.

Again, am I understanding you correctly?

I feel one must exercise care around the word "authorship". PtFO isn't increased if players go ahead and author any more than it is when GM does, unless said authoring is done gamefully (i.e. as play.) Storygames then have it right, by my lights, in insisting that said authoring is committed as play.

 

[clearstream]

First. just let me thank you for putting up a concrete example for discussion!

Second, I am going to post the thoughts that this prompted in me. I've not played 5e D&D, nor read or played this particular adventure, nor been at your table, so my thoughts are based on what you said, plus my general familiarity with "trad" D&D play.

It seems to me that there is probably a lot of activity at the table - eg the GM narrating things, the players declaring actions (like "We go to such-and-such a place" or "We talk to such-and-such a person") - that does not really contribute to answering the question that is asked. Perhaps many hours of such activity. This impression is suggested by your reference to a "lead-up", and is reinforced by your remark about "set dressing . . . to gain enough levels to be able to answer the first question".

It also seems to me that the question that is posed is somewhat circumscribed in its stakes. What I mean by this is that, at least as I understand how the module is presented in the broader context of FR metaplot, there is no expectation that if the question is answered No, then the GM is to narrate the world ending, Tiamat taking control of it, etc. Rather, the GM is expected to use other "offscreen" elements of the setting/fiction to blunt the impact on the broader setting of the characters' failure.

If one or both of these thoughts is accurate, they would mark a strong contrast with "story now" RPGing.

I would expect GM narrates the world ending, unless it was not the groups focus for play.

 

[Composer99]

First. just let me thank you for putting up a concrete example for discussion!

Second, I am going to post the thoughts that this prompted in me. I've not played 5e D&D, nor read or played this particular adventure, nor been at your table, so my thoughts are based on what you said, plus my general familiarity with "trad" D&D play.

It seems to me that there is probably a lot of activity at the table - eg the GM narrating things, the players declaring actions (like "We go to such-and-such a place" or "We talk to such-and-such a person") - that does not really contribute to answering the question that is asked. Perhaps many hours of such activity. This impression is suggested by your reference to a "lead-up", and is reinforced by your remark about "set dressing . . . to gain enough levels to be able to answer the first question".

It also seems to me that the question that is posed is somewhat circumscribed in its stakes. What I mean by this is that, at least as I understand how the module is presented in the broader context of FR metaplot, there is no expectation that if the question is answered No, then the GM is to narrate the world ending, Tiamat taking control of it, etc. Rather, the GM is expected to use other "offscreen" elements of the setting/fiction to blunt the impact on the broader setting of the characters' failure.

If one or both of these thoughts is accurate, they would mark a strong contrast with "story now" RPGing.

Thanks for your thoughts!

In answer to

It seems to me that there is probably a lot of activity at the table - eg the GM narrating things, the players declaring actions (like "We go to such-and-such a place" or "We talk to such-and-such a person") - that does not really contribute to answering the question that is asked. Perhaps many hours of such activity. This impression is suggested by your reference to a "lead-up", and is reinforced by your remark about "set dressing . . . to gain enough levels to be able to answer the first question".

I would say that, yes, much of the in-game activity does not directly relate to answering the crucial question that is settled in play, except insofar as it is putting the player characters in a position where they can answer it.

• Partly I think this is a matter of design intent, insofar as WotC wants the average 5e table to be able to run through the entire AP without constant TPKs because it hasn't calibrated combat difficulty.
• Partly, I think that as the first adventure path of the new edition, WotC (and Kobold Press, which actually wrote the AP) were still getting their footing on 5e adventure design. As a result, there are several missed opportunities, you might say, for there to be more that is settled in play. For instance, apropos of the coalition-building, the AP could have had some kind of gameplay structure whereby the players determine the outcome of a battle raging outside of the temple of Tiamat (during which time they themselves breach the temple in order to play out the final climax), independent of the outcome of their own struggle. If they had succeeded in coaltion-building, they could see their hard work rewarded!

This is not to say the activity isn't enjoyable, of course - I certainly enjoyed it, as did my players (so they tell me) - only that it doesn't feel, upon reflection, that it relates to settling the central question of the AP in play outside of preparing the player characters for such settlement. ("Everything we've done has led to this moment!" kind of thing.)

In answer to

It also seems to me that the question that is posed is somewhat circumscribed in its stakes. What I mean by this is that, at least as I understand how the module is presented in the broader context of FR metaplot, there is no expectation that if the question is answered No, then the GM is to narrate the world ending, Tiamat taking control of it, etc. Rather, the GM is expected to use other "offscreen" elements of the setting/fiction to blunt the impact on the broader setting of the characters' failure.

the AP does actually expect disaster to occur if the player characters fail. I'll quote at length from the final page of the text proper:

The Horror of Defeat
A victory for the Cult of the Dragon is a real possibility in this adventure, and would be catastrophic for Faerûn. With Tiamat ascendant, the age of mortals comes to an end and the age of dragons begins. Nations and kingdoms shatter, civilization collapses into bloody war, and chaos reigns supreme.

None of the Dragon Queen's mortal agents receive the rewards they expected. The Red Wizards who freed her are devoured or driven away, hunted by the forces of Szass Tam. The cultists who orchestrated Tiamat's return fare little better, with the Dragon Queen not caring which mortals her draconic subjects hunt, consume, and enslave [*]. The glorious reign of dragons that Severin hoped to usher in and rule becomes a brutal world where dragons dominate all.

Such dark times need not mean the end of your campaign, however. The characters have lost a crucial battle, but they might survive to continue the war. Their new goal is to find a way to banish or destroy Tiamat for good, bringing peace to the world once more.

[*] Indeed, during the final battle, if Tiamat is successfully summoned bodily into the world, she spends some time gloatingly devouring the cultists and rogue Red Wizards who made it possible. (That's gratitude for you, I guess.)

So yes, the module does tell the GM what happens if the answer to

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)?

is no, and there is no expectation that the GM is expected to blunt the impact. (Strictly speaking, nothing is stopping a GM from doing so, but the AP says what it says.)

 

[pemerton]

the AP does actually expect disaster to occur if the player characters fail. I'll quote at length from the final page of the text proper:

<snip>

there is no expectation that the GM is expected to blunt the impact. (Strictly speaking, nothing is stopping a GM from doing so, but the AP says what it says.)

Thanks for that clarification/correction!

I've not read any account of failure at the climax of this module. (Not that I've read all that many Tyranny of Dragons threads, but I have seen it discussed from time to time given it is a well-known 5e D&D AP.) Do you (or anyone else in this thread) know of any?