Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9235171" data-attributes="member: 71699">Writing that, I feel like a hallmark of neo-trad design is the reappraisal of GM via principles and/or mechanics. In many cases, GM is plainly called out as a player (ToR and YZE are examples, and Cortex Prime depending how you read it.) In other cases, GM is still cast with traditional powers, and then these are constrained and compelled by the mechanics (L5R is an example.)I want to focus for a moment on L5R. On first reading, its advice for GMing disappointed me. I felt, and still feel, that it goes against the overall effect of the design. It makes the game text for me one whose neo-trad aspirations are hindered by an - in that light - incorrect design move. Had the designers been able to avail of a "neo-trad design manifesto" would they have made different choices?What's at stake can be outlined fairly easilyWhere GM is not a player, they are part of the lusory-means and do not have goals they play toward. Rules don't bind referees: they uphold them. It is referee who says what the rules mean constrained by standards of conduct and in light of best practices. This offers a general solve for a wide range of problems that arise in play that - per the OP - is about imagining things. Where GM is a player, they must adopt some version of a lusory-attitude and have goals, albeit asymmetrical ones. It implicitly makes conflict with adversaries of the player characters a case of PvP. That isn't a bad thing! Rules bind players, including players taking on the role of GM. One consequence for game designers is that the GM's behaviour can be shaped and foreseen. Neo-trad game designs are those that shift GM to or toward a role taken on by a player. At the least there are rules that are expected to constrain and compel GM's voice in the ongoing negotiation of play. No doubt the landscape is diverse and there are other hallmarks, too. I suggest that this one is central.</blockquote>

Verification