A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto

[innerdude]

That's part of the problem, it's assumed the referee is constrained by the rules, but that's not true. The referee enforces the rules but is free to change the rules as they are the one running the game. And players constantly ask them to change the rules. It's one of the central benefits of having a living human referee instead of playing a video game. The referee is the final authority and arbiter of the game, not the rules, not the rule book, and not the players.

Doesn't the GM have the option of voluntarily constraining themselves to certain areas of the rules?

Of course the follow up question from "trad" GMs is, "Yeah, but why would I agree to that?"

The answer being, that you're attempting to try a different play style / play ethos that's in accord with your players' desires.

If that's of no interest to you as a GM, then carry on.

 

[overgeeked]

Doesn't the GM have the option of voluntarily constraining themselves to certain areas of the rules?

Of course the follow up question from "trad" GMs is, "Yeah, but why would I agree to that?"

The answer being, that you're attempting to try a different play style / play ethos that's in accord with your players' desires.

If that's of no interest to you as a GM, then carry on.

They’re not mutually exclusive. You can be a trad referee with all the long-standing authority and responsibility that entails and still run a game that’s in accord with your players’ desires.

 

[Emberashh]

Is it really so difficult to just play the game as it exists?

Its one thing to want to add to a game, to want to have more things in place to play with, but its another to so consistently reject the game you're playing that it becomes a design trend to try and force the matter.

 

[the Jester]

I can add brief definitions of "OC" and "neotrad" in my opening post. Tomorrow, probably.

Thanks, that would be much appreciated.

 

[Malmuria]

In the Brattit essay, is a one liner - "No rule zero, or golden rule . Self-explanatory." But that isn't self-explanatory at all. In fact, it blows up the whole premise of a GM who is not a player. Players are those who pursue goals having put rules in force for themselves, which they do for the sake of the play thus constituted. No rule zero, or golden rule brings GM into the fold. One way to say it is that it is only as a player that we can bind GM to do what the rules say, and another way to say it is that binding GM to do what the rules say makes them a player.

The examples of neo-trad games this author gives are as follows

Some neotrad RPGs include Numenera (Monte Cook Games), 7th Sea (Chaosium), Vampire the Masquerade (White Wolf), Mutant: Year Zero (Modiphius), The One Ring (Cubicle 7), Symbaroum (Free League), Tales from the Loop (Modiphius), Forbidden Lands (Modiphius), Coriolis (Modiphius), Alien (Free League), Scheherazade (Space Orange 42).

I'm lightly familiar with some of these games. My impression is that they allow for plenty of GM adjudication even in basic task resolution, but I could be wrong. What are games that you would consider neotrad?

 

[aramis erak]

Interesting essay. Thanks for posting.

I've seen similar thoughts around here before but as yet no one's come close to explaining how the players can force the referee to do anything. The rulebook, as an inanimate object, has even less capacity to force the referee to do anything. At best you get this weird loop of the players saying, "But the rules say so!" and the referee responding, "Yeah, so?" The closest the players can come to compelling the referee in any way is with their choice to stay at the table and play or leave and not play. Beyond that, the players have no real capacity to "bind" the referee in any meaningful way.

I've often exercised my right to leave. (Haven't had to in the last 10 years.) I've also seen groups chastise a GM for not following the rules and browbeat them into adherence, with an alternative of (essentially blackmail via) complaint in local discussion fora. Going all the way back into the 90's. In the 80's, if someone was being dissed by his players for not using the rules, suddenly said GM couldn't even find a group to play in.

This may have been a bit of culture clash, but it's harder now to enforce solely because the player-base is bigger and less united.

 

[aramis erak]

The examples of neo-trad games this author gives are as follows


I'm lightly familiar with some of these games. My impression is that they allow for plenty of GM adjudication even in basic task resolution, but I could be wrong. What are games that you would consider neotrad?

They don't formally give the GM permission to alter the rules. A few give the group permission to house rule, but not the GM.

 

[aramis erak]

Most of the players don't read stuff anyways, just the minimal.

That's different from my experience. Many of my players over the years have known the game system better than me when I'm running it.
Then again, for many years, half my group were GMs for other groups. The exceptions? My wife and kids.

My kids, now, want to read the rules, too, or at least have a firm grip on them from handouts. My youngest wanted my D&D tables because it's easier than finding the tables in the books (and they're using my D&D books - their players wanted to try D&D); page protectors, printouts, box of books for backup/rules, folder for the cheat sheets...

I know two of my players for certain are using pirate scans to learn the rules when faced with new games.

 

[dragoner]

That's different from my experience. Many of my players over the years have known the game system better than me when I'm running it.
Then again, for many years, half my group were GMs for other groups. The exceptions? My wife and kids.

My kids, now, want to read the rules, too, or at least have a firm grip on them from handouts. My youngest wanted my D&D tables because it's easier than finding the tables in the books (and they're using my D&D books - their players wanted to try D&D); page protectors, printouts, box of books for backup/rules, folder for the cheat sheets...

I know two of my players for certain are using pirate scans to learn the rules when faced with new games.

Out of my last group it was 50% or 2 out of 4, and the ones that did read the game were both alternate GM's, if we had pick up players, they usually did not read the rules much. I had somebody looking at the computer rules for Kosmic, and asked why the hand computer was different than a terminal, when the answer was simply in the previous paragraph. This doesn't include lore either, which often is read even less. Personally I just show don't tell, for the most part, and weave a narrative from the character's actions.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Doesn't the GM have the option of voluntarily constraining themselves to certain areas of the rules?

Of course the follow up question from "trad" GMs is, "Yeah, but why would I agree to that?"

The answer being, that you're attempting to try a different play style / play ethos that's in accord with your players' desires.

If that's of no interest to you as a GM, then carry on.

I find the idea that participants can simply change the rules at a whim to be one of the most frustrating elements of online discussion. I mean, yes, of course this is true… the same can be said of most games, from Monopoly to Chess to Bridge to Basketball. Pointing it out, however, accomplishes nothing but rendering talking about the rules moot.

If we instead talk about games with the intention that the rules are meant to be followed, then we can actually discuss the games. Especially since… when it comes to RPGs… some games far more intentionally expect the rules to be followed.

It’d be great if one conversation was able to just bypass the whole “the GM can do whatever they want” schtick. When I play, I don’t want to be able to do whatever I want. Why should GMing be any different?