Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9247982" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>You asked above if I was still in agreement with the <a href="https://imbrattabit.wordpress.com/2019/12/09/what-does-it-take-to-be-a-neotrad-role-playing-game/" target="_blank">Bitslayer</a> essay. I'm more "Yes, and" in its regard. That "and" is what I'm exploring here: I aim to adjust my argument as follows.</p><p></p><p>A few ways of treating our material or subjects of play have been outlined, and there may be more.</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">They can be actively disclosed. You simply tell me the way it is. This isn't something we intend to contest.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">They can be addressed playfully. We negotiate via fluid, unwritten rules.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">They can be addressed gamefully. This may be something we intend to contest, perhaps because we don't want to accept it. We negotiate via written rules with a commitment to upholding them. It can be something we want to address in a particular way, where doing it that way constitutes an experience that would not be obtained or would be hard to obtain consistently otherwise.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p>In all cases, I believe norms and principles apply. When the intent is to shift those to specific norms and principles, those specifics must be communicated to folk outside the originating group.</p><p></p><p>Different folk observably enter play with expectations and preferences as regards subject/treatment pairings. There may be subjects they're content to simply have disclosed, and others they want to submit to game play. That could be to do with qualities of experience they hope to have, or validation, or simply habit; and no doubt other motives besides. I read Edwards to have made an argument about a preferred way to treat certain material or subjects of play. I take him to imply that it is the <em>necessary </em>way, if one wants to experience those subjects ludically.</p><p></p><p>What I want to adjust is that when I used the term "ludically-crux" I inadvertently implied "crux" i.e. what was most important. I intended - what was most important to experience as game play - hence "ludically". [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] pointed out the possibility of a player to whom what was most important to them in joining the session of play, was not most important to them to experience as game play. (For the sake of argument, let's suppose New-Lucy fits this description. It turns out that her strongest motives for joining a session of play are to engage in playfully revealing story and expressing her character.)</p><p></p><p>In hindsight, the notion of "ludically-crux" implied a wider ideal where I intended a narrower. One could value mechanics without those mechanics <em>necessarily </em>being focused on whatever is most important to your intended play. While it seems obvious that players could be well-served choosing game texts with utility to whatever they count ludically-crux, they would be even better served choosing texts with utility to what they count crux. As I will explain below, this leads to shifting the "ought" in the ideal I'm advocating.</p><p></p><p>My "and" then is my observation that many of the innovations referred to in this thread arose from a wave of design that drew together the crux and ludically-crux. That's why it became important GM followed rules. And seeing as the crux had a far greater scope than what had formerly being counted ludically-crux, that forced a number of other design improvements (streamlining for play) informed by theory such as Baker's. My second step is to infer from Edwards, implications for "ludonarrative" (meaning narrative in the medium of game), with the explanatory consequence that the "neotrad" selection of innovations preserve their purpose to some extent wherever they are relocated to. In fact, I suggest that is part of the value in incorporating them.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not following how this is responsive to my <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/a-neotrad-ttrpg-design-manifesto.701957/post-9247303" target="_blank">#614</a>. Did you mean it to respond to a different post?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Certainly groups I've played with have made the sort of move you outline. I believe your remarks are addressed by my adjustment at top of this post. Technically, I adjust from one sort of principle to a second sort of principle. The first sort is - you ought to want X and do Y. The second sort is - you ought to do Y if you want X. You ought to settle in game play, subjects that you want to experience <em>ludically</em>. One could then read Edwards as saying something equivalent to - you say you want to experience dramatic protagonism in your game play, but you are not settling that in game play: here's how you settle it in game play. I take designers to be saying something about what they intend to be experienced in game play, when they decide to incorporate the sorts of mechanics referred to. Or at least, I recommend that they decide if they are saying anything by it!</p><p></p><p>Thus turning to your "skilled participants". "Skilled" could imply that they can manage an unwritten rules structure with sufficient insight and consistency that they needn't use a written text. I have observed such groups. Or it could imply that they share norms and principles sufficiently strongly and with sufficient sophistication that they can richly treat a subject playfully. I have observed groups like this, too. I think what Baker is observing is that for either of those groups, there can still be hesitation and other glitches around saying that which no one at the table wants to say. He implies, and I would outright state, that there can also be webs of constitutive and regulatory rules that are very difficult to emulate freeform. Not because no one wants to say it (whatever they say), but because over the span of play it unfurls complexly so that it is difficult to say it any other way.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9247982, member: 71699"] You asked above if I was still in agreement with the [URL='https://imbrattabit.wordpress.com/2019/12/09/what-does-it-take-to-be-a-neotrad-role-playing-game/']Bitslayer[/URL] essay. I'm more "Yes, and" in its regard. That "and" is what I'm exploring here: I aim to adjust my argument as follows. A few ways of treating our material or subjects of play have been outlined, and there may be more. [INDENT]They can be actively disclosed. You simply tell me the way it is. This isn't something we intend to contest.[/INDENT] [INDENT][/INDENT] [INDENT]They can be addressed playfully. We negotiate via fluid, unwritten rules.[/INDENT] [INDENT][/INDENT] [INDENT]They can be addressed gamefully. This may be something we intend to contest, perhaps because we don't want to accept it. We negotiate via written rules with a commitment to upholding them. It can be something we want to address in a particular way, where doing it that way constitutes an experience that would not be obtained or would be hard to obtain consistently otherwise.[/INDENT] [INDENT][/INDENT] In all cases, I believe norms and principles apply. When the intent is to shift those to specific norms and principles, those specifics must be communicated to folk outside the originating group. Different folk observably enter play with expectations and preferences as regards subject/treatment pairings. There may be subjects they're content to simply have disclosed, and others they want to submit to game play. That could be to do with qualities of experience they hope to have, or validation, or simply habit; and no doubt other motives besides. I read Edwards to have made an argument about a preferred way to treat certain material or subjects of play. I take him to imply that it is the [I]necessary [/I]way, if one wants to experience those subjects ludically. What I want to adjust is that when I used the term "ludically-crux" I inadvertently implied "crux" i.e. what was most important. I intended - what was most important to experience as game play - hence "ludically". [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] pointed out the possibility of a player to whom what was most important to them in joining the session of play, was not most important to them to experience as game play. (For the sake of argument, let's suppose New-Lucy fits this description. It turns out that her strongest motives for joining a session of play are to engage in playfully revealing story and expressing her character.) In hindsight, the notion of "ludically-crux" implied a wider ideal where I intended a narrower. One could value mechanics without those mechanics [I]necessarily [/I]being focused on whatever is most important to your intended play. While it seems obvious that players could be well-served choosing game texts with utility to whatever they count ludically-crux, they would be even better served choosing texts with utility to what they count crux. As I will explain below, this leads to shifting the "ought" in the ideal I'm advocating. My "and" then is my observation that many of the innovations referred to in this thread arose from a wave of design that drew together the crux and ludically-crux. That's why it became important GM followed rules. And seeing as the crux had a far greater scope than what had formerly being counted ludically-crux, that forced a number of other design improvements (streamlining for play) informed by theory such as Baker's. My second step is to infer from Edwards, implications for "ludonarrative" (meaning narrative in the medium of game), with the explanatory consequence that the "neotrad" selection of innovations preserve their purpose to some extent wherever they are relocated to. In fact, I suggest that is part of the value in incorporating them. I'm not following how this is responsive to my [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/a-neotrad-ttrpg-design-manifesto.701957/post-9247303']#614[/URL]. Did you mean it to respond to a different post? Certainly groups I've played with have made the sort of move you outline. I believe your remarks are addressed by my adjustment at top of this post. Technically, I adjust from one sort of principle to a second sort of principle. The first sort is - you ought to want X and do Y. The second sort is - you ought to do Y if you want X. You ought to settle in game play, subjects that you want to experience [I]ludically[/I]. One could then read Edwards as saying something equivalent to - you say you want to experience dramatic protagonism in your game play, but you are not settling that in game play: here's how you settle it in game play. I take designers to be saying something about what they intend to be experienced in game play, when they decide to incorporate the sorts of mechanics referred to. Or at least, I recommend that they decide if they are saying anything by it! Thus turning to your "skilled participants". "Skilled" could imply that they can manage an unwritten rules structure with sufficient insight and consistency that they needn't use a written text. I have observed such groups. Or it could imply that they share norms and principles sufficiently strongly and with sufficient sophistication that they can richly treat a subject playfully. I have observed groups like this, too. I think what Baker is observing is that for either of those groups, there can still be hesitation and other glitches around saying that which no one at the table wants to say. He implies, and I would outright state, that there can also be webs of constitutive and regulatory rules that are very difficult to emulate freeform. Not because no one wants to say it (whatever they say), but because over the span of play it unfurls complexly so that it is difficult to say it any other way. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A neotrad TTRPG design manifesto
Top