# Out with the old (Game design traditions we should let go)



## Endroren (Jun 18, 2022)

Are there aspects of RPGs that you think it's time to let go? Especially if it's something you think "How could we live without it??" We were brainstorming about this and had a pretty heavy debate. Everything from "dice" to "the gamemaster" came up as things that a traditionally important to RPGs but that MAYBE we should consider moving beyond.

_One of the first things that comes to my mind is character advancement. It sounds nuts, but it's not something that comes up in many of the prose/comic/movie stories we enjoy - and if it does it's pretty minor in terms of change._

What do you think? What would you put out to pasture?

P.S. I know that there are LOTS of games doing lots of cool stuff, and I've played many of them. I'm mainly talking "RPGs as a whole - what does the hobby/industry in general seem too attached to."


----------



## timbannock (Jun 18, 2022)

Definitely advancement. It's great for some games but not for all of them, yet it's way too prevalent.


----------



## kenada (Jun 18, 2022)

Setting DCs and similar mechanics, especially when they’re designed to track the PCs’ expected rate of advancement (creating a progression treadmill and effectively only an illusion of advancement).


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 18, 2022)

Game design that keeps everything hidden from the players.  As an example rather than playing the "guess the stats" game every combat just show the players their target numbers and let them have at it.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 18, 2022)

Any rules beyond "let the referee decide" and "roll opposed 2d6, higher roll wins." Everything else is extraneous. Even the dice are extraneous. You could sub in the table for the referee, but then you have more moving parts and more possible points of failure.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 18, 2022)

Endroren said:


> Are there aspects of RPGs that you think it's time to let go? Especially if it's something you think "How could we live without it??" We were brainstorming about this and had a pretty heavy debate. Everything from "dice" to "the gamemaster" came up as things that a traditionally important to RPGs but that MAYBE we should consider moving beyond.
> 
> _One of the first things that comes to my mind is character advancement. It sounds nuts, but it's not something that comes up in many of the prose/comic/movie stories we enjoy - and if it does it's pretty minor in terms of change._




Fate is pretty good about that. You can "advance", but it's usually by just shuffling your skill rankings around so that you're best at something else now, and not so good at what you used to be best at: the "stat array" remains the same. Or changing your aspects out, or adding a few. But it's not much of a thing to add or ratchet up skills.

That said, I think advancement is useful for some games/campaigns, and not so much for others, in both broad and narrow terms.



Endroren said:


> What do you think? What would you put out to pasture?




I'm really not a fan of dice rolls that simply whiff. Something interesting should always happen when things come to the point you roll dice. We have enough games that handle this (with varying degrees of crunch), that it should be doable in just about any system.


----------



## ninjayeti (Jun 18, 2022)

I'd say dice pool mechanics (as in roll x dice to hit a target of y at least z times).  They are clunky and I have never seen one that accomplished anything in terms of probability you couldn't get from a regular roll vs. a target number.


----------



## zarionofarabel (Jun 18, 2022)

Class. Level. Zero to Hero. Readily available magic. Thousands of monster species. Multitudes of PC races.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 18, 2022)

ninjayeti said:


> I'd say dice pool mechanics (as in roll x dice to hit a target of y at least z times).  They are clunky and I have never seen one that accomplished anything in terms of probability you couldn't get from a regular roll vs. a target number.



That's an interesting claim.  I'm very interested in how you might model the Alien dice mechanic as single roll + modifier.  If you aren't familiar, the salient aspect is you build a pool of d6's, and each 6 is a success.  Additional successes can be spent for stunts that can significantly alter the outcome.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 18, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> That's an interesting claim.  I'm very interested in how you might model the Alien dice mechanic as single roll + modifier.  If you aren't familiar, the salient aspect is you build a pool of d6's, and each 6 is a success.  Additional successes can be spent for stunts that can significantly alter the outcome.



That's a little more than just a dice pool to determine success, though. I love this sort of thing, where you can trade off the binary or scalar success for side effects!

I think the closest I've seen to this with a single die roll is in 13th age, where if you roll an even number you get to do something extra? But that's clearly not the same as having the option.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 18, 2022)

zarionofarabel said:


> *Class. Level.* Zero to Hero. Readily available magic. Thousands of monster species. *Multitudes of PC races.*



Elaborate package deals of any kind, really. Add to this weirdly-specific spells that bundle together damage type, damage amount, range, duration, and other effects, with no obvious correspondence to power level.

I understand the appeal of quick character creation, but that can be done à la carte if you keep things reasonably simple.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 18, 2022)

Game designer egos, loaded language in rules that cast subtle (or not so subtle) badwrongfun aspersions at other games, and game designer celebrity.


----------



## Professor Murder (Jun 18, 2022)

Combat being a distinct and separate system for resolving conflict/solving problems.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 18, 2022)

niklinna said:


> That's a little more than just a dice pool to determine success, though. I love this sort of thing, where you can trade off the binary or scalar success for side effects!
> 
> I think the closest I've seen to this with a single die roll is in 13th age, where if you roll an even number you get to do something extra? But that's clearly not the same as having the option.



Well, I went with it because it's difficult to model.  I would have gone with Blades, but then we'd have the "it's easy to convert a 4 die poll to a straight roll" conversation because you can just map the probability of success, even the success with complication.  But you can't use that sane model for a 3 die pool because it doesn't change linearly.  Or what if you push or take a devil's bargin? So you'd need a chart for every combination to convert.  

It's just an odd claim.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 18, 2022)

On the dice pools thing: in systems like Prince Valiant, Burning Wheel or Torchbearer it is always possible to fail (by rolling sufficiently few successes). This is not trivial to map onto a "roll + add" system.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 18, 2022)

Endroren said:


> "RPGs as a whole - what does the hobby/industry in general seem too attached to."



Collectionism, officiality and novelty. None of which the RPGing hobby truly need.

But since it sounds like you are a publisher, it is impossibile for you not to look at those as opportunities. 

But it actually sounds like you're trying to find an idea for removing or replacing a core *rule or mechanics *mainly*. *Nothing wrong with creating a new game or variant, I would always welcome variations of the gameplay, and if you're lucky you can create a successful longlasting branch of the main. 

No levelling is for example one thing I'd be looking forward to, as I've said many times that I find the typical fast levelling of RPGs a distraction from the actual game for many players. I myself often tell my players to forget levelling up until the current adventure is over, so that they don't make in-game decisions in anticipation of what new abilities they should acquire next, or do silly things like going on a rats hunt for XP.


----------



## Lord Shark (Jun 18, 2022)

This sort of thing was really common in 90s games: skill lists that cover every single thing a character might possibly want to do, regardless of whether it might make sense for the game or genre. Gotta have that Underwater Basketweaving skill in there!


----------



## Jmarso (Jun 18, 2022)

I can live without sexy orcs and goblins as PC's. Let's all get back to Tolkien, here.


----------



## Yora (Jun 18, 2022)

Other than pointlessly specific skills that no player has real reason to ever take, none of the things listed here are inherently bad. They all can be useful tools for specific purposes.

Using poor tools for the wrong purposes is a bad practice, but that's one no game designers ever did on purpose or plan to continue doing.


----------



## MNblockhead (Jun 18, 2022)

The answer the main question, no.  I see no reason to let go of any traditions in terms of game mechanics or play styles. I perfectly capable of enjoying radically new and different systems while still enjoying my traditional D&D with all its clunky bits. 

The only traditions I've been happy to see go are social: gatekeeping, nerd and geek being pejorative, lack of diversity at the game table, etc.


----------



## Mezuka (Jun 18, 2022)

There is no need to let anything go because the diversity of available RPGs is so wide these days you can choose exactly what type of system you want to play, which was not possible 20ish years ago.

(edit) There is no advancement in the original Traveller, which dates back to the beginning of RPGs.


----------



## Haiku Elvis (Jun 18, 2022)

zarionofarabel said:


> Class. Level. Zero to Hero. Readily available magic. Thousands of monster species. Multitudes of PC races.



OK I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing D&D isn't your favourite game.


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 18, 2022)

Parties. Everybody and their mother tries to shoehorn PCs working (and often even travelling) together for exactly zero reasons.


----------



## kenada (Jun 18, 2022)

Yora said:


> Other than pointlessly specific skills that no player has real reason to ever take, none of the things listed here are inherently bad. They all can be useful tools for specific purposes.



However, the question was not, “What game mechanics are inherently bad?” It was, “What would you put out to pasture?”

And I did do exactly that in my homebrew system. (Not that it was particularly difficult since not only does old-school D&D do what I want, but there are also plenty of modern systems that do so as well.)


----------



## Endroren (Jun 18, 2022)

Li Shenron said:


> Collectionism, officiality and novelty. None of which the RPGing hobby truly need.



I'd actually love to see this. I really like the idea of unique gaming experiences that don't have to continue on forever. I LIKE long campaigns and interconnected worlds and all of that, but I really do like the hobby aspect and the "one shot" story idea. The first Mutant Year Zero book had this vibe - like you'd buy it, play it, and finish it.


Li Shenron said:


> But since it sounds like you are a publisher, it is impossibile for you not to look at those as opportunities.



Not necessarily. Opportunity is creating something new people want to buy and have fun with. It doesn't have to fit those. In fact, in terms of novelty, we're a HUGE believer that more of what we already love (done right) is a good thing. You don't need to completely break the mold to make something awesome.


Li Shenron said:


> But it actually sounds like you're trying to find an idea for removing or replacing a core *rule or mechanics *mainly*. *Nothing wrong with creating a new game or variant, I would always welcome variations of the gameplay, and if you're lucky you can create a successful longlasting branch of the main.



Actually, I was just mulling this over as a gamer. We're using 5E for our stuff and putting out an awesome classic fantasy setting.  Just me overthinking my hobby in this case.


----------



## Endroren (Jun 18, 2022)

MNblockhead said:


> The only traditions I've been happy to see go are social: gatekeeping, nerd and geek being pejorative, lack of diversity at the game table, etc.



Seems to me in a way you really are answering the main question. And it makes sense - from your point of view the stuff that most needs to go isn't mechanical or story or genre specific. It's more about the social elements of our hobby culture. I gotta say I agree with your feelings on this.


----------



## Endroren (Jun 18, 2022)

Mezuka said:


> There is no need to let anything go because the diversity of available RPGs is so wide now you can choose exactly what you type of system want to play, which was not possible 20ish years ago.
> 
> (edit) There is no advancement in the original Traveller, which dates back to the beginning of RPGs.



I actually agree that there is a lot of diversity out there. What this came out of was discussing how in the 50's/60's/70's people struggled to imagine a science fiction future without smoking. It just got us wondering about what things do we accept as necessary when in reality we should move beyond. So yeah - I've played those games where it's done differently - just having funny thinking about these ideas.


----------



## Yora (Jun 18, 2022)

kenada said:


> However, the question was not, “What game mechanics are inherently bad?” It was, “What would you put out to pasture?”
> 
> And I did do exactly that in my homebrew system. (Not that it was particularly difficult since not only does old-school D&D do what I want, but there are also plenty of modern systems that do so as well.)



I think they are all tools that still have applications. The use cases for which they were designed still exist, and I can't think of anything that is both a tradition and has been superceeded by a better newer tool.

"d20 + modifiers against DC" is obviously superior to whatever TSR did with attack rolls, but that's a single specific mechanic, not a design tradition.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 18, 2022)

Li Shenron said:


> No levelling is for example one thing I'd be looking forward to, as I've said many times that I find the typical fast levelling of RPGs a distraction from the actual game for many players. I myself often tell my players to forget levelling up until the current adventure is over, so that they don't make in-game decisions in anticipation of what new abilities they should acquire next, or do silly things like going on a rats hunt for XP.



There's a way to both have and eat cake here, IMO, if instead of no levelling you go with extremely slow levelling as the default, and not very many levels (maybe 5? 10?).  That way, more options are opened: a short campaign might never have its PCs level up during its run, a longer campaign would see some slow advancement, and any DM worth their kitbash should easily be able to find a way to speed advancement up should that be what the table wants; and in any case the framework and rules for higher levels would already be in place.

The risk I see in a no-advancement system is that you'd then need 15 different games (thus fragmenting the player base) to represent the different degrees of PC and-or opposition power that roughly map to today's levels - in other words, you'd need a game that approximated 0th-level play, another game for 1st-level play, and so forth up to near-supers-level play.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 18, 2022)

loverdrive said:


> Parties. Everybody and their mother tries to shoehorn PCs working (and often even travelling) together for exactly zero reasons.



While I wouldn't "get rid of" parties, I would like to see more RPGs where the base assumption was something other than all for one, one for all. Imagine an office environment RPG where the PCs are team members on a project but only one gets the credit and promotion at the end, and someone is getting cut. Lots of opportunities for drama there while still having PCs all be "together" for practical play purposes.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 18, 2022)

loverdrive said:


> Parties. Everybody and their mother tries to shoehorn PCs working (and often even travelling) together for exactly zero reasons.



I get the sentiment here, but how do you then make RPGs work as a group activity i.e. something that involves a GM plus more than one other person at a time?


----------



## Reynard (Jun 18, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> I get the sentiment here, but how do you then make RPGs work as a group activity i.e. something that involves a GM plus more than one other person at a time?



The PCs just have to be interacting in the same place, not necessarily be allies. They could be a firefighter crew or the staff in an ER, or they could be various members of a magic school faculty.


----------



## Yora (Jun 18, 2022)

loverdrive said:


> Parties. Everybody and their mother tries to shoehorn PCs working (and often even travelling) together for exactly zero reasons.



What else do you propose?


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 18, 2022)

Mezuka said:


> There is no advancement in the original Traveller, which dates back to the beginning of RPGs.



Traveller’s a weird one. Advancement was part of character creation, but you risked death. You could take correspondence course after character creation to improve. A lot of people miss it because it’s in the Starships book (p40).


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 18, 2022)

Yora said:


> What else do you propose?



PCs just being major characters who we spend a lot screentime with, and preferably with conflicting interests, that's pretty much it. Like, say, Walter, Jesse, Skyler, Mike and Gus rather than Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli.

It works spectacularly well in Apocalypse World and Urban Shadows.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 18, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> I get the sentiment here, but how do you then make RPGs work as a group activity i.e. something that involves a GM plus more than one other person at a time?





Yora said:


> What else do you propose?



It basically doesn’t work in real-time games. If you’re playing asynchronously, say via forum, email, post, snail mail, etc it works.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 18, 2022)

One other thing that should go is specialty designed, bespoke systems for every minor variation of game idea. You don’t need 500 pages of rules to separate Mouse Guard from Mice Templar.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 18, 2022)

loverdrive said:


> PCs just being major characters who we spend a lot screentime with, and preferably with conflicting interests, that's pretty much it. Like, say, *Walter, Jesse, Skyler, Mike and Gus* rather than Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli.
> 
> It works spectacularly well in Apocalypse World and Urban Shadows.



OK, gotcha.  The anti-PvP crowd will doubtless have something to say on this as such a system could quickly turn into PvP, but I'm cool with it, and many of my games end up working like this even though they run in parties. (i.e. it'd be more representative to throw a few Boromirs into the LotR group)

Question, though: who are the bolded guys?


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 18, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> OK, gotcha.  The anti-PvP crowd will doubtless have something to say on this as such a system could quickly turn into PvP, but I'm cool with it, and many of my games end up working like this even though they run in parties. (i.e. it'd be more representative to throw a few Boromirs into the LotR group)
> 
> Question, though: who are the bolded guys?



Main cast of Breaking Bad.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 18, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Question, though: who are the bolded guys?



Breaking Bad characters.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 18, 2022)

loverdrive said:


> Main cast of Breaking Bad.



Ah, thanks.  Never watched it.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 18, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> It basically doesn’t work in real-time games. If you’re playing asynchronously, say via forum, email, post, snail mail, etc it works.



Sure it does. It works perfectly well in ensemble television, why wouldn't it work in an RPG? It might require some note passing or an occasional "why don't you two take a smoke break"* moments, but most of the time the PCs would be in the same place doing things while still scheming against one another.

The more I think about it, the more I want to explore this idea.

*I just signposted my age for you all, didn't I?


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 18, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Sure it does. It works perfectly well in ensemble television, why wouldn't it work in an RPG? It might require some note passing or an occasional "why don't you two take a smoke break"* moments, but most of the time the PCs would be in the same place doing things while still scheming against one another.
> 
> The more I think about it, the more I want to explore this idea.
> 
> *I just signposted my age for you all, didn't I?



If you’re willing to sit and watch other people at the same table as you RP for hours on end while you do nothing but watch, knock yourself out. I have zero interest in that.


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 18, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Sure it does. It works perfectly well in ensemble television, why wouldn't it work in an RPG? It might require some note passing or an occasional "why don't you two take a smoke break"* moments



I'll just quote Baker here:



> Conventional wisdom: *it's boring when your character's not in the scene.*
> 
> 
> Text from Dogs:
> ...


----------



## Reynard (Jun 18, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> If you’re willing to sit and watch other people at the same table as you RP for hours on end while you do nothing but watch, knock yourself out. I have zero interest in that.



Where is "hours on end" coming from? I mean we already do this regularly. People have moments and scenes your character isn't involved in. That's not new or unusual.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 18, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Where is "hours on end" coming from? I mean we already do this regularly. People have moments and scenes your character isn't involved in. That's not new or unusual.



We don’t do that. At worst you have to wait a bit for your turn in combat while playing rules-heavy combat-focused games. In most team-based RPGs there are at most vignettes that don’t include most of the players. If the referee is worth their salt they’ll keep these to a minimum, keep them short and sweet, and not let players spotlight hog.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jun 18, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> If you’re willing to sit and watch other people at the same table as you RP for hours on end while you do nothing but watch, knock yourself out. I have zero interest in that.




The right system mitigates or avoids this issue. FitD and PbtA, for example, are practically designed to support PCs being split up constantly, because you make very few rolls (if any) per scene. Importantly, that goes for combat too. 

The result is pretty great. Opens up way more genres and types of narratives.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 18, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> We don’t do that. At worst you have to wait a bit for your turn in combat while playing rules-heavy combat-focused games. In most team-based RPGs there are at most vignettes that don’t include most of the player. If the referee is worth their salt they’ll keep these to a minimum, keep them short and sweet, and not let players spotlight hog.



You never have private scenes in your games, where one character meets an old friend or another has to talk to the head of their guild or whatever?


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 18, 2022)

To be honest, "spotlight hogging" doesn't seem like a problem to me. I mean, you want spotlight -- you take it. "Meanwhile, at Kardak's hideout...", gesture at the game master as if "go on" and puff!

If somebody is being silent, I assume they don't have anything to say. Expecting other players (GM included) to read your mind and hand spotlight to you doesn't seem like a particularly bright idea to me.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 18, 2022)

Pacing is definitely one of the main jobs of the GM so they do need to be cognizant of too much time spent not engaging all the players* but that doesn't mean you can't spotlight.

*This distinction is important and there are tools and techniques to engage players even if their characters aren't involved.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 18, 2022)

Reynard said:


> You never have private scenes in your games, where one character meets an old friend or another has to talk to the head of their guild or whatever?



Second verse, same as the first. In most team-based RPGs there are at most vignettes that don’t include most of the players. If the referee is worth their salt they’ll keep these to a minimum, keep them short and sweet, and not let players spotlight hog.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 18, 2022)

loverdrive said:


> To be honest, "spotlight hogging" doesn't seem like a problem to me. I mean, you want spotlight -- you take it. "Meanwhile, at Kardak's hideout...", gesture at the game master as if "go on" and puff!
> 
> If somebody is being silent, I assume they don't have anything to say. Expecting other players (GM included) to read your mind and hand spotlight to you doesn't seem like a particularly bright idea to me.



Sounds like a great way to quickly have a table full of players all jockeying for position and trying to talk (then yell) over each other to grab the referee's attention and keep the game focused on themselves rather than recognizing it's a group activity.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 18, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Pacing is definitely one of the main jobs of the GM so they do need to be cognizant of too much time spent not engaging all the players* but that doesn't mean you can't spotlight.
> 
> *This distinction is important and there are tools and techniques to engage players even if their characters aren't involved.



Hence the "hog" at the phrase spotlight hog. Spotlight time is fine, when limited. Players spotlight hogging is not. The referee letting any player spotlight hog is also bad form.


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 18, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Sounds like a great way to quickly have a table full of players all jockeying for position and trying to talk (then yell) over each other to grab the referee's attention and keep the game focused on themselves rather than recognizing it's a group activity.



Or, hear me out, have a table full of players who are really interested in seeing characters they like struggle and change, and sometimes interject when they have a great idea.

If I come to play (or run, it doesn't really matter that much) a character-driven game, it's because I like the characters. Otherwise, I wouldn't be at the table, I would be at home playing Red Alert instead.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 18, 2022)

I don't want to argue about play style preferences, but I will say that there's a certain level of being a good player that involves allowing your fellow players to tell their story and do their thing, even if it means you are "sitting out" for 20 minutes in one particular session, because your turn is coming.


----------



## kenada (Jun 18, 2022)

Yora said:


> "d20 + modifiers against DC" is obviously superior to whatever TSR did with attack rolls, but that's a single specific mechanic, not a design tradition.



I don’t think THAC0 was good. That’s not what I mean. The skill mechanics and saving throw mechanics put the target number on the players’ sheets. It makes resolving those rolls faster and makes writing content easier because you can just say “this requires a save vs. dragon’s breath” and not have to care about balance because the appropriate progression is baked into the system. And to be clear, I don’t mean the different dice mechanics either. They could have unified skills to work like saving throws (d20 vs. number on your sheet), and that would have been fine (if not preferable).


----------



## Blue (Jun 18, 2022)

Something to let go would be that each pillar of play has differing pre-defined levels of granularity instead of the time spent on it being based on how important it is to the players.

So if (uncertain) activity X is not of much import but we do have some moderate level of care about the output, solve it with a die roll (or whatever).  If it's more important, have it mechanically heavier (though don't weight it more towards the average with "more of the same type of roll").  If it's of great importance to the players, then zoom down to a high level of granularity that's going to take some time to resolve.

To use some high fantasy examples, a wandering monster, haggling for expensive items, navigating to the next port or tavern brawl might be dealt with with a die roll, because they are of low import to the player.  And enough levels of response that it's not "you succeed/failed to navigate" but also "it took you three extra days" or "some other dwarf out-drank you and you came in second" or whatever.  Note that inherently means that we aren't artificially increasing stakes by taking a scene that the players don't care about and out of nowhere assigning arbitrarily high stakes like possible character death in a system designed for resource attrition.

On the other hand, mayhaps being able to flow the tracks of the kidnapper is quite important, and especially do they arrive before or after the "extraneous" kidnappees are disposed of.  That might be zoomed in, with more rolls and some meaningful choices about approach.  Same thing for a moderate skirmish, or convincing the sheriff that the party didn't steal the dowry chest.

And a final level that zooms all the way in, only for scenes that are the most important _to the players_.  They should involve everyone, and have meaningful choices made along the way that inform the result.  This is probably the only level that might get down to task-resolution granularity.  This is the big "convince the duchess her husband is betraying her and the duchy" or "stop the ritual turning people into abominations" or whatever.  These come around only once or thrice in an adventure, a few more times that that in an arc.

The idea that all of activity X is zoomed into THIS level and all of activity Y is zoomed out to THAT level, without being able to focus session time on what is actually important to the players, is an relic that does not serve the table.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 18, 2022)

loverdrive said:


> Or, hear me out, have a table full of players who are really interested in seeing characters they like struggle and change, and sometimes interject when they have a great idea.



I've had tables like that. Everyone talking over each other. Raising voices to be heard. Trying to get the referee's attention. At the time, a more accurate description would be they were a table of self-involved players wanting to be the center of attention who had no interest in ever letting the spotlight go once they had it. They and their character were the only thing they cared about, the rest of the table be damned.


loverdrive said:


> If I come to play (or run, it doesn't really matter that much) a character-driven game, it's because I like the characters.



Here me out, there's no mutually exclusive bits there. You can like the characters, run a character-driven game, but not have the players trying to out-shout each other to get your attention, or ignoring the quieter players.


Reynard said:


> I don't want to argue about play style preferences, but I will say that there's a certain level of being a good player that involves allowing your fellow players to tell their story and do their thing, even if it means you are "sitting out" for 20 minutes in one particular session, because your turn is coming.



One more bit of "how games work" that no consensus can be reached on. To me a good player is one who doesn't try to spotlight hog. Someone who recognizes it's a group activity and will not intentionally make the rest of the group sit around waiting for them. See the caster player who refuses to read up on their spells. See the decker in Shadowrun. Etc. A good player won't try to make that happen. A good referee won't let that happen.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 18, 2022)

Blue said:


> Something to let go would be that each pillar of play has differing pre-defined levels of granularity instead of the time spent on it being based on how important it is to the players.
> 
> So if (uncertain) activity X is not of much import but we do have some moderate level of care about the output, solve it with a die roll (or whatever).  If it's more important, have it mechanically heavier (though don't weight it more towards the average with "more of the same type of roll").  If it's of great importance to the players, then zoom down to a high level of granularity that's going to take some time to resolve.
> 
> ...



Is that a thing in modern RPGs? I feel like D&D at least abandoned that element 20 odd years ago.


----------



## Blue (Jun 18, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Is that a thing in modern RPGs? I feel like D&D at least abandoned that element 20 odd years ago.



Sorry?

Please, show me zoomed out combat rules.

Show me zoomed in social rules with meaningful tactical choices at the same degree as any combat.  With all of the players having meaningful ways to contribute.

D&D is a poster child of this.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 19, 2022)

I have almost 20 years of experience on both sides of the screen playing character focused roleplaying games, traditional and not so traditional. It absolutely works as long as we are all fans of the setting and all the player characters. My most vivid memories of past games I have been a player in are often about the other characters. An ability to cede the spotlight and highlight everyone's contributions is crucial. Maybe I have been inordinately lucky, but I think these qualities are not hard to find in people as long as you live up to them yourself. It's contagious in a way.

It's only spotlight hogging if you are taking more than your fair share. Removing the spotlight entirely is not a solution that resolves issues of selfish play.

Honestly, I would not want to play any cooperative game with anyone who has a _cannot wait for my turn_ mentality. In team-based play being willing to take a backseat when that's what it takes to overcome the challenge and appreciating what your fellow players bring to the table is essential. Selfish play is still selfish play regardless.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 19, 2022)

Blue said:


> Something to let go would be that each pillar of play has differing pre-defined levels of granularity instead of the time spent on it being based on how important it is to the players.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The idea that all of activity X is zoomed into THIS level and all of activity Y is zoomed out to THAT level, without being able to focus session time on what is actually important to the players, is an relic that does not serve the table.



The systems I think of that fit the preference you state here are HeroWars/Quest (fully satisfies it), Prince Valiant (to a degree: as the rules are presented, there is some correlation suggested between in-fiction details and mechanical resolution framework, but this can largely be ignored), Burning Wheel (to a degree, because the extended resolution frameworks are activity-specific) and 4e D&D (out-of-combat using skill challenges of various complexity; for combat it's a bit less satisfactory but can be done using minions).

I'm sure there are others too.



Lanefan said:


> The risk I see in a no-advancement system is that you'd then need 15 different games (thus fragmenting the player base) to represent the different degrees of PC and-or opposition power that roughly map to today's levels - in other words, you'd need a game that approximated 0th-level play, another game for 1st-level play, and so forth up to near-supers-level play.



No you don't. You can keep exactly the same resolution framework and re-describe the fiction. HeroQuest revised is a paradigm of this.


----------



## MNblockhead (Jun 19, 2022)

Reynard said:


> While I wouldn't "get rid of" parties, I would like to see more RPGs where the base assumption was something other than all for one, one for all. Imagine an office environment RPG where the PCs are team members on a project but only one gets the credit and promotion at the end, and someone is getting cut. Lots of opportunities for drama there while still having PCs all be "together" for practical play purposes.



It is hard to do this well in a way that is fun for all players.  The only system I can think of that does it really well, in the sense that I can run a game for just about any random group of people and they will enjoy it, is Paranoia.  The cloning mechanic and slapstick nature of the game  helps make the PvP elements actually fun.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 19, 2022)

MNblockhead said:


> It is hard to do this well in a way that is fun for all players.  The only system I can think of that does it really well, in the sense that I can run a game for just about any random group of people and they will enjoy it, is Paranoia.  The cloning mechanic and slapstick nature of the game  helps make the PvP elements actually fun.



Up to a point. For people who aren't allergic to PVP as a general thing. But yeah. It's one of the only games PVP regularly works. At least for me.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 19, 2022)

Reynard said:


> The PCs just have to be interacting in the same place, not necessarily be allies. They could be a firefighter crew or the staff in an ER, or they could be various members of a magic school faculty.



A party by any other name...  In Vampire they call it a coterie, in Call of Cthulhu they're investigators, and in Paranoia they're called troubleshooters, but they're just different words for party.  

What I'd like to get away from in most games is wealth/treasure accumulation.  Thinking back throughout the years, most of my fond gaming memories involve what other players or NPCs did, spectacularly good or bad dice roles, and just spending time with friends.  You know what pretty much never comes up?  How much gold, treasure, or magic items my character accumulated.  It just doesn't matter.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 19, 2022)

Reynard said:


> While I wouldn't "get rid of" parties, I would like to see more RPGs where the base assumption was something other than all for one, one for all. Imagine an office environment RPG where the PCs are team members on a project but only one gets the credit and promotion at the end, and someone is getting cut. Lots of opportunities for drama there while still having PCs all be "together" for practical play purposes.




I picked up a game called The 13th Fleet a while ago. Haven’t had a chance to play it yet, but I’m looking forward to it. It’s about a fleet of srarships (think Star Trek) that is returning home after having been decimated in battle with some galactic empire.

Each player plays a captain of one of the ships in the fleet, and has a crew of redshirts at their disposal. The players must cooperate to navigate their way back home, but they’re also all awful people who are competing for the position of admiral.

It’s an interesting dynamic that’s a nice change of pace from the PCs as a team that most games default to, and it looks like it’d be a lot of fun to play.



overgeeked said:


> I've had tables like that. Everyone talking over each other. Raising voices to be heard. Trying to get the referee's attention.




I don’t think you have had tables like that. Or else your description wouldn’t totally contradict what @loverdrive was saying.

Nothing she described sounds at all like what you’re describing.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 19, 2022)

MGibster said:


> A party by any other name...  In Vampire they call it a coterie, in Call of Cthulhu they're investigators, and in Paranoia they're called troubleshooters, but they're just different words for party.



There can be PCs whose paths cross and whose "stories" interact without having to be part of the same team. It's not typical for D&D play, but it's not at odds with RPGing as such.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 19, 2022)

pemerton said:


> There can be PCs whose paths cross and whose "stories" interact without having to be part of the same team. It's not typical for D&D play, but it's not at odds with RPGing as such.



It could be that I have a rather loose definition of team/party.  If I have a group of PCs who, within the context of the campaign, regularly work together towards a common goal, then they're a team.  The team might be a formal creation within the setting, such as each PC being a law enforcment officer in the newly created Heighted Crime Investigation Unit of the Seattle Police Department in _Mutant City Blues.  _Or it might be informal, such as an antiquarian, a criminal, a cab driver, and a professor of history getting together to find out more about that weird cult each of their loved ones have joined in a _Call of Cthulhu _game.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 19, 2022)

MGibster said:


> It could be that I have a rather loose definition of team/party.  If I have a group of PCs who, within the context of the campaign, regularly work together towards a common goal, then they're a team.



That's not what I'm talking about. As per the post you quoted, I'm talking about  PCs whose paths cross and whose "stories" interact without having to be part of the same team.


----------



## Davies (Jun 19, 2022)

pemerton said:


> That's not what I'm talking about. As per the post you quoted, I'm talking about  PCs whose paths cross and whose "stories" interact without having to be part of the same team.



Sort of like how some wuxia stories portray the jianghu, where everybody knows each other by reputation and knows that today's ally might be tomorrow's enemy, and vice versa?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 19, 2022)

Davies said:


> Sort of like how some wuxia stories portray the jianghu, where everybody knows each other by reputation and knows that today's ally might be tomorrow's enemy, and vice versa?



That wasn't what I had in mind, but might work. I don't think I know the full range of stories you're referring to, but the first thing I thought of was the film Ashes of Time.

What I had in mind was something where the PCs are each pursuing their goals/concerns, but these connect or overlap or intersect in some fashion. In film, Pulp Fiction might be one illustration of the idea.


----------



## Yora (Jun 19, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> One other thing that should go is specialty designed, bespoke systems for every minor variation of game idea. You don’t need 500 pages of rules to separate Mouse Guard from Mice Templar.



It's all about the brand recognition. I think the glut of licensed games is targeted at fans of the source material who aren't very much into RPGs and are not familiar with the rules systems that are out there.
These games exist because people will buy the brand, not because developers have ideas for a new system.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 19, 2022)

A further thought on the _PCs are not a team_ thing.

Maybe the closest analogue is to soap opera: there are recurring protagonists, related in various ways, with problems and events that intersect their various lives. Events might bring different protagonists together from time to time, in various ways. But the protagonists are not any sort of  "team" or collective. They're just doing their respective things!


----------



## Reynard (Jun 19, 2022)

pemerton said:


> A further thought on the _PCs are not a team_ thing.
> 
> Maybe the closest analogue is to soap opera: there are recurring protagonists, related in various ways, with problems and events that intersect their various lives. Events might bring different protagonists together from time to time, in various ways. But the protagonists are not any sort of  "team" or collective. They're just doing their respective things!



Because the soap opera elements are strong in the genre anyway, this would probably work pretty well for a supers campaign where the PCs aren't a team but rather rival heroes in the same city with different heroing philosophies. Daredevil, punisher and Spidey butt heads a lot but still had to come together sometimes to stop Kingpin.


----------



## Cadence (Jun 19, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Because the soap opera elements are strong in the genre anyway, this would probably work pretty well for a supers campaign where the PCs aren't a team but rather rival heroes in the same city with different heroing philosophies. Daredevil, punisher and Spidey butt heads a lot but still had to come together sometimes to stop Kingpin.



Is it "not being on the same team" or "not being in the same scenes" that is the big difference?   

Sci-fi and Fantasy literature and film (from LotR to SW) seem to do the later regularly.   In books that do that a lot, I sometimes find myself reading chapters out of order if I find one part being much more interesting than the others or like that character more.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 19, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> The risk I see in a no-advancement system is that you'd then need 15 different games (thus fragmenting the player base) to represent the different degrees of PC and-or opposition power that roughly map to today's levels - in other words, you'd need a game that approximated 0th-level play, another game for 1st-level play, and so forth up to near-supers-level play.




No, you don't need that.

the Sentinels Comics RPG (a superhero game) is a good example of this - characters have dice assigned to various powers and abilities, and the larger dice are more likely to generate successes.  But, what "success" means is not nailed down in the rules in objective terms.

Like the rules do not say you need to get an eleven or better to lift a 20-ton weight, or something.  The scale is arbitrary, fixed by the genre expectations, not by the rules - so the same rules handle street-level heroes and Superman, without any rules changes at all.  The narration is given to fit the genre needs.

Interestingly, SCRPG also does not have power advancement in its rules.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jun 19, 2022)

MNblockhead said:


> The answer the main question, no.  I see no reason to let go of any traditions in terms of game mechanics or play styles. I perfectly capable of enjoying radically new and different systems while still enjoying my traditional D&D with all its clunky bits.
> 
> The only traditions I've been happy to see go are social: gatekeeping, nerd and geek being pejorative, lack of diversity at the game table, etc.




This is where I land. There are _no_ game mechanics that the hobby as a whole should remove from consideration. Some game-designer somewhere could eventually find anything useful.

The OP's question is frankly bizarre to me. It's like asking, "what instruments should musicians just not use anymore when composing new music?"


----------



## Umbran (Jun 19, 2022)

Reynard said:


> You never have private scenes in your games, where one character meets an old friend or another has to talk to the head of their guild or whatever?




I'm sure most do.  But there's going to be a significant difference between that happening occasionally, and having it be a mainstay of play.



pemerton said:


> That's not what I'm talking about. As per the post you quoted, I'm talking about  PCs whose paths cross and whose "stories" interact without having to be part of the same team.




This would seem to require players to be pretty constantly changing up the characters they play.  We would be hard pressed to have _every session_ the same characters have their paths cross without them effectively being a team.

And sure you can do that.  But it means that most characters will not see a whole lot of development over time, because none of them can be in focus for particularly long times.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 19, 2022)

Umbran said:


> I'm sure most do.  But there's going to be a significant difference between that happening occasionally, and having it be a mainstay of play.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am always suspect when someone says something isn't possible in RPGs. If ensemble television can do it, an RPG can do it. it just requires a group of people who are willing to behave in a way consistent with the genre expectations, and capable of letting others have the stage for a bit. These are things that should be true in all games all the time. There's nothing worse than a spotlight hog player, except one that completely checks out when it is someone else's turn.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 19, 2022)

Umbran said:


> I'm sure most do.  But there's going to be a significant difference between that happening occasionally, and having it be a mainstay of play.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Or perhaps when the focus is on one character, the resultant development is greater than when focus is on the entire group?


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 19, 2022)

Yora said:


> It's all about the brand recognition. I think the glut of licensed games is targeted at fans of the source material who aren't very much into RPGs and are not familiar with the rules systems that are out there.
> These games exist because people will buy the brand, not because developers have ideas for a new system.



Sure. Bad example on my part. It’s what popped in there when I was thinking about it. The general point is that we don’t need more and more game systems. There’s already more than anyone could ever hope to use. And they’re increasingly minor variations on already common themes. I’d like to see more settings and genre books without attached systems.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 19, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Sure. Bad example on my part. It’s what popped in there when I was thinking about it. The general point is that we don’t need more and more game systems. There’s already more than anyone could ever hope to use. And they’re increasingly minor variations on already common themes. I’d like to see more settings and genre books without attached systems.



Have any of these ever sold well, besides maybe Harn back when "systemless" just meant "for use with D&D"?


----------



## Endroren (Jun 19, 2022)

Egon Spengler said:


> This is where I land. There are _no_ game mechanics that the hobby as a whole should remove from consideration. Some game-designer somewhere could eventually find anything useful.
> 
> The OP's question is frankly bizarre to me. It's like asking, "what instruments should musicians just not use anymore when composing new music?"



The question wasn't what should we permanently delete. It also wasn't a question of value or quality. To put it another way, it's asking what are things that are included in RPGs in a knee-jerk sort of way where we might benefit if we try removing those things. It's easy to overlook some really fantastic options because one has already filled the need with something else. There are also things that people become so used to, that they never consider NOT having.

A somewhat similar example is smoking in old scifi novels. Ingenious authors with amazing creative minds never stopped to wonder if maybe people would stop smoking in the future. SOME authors did, but many (or most IMO) did not.

The whole point of the question is "what is our 'smoking'" in games? And if we pulled those things out, what creative solutions might we fill the gap with. It's a creative exercise.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 19, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Have any of these ever sold well, besides maybe Harn back when "systemless" just meant "for use with D&D"?



Depends. There’s versions specifically for games. Hero System and GURPS have put out some of the best genre books. I haven’t a clue how well they sell. Monte Cook is putting some out. There’s also semi-related stuff like the Osprey books on armies, battles, and weapons of war, that, while meant for wargames and mini collecting, are also useful for specific historical interest and research…and RPGs. Then there’s the whole universe of non-gaming books, fiction and non-fiction. Any history book or novel could be the source for ideas and settings. Gamers interested in emulating stories in their games would do well to study the same books and manuals novelists and screenwriters are pointed to, re: craft and genre.

So, to answer your “do they sell” question. Most of them, yes. Quite well in fact…when they’re not targeted at gamers. The stuff targeted at gamers, not so much.

Maybe that’s more the thing I’d like to see. Gamers getting out of the rut of “what system” and becoming voracious in their inspirations again. Yes, you see more of this in indie games, but a lot still seems like minor variations on a theme. And most online discussion seems laser focused on the boring bits…builds and maths and systems.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 19, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Depends. There’s versions specifically for games. Hero System and GURPS have put out some of the best genre books. I haven’t a clue how well they sell.



Those aren't generic so i don't know how many people pick them up for general use. As a Hero fan, i have a ton of their genre books from various editions and they are great, but I don't know that i would have bought any of them if I wasn't already into the system. Granted, I never really played GURPS but did buy some of their more esoteric books just because they were often the only place to find books on some subjects or genres.


----------



## John R Davis (Jun 19, 2022)

Way too many PC races.
Dice pools.
And mostly "opposed rolls".


----------



## kenada (Jun 19, 2022)

John R Davis said:


> Dice pools.
> And mostly "opposed rolls".



Not a fan of opposed rolls. Especially with dice pools (glares at Shadowrun). Let’s make resolution take longer.


----------



## John R Davis (Jun 19, 2022)

Eek..hadn't thought off opposed dice pool rolls. Yuck


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 19, 2022)

kenada said:


> Not a fan of opposed rolls. Especially with dice pools (glares at Shadowrun). Let’s make resolution take longer.





John R Davis said:


> Eek..hadn't thought off opposed dice pool rolls. Yuck



While I completely agree about dice pools, I love opposed rolls. It's the single best way to remove the referee putting their thumb on the scale of target numbers, and if you happen to get into PVP it's not suddenly weird that you're making opposed rolls. Or have the referee roll for the DC then have the player roll against that. Like say 1d10+15 is the DC. But then that's just an opposed roll by another name.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 19, 2022)

pemerton said:


> That's not what I'm talking about. As per the post you quoted, I'm talking about PCs whose paths cross and whose "stories" interact without having to be part of the same team.



I don't know what that means.

Edit:  i.e.  What does that look like in game play?


----------



## Reynard (Jun 19, 2022)

I have one: can we get rid of combats as a time filler activity?

I am in the process of converting a Pathfinder AP (Iron Gods) to 5E and I had forgotten how full of meaningless combat they were -- mostly to hit the required XP to level the PCs up, I think. Since I am using milestone leveling for this campaign (a rarity for me, but I tend to use it with "plotted" adventures) I can skip a bunch of the filler fights, and I don't think I'll miss them.


----------



## payn (Jun 19, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I have one: can we get rid of combats as a time filler activity?
> 
> I am in the process of converting a Pathfinder AP (Iron Gods) to 5E and I had forgotten how full of meaningless combat they were -- mostly to hit the required XP to level the PCs up, I think. Since I am using milestone leveling for this campaign (a rarity for me, but I tend to use it with "plotted" adventures) I can skip a bunch of the filler fights, and I don't think I'll miss them.



I've done just this, with that AP even. Sometimes though, Players (especially D&D/PF) want to get into some fights and stretch out their abilities and just have fun beating things. Finding the right amount of henchies and staple fights is an art.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Jun 19, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I don't know what that means.
> 
> Edit:  i.e.  What does that look like in game play?




To do what people are describing, without long stretches of thumb twiddling by some of the players, you'd have to fundamentally change how you run a game. Perhaps a scenario where everyone has a character, and more that one person is expected to GM. More than one scene is run concurrently, and players whose characters aren't present in a scene that phase will GM the respective scenes. Once the phase ends, the players scramble scene partners. This would continue until the end of the scenario.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 19, 2022)

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> To do what people are describing, without long stretches of thumb twiddling by some of the players, you'd have to fundamentally change how you run a game. Perhaps a scenario where everyone has a character, and more that one person is expected to GM. More than one scene is run concurrently, and players whose characters aren't present in a scene that phase will GM the respective scenes. Once the phase ends, the players scramble scene partners. This would continue until the end of the scenario.




Or you just put one scene with one player on hold and jump to another player and do that scene for a few minutes. Then jump back to the first player or over to another, and so on as needed. 

It’s not that difficult. Very much like turns in combat, but zoomed out a bit.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 19, 2022)

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> To do what people are describing, without long stretches of thumb twiddling by some of the players, you'd have to fundamentally change how you run a game. Perhaps a scenario where everyone has a character, and more that one person is expected to GM. More than one scene is run concurrently, and players whose characters aren't present in a scene that phase will GM the respective scenes. Once the phase ends, the players scramble scene partners. This would continue until the end of the scenario.



You could also have uninvolved players run NPCs in the spotlight scene.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 19, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> Or you just put one scene with one player on hold and jump to another player and do that scene for a few minutes. Then jump back to the first player or over to another, and so on as needed.
> 
> It’s not that difficult. Very much like turns in combat, but zoomed out a bit.



I find it very strange how "impossible" people are suggesting this concept is.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 19, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I have one: can we get rid of combats as a time filler activity?



I think this is a very D&D (or D&D-inspired/adjacent) thing.

It relates to another aspect of RPGing: how much fiction/story is expected to be got through per three-or-so-hour session of play?

D&D seems to generally assume that the answer is _less than a three hour film would get through_. And _less than twelve comics would get through_ (I'm figuring 15 to 20 minutes to read each comic).

I've become a fan of trying to speed that up.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 19, 2022)

kenada said:


> Not a fan of opposed rolls. Especially with dice pools (glares at Shadowrun). Let’s make resolution take longer.



Talk about fighting words!

Some of my favourite systems have opposed pools: Burning Wheel (and Torchbearer), Prince Valiant, Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic. The only one where I would say it noticeably affects the pace of resolution is the last one, because the system uses a quirky rule for building your final pool _and_ has a lot of methods of pool manipulation.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 19, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> You could also have uninvolved players run NPCs in the spotlight scene.




But that usually requires you to brief each of the uninvolved players on their characters, which takes additional time.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 19, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> It’s not that difficult. Very much like turns in combat, but zoomed out a bit.




But, to be clear - when taking turns in combat, you have shared context.  If running social scenes in this manner, you might not.  Flipping through, say, five unconnected scenes means a lot of context switching for the GM, and the results are likely not going to be as good as if the GM can focus on one context.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 19, 2022)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I'm talking about PCs whose paths cross and whose "stories" interact without having to be part of the same team.





MGibster said:


> I don't know what that means.
> 
> Edit:  i.e.  What does that look like in game play?





Cadence said:


> Is it "not being on the same team" or "not being in the same scenes" that is the big difference?



For my part, I'm talking about not being on the same team: ie PCs who engage the fictional elements that the GM is presenting with different goals and concerns, and who are not making a coordinated effort to achieve some particular outcome. In play, this means that there is no _adventure_ that all the PCs are taking part in. They're not collectively trying to solve a mystery, or explore an outpost, or find (or get rid of) an artefact, etc.

A particularly strong case of this is PCs who are opposed to one another, but you don't have to go to the strongest instance to have the general phenomenon. The weakest case I can think of is where the PCs travel together (in my Classic Traveller game, they're the crew of a starship plus some hangers-on) but are pursuing different goals among themselves and with the NPCs they interact with.

Whether or not PCs are in the same scenes is a different thing. If they're not, I personally think it's desirable to have consequences from one scene ramify into other scenes. I think this makes for more interesting play, both because (i) just like in a comic or TV show or whatever, it's fun to see the results of what happened _then and there_ manifest _here and now_, and (ii) it allows players to at least indirectly respond to one another's play.

There are different ways to set this sort of thing up; Apocalypse World has one account of how to do it. In my experience, it needs PCs with relatively clearly-articulated goals, and preferably also relationships to the immediate setting. These give the GM material to use in framing scenes that will provoke the players to respond. The fall-out from one scene gets used to build the next. As a GM, you look for ways to link together the elements that emerge from different PCs' contexts and consequences; if the players are proactive they might help with this too. Whether this leads to moments of cooperation, or moments of opposition (or both), is part of the fun of play.



Umbran said:


> This would seem to require players to be pretty constantly changing up the characters they play.  We would be hard pressed to have _every session_ the same characters have their paths cross without them effectively being a team.



I don't think this has to be so at all.

Just to give one example: if the PCs are a manager, a worker in the managed facility, and someone who rents a workshop next door to the facility, their paths might cross quite a bit - they're hanging out in the same place with the same people - without them being a team. This is roughly the AW model.

@Reynard gave a different example: three vigilantes each of whom patrols the same neighbourhood. We can easily imagine both (i) consequences from a scene involving one of them feeding into a scene involving another of them, plus (ii) framing scenes in which more than one of them is present, and part of what is at stake in the scene is whether they cooperate or conflict with one another.

A different example again - which might be done using HeroWars Glorantha, or maybe Stonetop (? I only have a general sense of it) - would be a village where one PC is the head of the village, another is the weird oracle/shaman type, and a third is the trapper who lives in the surrounding woods but supplies furs to the villagers and also the occasional herb to the oracle.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 19, 2022)

Umbran said:


> But, to be clear - when taking turns in combat, you have shared context.  If running social scenes in this manner, you might not.  Flipping through, say, five unconnected scenes means a lot of context switching for the GM, and the results are likely not going to be as good as if the GM can focus on one context.



Are you saying that you tried this and it didn't work? Or are you conjecturing?

I've done it, in various ways and using a few systems: In A Wicked Age, Cthulhu Dark, Wuthering Heights, Burning Wheel and (as per my post just upthread, as a weak case) Classic Traveller. I'm not saying it's the only way to RPG, or that it's the best way to RPG. But I know from experience that it's a perfectly viable way to RPG.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jun 19, 2022)

Umbran said:


> But, to be clear - when taking turns in combat, you have shared context.  If running social scenes in this manner, you might not.  Flipping through, say, five unconnected scenes means a lot of context switching for the GM, and the results are likely not going to be as good as if the GM can focus on one context.



The last two sessions I ran were Brindlewood Bay, and I did just this, and it worked great. In fact PbtA vets pretty commonly suggest doing this exact thing—when a player rolls a consequence, cut back over to another scene to give your brain a chance to cook up an interesting result, then come back. It’s literally soap opera-style pacing. It’s fun and good.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 19, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> The last two sessions I ran were Brindlewood Bay, and I did just this, and it worked great. In fact PbtA vets pretty commonly suggest doing this exact thing—when a player rolls a consequence, cut back over to another scene to give your brain a chance to cook up an interesting result, then come back. It’s literally soap opera-style pacing. It’s fun and good.



It sounds like you've probably got more experience with this sort of thing than I do!

How much effort do you make to have the consequences of one PC's actions ramify through to the framing and/or resolution of another's?


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 20, 2022)

Umbran said:


> But that usually requires you to brief each of the uninvolved players on their characters, which takes additional time.



It could. But there are two easy solutions. Only let the players take over extras, NPCs who are involved but not central to the scene. Or to have a 3x5 card with a name, character synopsis, and a goal. That’s how I do my prep anyway. Just handing them the card is simple. I don’t make a habit of writing secret info on them, so it’s easy enough to do. The only brief they’d need is “don’t try to take the spotlight or intentional screw up the scene.” Go.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 20, 2022)

pemerton said:


> For my part, I'm talking about not being on the same team: ie PCs who engage the fictional elements that the GM is presenting with different goals and concerns, and who are not making a coordinated effort to achieve some particular outcome. In play, *this means that there is no adventure that all the PCs are taking part in*. They're not collectively trying to solve a mystery, or explore an outpost, or find (or get rid of) an artefact, etc.



And the bolded part is where I'm having trouble envisioning how this works.  I've run games where the PCs had different goals and concerns, but I've never even heard of a game where there was no "adventure" with all the PCs participating in it.  In the _Alien_ starter adventure _Chariot of Fire, _each of the PCs has their own set of goals that are sometimes at odds with one another, but they're all crewmembers of the same ship and presumeably want to get out of the situation with their lives intact.  

It just seems like an odd and difficult way to run a campaign.  Why are we even playing together as a group?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 20, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> The last two sessions I ran were Brindlewood Bay, and I did just this, and it worked great. In fact PbtA vets pretty commonly suggest doing this exact thing—when a player rolls a consequence, cut back over to another scene to give your brain a chance to cook up an interesting result, then come back. It’s literally soap opera-style pacing. It’s fun and good.




If your target players are PbtA veterans, that's great!

But, have you considered that using _veterans_ as the source of design, you are apt to be putting in things or expecting techniques that new hands will find challenging?  If you don't care about that, cool, but it you do care, you have to think for a moment.

A lot of elements of game design are there _for good reason_.  They accomplish some goals, or the like.  Removing them may have gameplay impact.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jun 20, 2022)

Umbran said:


> If your target players are PbtA veterans, that's great!
> 
> But, have you considered that using _veterans_ as the source of design, you are apt to be putting in things or expecting techniques that new hands will find challenging?  If you don't care about that, cool, but it you do care, you have to think for a moment.
> 
> A lot of elements of game design are there _for good reason_.  They accomplish some goals, or the like.  Removing them may have gameplay impact.



The fact that veteran GMs of a given system suggest a tip, and it works, is not evidence of a problem or hurdle with that system. Just means it’s something to try.

And it worked for me, someone who was running running PbtA for the first time. My point is that PbtA is basically made to have PCs split up—Apocalypse World practically demands it—and there are techniques within that approach that can make it even better.

None of this is about learning curves or having to be a vet. I’m certainly not, with PbtA.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jun 20, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> It could. But there are two easy solutions. Only let the players take over extras, NPCs who are involved but not central to the scene. Or to have a 3x5 card with a name, character synopsis, and a goal. That’s how I do my prep anyway. Just handing them the card is simple. I don’t make a habit of writing secret info on them, so it’s easy enough to do. The only brief they’d need is “don’t try to take the spotlight or intentional screw up the scene.” Go.




I did this once for a PC whose character died midway through a one-shot. With the right approach and premise it can definitely work.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jun 20, 2022)

pemerton said:


> How much effort do you make to have the consequences of one PC's actions ramify through to the framing and/or resolution of another's?




One of my players pointed out that Brindlewood’s focus on the mystery makes everyone lean in a little extra during cross-cut scenes, because you want to catch details you could use to later come up with a solution. So in a sense every consequence matters to everyone. 

But I’m still getting my sea legs with PbtA’s rapid-fire GMing improv. What you’re describing is exactly what I want to pull off more and more, and once we move into more PbtA and FitD—I need to get more practice in!


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 20, 2022)

Umbran said:


> But, to be clear - when taking turns in combat, you have shared context.  If running social scenes in this manner, you might not.  Flipping through, say, five unconnected scenes means a lot of context switching for the GM, and the results are likely not going to be as good as if the GM can focus on one context.




That is a possible hurdle, yes, though I don’t think it must be the case. To lean on @loverdrive ’s original suggestion of Breaking Bad, there is still context that connects all the characters, even when they’re in different scenes pursuing very different things. All of it still connects back to the drug business. 



MGibster said:


> It just seems like an odd and difficult way to run a campaign. Why are we even playing together as a group?




It requires some patience but more importantly, it requires that any given player cares about what happens with the other characters. If that’s the case, then seeing how things go for others isn’t a problem.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 20, 2022)

MGibster said:


> And the bolded part is where I'm having trouble envisioning how this works.  I've run games where the PCs had different goals and concerns, but I've never even heard of a game where there was no "adventure" with all the PCs participating in it.  In the _Alien_ starter adventure _Chariot of Fire, _each of the PCs has their own set of goals that are sometimes at odds with one another, but they're all crewmembers of the same ship and presumeably want to get out of the situation with their lives intact.
> 
> It just seems like an odd and difficult way to run a campaign.  Why are we even playing together as a group?



Imagine an RPG where each PC is a merchant in a bazaar selling a particular kind of goods. They spend all day in close proximity to one another and have similar broad goals, but they are not aligned and certainly not on an adventure. They compete for customers and have to deal with thieves, corrupt city officials and all sorts of calamities and nonsense. Sometimes they can work together to solve a mutual problem and sometimes they undermine one another.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Why are we even playing together as a group?



Because we're friends who enjoy RPGing together? That's always been my main reason.



MGibster said:


> I've run games where the PCs had different goals and concerns, but I've never even heard of a game where there was no "adventure" with all the PCs participating in it.



As I already mentioned, I think Apocalypse World is the poster child for this.

The last time I ran Cthulhu Dark, I told the players I wanted us to play in late-Victorian England. Character creation consists in choosing a name and occupation: one player chose an American journalist visiting England, reporting on imperialism for a left-wing paper; the other chose a butler sent to London on an errand because his master was indisposed. I started with the journalist and introduced a mystery/lead; I then cut to the butler and introduced a different lead; then back to the journalist, where I had a fire start in the apartments he was visiting; and then to the butler, who - as it turned out - was next door to the fire. It didn't take long to intertwine the mystery of imperial dealings in Bohemia and East Africa and the mystery of the indisposed master: the point of intersection was _were-hyenas_. The two PCs crossed paths more than once, but never actually worked together.

In my Classic Traveller game, which as I said is a weak case of the "no team" phenomenon, the players control positions each with multiple characters: at least two in each position are unequivocally PCs, and then the rest in the position are semi-PCs bleeding into NPCs. One of the player's main PC owns the starship, and has his goals, which tend to involve raising revenue but also obtaining technology for his homeworld. A second player's main PC wants to master psionics. A third player's main PC wants to learn about aliens.

As referee, I try and create situations where these various goals are in play, and potentially at cross purposes. In our more recent sessions (not super-recent given the pandemic and its lingering consequences) the various characters have been spread across different locations - on various worlds, in various vessels, etc - and the action has involved cutting between them. The starship-owning PC's position includes a NPC from whom he won the ship in a bet, and who is his lady-friend; she is also a surgeon and bio-weapons experimenter who is breeding Aliens (TM) in the ship's sick bay, which is a source of concern. The psionic-aspiring PC has a habit of law-breaking and causing trouble; most recently she blew up a noble and retinue from another nearby world, which seems apt to cause blowback. Some of the PCs have also had recent word that an Imperial armada, which has some knowledge of their toying with psionics, is crossing the galactic rift in pursuit of them.

I would describe this game as involving a series of unfolding and ramifying situations, cutting across the different player positions in various ways (eg one of the experimental Aliens badly mauled another PC's NPC girlfriend; she is now in the sick-bay being "tended" by the NPC doctor). Various characters work together from time-to-time, as suits the players and the situation at hand. But it's not much like D&D-style party play: there's no common "thing" that they're all committed to achieving at any given time. It started out a bit more like that, but as the player positions built up (due to the PCs recruiting various people as they went along) it changed into what it is now.


----------



## Arilyn (Jun 20, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I have one: can we get rid of combats as a time filler activity?
> 
> I am in the process of converting a Pathfinder AP (Iron Gods) to 5E and I had forgotten how full of meaningless combat they were -- mostly to hit the required XP to level the PCs up, I think. Since I am using milestone leveling for this campaign (a rarity for me, but I tend to use it with "plotted" adventures) I can skip a bunch of the filler fights, and I don't think I'll miss them.



Yeah, when I was running PF arcs, I'd cut out huge swathes of combat and increase the social and exploration stuff. There are really good stories buried under needless fighting.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 20, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Imagine an RPG where each PC is a merchant in a bazaar selling a particular kind of goods. They spend all day in close proximity to one another and have similar broad goals, but they are not aligned and certainly not on an adventure. They compete for customers and have to deal with thieves, corrupt city officials and all sorts of calamities and nonsense. Sometimes they can work together to solve a mutual problem and sometimes they undermine one another.



And here again I have to say that I have a very broad definition of team and I'll go ahead and add "adventure" as well.  If my unaligned booksellers are working together to thwart a corrupt city official....well, that's a team working together during an adventure to me.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 20, 2022)

MGibster said:


> And here again I have to say that I have a very broad definition of team and I'll go ahead and add "adventure" as well.  If my unaligned booksellers are working together to thwart a corrupt city official....well, that's a team working together during an adventure to me.



What about when they're not?


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 20, 2022)

Umbran said:


> If your target players are PbtA veterans, that's great!
> 
> But, have you considered that using _veterans_ as the source of design, you are apt to be putting in things or expecting techniques that new hands will find challenging?  If you don't care about that, cool, but it you do care, you have to think for a moment.
> 
> A lot of elements of game design are there _for good reason_.  They accomplish some goals, or the like.  Removing them may have gameplay impact.



In my experience (yeah, limited, I'm but one woman, but still), the only people who struggle with partyless games and other non-D&D-esque things aren't actually new players, but those who have played D&D or other old- or midschool games and now expect everything to be exactly the same.

Fresh players, who have never played any TTRPG, on the other hand, get into the groove immediately. Unlearning things, after all, is harder than learning them.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 20, 2022)

Reynard said:


> What about when they're not?



When they're not, I'm having a hard time seeing why you guys are even playing as a group.  But, that's okay.  If you're having a good time with it then more power to you.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 20, 2022)

In more character focused play when the focus is not on my character, I get to have the same sort of fun I have watching an ensemble drama. I am invested in the other characters, their struggles and what they hope to achieve. Seeing what happens to them is exciting to me. Another layer of enjoyment comes from seeing how the lives of these characters intersect, to see the fallout from my character's decisions on them as well as vice-versa. It also makes the scenes we get to have together feel really special.


----------



## MNblockhead (Jun 20, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Sure. Bad example on my part. It’s what popped in there when I was thinking about it. The general point is that we don’t need more and more game systems. There’s already more than anyone could ever hope to use. And they’re increasingly minor variations on already common themes. I’d like to see more settings and genre books without attached systems.



Wouldn't that just be a novel?  Or a history book? Or speculative future book?

As customer of games, I am a sucker for new settings, but I want a system attached to it.  The system is often very important to creating the feel of the settings. 

As for the indisputable fact that there are more systems out there than I could reasonably expect to play in what remains of my life...so what. There are more books than I can hope to read. More movies and TV series than I can hope to watch. More music than I can hope to listen to. I wouldn't expect others to stop creating new stuff.  Actually, I appreciate when someone has taken a variety of influences and synthesize that into their own vision. 

I find that what I'm looking for outside of 5e these days are not new, rich, detailed settings and systems to run new campains in, but rather small, well designed, self-contained systems and adventures that I can pick up and just run a game or two in. I would like to see an adventure book with a rules-light rules system printing in the adventure book. I haven't bought any of the Awfully Cheerful Engine booklets yet.  They seem to offer what I'm looking for. Though I'm not sure if you have to by #1 (the ACE core rules) to play the other books. 

One of the best examples of what I'm talking about is Labyrinth, a single book that runs you through the plot of Jim Henson's movie the Labyrinth. It consists of the rules (which are easy to pickup) and a replayable adventure. It is also a beautiful book that any fan of the movie would be happy to have on their bookshelf. I don't need a lot more settings that I have to match with a system and come up with my own adventures or buy separate adventure material.  Let me by an adventure with some rule that I can play through and move on to something else. Doesn't seem to be a lot of that on the market.


----------



## mythago (Jun 20, 2022)

Reynard said:


> If ensemble television can do it, an RPG can do it.




The purpose of a television show is to entertain the viewing audience, not the actors. 

I suspect you’re getting pushback because you’re using “party” to mean a specific, narrow type of ensemble - the Fellowship-style group of assorted people who have little in common other than working together for a common goal, even one as loose as seeking adventure. But it’s fairly easy to adjust the LOTR model into the kind of thing you’ve counter-proposed. (Delta Green famously started because making all the characters FBI agents was the best way to explain why a party had any reason to exist in a CoC scenario.)

Lots of games have mechanics that require spotlight scenes in a round robin manner, with other players assigned or choosing to step in as secondary PCs or NPC when it’s someone else’s spotlight. By the Author of Lady Windermere’s Fan, A Town Called Malice, and Under the Mountain, off the top of my head. Having spotlight time assigned in a formal way helps alleviate the problem of other players having not much to do.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2022)

MGibster said:


> When they're not, I'm having a hard time seeing why you guys are even playing as a group.



As I posted, because it's fun to play RPGs with your friends.

The players don't all have to be working as their PCs on the same problem in order to enjoy declaring actions, seeing what happens to their PC and that of the other PCs, etc.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2022)

MNblockhead said:


> Let me by an adventure with some rule that I can play through and move on to something else. Doesn't seem to be a lot of that on the market.



I enjoyed the Green Knight: The Green Knight: A Fantasy Roleplaying Game


----------



## MGibster (Jun 20, 2022)

pemerton said:


> As I posted, because it's fun to play RPGs with your friends.



 I get that.  But if we're all doing our own thing, I don't feel like it's a game where we're all participating as a group.  If my character has no connection to Rob's character, why do I want to watch his adventure play out?  If Rob's character shares something in common with mine I'd certainly care.  But the way you descrive it, we're not really interacting in any meaningful way because we don't work togther and we have no shared goals.  But, again, maybe this is a miscommunication issue over terms like team and adventure.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 20, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Any rules beyond "let the referee decide" and "roll opposed 2d6, higher roll wins." Everything else is extraneous. Even the dice are extraneous. You could sub in the table for the referee, but then you have more moving parts and more possible points of failure.



I don't know. That still sounds like too much rules. We should cut it all to achieve the ultimate expression of "let the referee decide." Roleplaying games should just be the GM dictating the story to the players. If players don't like that, then they can walk away from the table, which is likewise the ultimate expression of player agency. So now we have distilled rules to "sit and listen to my story about your characters or walk away from _my table/game_."


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 20, 2022)

MNblockhead said:


> Wouldn't that just be a novel? Or a history book? Or speculative future book?



Precisely. Only one used specifically as an inspirational source for gaming.


MNblockhead said:


> As customer of games, I am a sucker for new settings, but I want a system attached to it. The system is often very important to creating the feel of the settings.



For you, but not for me. I see most systems (especially crunchy ones) as more of a hindrance to play. The number of threads about loving a setting but hating the attached system seem endless. I'd prefer a simple universal system that can cover most everything and be done. Picking three books at random from my shelves, I'd love to be able play something based on _1491_, _As Told at the Explorer's Club_, and _Hollow Chocolate Bunnies of the Apocalypse_ without having to learn three different systems. I'm infinitely more interested in worlds than rules.


MNblockhead said:


> As for the indisputable fact that there are more systems out there than I could reasonably expect to play in what remains of my life...so what. There are more books than I can hope to read. More movies and TV series than I can hope to watch. More music than I can hope to listen to. I wouldn't expect others to stop creating new stuff.



Nor would I. I'm simply commenting on the fact that there are already more games than any of us could ever play. That we don't need more has no bearing on whether people will make more. Of course they will.


MNblockhead said:


> Actually, I appreciate when someone has taken a variety of influences and synthesize that into their own vision.



I wish. It mostly seems to be exceedingly minor variations on systems that have been around for decades. Some version of D&D, plus these house rules, minus those rules. New game. Some version of WEG Star Wars, plus these house rules, minus those rules. That old game with the IP scrubbed, plus these house rules, minus those rules. 

But there certainly is a lot of cool stuff going on with worlds and adventures. Lots of wild, bizarre, and surreal craziness happening. And I love it. But on the system side? Yawn.


MNblockhead said:


> I find that what I'm looking for outside of 5e these days are not new, rich, detailed settings and systems to run new campaigns in, but rather small, well designed, self-contained systems and adventures that I can pick up and just run a game or two in. I would like to see an adventure book with a rules-light rules system printing in the adventure book. I haven't bought any of the Awfully Cheerful Engine booklets yet. They seem to offer what I'm looking for. Though I'm not sure if you have to by #1 (the ACE core rules) to play the other books.
> 
> One of the best examples of what I'm talking about is Labyrinth, a single book that runs you through the plot of Jim Henson's movie the Labyrinth. It consists of the rules (which are easy to pickup) and a replayable adventure. It is also a beautiful book that any fan of the movie would be happy to have on their bookshelf. I don't need a lot more settings that I have to match with a system and come up with my own adventures or buy separate adventure material.  Let me by an adventure with some rule that I can play through and move on to something else. Doesn't seem to be a lot of that on the market.



Sure. And to each their own. It's good to know what you like. I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. I couldn't care less about "new" mechanics or focused games, but I do want new worlds to explore.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 20, 2022)

mythago said:


> The purpose of a television show is to entertain the viewing audience, not the actors.
> 
> I suspect you’re getting pushback because you’re using “party” to mean a specific, narrow type of ensemble - the Fellowship-style group of assorted people who have little in common other than working together for a common goal, even one as loose as seeking adventure. But it’s fairly easy to adjust the LOTR model into the kind of thing you’ve counter-proposed. (Delta Green famously started because making all the characters FBI agents was the best way to explain why a party had any reason to exist in a CoC scenario.)
> 
> Lots of games have mechanics that require spotlight scenes in a round robin manner, with other players assigned or choosing to step in as secondary PCs or NPC when it’s someone else’s spotlight. By the Author of Lady Windermere’s Fan, A Town Called Malice, and Under the Mountain, off the top of my head. Having spotlight time assigned in a formal way helps alleviate the problem of other players having not much to do.



Right. And the comparison simply doesn't hold. Ensemble television is a bunch of actors paid to wait around until it's their turn to spout lines someone else wrote for them to say. RPGs are not that. They're a bunch of friends sitting around a table entertaining each other, importantly no one's being paid, there are no scripted lines (unless the referee is reading block text or the PCs have catch phrases), and the amount of time spent waiting around should be kept to an absolute minimum. I mean, if the referee is paying the players to sit there and do and say nothing for hours on end, sure...ensemble television suddenly becomes an apt comparison.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2022)

mythago said:


> I suspect you’re getting pushback because you’re using “party” to mean a specific, narrow type of ensemble - the Fellowship-style group of assorted people who have little in common other than working together for a common goal, even one as loose as seeking adventure. But it’s fairly easy to adjust the LOTR model into the kind of thing you’ve counter-proposed. (Delta Green famously started because making all the characters FBI agents was the best way to explain why a party had any reason to exist in a CoC scenario.)



I'm pretty sure that @Reynard is not using an overly narrow notion of "party".

I think @Reynard is contrasting party-based play with the sort of play that is fairly typical in Apocalypse World, or in the sorts of character-focused RPGing that @Campbell often posts about: where the PCs have their own individual goals and concerns, but those concerns are interlinked in various ways that result in interweaving "storylines", coming into some scenes with other PCs, etc.


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 20, 2022)

MGibster said:


> If my character has no connection to Rob's character, why do I want to watch his adventure play out?



Because it's cool? And because actions of Rob's character will inevitably cause ripples and affect your character?

Rob the Gunlugger asks the GM for a gig to earn some quick buck, she smiles and tells him that the local warlord wants to, khm, "persuade" one particular guy to join his gang. The guy in question? Joe the Savvyhead, another PC, who, by the way, keeps YOUR choppers running.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2022)

MGibster said:


> But if we're all doing our own thing, I don't feel like it's a game where we're all participating as a group.  If my character has no connection to Rob's character, why do I want to watch his adventure play out?  If Rob's character shares something in common with mine I'd certainly care.  But the way you descrive it, we're not really interacting in any meaningful way because we don't work togther and we have no shared goals.  But, again, maybe this is a miscommunication issue over terms like team and adventure.



I don't think that there's miscommunication over terms like "team" and "adventure".

There are ways that your character can be connected to Rob's character, and share something in common, without being part of the same team or on the same adventure. Maybe your character's boss is Rob's character's romantic partner. Maybe your character and Rob's character both need something - time, commitment - from that NPC and only one of you can have it. Maybe the reason that Rob's character discovers weird messages in his email inbox is the same as the reason why you're getting weird messages in the firm's email inbox.

Soap operas pull this sort of thing off all the time.

EDIT: Ninja'd by @loverdrive!


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Right. And the comparison simply doesn't hold. Ensemble television is a bunch of actors paid to wait around until it's their turn to spout lines someone else wrote for them to say. RPGs are not that. They're a bunch of friends sitting around a table entertaining each other, importantly no one's being paid, there are no scripted lines (unless the referee is reading block text or the PCs have catch phrases), and the amount of time spent waiting around should be kept to an absolute minimum.



On its face, this doesn't make sense to me. The amount of time that a player has to think about what their PC is doing, to discuss it with other players, to declare actions, etc doesn't change based on whether, in the fiction, their PC is in the same place as another PC or a different place, or whether their PC has the same goals as another PC.


----------



## Ixal (Jun 20, 2022)

Alignment in any form has to go first. No semi believable person, let alone culture, can be neatly categorized into one alignment.
At best you can have a collection of tags to decribe someones outlook, but even that is stretching it especially as people are irrational and depending on the topic might have contradicting alignment views.

The next thing are classes. They railroad the development of characters and severly limit what type of characters, and with that what type of games, you can play.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jun 20, 2022)

So I've recently kicked off an urban fantasy game. It's meant to be the pickup game for those times when we can't get everyone together for the main game (a PF game my wife is running.)

The urban fantasy game can, in theory, work as an example of the PCs not being a "party." As a pick up game my intention is that it can go ahead if me and even one other person is up for a game session at any given time.* So in theory what we have is 4 characters any of whom can be doing their own thing or working in combination with any/all of the others in any given session. All depending on player availability. Ideally I'll keep each session to a complete arc, even if I have to make it a mini arc. 

To keep track of all the possible arcs I'm keeping a calendar. I'll start each session by telling/reminding the players where this session will fall on the calendar and in relation to the other stories they're involved in. 

So far though I'm really having trouble getting the players to, for want of a better term, break ranks. They don't want to play any sessions without everyone there. But it's early days and hopefully as the characters get more development, get their own goals, the players will be keen to follow these up and be more amenable to a non-party party structure and not have to have everyone all together all the time.


*Me? I don't have much of a life, I'm almost always up for a game session. I have made this clear to the other players.   8-p


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 20, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I think this is a very D&D (or D&D-inspired/adjacent) thing.
> 
> It relates to another aspect of RPGing: how much fiction/story is expected to be got through per three-or-so-hour session of play?



However much makes sense.

Sometimes, that might consist of many different activities done at a low degree of granularity.  Other times, it might consist of one combat which carries over into the next session.  Other times, it might be a month of downtime and treasury division.  Other times, it might be a long in-character chat or argument or pranks or whatever plus two rooms worth of exploration.  It's all good.

There's always another session.


pemerton said:


> D&D seems to generally assume that the answer is _less than a three hour film would get through_. And _less than twelve comics would get through_ (I'm figuring 15 to 20 minutes to read each comic).
> 
> I've become a fan of trying to speed that up.



IMO the thing that always ends up sacrificed on the altar of speed is depth and richness of play and-or immersion into the setting (and-or character).  I'd rather sacrifice the speed.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 20, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Imagine an RPG where each PC is a merchant in a bazaar selling a particular kind of goods. They spend all day in close proximity to one another and have similar broad goals, but they are not aligned and certainly not on an adventure. They compete for customers and have to deal with thieves, corrupt city officials and all sorts of calamities and nonsense. Sometimes they can work together to solve a mutual problem and sometimes they undermine one another.



OK for a few sessions maybe, but how in the nine hells am I going to spin that out into a ten-year campaign?


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 20, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Because we're friends who enjoy RPGing together? That's always been my main reason.
> 
> As I already mentioned, I think Apocalypse World is the poster child for this.
> 
> The last time I ran Cthulhu Dark, I told the players I wanted us to play in late-Victorian England. Character creation consists in choosing a name and occupation: one player chose an American journalist visiting England, reporting on imperialism for a left-wing paper; the other chose a butler sent to London on an errand because his master was indisposed. I started with the journalist and introduced a mystery/lead; I then cut to the butler and introduced a different lead; then back to the journalist, where I had a fire start in the apartments he was visiting; and then to the butler, who - as it turned out - was next door to the fire. It didn't take long to intertwine the mystery of imperial dealings in Bohemia and East Africa and the mystery of the indisposed master: the point of intersection was _were-hyenas_. The two PCs crossed paths more than once, but never actually worked together.



You had a huge built-in advantage here in that it appears you only had two players, meaning jumps back and forth from one to the other could happen pretty fast and each player was active about the same amount of time as not.

What if there had been five players?


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 20, 2022)

loverdrive said:


> Because it's cool? And because actions of Rob's character will inevitably cause ripples and affect your character?



But if my character doesn't know what Rob's character is doing at the time e.g. my guy's not present in the scene, then I-as-player shouldn't know either.  And if my character _is_ present in the scene then in theory I'd be able to jump in and add my bit.


loverdrive said:


> Rob the Gunlugger asks the GM for a gig to earn some quick buck, she smiles and tells him that the local warlord wants to, khm, "persuade" one particular guy to join his gang. The guy in question? Joe the Savvyhead, another PC, who, by the way, keeps YOUR choppers running.



Here, if I'm playing Joe then I-as-player shouldn't know about ANY of this until Rob's PC gets to mine and starts trying to persuade me.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 20, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> You had a huge built-in advantage here in that it appears you only had two players, meaning jumps back and forth from one to the other could happen pretty fast and each player was active about the same amount of time as not.
> 
> What if there had been five players?



... Then there would have been three more than previously.


----------



## HaroldTheHobbit (Jun 20, 2022)

I have at best 20 years of gaming left before I dirt nap, and me and my table don't need any changes in the gaming fundamentals to have fun during those coming decades.

As to character advancement, I see it as necessary as we usually play long campaigns. Even though we focus on the roleplaying aspect with very little combat, some kind of advancement is necessary to keep the challenge up for several years, be it levels, skills or gear/money. Or maybe there is some other way to do it without advancement, but it's not something we explicitly need or wish for.

And no, I don't mind being a gaming-conservative boring old fart!


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> OK for a few sessions maybe, but how in the nine hells am I going to spin that out into a ten-year campaign?





Lanefan said:


> But if my character doesn't know what Rob's character is doing at the time e.g. my guy's not present in the scene, then I-as-player shouldn't know either.





Lanefan said:


> You had a huge built-in advantage here in that it appears you only had two players, meaning jumps back and forth from one to the other could happen pretty fast and each player was active about the same amount of time as not.
> 
> What if there had been five players?



So if I wanted to play a campaign that satisfied @Lanefan's normative demands - must run for hundreds of sessions, must not allow players to act on knowledge of in-fiction events where their PCs are not present, must work for five or ten or however many players - then I would not be suggesting possibilities that violate those norms.

But those norms are not essential for RPGing. My personal view is that RPGing is more satisfactory if they are abandoned. Thus, when I've got two players, I will use techniques that work for two players; given that part of what's fun in RPGing is knowing what is happening to your friend's PC, and the players are here to have fun, I will encourage them to pay attention to what is happening to one another's PCs;  and if a game will work best over a one, or three, or whatever session arc, then that's how long we'll play it for.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 20, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> OK for a few sessions maybe, but how in the nine hells am I going to spin that out into a ten-year campaign?



Is that the inherent goal every time anyone sits down to start a new game?


----------



## Reynard (Jun 20, 2022)

As an aside, it's really weird as a strongly trad GM to be trying to explain the viability of this. It's so obvious it doesn't even feel like something you would require some weird game like Apocalypse World to pull off,yet here we are. I think some folks have been doing it ONE WAY for so long they have tunnel vision, and would probably benefit from hitting a con and trying some different things.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 20, 2022)

loverdrive said:


> Rob the Gunlugger asks the GM for a gig to earn some quick buck, she smiles and tells him that the local warlord wants to, khm, "persuade" one particular guy to join his gang. The guy in question? Joe the Savvyhead, another PC, who, by the way, keeps YOUR choppers running.



Okay, this actually makes sense to me now.  Thank you for the solid explanation.  Not my cuppa tea, but that's cool, different strokes at all that.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 20, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Soap operas pull this sort of thing off all the time.



It's weird that you use this as an example, because the majority of soap operas revolve around a family.  One of the most popular, _Dallas_, revolved around the Ewing family and their business Ewing Oil.  Any decisions Jock Ewing made about the family business, had an impact on J.R.'s plans whether Jock knew it or not.  So you have a series where all the characters were connected by a common interest whether it was the family or the business.  Like I said, I have a broad definition of team.  The Ewings are a team even when they're individuals goals are oftentimes at odds.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 20, 2022)

Reynard said:


> As an aside, it's really weird as a strongly trad GM to be trying to explain the viability of this. It's so obvious it doesn't even feel like something you would require some weird game like Apocalypse World to pull off,yet here we are. I think some folks have been doing it ONE WAY for so long they have tunnel vision, and would probably benefit from hitting a con and trying some different things.



Conversely, people like what they like and if they’ve found a way of doing things that works for them and their table and they’re having fun…others should maybe ease up on the head scratching and finger wagging.

It’s weird how quickly the “to each their own” vibe fades.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 20, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Conversely, people like what they like and if they’ve found a way of doing things that works for them and their table and they’re having fun…others should maybe ease up on the head scratching and finger wagging.
> 
> It’s weird how quickly the “to each their own” vibe fades.



No one was telling anyone what to do in this thread. Rather, there were a few people saying it was IMPOSSIBLE to do something a different way. That's not the same thing and it is disingenuous to try and flip the script on it.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jun 20, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Conversely, people like what they like and if they’ve found a way of doing things that works for them and their table and they’re having fun…others should maybe ease up on the head scratching and finger wagging.
> 
> It’s weird how quickly the “to each their own” vibe fades.




Sure, but you also made some very declarative statements about how various related approaches just don't work. For example:

"Sounds like a great way to quickly have a table full of players all jockeying for position and trying to talk (then yell) over each other to grab the referee's attention and keep the game focused on themselves rather than recognizing it's a group activity."

Not exactly heavy on the "to each their own" vibes there. Doesn't have to be your thing, but if you say a thing isn't feasible, and are then met with lots of perspectives pointing out how that thing can, in fact, work, maybe there's no need to present that as you being scolded or shamed.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 20, 2022)

Reynard said:


> _*No one was telling anyone what to do in this thread*_. Rather, there were a few people saying it was IMPOSSIBLE to do something a different way. That's not the same thing and it is disingenuous to try and flip the script on it.





Reynard said:


> As an aside, it's really weird as a strongly trad GM to be trying to explain the viability of this. It's so obvious it doesn't even feel like something you would require some weird game like Apocalypse World to pull off,yet here we are. *I think some folks have been doing it ONE WAY for so long they have tunnel vision, and would probably benefit from hitting a con and trying some different things.*



Must have missed the "subtlety" here.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 20, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Is that the inherent goal every time anyone sits down to start a new game?



It's a common metric to measure the success of a game, and many that I have run, or have been player in, are multi-year campaigns. It does not have to be, except that is often an assumption at the table is that is what it is going to be.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 20, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Sure, but you also made some very declarative statements about how various related approaches just don't work. For example:
> 
> "Sounds like a great way to quickly have a table full of players all jockeying for position and trying to talk (then yell) over each other to grab the referee's attention and keep the game focused on themselves rather than recognizing it's a group activity."
> 
> Not exactly heavy on the "to each their own" vibes there. Doesn't have to be your thing, but if you say a thing isn't feasible, and are then met with lots of perspectives pointing out how that thing can, in fact, work, maybe there's no need to present that as you being scolded or shamed.



The post you're referencing from me is my experience from having tried things suggested in this thread. 

There's a world of difference between "I've tried that and it doesn't work" and "you should stop playing in a way that works for you."


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jun 20, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> The post you're referencing from me is my experience from having tried things suggested in this thread.
> 
> There's a world of difference between "I've tried that and it doesn't work" and "you should stop playing in a way that works for you."




OK, then, let's get into it. Here's you in this thread.

"If you’re willing to sit and watch other people at the same table as you RP for hours on end while you do nothing but watch, knock yourself out. I have zero interest in that."

"In most team-based RPGs there are at most vignettes that don’t include most of the players. If the referee is worth their salt they’ll keep these to a minimum, keep them short and sweet, and not let players spotlight hog."

And so on. You're repeatedly talking about how the thing doesn't work, and not in a removed, detached sense. "If the referee is worth their salt" is not mildly sharing your experience. You're arguing full-force for a specific position, which also just happens to be normative and dogmatic and classic TTRPG received wisdom that's been designed around for years, for those who want to try something different. You can obviously argue whatever you want, but if you argue that a thing isn't possible, and in fact is bad GMing, and then you're met by a multitude saying they've done it, it works, etc., it's ok to just take the L and move on. No need to play the victim after _specifically saying_ that a certain approach is not only an example of a referee who isn't worth their salt, but also players hogging the spotlight. So not just bad GMing, but bad playing. Assumptions of badness all around!


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 20, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Must have missed the "subtlety" here.



Was the "subtlety" calling Apocalypse World a "weird" game?


----------



## Reynard (Jun 20, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Must have missed the "subtlety" here.



Just to be clear, you are equivocating "telling others what to do" with "would probably benefit from"?


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 20, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> OK, then, let's get into it. Here's you in this thread.
> 
> "If you’re willing to sit and watch other people at the same table as you RP for hours on end while you do nothing but watch, knock yourself out. I have zero interest in that."
> 
> ...



I never claimed I was detached nor mild. I have opinions. This is a discussion forum. Note how I include things like "knock yourself out" and other similar statements along with "I have zero interest in that."


Grendel_Khan said:


> You're _*arguing full-force*_ for a specific position



LOL. Ah...no. That's funny.


Grendel_Khan said:


> which also just happens to be normative and dogmatic and classic TTRPG received wisdom that's been designed around for years, for those who want to try something different.



Not everyone in the thread wants to try something different. As seen in...I don't know...all the posts saying so. Also, go look at my early posts in...say...this thread. All the way back in post #5...


overgeeked said:


> Any rules beyond "let the referee decide" and "roll opposed 2d6, higher roll wins." Everything else is extraneous. Even the dice are extraneous. You could sub in the table for the referee, but then you have more moving parts and more possible points of failure.



That's about as anti-"normative, dogmatic, and classic RPG received wisdom" as you can get. But go on, tell me how I'm part of the gaming orthodox you're out to smash.


Grendel_Khan said:


> You can obviously argue whatever you want, but if you argue that a thing isn't possible, and in fact is bad GMing, and then you're met by a multitude saying they've done it, it works, etc., it's ok to just take the L and move on.



The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

Most things are possible _with the right table_. Trouble is...not everyone gets the Platonic ideal of a table when they try things. Except, apparently, everyone trying "non-standard" gaming. Seems like it's always perfect.


Grendel_Khan said:


> No need to play the victim...



Looks like you're projecting a bit.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 20, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Was the "subtlety" calling Apocalypse World a "weird" game?



Probably, if you took it wrong. Tongue was planted firmly in cheek, there.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 20, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> No need to play the victim ...






overgeeked said:


> Looks like you're projecting a bit.




*Mod Note:*
The two of you are both making this personal.  It pretty much guarantees that this will be an ego contest instead of a reasoned discussion.

So, please stop making this about each other.  If you can't resist trying to make this about the other person, instead of the topic, it is time to walk away.  Thanks.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 20, 2022)

Umbran said:


> *Mod Note:*
> The two of you are both making this personal.  It pretty much guarantees that this will be an ego contest instead of a reasoned discussion.
> 
> So, please stop making this about each other.  If you can't resist trying to make this about the other person, instead of the topic, it is time to walk away.  Thanks.



On average, how many times a week would you say you have to repeat this?  Not snarky, legitimately curious.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 20, 2022)

Resource management. Let characters do the cool things that they do.

It's the JRPG "but what if I need those 20 elixirs on the _next _boss" issue. I hate making budgets enough in my real life, I don't want to do it when I play games


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 20, 2022)

Gradine said:


> Resource management. Let characters do the cool things that they do.
> 
> It's the JRPG "but what if I need those 20 elixirs on the _next _boss" issue. I hate making budgets enough in my real life, I don't want to do it when I play games



This is one reason why I would love to see TTRPGs look at other video games, such as MOBAs, which may provide a small subset of cool character-defining abilities that their characters can do quite often.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 20, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> ... Then there would have been three more than previously.



And each of them sitting out (or watching) 4/5 of the time* rather than just half the time*.

* - less any time spent on actual PC-PC interaction and-or when all the PCs are running together as a group, but particularly the latter of these seem to be minimized in the style of game being put forward.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 20, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> And each of them sitting out (or watching) 4/5 of the time* rather than just half the time*.
> 
> * - less any time spent on actual PC-PC interaction and-or when all the PCs are running together as a group, but particularly the latter of these seem to be minimized in the style of game being put forward.



It's not wise to build an argument using a series of unsupported assumptions and hypotheticals about games you don't play and evidence little actual knowledge or experience with. So why are you doing it here?


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 20, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Is that the inherent goal every time anyone sits down to start a new game?



It is for me, therefore any system that doesn't allow it to happen is a non-starter.  And while any system that can handle a long campaign can handle a short one, it seems the reverse isn't always true.

I'm also cynical enough to suggest that GMs running lots of short campaigns each using a different system is more to the advantage of game publishers than anyone else, as it means they get to sell more copies of more games.  

But it also means GMs and players end up having to do work they wouldn't need to do (i.e. learning a new system each time; something that to me falls under the heading of unpleasant work) were they using a more universal system that could handle a broader scope of genres, playstyles, campaign lengths, and so forth - and as a side effect, a system that would thus only need to be purchased once.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 20, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> It is for me, therefore any system that doesn't allow it to happen is a non-starter.  And while any system that can handle a long campaign can handle a short one, it seems the reverse isn't always true.
> 
> I'm also cynical enough to suggest that GMs running lots of short campaigns each using a different system is more to the advantage of game publishers than anyone else, as it means they get to sell more copies of more games.
> 
> But it also means GMs and players end up having to do work they wouldn't need to do (i.e. learning a new system each time; something that to me falls under the heading of unpleasant work) were they using a more universal system that could handle a broader scope of genres, playstyles, campaign lengths, and so forth - and as a side effect, a system that would thus only need to be purchased once.



What about a series of short campaigns using the same set of rules/books? Surely you can imagine people doing that?

A years long campaign is a preference, nothing more. It's also far less likely to succeed as a goal, for any number of reasons and I would wager the best way to help a campaign fail is to go in with too lofty of goals -- like a decades long life.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 20, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> It's not wise to build an argument using a series of unsupported assumptions and hypotheticals about games you don't play and evidence little actual knowledge or experience with. So why are you doing it here?



I'm simply going by what others are posting and riffing off of that.

If what's being posted isn't an accurate reflection of play in these games then why is it being posted as if it is?


----------



## Reynard (Jun 20, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> I'm simply going by what others are posting and riffing off of that.
> 
> If what's being posted isn't an accurate reflection of play in these games then why is it being posted as if it is?



What do you mean "in these games"? Nothing presented so far couldn't work fine in a totally trad game like D&D if everyone was on board.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 20, 2022)

Reynard said:


> What about a series of short campaigns using the same set of rules/books? Surely you can imagine people doing that?



Of course.

But there's a vibe here with a lot of "use different systems for different genres-playstyles-desires" and "the more systems you've played/run the higher your 'cred' is"; which I'm pushing back against.


Reynard said:


> A years long campaign is a preference, nothing more. It's also far less likely to succeed as a goal, for any number of reasons and I would wager the best way to help a campaign fail is to go in with too lofty of goals -- like a decades long life.



Well, I dunno - maybe we're an odd set of ducks here but of the people I know who have or are GMing or have tried, their intended campaigns either crash and burn within a few sessions (usually because the GM realizes GMing really isn't their thing) or go on for years.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 20, 2022)

Reynard said:


> What do you mean "in these games"? Nothing presented so far couldn't work fine in a totally trad game like D&D if everyone was on board.



Bingo!  You've hit the mark! 

And the question then becomes:

Why not just use D&D* which the vast majority of players and GMs already know, and save everyone the time and bother involved in learning a new system?

* - or another quasi-universal system that people at the table are already familiar with.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 20, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> But there's a vibe here with a lot of "use different systems for different genres-playstyles-desires" and "the more systems you've played/run the higher your 'cred' is"; which I'm pushing back against.



I don't know about "cred" but is is generally worthwhile to be exposed to new ideas just to see if anything resonates and can be ported back to one's game of choice.


Lanefan said:


> Well, I dunno - maybe we're an odd set of ducks here but of the people I know who have or are GMing or have tried, their intended campaigns either crash and burn within a few sessions (usually because the GM realizes GMing really isn't their thing) or go on for years.



I am sure some groups manage to do it. Like i said in the other thread, I did it for 20 years including being 500 miles from most of the players (before VTT play). But I am guessing it is pretty rare when measured against most games, and I doubt that it is a goal for many.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 20, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> I'm simply going by what others are posting and riffing off of that.
> 
> If what's being posted isn't an accurate reflection of play in these games then why is it being posted as if it is?



Note that this reflects how pemerton ran two players using Cthulhu Dark rather than how Cthulhu Dark plays. The problem is not whether what's being posted is an accurate reflection of a person's actual play. The problem pertains to the conclusions you draw from that based on your own assumptions and biases: i.e., your "riffing." Your posts seem more concerned about creating problems from these scenarios in which the only true solution is your gaming preferences. I'm not sure if that's a good way to approach the conversation in good faith.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 20, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Bingo!  You've hit the mark!
> 
> And the question then becomes:
> 
> ...



You'll have to ask someone who thinks you need a specific system for that kind of thing. I don't think it's necessary.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 20, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Bingo!  You've hit the mark!
> 
> *And the question then becomes:*
> 
> ...



Nope. The question does not follow from the premises unless you are engaging in the fallacy of begging the question.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jun 20, 2022)

Love the idea of joining a discussion only to say that what other people do doesn't really work, and instead there's one style of game and actually one single game that works best, and it just happens to be the only one you play. Thanks for contributing. Extremely useful discourse.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 20, 2022)

The two things aren't really related in my mind except in so far that people who like playing shorter form character focused games also tend to be novelty seeking in general. I know that's true of me both inside and outside of gaming. I own and play a bunch of indie games, trad games and OSR games because I like games. I also have a fairly large board game collection, movie collection, watch a whole host of different anime and TV series. I go through different phases of being into different sorts of exercise routines. Right now I'm into body building, but could easily get back into Crossfit or Muay Thai / Juijitsu. Might even give climbing a go soon.

None of that like makes me better. Just more eclectic.

I do know a bunch of people who are into more short form character focused stuff who tend to stick to one game or one family of games. Fate, World of Darkness, Cortex, 2d20 are all pretty common choices. There was a period of like 3 years where I only ran Sorcerer. Same for D&D 4e. Was considering going deep into Pathfinder Second Edition for a minute. Also went through a World of Darkness phase and a Chronicles of Darkness phase.   

I will say trad games are generally require some effort to learn, but the juice is worth the squeeze for games that I plan to run or play for 12+ months. OSR games are a little easier to learn, especially streamlined ones like Into The Odd or The Nightmares Underneath. Games like Blades in the Dark or Apocalypse World are fairly trivial for players. Not that any of this particularly matters for character focused play in general. I just like different sorts of games, about different sorts of characters. That's a me thing.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2022)

MGibster said:


> It's weird that you use this as an example, because the majority of soap operas revolve around a family.



Well my paradigms for soap operas are Days of Our Lives, Neighbours, and Home and Away. Also comedy soap operas like Scrubs. These don't involve teams and they don't involve adventures. They follow the interactions and interpersonal dramas of various more-or-less closely related protagonists.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 20, 2022)

In my group we do both one shot indie games, and long multi-year campaign trad games. Board games too when there aren't enough for a normal rpg sesh, or we just feel like it. Do you have wood for sheep?


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jun 20, 2022)

Endroren said:


> The question wasn't what should we permanently delete. It also wasn't a question of value or quality. To put it another way, it's asking what are things that are included in RPGs in a knee-jerk sort of way where we might benefit if we try removing those things. It's easy to overlook some really fantastic options because one has already filled the need with something else. There are also things that people become so used to, that they never consider NOT having.
> 
> A somewhat similar example is smoking in old scifi novels. Ingenious authors with amazing creative minds never stopped to wonder if maybe people would stop smoking in the future. SOME authors did, but many (or most IMO) did not.
> 
> The whole point of the question is "what is our 'smoking'" in games? And if we pulled those things out, what creative solutions might we fill the gap with. It's a creative exercise.




That only makes things more baffling. I can't think of a single mechanic, procedure, or tradition that is so ubiquitous as to constitute a hobby-/industry-wide blind spot. "Playing a character in a fictional milieu," maybe?


----------



## Campbell (Jun 20, 2022)

Well I think it should definitely exist for people who want it the biggest thing I look to avoid in games I am thinking about running is daily attrition and resources that refresh without players having to take action. Mostly because those sorts of mechanics make it my responsibility to manage the pace of the game. This sort of stuff is great in OSR games where skillfully managing this stuff is like the point, but outside of that I want as little attrition as possible for the games I run.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 20, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Bingo!  You've hit the mark!
> 
> And the question then becomes:
> 
> ...



Dude.  YOU don't play D&D.  You play a hacked version you've tweaked to your own liking.  This question can be turned around and ask why you aren't currently playing 5e.  Whatever your answer, stop and consider that you even have an answer before asking a question like this again.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 20, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> I'm also cynical enough to suggest that GMs running lots of short campaigns each using a different system is more to the advantage of game publishers than anyone else, as it means they get to sell more copies of more games.



I think I've already linked to Cthulhu Dark, which is free. In case you missed it, it's here: http://catchyourhare.com/files/Cthulhu Dark.pdf

Here you can get In A Wicked Age for $5: In a Wicked Age

Here you can get Apocalypse World (2nd ed; I don't know how it differs from 1st ed, which is what I've got) for $15: Apocalypse World (2nd Ed)

Here you can get the core rules of BW for free: Burning Wheel Gold: Hub and Spokes - Burning Wheel | Burning Wheel | DriveThruRPG.com

Here you can get a version of Torchbearer for $15: Torchbearer - Burning Wheel | Burning Wheel | DriveThruRPG.com

Here you can order BW Gold Revised for $35: Burning Wheel Gold Revised.

That's $70. For 5 RPGs.

The only RPG publisher I know of who is actually making significant amounts of money from recurrent sales to RPGers is WotC.


----------



## Cadence (Jun 20, 2022)

pemerton said:


> The only RPG publisher I know of who is actually making significant amounts of money from recurrent sales to RPGers is WotC.




Even WotC gave away almost all the 3.x rules and gives away the basic 5 ones.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jun 20, 2022)

I think I find the idea that learning the rules is such a bother to be odd. I actually like learning a new game. Ideally, the basics are easy to grasp, and then there are other elements that take some time to learn. 

And while I can get the idea that some games may be so complex as to not be worth learning, I think using D&D as the bar is a strange choice. There are many games that are easy to grasp and get going that don’t take anywhere near the effort that D&D might take.


----------



## Arilyn (Jun 21, 2022)

I love learning new games. I'd hate to just stick to one system, as system does matter in many cases to get the tone right. And I've learned many different ways to play and run games. That's valuable. 

I have absolutely no problem spending money to support game designers. And we have so many differing styles and voices in the industry creating some really great games. I can't imagine wanting to trim that back.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 21, 2022)

pemerton said:


> Well my paradigms for soap operas are Days of Our Lives, Neighbours, and Home and Away. Also comedy soap operas like Scrubs. These don't involve teams and they don't involve adventures. They follow the interactions and interpersonal dramas of various more-or-less closely related protagonists.



You're telling me that the doctors and nurses of Sacred Heart Hospital weren't a team?  And what you call adventure I just call the plot.  There was one episode of _Scrubs_ where Turk, JD, and Elliot each had a patient who was going to die and they had to figure out a way to cope with that.  That was the adventure.


----------



## MNblockhead (Jun 21, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I enjoyed the Green Knight: The Green Knight: A Fantasy Roleplaying Game



Will do. Thanks!


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jun 21, 2022)

MGibster said:


> You're telling me that the doctors and nurses of Sacred Heart Hospital weren't a team?  And what you call adventure I just call the plot.  There was one episode of _Scrubs_ where Turk, JD, and Elliot each had a patient who was going to die and they had to figure out a way to cope with that.  That was the adventure.




IIRC in this ep they all work separately to try to achieve their similar goals but they are not working to the SAME goal.* Their stories barely overlap at all within the ep. It would be fairer to say they run in parallel to one another; A, B, and C plots. Except, unlike normal A and B plots, there was no particular weight given to one plot over another in terms of screen time of importance. It was one of their better eps.

I think _Scrubs _is a pretty good example of what people have been describing as a non-party party. Yeah they ARE on the same team. Dr. Kelso frequently says so. But at any given moment they are not necessarily all working on the same project. It's actually rare to have all the cast involved in the one plot line.


* Yes, broadly speaking they're all trying to save a life. But not the same life.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 21, 2022)

Far better examples include stuff like Deadwood, Sons of Anarchy and Smallville where even if in fiction the characters consider themselves a team each main character has their own agenda, and the characters often work at cross purposes. Usually, the situation has the potential to put the characters at odds with one another. Less group problem solving and more each character deciding how to position themselves, so they achieve their personal desires for themselves as well as their desires for the other main characters.

What is essential to this sort of play is a social contract that allows to independently choose what their agenda is and how they hope to achieve it. Also, that when you are not actively advocating for your character that you can detach enough to be a fan of the other player characters even if they are working at cross purposes to your character. Finally, that you are able to accept how things shake out when they do not go your way.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 21, 2022)

DrunkonDuty said:


> I think _Scrubs _is a pretty good example of what people have been describing as a non-party party. Yeah they ARE on the same team. Dr. Kelso frequently says so. But at any given moment they are not necessarily all working on the same project. It's actually rare to have all the cast involved in the one plot line.





Campbell said:


> Far better examples include stuff like Deadwood, Sons of Anarchy and Smallville where even if in fiction the characters consider themselves a team each main character has their own agenda, and the characters often work at cross purposes. Usually, the situation has the potential to put the characters at odds with one another. Less group problem solving and more each character deciding how to position themselves, so they achieve their personal desires for themselves as well as their desires for the other main characters.



I know Scrubs but not the shows Campbell mentions (other than by reputation). 

Another example that I would think of would be Season 7 of Arrow (perhaps I'm the only person ever to have watched that far into the show! I'm not up to Season 8 yet). Three PCs could be John, Oliver and Dinah: each has their own position, their own set of associated NPCs and subordinates, some overlap in antagonists but not completely so. Their paths obviously cross, sometimes they team up, but sometimes they're opposed.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 21, 2022)

DrunkonDuty said:


> I think _Scrubs _is a pretty good example of what people have been describing as a non-party party. Yeah they ARE on the same team. Dr. Kelso frequently says so. But at any given moment they are not necessarily all working on the same project. It's actually rare to have all the cast involved in the one plot line.



I get it.  It's just, to me, they're still a team.  It's a party.  And I think we've really gone about as far as we can go with this.


----------



## amethal (Jun 21, 2022)

Endroren said:


> A somewhat similar example is smoking in old scifi novels. Ingenious authors with amazing creative minds never stopped to wonder if maybe people would stop smoking in the future. SOME authors did, but many (or most IMO) did not.



I've never understood the fixation with smoking some authors had.

You'd have characters who were little more than cyphers, created solely to illustrate whatever idea, philosophy, gadget or gimmick the author was interested in exploring. They had no hobbies, would never drink a cup of coffee or scratch an itch, eat a snack or decide what to wear, but they were forever lighting cigarettes. Including on space-ships. (Although google tells me that people used to smoke freely on submarines until at least the 1970s.)

I recently read Pattern Recognition by William Gibson (published in 2003 and also set around then) and the second-most glaring thing about it is people smoking in restaurants. (The first-most glaring thing is, of course, laptops, mobile-phones etc. coming with user manuals.)


----------



## payn (Jun 21, 2022)

amethal said:


> I've never understood the fixation with smoking some authors had.
> 
> You'd have characters who were little more than cyphers, created solely to illustrate whatever idea, philosophy, gadget or gimmick the author was interested in exploring. They had no hobbies, would never drink a cup of coffee or scratch an itch, eat a snack or decide what to wear, but they were forever lighting cigarettes. Including on space-ships. (Although google tells me that people used to smoke freely on submarines until at least the 1970s.)
> 
> I recently read Pattern Recognition by William Gibson (published in 2003 and also set around then) and the second-most glaring thing about it is people smoking in restaurants. (The first-most glaring thing is, of course, laptops, mobile-phones etc. coming with user manuals.)



Smoking was rampant in the 50's and up to the 80's. Now its unthinkable for a restaurant to allow it. I recall working in a warehouse in the early 2000s where it was allowed wherever. I was in an office some years later where they had just taken the ashtrays out. It might seem strange now, but smoking was the old coffee. By that I mean all those stupid ass memes we are bombarded by "dont talk to me until I have my coffee" were about cigs decades ago.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 21, 2022)

payn said:


> Smoking was rampant in the 50's and up to the 80's. Now its unthinkable for a restaurant to allow it. I recall working in a warehouse in the early 2000s where it was allowed wherever. I was in an office some years later where they had just taken the ashtrays out. It might seem strange now, but smoking was the old coffee. By that I mean all those stupid ass memes we are bombarded by "dont talk to me until I have my coffee" were about cigs decades ago.



I smoked up until about 2010 and it was a very strange transition, especially in the construction field.


----------



## payn (Jun 21, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I smoked up until about 2010 and it was a very strange transition, especially in the construction field.



Yeap, I stopped in 2009 myself. Its like hardly anyone does anymore. A good thing.

Funny thing about this topic, I was reading _The Expanse_ recently and they dont shut up about wanting good coffee. I get it, its a way to try and relate to the characters. They do or want to engage in things we do culturally, but you know, in space.


----------



## James Gasik (Jun 21, 2022)

That's nothing new.  Watch (or don't, actually, it's kind of terrible) Star Trek Voyager.  Captain Janeway will violate the Prime Directive *and *wipe out your entire civilization if you get between her and her coffee...


----------



## Lord Shark (Jun 21, 2022)

payn said:


> Yeap, I stopped in 2009 myself. Its like hardly anyone does anymore. A good thing.
> 
> Funny thing about this topic, I was reading _The Expanse_ recently and they dont shut up about wanting good coffee. I get it, its a way to try and relate to the characters. They do or want to engage in things we do culturally, but you know, in space.




Besides the cultural aspect, smoking was also an easy way for writers to insert little bits of "business" to break up long conversations. And you could reveal things about a character's personality and emotions from their choice of smoking materials, how they handled them, etc.


----------



## Endroren (Jun 21, 2022)

payn said:


> Smoking was rampant in the 50's and up to the 80's. Now its unthinkable for a restaurant to allow it. I recall working in a warehouse in the early 2000s where it was allowed wherever. I was in an office some years later where they had just taken the ashtrays out. It might seem strange now, but smoking was the old coffee. By that I mean all those stupid ass memes we are bombarded by "dont talk to me until I have my coffee" were about cigs decades ago.



Exactly! It was everywhere. I wonder if younger folks realize how different it was. And for the life of them, most Sci Fi authors couldn't imagine the world we're in today. They could imagine spaceships and aliens - but not the end of smoking. That's why I started this thread - just wondering which blinders we have on and we don't know it. (I wonder this about sci fi as well, frankly).

And the Coffee thing on the Expanse you mentioned. I can absolutely see coffee going away completely for some reason (climate change, health, whatever) and stuff like the Expanse being SUPER dated as a result.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 21, 2022)

Endroren said:


> Exactly! It was everywhere. I wonder if younger folks realize how different it was. And for the life of them, most Sci Fi authors couldn't imagine the world we're in today. They could imagine spaceships and aliens - but not the end of smoking. That's why I started this thread - just wondering which blinders we have on and we don't know it. (I wonder this about sci fi as well, frankly).



I was telling one of our interns at work the other day, "When Martha started, they still had ash trays at the desks because you could smoke while working," and she could scarcely believe it.  When I run games set in the United States during the 20s and 30s, I describe many places as having a blue haze as people are constantly smoking.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jun 21, 2022)

As people much smarter and more articulate than me have pointed out, the best, most iconic SF isn't actually about predicting the future--it's about what was happening when the author wrote it, through a genre lens. So of course SF written even a little while back has lots of smoking. 

Plus, there has to be something to ground most SF stories. Do you really want characters to be drinking pressed Zorbaxx juice and absorbing rehydrated Heebos root through skin patches while smelling each other's nano-drone-delivered pheremones, instead of them talking over coffee and sandwiches?


----------



## payn (Jun 21, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I was telling one of our interns at work the other day, "When Martha started, they still had ash trays at the desks because you could smoke while working," and she could scarcely believe it.  When I run games set in the United States during the 20s and 30s, I describe many places as having a blue haze as people are constantly smoking.



I remember when the bans came here in the Twin Cities. The state wide ban came in after Minneapolis banned smoking. There was a bar just over the border in St. Paul that still had smoking for a bit. It was like living in a cartoon going there. The smoke was so thick you had to wave your arms around to see. Feels like a lifetime ago.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 21, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> As people much smarter and more articulate than me have pointed out, the best, most iconic SF isn't actually about predicting the future--it's about what was happening when the author wrote it, through a genre lens. So of course SF written even a little while back has lots of smoking.
> 
> Plus, there has to be something to ground most SF stories. Do you really want characters to be drinking pressed Zorbaxx juice and absorbing rehydrated Heebos root through skin patches while smelling each other's nano-drone-delivered pheremones, instead of them talking over coffee and sandwiches?



Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no.

Depends on what the author is going for.

“The future isn’t scary.” Coffee and sandwiches.

“The future is profoundly weird.” Skin patches and nano-drones.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 21, 2022)

In regards to this overall topic, I'm not really one who wants to get rid of old game design traditions, but, rather, I am more concerned that there is a viable place in our hobby for new or non-traditional game design.


----------



## payn (Jun 21, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> In regards to this overall topic, I'm not really one who wants to get rid of old game design traditions, but, rather, I am more concerned that there is a viable place in our hobby for new or non-traditional game design.



There was a time where this would be a concern for me, but I think KS and VTTs have really opened up the space for non-traditional design.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 21, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I was telling one of our interns at work the other day, "When Martha started, they still had ash trays at the desks because you could smoke while working," and she could scarcely believe it.  When I run games set in the United States during the 20s and 30s, I describe many places as having a blue haze as people are constantly smoking.



And the 20s and 30s aren't nearly as bad as post-WWII.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/m4843a2f1.gif


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 21, 2022)

pemerton said:


> I think I've already linked to Cthulhu Dark, which is free. In case you missed it, it's here: http://catchyourhare.com/files/Cthulhu Dark.pdf
> 
> Here you can get In A Wicked Age for $5: In a Wicked Age
> 
> ...



You can frequently find giant Humble Bundle collections of various game systems for just not quite free.  Cost is not a strong argument at dabbling your toe into many different game systems.


----------



## mythago (Jun 22, 2022)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think I find the idea that learning the rules is such a bother to be odd. I actually like learning a new game. Ideally, the basics are easy to grasp, and then there are other elements that take some time to learn.




If it's a game where the basis are indeed easy to grasp and don't take a ton of time to learn, great! Otherwise, it's a bother because I have limited free time for my hobby and I don't want to waste it on the equivalent of doing a homework assignment.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 23, 2022)

Splatbooks, other than those that enhance the physical and political aspects of settings.

Games/settings with scores of monsters and numerous intelligent species, especially those which have no explanation as to how these races are interacting.

Endless lists of spells, talents, sub-classes, and the like.

Systems and settings which are just cookie-cutter copies of existing systems.

Fiction in RPG books. We get it, you wanted to be a real writer, but here's the simple fact: you're not. Plus your game system is going to get house-ruled and twisted into something you barely recognize, so your crappy short fiction will just be wasted space.

Trying to make your same seem unique by changing the names for GM, player, and other common RPG terms, including monsters. Call a vampire a vampire, Undead Undead, etc. I'm looking at you, Harn, but you're not the only one.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jun 23, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Fiction in RPG books. We get it, you wanted to be a real writer, but here's the simple fact: you're not. Plus your game system is going to get house-ruled and twisted into something you barely recognize, so your crappy short fiction will just be wasted space.



This really does drive me crazy. Even back in the 90s when I was head over heels for World of Darkness I couldn't handle more than a paragraph of fiction jammed into a rulebook.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 23, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> This really does drive me crazy. Even back in the 90s when I was head over heels for World of Darkness I couldn't handle more than a paragraph of fiction jammed into a rulebook.



I don't mind it being there -- I have written my share of it, in fact -- but it shouldn't obscure the rules.


----------



## mythago (Jun 23, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Fiction in RPG books. We get it, you wanted to be a real writer, but here's the simple fact: you're not. Plus your game system is going to get house-ruled and twisted into something you barely recognize, so your crappy short fiction will just be wasted space.




This.  ESPECIALLY when it's in a terrible hard-to-read handwritten font that goes on and on for pages.

To be fair, there are some rulesets that handle this well; Dread is a fantastic example of how short snippets can set the mood and example for play. But they're the exception.


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 23, 2022)

My biggest gripe with fiction inserts is that they could've been used to actually illustrate the game. Like, switch between the table, how the players roll stuff, smirk, spill beer over the book and describe their actions, and the game world, where characters swing swords and whatever.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jun 23, 2022)

My current project, a Sci-Fi Horror hack of Trophy Gold does have fiction in it. However, it's not more than a paragraph at a time, and while it does tell the story of a doomed incursion, the actual paragraphs also help illuminate the rules bits they're set next to. Execution is important.


----------



## Hex08 (Jun 23, 2022)

I would say there aren't really many, if any, that are screaming to go away. Don't like the D&D (or whatever game) mechanics or traditions? Fine, there are many, many other games out there so go broaden your horizons a bit and leave the existing game and it's mechanics for those who enjoy it.


----------



## Hex08 (Jun 23, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Bingo!  You've hit the mark!
> 
> And the question then becomes:
> 
> ...



Because some of us would find that boring. I change the games I play not just because I want a different setting or genre but because playing the same ruleset becomes stale after a while.

Also, not every ruleset is created equal. Some are designed to encourage roleplaying, some tactical combat, some to reflect that characters are supposed to be heroic and mighty world savers and others where they are tiny and insignificant fighting a hopeless fight. When I play Call of Cthulhu I don't want to play D&D with a different skin on it. Game system matters. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you couldn't run a Cthulhu game with D&D rules but in my opinion D&D (any edition) does a bad job if used as a horror system (at least compared to those designed from the ground up to do it).


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jun 23, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> I would say there aren't really many, if any, that are screaming to go away. Don't like the D&D (or whatever game) mechanics or traditions? Fine, there are many, many other games out there so go broaden your horizons a bit and leave the existing game and it's mechanics for those who enjoy it.



I locked the idea of MDC/SDC in a gimp box about 20 years ago and I still hear the occasional moan or plea for freedom. I remain resolute.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 23, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Bingo!  You've hit the mark!
> 
> And the question then becomes:
> 
> ...



Because D&D is an awful system with very few redeeming qualities?


----------



## Staffan (Jun 23, 2022)

Ability scores. As in, hard-to-alter values that cascade into other related areas of competence. They cause two problems:

Characters who seek competence in one field need to make sure that they have good values in the associated ability scores. That is, if you want to be a good wizard, you must be smart. If you want to be a good fighter, you must be stronk.
This in turn leads to assorted workarounds: what if good at fighting, but fast instead of stronk? Take this feat/special ability that lets you use Dexterity instead of Strength. What about a dumb wizard? Well maybe make that a sorcerer?

Since characters need to have good values in their primary ability scores, it means they will also be at least OK at other things based on that ability score. If ranged attacks are based on Dexterity, snipers automatically become good acrobats. If paladin magic is based on Charisma, you won't have holy warriors that are shy and bad at talking to people.
The Troubleshooters, for example, does away with ability scores entirely (or rather, incorporates things that are traditionally ability scores as skills). So there's no correlation between Strength and Melee, or between Ranged, Vehicles, and Agility. You can be an academic who knows everything about every battle fought by the French military since Charlemagne, and not know the first thing about Electronics.


----------



## Hex08 (Jun 23, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Because D&D is an awful system with very few redeeming qualities?



I don't play D&D anymore but considering that it's the most popular system by far out there it obviously appeals to a lot of people.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 23, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I'd prefer a simple universal system that can cover most everything and be done. Picking three books at random from my shelves, I'd love to be able play something based on _1491_, _As Told at the Explorer's Club_, and _Hollow Chocolate Bunnies of the Apocalypse_ without having to learn three different systems. I'm infinitely more interested in worlds than rules.



Man, I could not disagree more. To me, system matters. Star Wars makes for a very different game in WEG's D6, Wizards of the Coast's D20, and Fantasy Flight Games' Genesys. It would be even more different in Savage Worlds or GURPS.

Even in a game like TORG, which is explicitly multi-genre, the different genres are given different mechanical expressions. The difference between the Living Land and Tharkold is not just that one has strong miracles and the other strong tech and magic – they also work differently. The Living Land is a world that rewards living life to its fullest, acting on primal instincts, and taking risks, while Tharkold is a place where the strong dominate the weak and inflicting pain is rewarded.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jun 23, 2022)

Simple universal systems do everything and often none of it well in terms of genre emulation. To each his own.


----------



## James Gasik (Jun 23, 2022)

Fenris-77 said:


> I locked the idea of MDC/SDC in a gimp box about 20 years ago and I still hear the occasional moan or plea for freedom. I remain resolute.



Ugh, MDC was the worst idea ever.  I was a Glitter Boy in a Rifts game, and I was terrified of ever getting out of the robot.  Meanwhile, there was an Amazon in our group who not only had MDC buck nekked, but then she had a fraggin' WETSUIT from Rifts: Atlantis for MORE MDC!


----------



## James Gasik (Jun 23, 2022)

Staffan said:


> Man, I could not disagree more. To me, system matters. Star Wars makes for a very different game in WEG's D6, Wizards of the Coast's D20, and Fantasy Flight Games' Genesys. It would be even more different in Savage Worlds or GURPS.
> 
> Even in a game like TORG, which is explicitly multi-genre, the different genres are given different mechanical expressions. The difference between the Living Land and Tharkold is not just that one has strong miracles and the other strong tech and magic – they also work differently. The Living Land is a world that rewards living life to its fullest, acting on primal instincts, and taking risks, while Tharkold is a place where the strong dominate the weak and inflicting pain is rewarded.



TORG is an amazing game, and yet...it's stupid hard to get people to play it.  I mean, there's a CYBERPAPACY!  It's fun just saying the word!


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 23, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Because D&D is an awful system with very few redeeming qualities?



If it's so awful and has so few redeeming qualities then how come so many people keep playing it; and not just playing the current edition but all editions previous incuding near-variants thereon?

It can't all be marketing - no matter how well something's marketed the consuming public eventually comes to recognize there's no value in it.  So it must have something else going for it.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 23, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> I don't play D&D anymore but considering that it's the most popular system by far out there it obviously appeals to a lot of people.



Honestly, I think it’s because they took out all the challenge and made it so it’s trivial to play it like a video game but that playing it like a video game isn’t quite the default. Except healing. And travel. And…


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jun 23, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Honestly, I think it’s because they took out all the challenge and made it so it’s trivial to play it like a video game but that playing it like a video game isn’t quite the default. Except healing. And travel. And…



You should play in one of my games. It might make you you reconsider the trivial nature of what you're doing.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 23, 2022)

Staffan said:


> Man, I could not disagree more. To me, system matters. Star Wars makes for a very different game in WEG's D6, Wizards of the Coast's D20, and Fantasy Flight Games' Genesys. It would be even more different in Savage Worlds or GURPS.



It’s weird, but I completely agree. System does absolutely matter. But, to me, that’s the problem. System shapes and focuses and limits the imagination.

I’ll quote Jonathan Tweet and Robin Laws from Over the Edge.

“And why the simple mechanics? Two reasons: First, complex mechanics invariably channel and limit the imagination; second, my neurons have better things to do than calculate numbers and refer to charts all evening. Complex mechanics, in their effort to tell you what you can do, generally do a fair job of implying what you cannot do.”

I’d rather a simple, light system that does most things well where the referee can making rulings when they need to rather than a tome That Must Be Obeyed.


Staffan said:


> Even in a game like TORG, which is explicitly multi-genre, the different genres are given different mechanical expressions. The difference between the Living Land and Tharkold is not just that one has strong miracles and the other strong tech and magic – they also work differently. The Living Land is a world that rewards living life to its fullest, acting on primal instincts, and taking risks, while Tharkold is a place where the strong dominate the weak and inflicting pain is rewarded.



Right. Now a question. Why can’t you achieve the same result diegeticly? Weird word, I know, but it means in the fiction, basically. Why does the Living Land rewarding living life to the fullest have to be mechanically handled? Can’t you hand out in fiction rewards that do the same thing?


----------



## James Gasik (Jun 23, 2022)

Well as they found out with 4e, if you kill too many sacred cows, it affects the game's identity.  There are some elements that are such D&D-isms, for example, you couldn't imagine the game without them in place.

I'm sure that holds true for a lot of older games.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 24, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> If it's so awful and has so few redeeming qualities then how come so many people keep playing it; and not just playing the current edition but all editions previous incuding near-variants thereon?



Just because something has a substantial following does not mean it is any good. The Kardashians are an excellent example.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 24, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> I don't play D&D anymore but considering that it's the most popular system by far out there it obviously appeals to a lot of people



Just because something appeals to a number of people does nothing to establish its value. Justin Bieber is a good example.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 24, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Right. Now a question. Why can’t you achieve the same result diegeticly? Weird word, I know, but it means in the fiction, basically. Why does the Living Land rewarding living life to the fullest have to be mechanically handled? Can’t you hand out in fiction rewards that do the same thing?



Because I *want* the system to handle that sort of thing. The system tells me what the fiction *means*. In the Cyberpapacy, Cybercatholicism is the One True Faith and anyone trying to invoke a miracle of another faith is causing a contradiction. In Aysle, items used to perform mighty deeds will naturally take on an enchantment. The Living Land abhors death, so it is easier to survive severe injuries, and you heal faster from them, but once you're dead the land will rapidly dispose of your corpse. These are all mechanical effects that describe how those realities differ from one another.

And moving to other games, they impose different feels on their settings. Playing Star Wars with d20 Saga and its grids and levels and hit points feels completely different from the heroic nature and two-dimensional task resolution system of Genesys. In The Troubleshooters, PCs are rewarded with metacurrency for being captured (as appropriate to the genre), and can't be killed unless they specifically decide to raise the stakes by placing themselves in Mortal Peril (or if they do something to abuse their plot armor, like jumping off a tall building because they can't be killed anyway). Sometimes I like that free-wheeling gameplay, and other times I enjoy the more tactical nature of Pathfinder 2.

Just like some movies are Saving Private Ryan, and other movies are Army of Darkness. Both are excellent movies, but they do very different things. Come to think of it, there are a pair of movies that do show what happens when you use the same setting in different systems: Alien and Aliens. They have very different feels despite having the same lead character and a similar threat, but one is a horror movie and the other is a high-octane action movie.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 24, 2022)

Staffan said:


> Because I *want* the system to handle that sort of thing.



Awesome. The system _should_ handle those things because _you want the system to handle those things_. Gotcha. But that doesn't mean the system _has to_. That's my point. Some people want the system to handle those things, others don't. But there's no cosmic rule that the system _must_. It is possible to handle those things without the system. It's how people have played for decades. It's how the people who created the first published role-playing games played.

I want the fiction and the fictional context to handle those things. Because it's less work for me. I don't have to memorize as much or look up as much when we handle that ourselves rather than "offloading" the work to the mechanics. It's not really offloading as we have to read, re-read, re-re-read...look it up...look it up again...memorize it...forget it...relearn it after a few months away from active play. On and on.


Staffan said:


> The system tells me what the fiction *means*.



Weird. I always thought the referee/players gave the fiction meaning.


Staffan said:


> In the Cyberpapacy, Cybercatholicism is the One True Faith and anyone trying to invoke a miracle of another faith is causing a contradiction. In Aysle, items used to perform mighty deeds will naturally take on an enchantment. The Living Land abhors death, so it is easier to survive severe injuries, and you heal faster from them, but once you're dead the land will rapidly dispose of your corpse. These are all mechanical effects that describe how those realities differ from one another.



Those are all _setting_ information. Not mechanics. I can use the sentences above and do the same thing without whatever mechanics those books present to do the same thing. Again, it doesn't have to be done through mechanics.


Staffan said:


> And moving to other games, they impose different feels on their settings. Playing Star Wars with d20 Saga and its grids and levels and hit points feels completely different from the heroic nature and two-dimensional task resolution system of Genesys. In The Troubleshooters, PCs are rewarded with metacurrency for being captured (as appropriate to the genre), and can't be killed unless they specifically decide to raise the stakes by placing themselves in Mortal Peril (or if they do something to abuse their plot armor, like jumping off a tall building because they can't be killed anyway). Sometimes I like that free-wheeling gameplay, and other times I enjoy the more tactical nature of Pathfinder 2.



Exactly. Sometimes it's fun to dig deep into the tactics and mechanics, other times it's fun to free-form it. Nothing wrong with either. Your preferences tend to run more into mechanics than mine. I prefer everything to be handled by the people at the table rather than a tome. Saves time and brainpower. Also much quicker.


Staffan said:


> Just like some movies are Saving Private Ryan, and other movies are Army of Darkness. Both are excellent movies, but they do very different things. Come to think of it, there are a pair of movies that do show what happens when you use the same setting in different systems: Alien and Aliens. They have very different feels despite having the same lead character and a similar threat, but one is a horror movie and the other is a high-octane action movie.



Which is weird because the Alien RPG covers Alien and Aliens with the same game system, just with some tweaks. 

But yeah, different stories and different feel. Mechanics can do that. But so can the people at the table.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 24, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Ugh, MDC was the worst idea ever. I was a Glitter Boy in a Rifts game, and I was terrified of ever getting out of the robot. Meanwhile, there was an Amazon in our group who not only had MDC buck nekked, but then she had a fraggin' WETSUIT from Rifts: Atlantis for MORE MDC!



I think MDC is a fantastic idea.  I don't believe the impelmentation in RIFTs was great, but it makes a lot of sense.  A .45 caliber pistol isn't going to be able to penetrate the armor on a Sherman tank.  MDC, if implemented properly, would avoid number creep.


----------



## niklinna (Jun 24, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> TORG is an amazing game, and yet...it's stupid hard to get people to play it.  I mean, there's a CYBERPAPACY!  It's fun just saying the word!



I'm playing Torg Eternity right now. We're fighting sharks and frogmen in some underwater ruins in the Nile Empire. Good times.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 24, 2022)




----------



## billd91 (Jun 24, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> I'm sure that holds true for a lot of older games.



Not just games. Look at how well New Coke went over with people who identified with the Coca Cola brand. It’s part of the point of having a distinct identity.
Screw with it too much and you’re screwing with your success.


----------



## Hex08 (Jun 24, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Just because something appeals to a number of people does nothing to establish its value. Justin Bieber is a good example.



It may not establish any value to _you, _but value is relative. Justin Beiber (or the Kardashians) has value to his legions of fans and those in his orbit who profit from his music regardless of your opinion of his music or him as a person. I can't stand Justin Beiber as a musician or a person, but he obviously has value to a great many people regardless of my opinion.

There is a whole, wide world out there with many views other than your personal opinions. Diminishing the value that others place on something based on your personal opinion is a bit narrow minded.


----------



## James Gasik (Jun 24, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I think MDC is a fantastic idea.  I don't believe the impelmentation in RIFTs was great, but it makes a lot of sense.  A .45 caliber pistol isn't going to be able to penetrate the armor on a Sherman tank.  MDC, if implemented properly, would avoid number creep.



The issue was, at least for me, some characters are MDC rated by default, and some are not.  So if an Amazon can do MDC damage with a punch, anything that lacks MDC is just turned into fine red mist.  At least with other games that have a "superior" damage type, like Vampire's aggravated damage, it's bad, but you might survive an attack, and depending on the source, you could acquire armor that can defend against it (like against claws or fangs).


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 24, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> It’s weird, but I completely agree. System does absolutely matter. But, to me, that’s the problem. System shapes and focuses and limits the imagination.



IME, the imgination blossoms and shines when it works under limits and focus rather than when it runs unbridled. The focus of those limitations can lead us to greener, more fruitful pastures that we wouldn't normally reach on our own. The reality of unbridled imagination is that it very often leads people back to their oft-trampled mental comfort zones that require little effort, conflict, or challenge to traverse. Limitless imagination is overrated. 



overgeeked said:


> I’ll quote Jonathan Tweet and Robin Laws from Over the Edge.
> 
> “And why the simple mechanics? Two reasons: First, complex mechanics invariably channel and limit the imagination; second, my neurons have better things to do than calculate numbers and refer to charts all evening. Complex mechanics, in their effort to tell you what you can do, generally do a fair job of implying what you cannot do.”



Those are nice words from Tweet, but keep in mind that this is the same Jonathan Tweet who also helped lead design Ars Magica, 3e D&D, and 13th Age. His words here say one thing but the body of his works say another. 



overgeeked said:


> I’d rather a simple, light system that does most things well where the referee can making rulings when they need to rather than a tome That Must Be Obeyed.



Thankfully there is a tremendous wealth of gaming preferences beyond these two positions.



overgeeked said:


> Right. Now a question. Why can’t you achieve the same result diegeticly? Weird word, I know, but it means in the fiction, basically. Why does the Living Land rewarding living life to the fullest have to be mechanically handled? Can’t you hand out in fiction rewards that do the same thing?



Because some people prefer that it is handled mechanically, and they find that a given mechanical method enhances rather than detracts from their gaming experiences. Moreover, those preferences are valid.


----------



## MGibster (Jun 24, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> The issue was, at least for me, some characters are MDC rated by default, and some are not. So if an Amazon can do MDC damage with a punch, anything that lacks MDC is just turned into fine red mist.



Oh, yeah.  That was the big problem with RIFTS which translated into Savage Rifts as well.  When pretty much everything does MDC, what's the point of SDC at all?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 24, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Right. Now a question. Why can’t you achieve the same result diegeticly? Weird word, I know, but it means in the fiction, basically. Why does the Living Land rewarding living life to the fullest have to be mechanically handled? Can’t you hand out in fiction rewards that do the same thing?




So, it does not seem like they said they _couldn't_ give out rewards that way.  So, this seems to me to be a poorly formed question.  

But, the answer lies in the fact that we are not engaged in free role-playing.  If we were, you'd be right, as the only rewards available would be diegetic ones.  But, we are engaged in a role playing _game_.  A properly designed game should reward the player for engaging in activity aligned with the game's design goals, and not reward behavior contrary to those goals.   A poorly designed game will still reward some behaviors over others, but will do so rather arbitrarily, instead of along some intent.

Rules, being non-sentient, cannot connect with _story_.  That makes purely diegetic rewards into GM-whim awards.  At which point we can validly ask why you are using rules at all, and are not instead engaging in free role-play.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 24, 2022)

Umbran said:


> So, it does not seem like they said they _couldn't_ give out rewards that way.  So, this seems to me to be a poorly formed question.
> 
> But, the answer lies in the fact that we are not engaged in free role-playing.  If we were, you'd be right, as the only rewards available would be diegetic ones.  But, we are engaged in a role playing _game_.  A properly designed game should reward the player for engaging in activity aligned with the game's design goals, and not reward behavior contrary to those goals.   A poorly designed game will still reward some behaviors over others, but will do so rather arbitrarily, instead of along some intent.
> 
> Rules, being non-sentient, cannot connect with _story_.  That makes purely diegetic rewards into GM-whim awards.  At which point we can validly ask why you are using rules at all, and are not instead engaging in free role-play.



To be fair, @overgeeked champions GM-led free role play with, at the most. coin toss tie breaker mechanics.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 24, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> It may not establish any value to _you, _but value is relative. Justin Beiber (or the Kardashians) has value to his legions of fans and those in his orbit who profit from his music regardless of your opinion of his music or him as a person. I can't stand Justin Beiber as a musician or a person, but he obviously has value to a great many people regardless of my opinion.
> 
> There is a whole, wide world out there with many views other than your personal opinions. Diminishing the value that others place on something based on your personal opinion is a bit narrow minded.



History shows that sort of passive acceptance has been of great aid to many negative movements. There is, as you have noted, an entire world out there. 

But we have wandered very far from the point of the thread.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 24, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> IME, the imgination blossoms and shines when it works under limits and focus rather than when it runs unbridled. The focus of those limitations can lead us to greener, more fruitful pastures that we wouldn't normally reach on our own. The reality of unbridled imagination is that it very often leads people back to their oft-trampled mental comfort zones that require little effort, conflict, or challenge to traverse. Limitless imagination is overrated.



You are right. I'm not suggesting completely unfettered imagination with zero constraints. I'm suggesting fewer mechanics getting in the way of playing the game. You still need constraints, like say genre and setting and character limitations, etc. None of those require mechanics to be a thing. We're playing superheroes with a silver age tone in an amalgam world of Marvel and DC and characters should be about on par with the average X-Men, i.e. not the big guns. That focuses and limits the imagination into something quite playable with nary a mechanic in sight.


Aldarc said:


> Those are nice words from Tweet, but keep in mind that this is the same Jonathan Tweet who also helped lead design Ars Magica, 3e D&D, and 13th Age. His words here say one thing but the body of his works say another.



Well, that would be a great point if the other author wasn't Robin Laws. Looking at _his_ body of work suggests that particular bit of writing from Over the Edge was more likely his than Jonathan's. That bit of text also comes from OtE2E. Looking at OtE3E, which Laws did not co-design, and the rules bloat compared to 2E kinda puts the nail in that coffin.


Aldarc said:


> Because some people prefer that it is handled mechanically, and they find that a given mechanical method enhances rather than detracts from their gaming experiences. Moreover, those preferences are valid.



All preferences are valid. Including not using many or any mechanics.


Umbran said:


> But, the answer lies in the fact that we are not engaged in free role-playing.  If we were, you'd be right, as the only rewards available would be diegetic ones.  But, we are engaged in a role playing _game_.



Games need rules. They don't need mechanics. We're playing a game of make believe in this genre is a rule, i.e. don't violate this genre's conventions. You resolve actions by using this randomizer is a mechanic, i.e. roll 1d20 + modifiers vs a target number. See the above superhero game example.


Ovinomancer said:


> To be fair, @overgeeked champions GM-led free role play with, at the most. coin toss tie breaker mechanics.



I wouldn't call misrepresenting my position "fair."


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 24, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> You are right. I'm not suggesting completely unfettered imagination with zero constraints. I'm suggesting fewer mechanics getting in the way of playing the game. You still need constraints, like say genre and setting and character limitations, etc. None of those require mechanics to be a thing. We're playing superheroes with a silver age tone in an amalgam world of Marvel and DC and characters should be about on par with the average X-Men, i.e. not the big guns. That focuses and limits the imagination into something quite playable with nary a mechanic in sight.



Again, I think you underestimate how mechanics can push players to play with greater creativity. Remove too many mechanics and it seems that you are scarcely playing a game with rules or mechanics at all. It becomes of a game at that point IMO and more like kids playing with toys in the sandbox, but with one person enforcing what the official canon of the setting will be. Sure, it can be fun, but it's not really much of a game, which would personally feel like a waste of my time to me and not what I am looking for in a roleplaying game. Obviously your mileage does vary. 



overgeeked said:


> Well, that would be a great point if the other author wasn't Robin Laws. Looking at _his_ body of work suggests that particular bit of writing from Over the Edge was more likely his than Jonathan's. That bit of text also comes from OtE2E. Looking at OtE3E, which Laws did not co-design, and the rules bloat compared to 2E kinda puts the nail in that coffin.



Robin Laws design and writing work is all over the place. He is a prolific freelance designer. I'm not sure if one can safely say who wrote what and I would prefer if our respective cognitive biases were not the primary detectives of sussing that out. 



overgeeked said:


> All preferences are valid. Including not using many or any mechanics.



Of course. However, not all preferences are valid IMHO. Toxic ones, for example, can GTFO of our hobby.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 24, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Games need rules. They don't need mechanics. We're playing a game of make believe in this genre is a rule, i.e. don't violate this genre's conventions. You resolve actions by using this randomizer is a mechanic, i.e. roll 1d20 + modifiers vs a target number. See the above superhero game example.
> 
> I wouldn't call misrepresenting my position "fair."



Rules = mechanics.

Without mechanics, you have crossed the line from RPGs into collaborative story telling. Nothing wrong with the latter, but it is a different activity.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 24, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Again, I think you underestimate how mechanics can push players to play with greater creativity.



It depends on the heaviness of the system. In rules-heavy games, the only "creativity" I've seen mechanics push players into is gaming the system for their own benefit. All of the actually creative stuff I've seen has been either in lighter games or well outside the scope of whatever mechanics we've been playing with at the time. Creativity completely outside the rules is things like redirecting a river to flood a dungeon.


Aldarc said:


> Remove too many mechanics and it seems that you are scarcely playing a game with rules or mechanics at all. It becomes of a game at that point IMO and more like kids playing with toys in the sandbox, but with one person enforcing what the official canon of the setting will be. Sure, it can be fun, but it's not really much of a game, which would personally feel like a waste of my time to me and not what I am looking for in a roleplaying game. Obviously your mileage does vary.



Quite a lot, clearly. The people playing free-form would hardly describe their games as "kids playing with toys in the sandbox" but that shows your bias more than you seem to think.


Aldarc said:


> Robin Laws design and writing work is all over the place. He is a prolific freelance designer. I'm not sure if one can safely say who wrote what and I would prefer if our respective cognitive biases were not the primary detectives of sussing that out.



Well, when looking at their stand-alone work or the projects they did for themselves, you can see a clear pattern. Tweet prefers more rules; Laws prefers less rules. It's not bias to honestly look at their work and compare them. Both wrote Over the Edge 2E which I quoted from. You then decided to single out Tweet alone and claim that clearly it was only pretty words based on his other design work. I pointed out that you ignored the other designer who's got an equally long history of design who tends toward lighter rules. And now you're claiming it's bias to point that out.


Aldarc said:


> Of course. However, not all preferences are valid IMHO. Toxic ones, for example, can GTFO of our hobby.



If only it were that easy. There's an awful lot of clearly toxic behavior that is standard practice in the hobby but it's so ingrained that people don't question it.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 24, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> It depends on the heaviness of the system. In rules-heavy games, the only "creativity" I've seen mechanics push players into is gaming the system for their own benefit. All of the actually creative stuff I've seen has been either in lighter games or well outside the scope of whatever mechanics we've been playing with at the time. Creativity completely outside the rules is things like redirecting a river to flood a dungeon.



I am admittedly not the biggest fan of rules heavy games. But here I don't think that our conversation is improved by talking about games as if they only come in ultra light or ultra heavy flavors. There is a tremendous wealth of complexity between these poles and at different areas of the play process.



overgeeked said:


> Quite a lot, clearly. The people playing free-form would hardly describe their games as "kids playing with toys in the sandbox" but *that shows your bias more than you seem to think.*



More than I think? It's not as if I was pretending otherwise:


Aldarc said:


> Again, I think you underestimate how mechanics can push players to play with greater creativity. Remove too many mechanics and it seems that you are scarcely playing a game with rules or mechanics at all. It becomes of a game at that point* IMO* and more like kids playing with toys in the sandbox, but with one person enforcing what the official canon of the setting will be. Sure, it can be fun, but it's not really much of a game, which would *personally* feel like a waste of *my time to me* and not what *I am looking for *in a roleplaying game. *Obviously your mileage does vary.*











overgeeked said:


> Well, when looking at their stand-alone work or the projects they did for themselves, you can see a clear pattern. Tweet prefers more rules; Laws prefers less rules. It's not bias to honestly look at their work and compare them. Both wrote Over the Edge 2E which I quoted from. You then decided to single out Tweet alone and claim that clearly it was only pretty words based on his other design work. I pointed out that you ignored the other designer who's got an equally long history of design who tends toward lighter rules. And now you're claiming it's bias to point that out.



The design and authorship for Over the Edge is typically written in terms of "Jonathan Tweet _with_ Robin Laws" rather than "Jonathan Tweet _and_ Robin Laws." That does tend to direct my judgment.


----------



## mythago (Jun 24, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Rules = mechanics.
> 
> Without mechanics, you have crossed the line from RPGs into collaborative story telling. Nothing wrong with the latter, but it is a different activity.




Oh my goodness.  Can we not do the thing where we argue that _my_ RPG is a true RPG, but _your _RPG, since it has insufficient crunch in my view, is merely "collaborative storytelling"?


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 24, 2022)

mythago said:


> Oh my goodness.  Can we not do the thing where we argue that _my_ RPG is a true RPG, but _your _RPG, since it has insufficient crunch in my view, is merely "collaborative storytelling"?



No one said or suggested any such thing.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 25, 2022)

Mezuka said:


> There is no need to let anything go because the diversity of available RPGs is so wide these days you can choose exactly what type of system you want to play, which was not possible 20ish years ago.
> 
> (edit) There is no advancement in the original Traveller, which dates back to the beginning of RPGs.



Only true if one can find the match.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 25, 2022)

loverdrive said:


> Parties. Everybody and their mother tries to shoehorn PCs working (and often even travelling) together for exactly zero reasons.



Party rationale is the very first thing I establish when creating a campaign.

There are some settings in which it is neatly built-in, such as Tribe 8.


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 25, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> You are right. I'm not suggesting completely unfettered imagination with zero constraints. I'm suggesting fewer mechanics getting in the way of playing the game. You still need constraints, like say genre and setting and character limitations, etc. None of those require mechanics to be a thing. We're playing superheroes with a silver age tone in an amalgam world of Marvel and DC and characters should be about on par with the average X-Men, i.e. not the big guns. That focuses and limits the imagination into something quite playable with nary a mechanic in sight.



It's playable, yes. But it requires greater trust in people you're playing with, that they actually know and understand the genre and the setting, and, more importantly, that their knowledge and understanding is synchronized with yours.

Freeform roleplaying lives on self-restraints, because the lines aren't, khm, marked. You need to just know where you can step, and where you can't.

Mechanics that support the genre allow for playing the game without knowing that much, because the fun zone is marked with brigh retroreflecting stripes, and dangerous pits are surrounded with fences. You don't need to rely on intuition -- if the game allows you to do something, then it's something appropriate.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 25, 2022)

loverdrive said:


> Mechanics that support the genre allow for playing the game without knowing that much, because the fun zone is marked with brigh retroreflecting stripes, and dangerous pits are surrounded with fences. You don't need to rely on intuition -- if the game allows you to do something, then it's something appropriate.



Sadly, that last sentence isn't always true - it's not uncommon for RPGs to have incomplete rules!


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 25, 2022)

loverdrive said:


> It's playable, yes. But it requires greater trust in people you're playing with, that they actually know and understand the genre and the setting, and, more importantly, that their knowledge and understanding is synchronized with yours.



The amount of trust required to play an RPG with people is already really high. Instead of trusting the referee to have read and attempted to memorize the rules and to actually follow them, you trust the referee to know the genre and run the game according to that knowledge rather than the limitations of the book.

Synchronized understanding? That’s literally what Session Zero is for. They still take place. And if there’s an asynchronous moment in game then you pause and talk, just like you’d have to with rules disputes. 


loverdrive said:


> Freeform roleplaying lives on self-restraints, because the lines aren't, khm, marked. You need to just know where you can step, and where you can't.



Again, Session Zero and the referee is there to guide you. And I’m not actually advocating for free-form, rather utterly minimalistic rules. 


loverdrive said:


> Mechanics that support the genre allow for playing the game without knowing that much, because the fun zone is marked with brigh retroreflecting stripes, and dangerous pits are surrounded with fences. You don't need to rely on intuition -- if the game allows you to do something, then it's something appropriate.



You see pointers and warnings signs, I see limitations and constraints. For the system to “allow” you to do something it has to have mechanical support, yet it’s not possible to have a rule for everything. At best you can have a few broadly applicable rules that cover most things. Which is what I want. Utterly minimalistic rules that you only use when necessary. I don’t like pure free-form. A sentence, a paragraph, a 3x5 card. That’s enough rules. One or two pages if you must but that should also cover specific genre expectations if you’re getting that long winded. 

Besides, praising mechanical restraints completely ignores the fun of the game, being able to try anything. That’s what the referee is there for. To figure out the right response to the players’ whacky plans that aren’t covered by the rules. It’s the difference between a coloring book and a canvas.


----------



## Yora (Jun 25, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Party rationale is the very first thing I establish when creating a campaign.
> 
> There are some settings in which it is neatly built-in, such as Tribe 8.



I have only two rules in my campaigns about the characters that players make, aside from the character options from the game that are available:

Every PC must want to go on the kind of adventure the campaign is about.
Every PC must want to adventure together with the other PCs.

Everything else I don't care about, the players have to work that out among each other. But a character that doesn't fit the two rules just isn't playable in the campaign.
It should be obvious, but lots of people think a PC who dislikes the others and doesn't want to adventure is super cool. It can be made to work in a story, but not in a group game.


----------



## GMMichael (Jun 25, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Rules = mechanics.



I stopped in to see how my sacred cows were holding up.  Looks like they haven't been in danger for several pages now.  But I'm sorry Jd, I can't let this one fly.

There's a certain amount of irony going on here.  "Mechanic" is one of two things: a "mechanism" and used correctly, or a "rule" and used incorrectly.  The irony is that I believe in many cases, "mechanic" is the lazy man's version of " mechanism, " because it's shorter by one syllable.  Why the lazy man (don't worry, he's a friend of mine) doesn't just say "rule," because it's shorter still, is beyond me.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 25, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I wouldn't call misrepresenting my position "fair."



I've heard you say it many times, though.  You think things should play out with the GM making the call (free-roleplay) until the GM decides to call for an opposed roll, usually said as opposed 2d6.  That's a coin toss.  I mean, I guess you could have something you do for ties, but I don't recall what it is.  This is something you've expressed represented as 'all that is needed.'


----------



## Yora (Jun 25, 2022)

GMMichael said:


> I stopped in to see how my sacred cows were holding up.  Looks like they haven't been in danger for several pages now.  But I'm sorry Jd, I can't let this one fly.
> 
> There's a certain amount of irony going on here.  "Mechanic" is one of two things: a "mechanism" and used correctly, or a "rule" and used incorrectly.  The irony is that I believe in many cases, "mechanic" is the lazy man's version of " mechanism, " because it's shorter by one syllable.  Why the lazy man (don't worry, he's a friend of mine) doesn't just say "rule," because it's shorter still, is beyond me.



Explain the difference between a game mechanic and a game mechanism then, please.


----------



## Cadence (Jun 25, 2022)

GMMichael said:


> I stopped in to see how my sacred cows were holding up.  Looks like they haven't been in danger for several pages now.  But I'm sorry Jd, I can't let this one fly.
> 
> There's a certain amount of irony going on here.  "Mechanic" is one of two things: a "mechanism" and used correctly, or a "rule" and used incorrectly.  The irony is that I believe in many cases, "mechanic" is the lazy man's version of " mechanism, " because it's shorter by one syllable.  Why the lazy man (don't worry, he's a friend of mine) doesn't just say "rule," because it's shorter still, is beyond me.




From the OED for Mechanics




Which feel likes its getting at the idea.  If mechanics plural is details, mechanic singular could be one of them?

So it doesn't feel like all those web-sites using game mechanic as rule are too far off, if at all.


----------



## GMMichael (Jun 25, 2022)

Cadence said:


> From the OED for Mechanics
> View attachment 251962
> 
> Which feel likes its getting at the idea.  If mechanics plural is details, mechanic singular could be one of them?



What does the OED say a "mechanic" is?  I'll wager it's different from "mechanics."

My OAD says that a mechanic is a skilled workman, while mechanics is (yes, it's singular) the scientific study of motion and force.  Since I'd say RPGs don't quite fit that bill, I can go down the line a bit further and start to answer @Yora 's question with these not-quite-matching definitions:

Mechanics: the processes by which something is done.
Mechanism: the process by which something is done.

So no, a rule isn't a game mechanic.  You can't take a singular word (mechanics) and pry the s off to make it more singular.  At least, not in English.  Jd (see above) is close: rules can describe a process, which can in turn join other processes so something can be done (mechanics).  But it's probably more correct to say "rules constitute mechanics" than "rules = mechanics."


----------



## James Gasik (Jun 26, 2022)

I know MMO players use "mechanic" and "mechanics" as slang for things that occur during boss fights.  Like "in this phase, arcane whirlwinds spawn in the room that follow around characters, these need to be kited back to the boss" would be described as a mechanic.

Words get invented and/or get new meanings all the time, it's just how language evolves.


----------



## Cadence (Jun 26, 2022)

GMMichael said:


> What does the OED say a "mechanic" is?  I'll wager it's different from "mechanics."
> 
> My OAD says that a mechanic is a skilled workman, while mechanics is (yes, it's singular) the scientific study of motion and force.  Since I'd say RPGs don't quite fit that bill, I can go down the line a bit further and start to answer @Yora 's question with these not-quite-matching definitions:
> 
> ...




As I quoted though, one definition of "mechanics" is "operational details".  Both plural.    Removing the two s's doesn't seem a big leap.  ::::

In any case, see the final example for the singular "mechanic" here, also from the OED.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 26, 2022)

GMMichael said:


> I stopped in to see how my sacred cows were holding up.  Looks like they haven't been in danger for several pages now.  But I'm sorry Jd, I can't let this one fly.
> 
> There's a certain amount of irony going on here.  "Mechanic" is one of two things: a "mechanism" and used correctly, or a "rule" and used incorrectly.  The irony is that I believe in many cases, "mechanic" is the lazy man's version of " mechanism, " because it's shorter by one syllable.  Why the lazy man (don't worry, he's a friend of mine) doesn't just say "rule," because it's shorter still, is beyond me.


----------



## GMMichael (Jun 26, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> I know MMO players use "mechanic" and "mechanics" as slang for things that occur during boss fights.



I wouldn't rely on the grammar of the typical Leroy Jenkins.  Nor would I rely on the grammar of the person (character?) who said this: "so lot of men went to the house an' try all sort of mechanic; the chil' wouldn't talk."


James Gasik said:


> Words get invented and/or get new meanings all the time, it's just how language evolves.



Indeed.  Sometimes it's an evolution.  Sometimes it's just slang.  Gamers haven't always been on the forefront of language evolution.  I mean, we use "chainmail" to mean "mail."  "Stat" means anything on a character sheet or in a monster description.  And some players have no idea what "hidden" means anymore.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 26, 2022)

Nothing signals the end of the productive part of the discussion quite like pulling out the OED.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 26, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Nothing signals the end of the productive part of the discussion quite like pulling out the OED.



*Mod Note:*

This kind of comment serves no useful purpose.  Do better going forward.


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Synchronized understanding? That’s literally what Session Zero is for. They still take place. And if there’s an asynchronous moment in game then you pause and talk, just like you’d have to with rules disputes.



No number of sessions zero can make someone who doesn't understand the genre familiar with it enough to play it.

I know only two things about mexican soap operas: jack and s##t. I can still play Pasión de las Pasiones just fine.


----------



## Bluenose (Jun 26, 2022)

GMMichael said:


> I wouldn't rely on the grammar of the typical Leroy Jenkins.



There's also the MMO players who spend years learning and analysing the system and publish their assessment of how to improve the healing rate of <Class> by a whole 1.4% over any other healer build. Computer gamers are perfectly capable of very detailed analysis of the games they(I too) play, whatever the genre.

More generally on the thread, there's not really any mechanic I think should go entirely. Most have a place in the right setting/system. There's a lot of games using rules that aren't so good for what they claim to be trying to do, though I think naming them is unfair.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 26, 2022)

loverdrive said:


> No number of sessions zero can make someone who doesn't understand the genre familiar with it enough to play it.



Nonsense. I've had countless players over the last 45 years who not only didn't grasp the genre, but who had never played an RPG before, but they picked it up quickly. This is not that complicated of a hobby.


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 26, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Nonsense. I've had countless players over the last 45 years who not only didn't grasp the genre, but who had never played an RPG before, but they picked it up quickly. This is not that complicated of a hobby.



...genre as in genre of the story. What you can or cannot do and what kind of character you can or cannot create in a slasher flick is very different from a game that tries to capture the feeling of a Hong Kong action cinema. The consequences of the same action would also be different.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 26, 2022)

loverdrive said:


> No number of sessions zero can make someone who doesn't understand the genre familiar with it enough to play it.
> 
> I know only two things about mexican soap operas: jack and s##t. I can still play Pasión de las Pasiones just fine.



Right. Either the ashcan edición or the Kickstarter PDF taught you enough about the genre to play it. Importantly, that game isn’t the singular source of information about that genre. You could watch a lot of them, some are utterly fantastic btw. Read up on the genre from a non-gaming source. Read up on the genre from some other gaming source (if there is one). Etc. It can be safely assumed that the person who designed the game knows a lot about the genre. Now imagine someone with that level of familiarity at your table running a game of Mexican soap operas for you and your group. You wouldn’t need the game book to teach you the genre. The person with that knowledge at the table could guide you through it.


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Right. Either the ashcan edición or the Kickstarter PDF taught you enough about the genre to play it. Importantly, that game isn’t the singular source of information about that genre. You could watch a lot of them, some are utterly fantastic btw. Read up on the genre from a non-gaming source. Read up on the genre from some other gaming source (if there is one). Etc. It can be safely assumed that the person who designed the game knows a lot about the genre. Now imagine someone with that level of familiarity at your table running a game of Mexican soap operas for you and your group. You wouldn’t need the game book to teach you the genre. The person with that knowledge at the table could guide you through it.



Yeah, but reading a book takes an evening at worst, reading my playbook is barely five minutes, and watching even a single TV series is a couple of dozens hours  at the low end.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 26, 2022)

loverdrive said:


> Yeah, but reading a book takes an evening at worst, reading my playbook is barely five minutes, and watching even a single TV series is a couple of dozens hours  at the low end.



And actually talking to the human being running the game at your table takes even less time.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Now imagine someone with that level of familiarity at your table running a game of Mexican soap operas for you and your group. You wouldn’t need the game book to teach you the genre. *The person with that knowledge at the table could guide you through it.*



I was following your argument up until really these sentences. _One _of the reasons why I am not a fan of running or playing in TTRPGs set in many IPs* - mainly ones with a lot of associated other lore (e.g., novels, comics, television, movies, video games, etc.) - is because I'm not much of a fan of needing "guides" to play through a setting, regardless of how knowledgable those guides (myself included) may be about the setting. Plus, knowledge of a place/setting/genre doesn't make them a good game master any more than being a leading expert in your academic field makes you a good teacher.

* I do have exceptions.



overgeeked said:


> And actually talking to the human being running the game at your table takes even less time.



Maybe, but that's also valuable game time that it eats up.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jun 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> And actually talking to the human being running the game at your table takes even less time.




Papa GM, Papa GM! Can you tell us another hour-long story about this genre and its most unique qualities, so that we have proper context when we…

Checking notes…

Oh yes, wait for GM fiat or roll a 2d6 opposed test.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 26, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Papa GM, Papa GM! Can you tell us another hour-long story about this genre and its most unique qualities, so that we have proper context when we…
> 
> Checking notes…
> 
> Oh yes, wait for GM fiat or roll a 2d6 opposed test.



Are we already back to the “but the game rules protect little old me from the big bad referee” nonsense? 

Telenovelas are Mexican soap operas that end. There, now you know the big secret. Weird how that one secret is enough to get people to buy a $45 game book.

Now I want to smash together two Magpie games. Pasión de las Pasiones and Cartel.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Are we already back to the “but the game rules protect little old me from the big bad referee” nonsense?
> 
> Telenovelas are Mexican soap operas that end. There, now you know the big secret. Weird how that one secret is enough to get people to buy a $45 game book.
> 
> Now I want to smash together two Magpie games. Pasión de las Pasiones and Cartel.



So if that is the only secret or thing we need to understand about Telenovelas, then what is the value of pretending that the referee has the unrivaled gnostic insight of the genre to guide us through the setting?


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 26, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> I'm not much of a fan of needing "guides" to play through a setting, regardless of how knowledgable those guides (myself included) may be about the setting.



To successfully play a game in a specific setting and specific genre you have to know about that setting and genre. Your knowledge of the setting and genre has to come from somewhere. Either it’s already in your head from previously engaging with that setting and genre or it has to come from a new outside source. 

The game book itself as your guide to the setting and genre…that’s okay.

But the human at the table who’s already running the game as your guide to the setting and genre…that’s not okay.

That makes no sense.


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> And actually talking to the human being running the game at your table takes even less time.



Probably no, given that knowledge and ability to effectively relay that knowledge are two _very_ different things.

And given how I can just look at the playbook and the basic moves if I don't know what action would be genre-appropriate, without bothering anyone.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> To successfully play a game in a specific setting and specific genre you have to know about that setting and genre. Your knowledge of the setting and genre has to come from somewhere. Either it’s already in your head from previously engaging with that setting and genre or it has to come from a new outside source.
> 
> The game book itself as your guide to the setting and genre…that’s okay.
> 
> ...



Let me recontextualize it another way. If I am seeking to commune with the Divine, I do not want my sense, knowledge, or experiences of the Divine to be _mediated exclusively_ through a singular priest claiming greater spiritual access or "gnosis" of the Divine. This Gnostic priest may be knowledgable, but I'm willing to fork over $45 to buy a book or two that provides some additional insight about the matter.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 26, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Let me recontextualize it another way. If I am seeking to commune with the Divine, I do not want my sense, knowledge, or experiences of the Divine to be _mediated exclusively_ through a singular priest claiming greater spiritual access or "gnosis" of the Divine. This Gnostic priest may be knowledgable, but I'm willing to fork over $45 to buy a book or two that provides some additional insight about the matter.



That’s hilarious. _This_ knowledge is better than _that_ knowledge because it’s written down and I paid for it. You know that game designers are people, right? They make stuff up and write it down. It’s not superior simply because it’s in a book. The guy who designed the telenovela game could run the game for you without needing the book. But I’d guess you’d say his own book is a better authority on the topic than he is. I mean books are awesome, but come on.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 26, 2022)

loverdrive said:


> Probably no, given that knowledge and ability to effectively relay that knowledge are two _very_ different things.
> 
> And given how I can just look at the playbook and the basic moves if I don't know what action would be genre-appropriate, without bothering anyone.



Ugh. The answer is not on your character sheet. You’re supposed to be role-playing, i.e. pretending your character is a real person in a real place and making decisions based on that. Not what your character sheet says.

It’s also a bit weird how PbtA keeps getting brought up but people don’t acknowledge that the referee in those games is solely responsible for when the fiction is sufficient to bring in the mechanics of a move.

I still love Spirit of 77 best. Page 13. The only rule you need is the success ladder and 2d6. Everything else is extra.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 26, 2022)

Personally, I find the open world approach to be deeply constraining on both sides of the screen. 

As a GM I have zero interest in world building for its own sake. Sometimes I like framing interesting situations, coming up with interesting complications, digging into the other players' characters and seeing where it goes. Sometimes I like digging into a more complex situation and being a facilitating an exploration of a more involved scenario with a strong focus on the connections of the specific characters. 

As a player I have zero interest i_n go anywhere, do anything_. I like to play with a purpose. I do not want to spend hours at the table hunting out the play experience I am looking for, often to come up short of it. I have no desire in turning over the corners of the setting just because. 

In either case I do not see why the play group should have to jump through hoops to get the sort of play experience it is after. It's alright to be into that open world experience. People should seek their own fun, but there are other valid ways to play roleplaying games. The medium has many other advantages. For me personally it is the ease in which the play environment can be tailored to our needs. That we can start with a silhouette of a setting and build it based on the characters we want to play and the situations we want to play through. Also, that we can elide the things we are not interested in as a group.

There are multiple valid ways to approach this stuff. Not everyone is in this hobby for the same reasons.


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Ugh. The answer is not on your character sheet. You’re supposed to be role-playing, i.e. pretending your character is a real person in a real place and making decisions based on that. Not what your character sheet says.



Well, if we're continuing with Mexican soap operas example, real world doesn't abide the genre conventions, and real people don't act like characters on daytime television. Or speak in one-liners like action heroes. Or whatever else. Because real world is real world and not a story, and real people are real people and not characters.

At least, the world I live in and people I know. Is life on your side of the Berlin wall a soap opera?


----------



## kenada (Jun 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Ugh. The answer is not on your character sheet. You’re supposed to be role-playing, i.e. pretending your character is a real person in a real place and making decisions based on that. Not what your character sheet says.



“The answer is not on your sheet” is not a universal convention. There are games (e.g., Torchbearer) where you need to engage with the mechanics on your sheet if you want to be successful. When you play those games, that’s still “role-playing”. You’re still assuming the role of a character in a fictional setting and making decisions as your character. And there are other games (e.g., Moldvay Basic) where being too engaged has the opposite effect. Just because one has an affinity for one way or another doesn’t make the other ways of playing RPGs less legitimate or wrong.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 26, 2022)

My wife is Mexican (Apache and Ukrainian) and she says I look like Rodchenko, so we do ok.

Thing about open worlds, is one usually decides the direction in sesh zero, except sometimes we decide to change it again during the game. So it's not always just faff about, though we do that too.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> pretending your character is a real person in a real place and making decisions based on that. Not what your character sheet says.




Says who? This is not what games as diverse as D&D 5th Edition, Deadlands Classic, The Nightmares Underneath, Vampire: The Masquerade 5th Edition or Blades in the Dark describe as the players' responsibilities.

This might be true for the sort of play experience you are looking for personally, but there's more under heaven and earth Horatio. What you are looking for is a perfectly valid approach, but it's not the only valid approach. Insisting it is will not persuade many people to try the sort of FKR approach you are looking for.


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 26, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> That’s hilarious. _This_ knowledge is better than _that_ knowledge because it’s written down and I paid for it. You know that game designers are people, right? They make stuff up and write it down. It’s not superior simply because it’s in a book. The guy who designed the telenovela game could run the game for you without needing the book. But I’d guess you’d say his own book is a better authority on the topic than he is. I mean books are awesome, but come on.



Your amusement at my expense aside, let me quote myself again and highlight the point in bold that you are glossing over with your post:


Aldarc said:


> Let me recontextualize it another way. If I am seeking to commune with the Divine, I do not want my sense, knowledge, or experiences of the Divine to be _mediated* exclusively*_ through a singular priest claiming greater spiritual access or "gnosis" of the Divine. This Gnostic priest may be knowledgable, but I'm willing to fork over $45 to buy a book or two that provides some additional insight about the matter.



"Exclusively." I had even italicized it for emphasis in the hopes that my point would be clear. My last sentence even establishes that the book is meant to _*supplement*_ the officiant as a source of _*additional*_ insight or knowledge. It's not about one knowledge being superior to the other for me. However, I do not necessarily want my sense, knowledge, or experience of the setting mediated _*exclusively*_ through the GM or referee. I find books helpful in that regard. I enjoy reading, and I often find it easier to process game/setting information through reading rather than having it explained to me. It's good, IMHO, if I can get myself excited about the setting while reading a game book without needing the GM to pump up my spirits. I like being able to apply my own understanding of the setting to the game rather than _*exclusively *_the GM's own idiomatic understanding of the setting or genre.

Or to put it another way, and I can draw from personal experience here as well, it's nice being able to pick the brain of the academic in person. However, I would not want to rely solely on this academic in person to mediate their knowledge to me. The academic doesn't cite their sources in person, nor can they remember them all. They cite them in their book/paper. The academic is a scatter brain who occasionaly experiences brain farts in person. The academic organizes and presents their thoughts better in their book/paper, which also provides a common point of reference.

And to be clear, this view reflects my personal preferences and biases. I understand that you have your own idiosyncratic preferences, and those preferences are fine up to a point.



overgeeked said:


> Ugh. The answer is not on your character sheet. You’re supposed to be role-playing, i.e. pretending your character is a real person in a real place and making decisions based on that. Not what your character sheet says.



Since we are all hopefully against OneTrueWayism and disposing of toxic behaviors, then we should be able to agree that a player using a character sheet or playbook to help inform their roleplaying is not mutually exclusive to good or fun roleplay.



overgeeked said:


> It’s also a bit weird how PbtA keeps getting brought up but people don’t acknowledge that *the referee in those games is solely responsible for when the fiction is sufficient to bring in the mechanics of a move.*



The principles and procedures for a GM's fiat in the application of Move mechanics are laid out _stark, raving bare naked in the open for all to ogle at_ in the GM section of the book. As Moves are also often player-facing, it also means that players know the sort of in-fiction conditions their characters need to perform to trigger them. If not, players and the GM are advised to have a conversation about their respective senses of the fiction and how it corresponds to the triggering of Moves.



overgeeked said:


> I still love Spirit of 77 best. Page 13. The only rule you need is the success ladder and 2d6. Everything else is extra.



(1) It's debatable whether that is the only rule you need. (2) It's debatable whether that rule does not also contain extraneous elements. (3) It may be the only rule we need, but it's debatable whether that is the best rule to play by or the one that leads to the greatest happiness quotient for participants.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 26, 2022)

Yora said:


> I have only two rules in my campaigns about the characters that players make, aside from the character options from the game that are available:
> 
> Every PC must want to go on the kind of adventure the campaign is about.
> Every PC must want to adventure together with the other PCs.
> ...



The first rule above is fine.

The second...meh.  I don't care if the PCs don't want to adventure together, and I'm happy to let 'em fight each other if that's what the characters would end up doing.

More important is that the players at the table want to play together, no matter what their PCs are doing or how well said PCs get along (or don't).


----------



## Yora (Jun 26, 2022)

I always think it's a waste of time when some of the players are desperately trying to come up with a good reason why that one edgelord PC should come with them so they can start the adventure, and everything is shot down with "not my problem, I don't care about any of you".


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 26, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> (1) It's debatable whether that is the only rule you need. (2) It's debatable whether that rule does not also contain extraneous elements. (3) It may be the only rule we need, but it's debatable whether that is the best rule to play by or the one that leads to the greatest happiness quotient for participants



And if I remember Spirit of '77 correctly, it says pretty much the same thing almost every PbtA game does: the game can function with just 2d6, but you'll be missing out.

After all, if it was genuine belief of the authors, why the hell did they write the rest of the game.


----------



## Yora (Jun 26, 2022)

Oh, I actually have a thing that is both extremely traditional and 100% always bad without exception: Railroad adventures.

Don't write adventures that have a story already spelled out for the players and then has the players play the guessing game of "what does the GM want us to do?"

People like to say that you can't play an RPG wrong and that all playstyles are viable. This one is the exception. It's always awful and a perfect example of doing it wrong.

To bad it's the only kind of adventure that is commercially published and the only kind of adventure most people have ever known for the last four decades.


----------



## payn (Jun 26, 2022)

Yora said:


> Oh, I actually have a thing that is both extremely traditional and 100% always bad without exception: Railroad adventures.
> 
> Don't write adventures that have a story already spelled out for the players and then has the players play the guessing game of "what does the GM want us to do?"
> 
> ...



Guess I'll just have to continue having my badwrongfun.


----------



## kenada (Jun 26, 2022)

If that’s what everyone wants to do, then why not? That’s not my thing (because my instincts as a player would be to derail the train, so I’m being self-aware by saying I’d rather not), but I don’t see why other people couldn’t (or shouldn’t) enjoy it.



Yora said:


> To bad it's the only kind of adventure that is commercially published and the only kind of adventure most people have ever known for the last four decades.



Are you just considering official D&D adventures? That’s not necessarily true across the board. I know Necrotic Gnome has put out some good adventures for Old-School Essentials that are not plot-driven and do not prescribe outcomes. I think @pemerton has written about some others for other systems he’s ran.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 26, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Papa GM, Papa GM! Can you tell us another hour-long story about this genre and its most unique qualities, so that we have proper context when we…






overgeeked said:


> Are we already back to the “but the game rules protect little old me from the big bad referee” nonsense?




*Mod Note:*
The two of you should ask yourselves whether, to others, you look like 1) wise people who know RPGs and should be listened to, or 2) condescending people who are too stubborn to stop butting heads over issues that neither one of you are going to change your minds on.

After asking yourselves that, maybe you'll approach the discussion more constructively.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 26, 2022)

kenada said:


> Are you just considering official D&D adventures? That’s not necessarily true across the board. I know Necrotic Gnome has put out some good adventures for Old-School Essentials that are not plot-driven and do not prescribe outcomes. I think @pemerton has written about some others for other systems he’s ran.



On adventures - it's not true that published adventures/scenarios must be railroads.

The main source of scenarios I've used in recent years is the Prince Valiant Episode Book. Some of the scenarios in that book are railroads, and hence need reworking to be used. But some are not. The best, which I think is a candidate to be the best scenario ever published (of those I've come across) is The Crimson Bull by Jerry Grayson.

Another examples I've mentioned before is Demon of the Red Grove in Robin Laws's Narrator's Book for HeroWars.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 26, 2022)

On the debate between @overgeeked, @Aldarc and @loverdrive:

For me, the difference between _having it on my PC sheet_ and _asking the GM_ isn't about _capacity to communicate_, nor about provenance _in the abstract_,but rather is about _authority at the table here and now_.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 26, 2022)

loverdrive said:


> ...genre as in genre of the story. What you can or cannot do and what kind of character you can or cannot create in a slasher flick is very different from a game that tries to capture the feeling of a Hong Kong action cinema. The consequences of the same action would also be different.



I understand what 'genre' means. And my answer is still the same. People are capable of both constructive learning and abstract thought.

There are few hobbies you can't explain, and involve at a basic level, a complete newbie in a very short time.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 27, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Nonsense. I've had countless players over the last 45 years who not only didn't grasp the genre, but who had never played an RPG before, but they picked it up quickly. This is not that complicated of a hobby.



I've had similar experiences.
There are some, however, who never grasp the setting, and others who never grasp the mechanics.


----------



## delericho (Jun 27, 2022)

It's too soon to do away with them completely, but we should start moving away from _books_.

The best approach is probably a fairly slim starter rulebook (such as the Essentials Rulebook for D&D - 64 pages covering 5 levels for 5 classes), and then everything else online.

Also: that's a terrible idea, and we absolutely shouldn't do it.


----------



## kenada (Jun 27, 2022)

Look at the situation with the 4e character builder. The online version is dead. The technology is obsolete, and you can’t even signup and use it if you wanted. The content is only not completely gone because people have figured out a way to load custom content in the offline builder. It would terrible for the hobby if content were available only via such an ephemeral medium.


----------



## delericho (Jun 27, 2022)

kenada said:


> Look at the situation with the 4e character builder. The online version is dead. The technology is obsolete, and you can’t even signup and use it if you wanted. The content is only not completely gone because people have figured out a way to load custom content in the offline builder. It would terrible for the hobby if content were available only via such an ephemeral medium.



I know. It's a terrible idea.

And yet books really aren't a great medium either - as soon as the first supplement is published looking anything up becomes more challenging, and it only gets worse with time. Much of this material _should_ be available in some sort of cross-referenced electronic form. _Especially_ as more and more games move online, or at least have easy access to internet-capable devices.

(And add to that the problem that a hardback book needs to be of significant size to be worth publishing, which means it needs material to fill out those pages, even if all they have are a bunch of random name tables. Electronic publishing means no need to hit an exact page count, which gives more flexibility.)


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jun 27, 2022)

Lots of games manage hardback publication without the presence of filler. Lots don't of course, but it's not like it's mission impossible or anything.


----------



## kenada (Jun 27, 2022)

delericho said:


> I know. It's a terrible idea.
> 
> And yet books really aren't a great medium either - as soon as the first supplement is published looking anything up becomes more challenging, and it only gets worse with time. Much of this material _should_ be available in some sort of cross-referenced electronic form. _Especially_ as more and more games move online, or at least have easy access to internet-capable devices.
> 
> (And add to that the problem that a hardback book needs to be of significant size to be worth publishing, which means it needs material to fill out those pages, even if all they have are a bunch of random name tables. Electronic publishing means no need to hit an exact page count, which gives more flexibility.)



What we need is the PDF equivalent of hole-punched books that can be put together in a binder. That would avoid the centralization problem and (presumably) make it possible to integrate both first and third party content.


----------



## MNblockhead (Jun 27, 2022)

loverdrive said:


> ...genre as in genre of the story. What you can or cannot do and what kind of character you can or cannot create in a slasher flick is very different from a game that tries to capture the feeling of a Hong Kong action cinema. The consequences of the same action would also be different.



Isn't this more about gelling will the group?  I agree that for certain personalities, a session zero may not be enough to have them alter their play style sufficiently to fit in with the rest of the players. Some players have the self awareness to understand that they just are not interested in certain styles of game play or certain genres. Others seem to feel entitled to having other players make adjustments for them, rather than adjusting their preferred play style.


----------



## MNblockhead (Jun 27, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> I was following your argument up until really these sentences. _One _of the reasons why I am not a fan of running or playing in TTRPGs set in many IPs* - mainly ones with a lot of associated other lore (e.g., novels, comics, television, movies, video games, etc.) - is because I'm not much of a fan of needing "guides" to play through a setting, regardless of how knowledgable those guides (myself included) may be about the setting. Plus, knowledge of a place/setting/genre doesn't make them a good game master any more than being a leading expert in your academic field makes you a good teacher.
> 
> * I do have exceptions.



I hear where you are coming from. Personally, I love to play in games run by engaging and experienced game masters who are experts in a setting, genre, historical period, etc.  But it can be challenging as a player who is new to a setting to have to be continually corrected. With the right game master the corrections can be part of the fun--you learn more about the setting. With other game masters or players, however, it becomes canon-lawyering. Ultimately it comes down to how much the newbie is willing to invest into learning the setting and how much the other players are willing to invest into bringing the newbie up to speed. Really not much difference than introducing someone to a new rules system, but with some settings and genres the learning curve for canon is much higher than that for the rules.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Jun 27, 2022)

MNblockhead said:


> Isn't this more about gelling will the group?  I agree that for certain personalities, a session zero may not be enough to have them alter their play style sufficiently to fit in with the rest of the players. Some players have the self awareness to understand that they just are not interested in certain styles of game play or certain genres. Others seem to feel entitled to having other players make adjustments for them, rather than adjusting their preferred play style.




I think there are definitely cases where one or more players just don't get the genre, and where smart mechanics can help guide them more than any general notion of gelling with the group or intuiting what the GM is going for.

For example, pre-MCU, I had a player here and there who wasn't into comics, and so didn't really get the tropes and nuances in tone. Even today, if someone's reference point for supers is MCU, they might expect a pretty fair amount of casual murder on the part of the superheroes, and not understand what "four-color" supers means. Champions helped a bit in that respect, since it was so hard to kill someone. It didn't do a whole let else to reinforce or communicate the genre, since it was more of a superpowered combat wargame than a cape comics emulator, but that's old games for you.

Or maybe the issue isn't too many reference points, but too few, as with many players who might be playing Pasion de las Pasions for the first time. Someone upthread said that telenovellas are just soap operas with an ending, but that's pretty reductive and dismissive. Telenovellas typically have a tone and content that's very different from American soaps. Mechanics can introduce and reinforce those differences, preparing the players in advance and along the way, instead of them channeling General Hospital and being regularly corrected by the GM. Consider, too, that a campaign of Pasion might be just a few sessions. Do you really want players to finally get the genre in the third session, when it's all over?

Personally, I think Masks is a great example of mechanics really reinforcing and introducing genre tropes. Even if you aren't steeped in comics generally, and unfamiliar with teen supers narratives, the fact that any adult you come across can mechanically influence or impact you really drives home what the game is about, and how its specific subgenre operates. The playbooks are also incredible mini-instruction manuals that all tie back into the genre and premise in really specific ways. I'd much prefer all of that to a GM telling me to watch Young Justice as prep.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 27, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> I think there are definitely cases where one or more players just don't get the genre, and where smart mechanics can help guide them more than any general notion of gelling with the group or intuiting what the GM is going for.



And even if they mostly get the genre, they can still get weirdly hung up on certain images. I was running Mutants and Masterminds set at the Claremont Academy (think Professor X's School for Gifted Children). One player patterned her PC as a teenage version of Constantine... including wanting to pack a pistol... in a school. I helped her set up a direct spell attack much like a mystical energy blast instead. She still harped on and on about packing a pistol... in a school.


----------



## payn (Jun 27, 2022)

billd91 said:


> And even if they mostly get the genre, they can still get weirdly hung up on certain images. I was running Mutants and Masterminds set at the Claremont Academy (think Professor X's School for Gifted Children). One player patterned her PC as a teenage version of Constantine... including wanting to pack a pistol... in a school. I helped her set up a direct spell attack much like a mystical energy blast instead. She still harped on and on about packing a pistol... in a school.



I have experienced that type. Once in a Call of Cthulhu game a guy wanted to carry a B.A.R. rifle around everywhere "under his trench coat". City streets, hospitals, libraries, wherever!


----------



## Aldarc (Jun 27, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> I'd much prefer all of that to a GM telling me to watch Young Justice as prep.



As if anyone needs an excuse to watch Young Justice again.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jun 27, 2022)

payn said:


> I have experienced that type. Once in a Call of Cthulhu game a guy wanted to carry a B.A.R. rifle around everywhere "under his trench coat". City streets, hospitals, libraries, wherever!



So how big was this hypothetical trench coat? Was it like the TARDIS? Bigger in the inside than on the outside? It would bloody have to be.

For everyone following along at home, the BAR 50 is about 4 feet long and weighs 35 pounds. So yeah, sure, trench coat sized.


----------



## James Gasik (Jun 27, 2022)

The desire for players to always want access to the highest weapon available never ceases to amaze me.  I was playing in a game once where we all started out as inmates in a fortress prison and had to scavenge equipment in order to free ourselves.

The GM was like "ok, so we're going to approximate weapons and armor.  If you pick up an item to use, we'll give it stats roughly equal to an actual weapon or armor for ease of play."

So while the rest of us were making daggers out of sharpened spoons and using pots and pans as shields, one player is like "I want a greatsword".

We tried to argue with them that 1) he's not going to find a greatsword, and 2) we need items that can reasonably be hidden to avoid notice by the guards.

But nope, he wouldn't relent until he somehow found an iron bar that he somehow put an edge on (don't ask) so he could have his "greatsword".  Then griped about how he was immediately jumped by the guards and had his weapon taken away and was beaten down to 1 hit point.

For the rest of the session he kept going on and on about how he "had to get another greatsword" while we went on about the business of escaping.  I've seen a lot of ludicrous things while gaming, but that's pretty high on the list.

(Running L5R for a group of people at a game store with precons is another.  The players totally didn't grok Rokugan society, and it led to a very bizarre end to the adventure.)


----------



## payn (Jun 27, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> The desire for players to always want access to the highest weapon available never ceases to amaze me.  I was playing in a game once where we all started out as inmates in a fortress prison and had to scavenge equipment in order to free ourselves.
> 
> The GM was like "ok, so we're going to approximate weapons and armor.  If you pick up an item to use, we'll give it stats roughly equal to an actual weapon or armor for ease of play."
> 
> ...



I've seen the weapon hyper focus before. I had a pathfinder game where a big PFS guy was all about playing a dorf with a large size great axe. The PCs were about to enter a haunted ruin and found a cache of stuff to help them delve it. Guy demanded the group sell it all so he could masterwork his great axe...

We joke about it to this day about the guy who role played a large great axe with a dorf familiar.


----------



## James Gasik (Jun 27, 2022)

I mean, let's be honest, D&D is kind of a power fantasy, and many players want to feel powerful.  What form that power takes can vary.  Some want the biggest, best numbers.

Others want to do anything they want without consequences.

I've seen, at D&D tables, the best and worst of human behavior.  Once you take the limiters off, players are free to be as heroic or villainous as they care to be, because, to them, that's the essence of roleplaying.

You'd hope the players would police themselves, but it becomes the DM's job to step in and explain that "not cool" behavior isn't going to be tolerated.  "But I'm just playing my character" is not acceptable at my tables.

You *chose *to make your character a jerk.  That doesn't free you of any derision because you are roleplaying a jerk.


----------



## loverdrive (Jun 27, 2022)

MNblockhead said:


> Isn't this more about gelling will the group?  I agree that for certain personalities, a session zero may not be enough to have them alter their play style sufficiently to fit in with the rest of the players. Some players have the self awareness to understand that they just are not interested in certain styles of game play or certain genres. Others seem to feel entitled to having other players make adjustments for them, rather than adjusting their preferred play style.



I have no problem with making adjustments.

But, as I said multiple times before, something being possible and something being easy are two very different things.

I'm playing Pasión de las Pasiones right now. It's a game that strives to emulate Mexican soap operas — a genre I'm absolutely unfamiliar with. I've never seen one, nor I really intend to, TV series don't really mesh well with my rampant ADHD. I still play it just fine, and I have that feeling of certainty. I know that whatever the hell I do, it's gonna be cool. Character creation was also a breeze, with no back and forth "hey, does this idea work?". It's pure veni, vidi, vici for me, without any shadow of a doubt.

~2 years ago, I've been playing a superhero game with almost the same group of people. It's another genre I'm barely familiar with — I've read Worm, Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns, I've seen a bunch of MCU movies (mostly because my now ex-wife really liked them), and that's practically it. It was GURPS, which, while far from rules-light, allows for lots of freedoms.

I didn't have that feeling of certainty in that game. When I was creating a character, I had a lot of discussions with the game master, where he shot down a lot of concepts, because they didn't fit the genre. Most of my experience with the genre is deconstruction of superheroes, while it was supposed to be played straight — and boundaries that others see as intuitive were completely arbitrary to me. To this day, I don't really know, why Batman is a "good guy". I kinda sorta understand, but I can't bring myself to feel any sympathy a billionaire psycho who beats up poor people for no goddamn reason other than fulfilling his stupid fetish.

In that game, with the same people I know for a very damn long time, I was constantly feeling that ghostly whisper in my ear: "Alice, are you really sure it's a good idea? Is it really something appropriate for the game, or just your constant desire to turn every single freaking thing you touch into a dark tragedy?".

Why? Because I had absolute freedom and had exactly zero idea what to do with that freedom. It's not veni, vidi, vici, it's like a walk through a damn warzone — I don't know what seemingly innocuous thing is actually a boobytrap.

Needless to say, I didn't enjoy that game in the slightest, so I left.

I've also played Masks, another superhero game, with the same people. There, I had that certainty too. I could feel like I can just go nuts, purely dedicate all my attention to playing my character and don't worry about derailing the game, because every single damn component of it keeps me in the fun zone. I don't need to watch my step, so I can just let go, relax, and enjoy the game.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 27, 2022)

billd91 said:


> And even if they mostly get the genre, they can still get weirdly hung up on certain images. I was running Mutants and Masterminds set at the Claremont Academy (think Professor X's School for Gifted Children).



Is this Claremont Academy canon from somewhere, or did you make it up?

I ask because my high school was named Claremont...


----------



## billd91 (Jun 27, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Is this Claremont Academy canon from somewhere, or did you make it up?
> 
> I ask because my high school was named Claremont...



It's in one of Mutant and Mastermind's setting book - Freedom City. It's an homage to Chris Claremont's contributions to the X-Men.


----------



## amethal (Jun 28, 2022)

This is getting a bit off topic, but I struggle to design characters when I'm not familiar with the genre. Especially with something like Fate, where coming up with Aspects and Stunts is a lot easier if you know the genre. I've enough experience of role-playing games that I'm happy I can get by once the game starts (just follow the lead of the GM and/or other players until I get the hang of it).

Of course, some genres are so broad that different people can have very different takes on them. 

Someone once recounted a Deathwatch (Warhammer 40K) session to me where their Space Marine characters were encouraged by an NPC instructor to desert their posts and effectively become civilians. If I had been playing in that game my character would have responded violently, yet they opted to resolve it peacefully, having a more nuanced take on Space Marine behaviour than I do.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 28, 2022)

amethal said:


> This is getting a bit off topic, but I struggle to design characters when I'm not familiar with the genre. Especially with something like Fate, where coming up with Aspects and Stunts is a lot easier if you know the genre. I've enough experience of role-playing games that I'm happy I can get by once the game starts (just follow the lead of the GM and/or other players until I get the hang of it).
> 
> Of course, some genres are so broad that different people can have very different takes on them.
> 
> Someone once recounted a Deathwatch (Warhammer 40K) session to me where their Space Marine characters were encouraged by an NPC instructor to desert their posts and effectively become civilians. If I had been playing in that game my character would have responded violently, yet they opted to resolve it peacefully, having a more nuanced take on Space Marine behaviour than I do.



HERESY!!!!!!!


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 29, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> Personally, I think Masks is a great example of mechanics really reinforcing and introducing genre tropes. Even if you aren't steeped in comics generally, and unfamiliar with teen supers narratives, the fact that any adult you come across can mechanically influence or impact you really drives home what the game is about, and how its specific subgenre operates. The playbooks are also incredible mini-instruction manuals that all tie back into the genre and premise in really specific ways. I'd much prefer all of that to a GM telling me to watch Young Justice as prep.



I think Masks is the best PbtA game (followed by Spirit of 77) and the second best superhero game (following MHR).


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 29, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> As if anyone needs an excuse to watch Young Justice again.



Teen Titans and Legion of Super-Heroes. Though more TT. Definitely not TT Go.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 29, 2022)

billd91 said:


> It's in one of Mutant and Mastermind's setting book - Freedom City. It's an homage to Chris Claremont's contributions to the X-Men.



Hero High is such a great book.


----------



## aia_2 (Jun 29, 2022)

Apologies for not having read all the contents of this thread... Did anyone already mentioned the experience system is something everyone wants (because it is implicit in the concept of progression and levelling) but to my eyes it should be the first mechanics to be deeply revised as it has nearly always showed bugs and inconsistencies?


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 29, 2022)

aia_2 said:


> Apologies for not having read all the contents of this thread... Did anyone already mentioned the experience system is something everyone wants (because it is implicit in the concept of progression and levelling) but to my eyes it should be the first mechanics to be deeply revised as it has nearly always showed bugs and inconsistencies?



Any thoughts as to what you'd do to/with it?


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 29, 2022)

amethal said:


> Someone once recounted a Deathwatch (Warhammer 40K) session to me where their Space Marine characters were encouraged by an NPC instructor to desert their posts and effectively become civilians. If I had been playing in that game my character would have responded violently, yet they opted to resolve it peacefully, having a more nuanced take on Space Marine behaviour than I do.



Nuanced? Nothing in the games says Space Marines are kill-happy, just not bothered by needing to use force. And when they do, it's as overwhelming as the chapter can provide.


Jd Smith1 said:


> HERESY!!!!!!!



Unless they plan to turn him in to the Inquisitorius or the Chaplain...


----------



## Gradine (Jun 29, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> TT. Definitely not TT Go.



Except the movies


----------



## aia_2 (Jun 30, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Any thoughts as to what you'd do to/with it?



Well, keeping the remaning rules, the revision should simply aim to foster the feature(s) you would like to prioritize: for instance if you believe that the social relationships, the downtime activites and everything not pure adventuring is as important as adventuring, then the GM should reward also these activities (in 3.5 iirc these where seen as a malus with negative XP for scroll, potion, ect creation).

In tha game i have written the experience is a different concept and it is tied more to the game itself rather that the PC actions... (Apologies, i don't want to spoiler too much at the moment... It is too early)


----------

