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

[Campbell]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?