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

[Reynard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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."