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

[Aldarc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.