Why do RPGs have rules?

[Lanefan]

That’s one way to look at it.

Another would be, because these players are my friends, isn’t there something I could come up with that would appeal to us all?

I didn’t want there to be a game without them. I wanted to include the whole group.

I couldn't include "the whole group" if I tried, given as there's about 15 of us scattered (with some overlap) among various games.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sounds like you've had it rough. I'm sorry to hear that.

Not really, I have HEARD OF people playing these endlessly long games and this and that, have really not witnessed such IRL. Seen some large and active groups (one with 200 players that I was part of at one time back in the day) but from what I can see, the percentage of games that last one year is far less than 10% and it goes down rapidly from there. I want to play systems that cater to real world TTRPG play, not unicorn games that barely exist in reality. I'm sure 10 people in this thread will chime in and recount the epic length and scope of their games, but IMHO that doesn't count for much, its a self-selected sample!

My guess is that the average RPG goes 12 to 20 sessions. I'm willing to believe there's a 'long tail' of longer games that adds up to a fairly decent chunk of overall game sessions played. Certainly long games should get their due, but so should more intense and less extended ones, and they really got short shrift for a LOT of years!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've never had anyone I'd categorize as a bad GM. I think I've seen... and performed... some bad GMing. But I think a lot of that is because what I'd consider bad GMing now was actually a primary mode of play, supported by actual products and sources of GMing advice.

I think a big part of it is also my tastes have changed, and also the amount of time I can devote to gaming. I used to be a full on world builder where I'd spend a lot of my free time crafting settings and scenarios, which required a lot of work. As I've gotten older, I'm less able to do so, and I also had a couple of instances where what I was doing didn't suit all my players, and there was conflict... and I realized that the amount of effort I put into the game kind of made my argument stronger by default... but that wasn't really fair. Basically, I was annoyed that my level of effort wasn't always appreciated, and I realized that it also wasn't necessary. I had a game kind of fall apart because of this, and it was eye opening. And I don't expect most trad minded folks here would view anything I did as bad GMing... but I think it was problematic.

The amount of work was simply not needed, and all the time I'd spent on it was lost... and I realized that if that was anyone's fault, it was mine. I chose to spend all that time and effort. And so I decided not to do that anymore.

I changed the way I GMed. This was around the time 5e first came out, so I started with that. But before long, I had very similar concerns coming up... and so I looked beyond D&D and other familiar games, and learned about all kinds of games that were doing things in a way that suited me and which still allowed many of the things that I like.

I don't think that my shift in game style had much to do with anyone else's GMing, it was much more about my own.

I agree, I simply found that there was a lot of stuff that couldn't be done using trad methods and over time, as I streamlined my approach to GMing, I just found that it was actually possible to do some really genuinely different and more interesting stuff, AND save a lot of time!

I mean, beyond just never seeing anything like the sort of unicorn trad games that people report here, which also leads me to conclude that trad probably isn't ideal for a lot of more casual gamers, its just very inefficient of GM time, and only works for a narrow range of possible interesting games. Maybe its great when it manages to really catch fire, but I think that is a lot less common than most people think. OTOH AP-type/module play is inherently trad, and that probably IS like 80% of all games in existence, so its a nuanced picture.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not quite universal. Some simply run what they want and see who is willing to show.

Though if you have a minimum-number-of-practical-players thing, or play somewhere you don't control, that has its limits.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not really, I have HEARD OF people playing these endlessly long games and this and that, have really not witnessed such IRL. Seen some large and active groups (one with 200 players that I was part of at one time back in the day) but from what I can see, the percentage of games that last one year is far less than 10% and it goes down rapidly from there. I want to play systems that cater to real world TTRPG play, not unicorn games that barely exist in reality. I'm sure 10 people in this thread will chime in and recount the epic length and scope of their games, but IMHO that doesn't count for much, its a self-selected sample!

While multi-year games don't seem to be typical--and I'm not sure ever were--the existence of Advanture Paths suggests that year or a bit over long games are not that atypical even if you haven't hit them yourself.

Edit: I see you acknowledged this yourself in the next message.

My guess is that the average RPG goes 12 to 20 sessions. I'm willing to believe there's a 'long tail' of longer games that adds up to a fairly decent chunk of overall game sessions played. Certainly long games should get their due, but so should more intense and less extended ones, and they really got short shrift for a LOT of years!

To make it clear, I'm not suggesting that shorter campaigns are inferior, just that I'm not sold they're more typical. Among other things I wouldn't be surprised that your experience in more recent times is colored by playing a lot more games that are low-prep; if someone is doing significant baseline prep work, they're probably uninterested in running it for just 12 sessions in most cases.

 

[robertsconley]

This process describes a pretty narrow slice of the full gamut of RPGing.

Then what it is do you do differently?

As as follow up how do you find my approach narrow? What does it not consider?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Corollary: your choice of gaming styles is limited by your choice of players.

I have the same issue.

To some extent, certainly. I’ve been able to propose new games to my group and they’ve taken to them quite well. I think all the years as the primary GM earned me some good will and some trust. And the players are generally open minded, creative folks… so that helps.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

While multi-year games don't seem to be typical--and I'm not sure ever were--the existence of Advanture Paths suggests that year or a bit over long games are not that atypical even if you haven't hit them yourself.

Edit: I see you acknowledged this yourself in the next message.



To make it clear, I'm not suggesting that shorter campaigns are inferior, just that I'm not sold they're more typical. Among other things I wouldn't be surprised that your experience in more recent times is colored by playing a lot more games that are low-prep; if someone is doing significant baseline prep work, they're probably uninterested in running it for just 12 sessions in most cases.

Hmmmm, lets see... So, we're on session 5 of the latest game I'm a player in, and the one before that ran something like 30 sessions, roughly, almost a year. That was BitD and it definitely had run its course though. Surely we COULD have done something like an "after the PCs rode off into the sunset" or something if we'd wanted an 'endless' continuity. I think its quite possible to do that with narrativist games, you will just have 'resets' now and then, probably.

I ran a HoML game before that, which didn't go long, it was mostly sorting through the new version's mechanics a bit, and RL got in people's way. 10 sessions? Certainly would have been happy to have it go more.

Played in 2 5e campaigns before that, both went around a year, roughly, maybe a bit more. Again, probably 30-40 sessions each, but neither got past around 12th level. RL again, lol. Honestly I would say, especially the 2nd of the 5e games, was actually pretty good, maybe verging more on neo-trad than really trad, lol. Kind of a mix really. But the GM has also run Dungeon World, so kind of knows her stuff on that score.

I think IMHO most narrative games can easily sustain 30 sessions or more. The three 4e campaigns I ran all ran for quite a lot, especially the first one, which was probably the longest game I've ever run, at around 4 years. That was mostly pretty low myth play, though being done on Maptool and being 4e I did have to prep quite a few battle maps!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Then what it is do you do differently?

As as follow up how do you find my approach narrow? What does it not consider?

There's nothing wrong with the approach, it is simply only one of a fairly wide range of 'process of play' possibilities. A mild example of a variation on that would be something like Dungeon World, where your Step 1 doesn't happen, the game is 'zero myth' (or at least low myth, arguably). According to the rules of DW the first thing that happens is the table convenes, creates characters. During that process the GM asks questions, the players give answers, and construct backstory/bonds/alignment/etc. of their PCs. The GM then describes an opening scene which relates in some way to these dramatic concerns which the players have voiced.

So the loop 2-5 proceeds from there, but note that the GM has no 'notes' to draw from, they describes scenes, and when the players describe what they do in response, the GM can make 'soft' moves, things that are generally not 'irreversible', unless a player ignores some opening and leaves the GM a path to make a 'hard' move, one that hurts! If a player describes an action that matches a character move (sort of like a power or class feature in D&D) then the rule for that happens, dice are usually rolled, and some mix of what the player said and what the GM gets to say (especially on a bad roll) happens.

Once a scene is played out, the GM will describe a new scene that follows from it, usually with some new obstacle in the way of one of the characters getting what they are after.

GMs can also invent 'fronts' (but only after the first session) which are 'canned' dangers they can put forth as their soft moves. So the GM could invent an 'orc tribe' that will 'invade', and give warning of that as a "doom", a move that portends trouble ahead.

So, in some sense its not THAT different from 'trad' play, but the PURPOSE of the GM's actions is rather different. Another key difference is the GM is not allowed to simply declare actions that the players describe as simply failing because something like "my map says there are no orcs in those hills." Well, if the player rolls well enough, then there may well be orcs there!

 

[Lanefan]

Not really, I have HEARD OF people playing these endlessly long games and this and that, have really not witnessed such IRL. Seen some large and active groups (one with 200 players that I was part of at one time back in the day) but from what I can see, the percentage of games that last one year is far less than 10% and it goes down rapidly from there. I want to play systems that cater to real world TTRPG play, not unicorn games that barely exist in reality.

And therein lies the death spiral: if systems don't cater to long-running games then games are less likely to run long, meaning systems become even less likely to cater to them because there'd fewer of them, and down we go.

My guess is that the average RPG goes 12 to 20 sessions. I'm willing to believe there's a 'long tail' of longer games that adds up to a fairly decent chunk of overall game sessions played. Certainly long games should get their due, but so should more intense and less extended ones, and they really got short shrift for a LOT of years!

Would this be a good place to mention that my current game hit session 1000 last week?