Alien forms of gameplay/game design you've encountered?

[MGibster]

The Aimless Game: This is a game that might have a very interesting, highly detailed setting where theoretically the PCs could be involved in a myriad of adventures. Unfortuantely, the game doesn't really offer any details on what the PCs are supposed to be doing within the setting.

Blue Planet 2nd edition comes to mind immediately. The game is set on Poseidon, a planet outside our solar system we can only reach by going through a stable wormhole just beyond the planet Pluto (it was still a planet when the game was published). Something like 92% of Poseidon's surface is covered by water, hence the name Blue Planet, and it was full of interesting creatures, factions, and a mysterious alien intelligence. You could play an uplifted orca or dolphin, a genetically modified human with gills or a diving reflex similar to a whale, or even a regular old human. But there wasn't anything in the book to give you any direction on what kind of campaign to run.

 

[Deset Gled]

What does this stsand for?

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

In one of the later books (I forget which one exactly), one of the characters learns to fly by falling and being distracted at the last second, causing them to accidentally "miss" hitting the ground. It's one of the sillier parts of the series, and that's saying something.

 

[cbwjm]

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

In one of the later books (I forget which one exactly), one of the characters learns to fly by falling and being distracted at the last second, causing them to accidentally "miss" hitting the ground. It's one of the sillier parts of the series, and that's saying something.

Oh right, I remember that. I think he saw a whale or a pot plant or something. I don't think I was ready for that to come up as an acronym in a dnd context.

 

[Bohandas]

The Anti-Adventurer: never played with this person, but I saw them once in the comments section of an OSR YouTuber's video. They had a homebrew setting that followed all of the typical D&D tropes...except that adventurer as a profession doesn't really exist. Virtually every settlement would dispatch the militia or local military to deal with monstrous threats.

That seems reasonable to me. Even if it exists that doesn't mean its common; you can't assume a Hercules or a Beowulf or a Circle of Eight will be available on hand when you need them, even if such exists

 

[Bohandas]

In one of the later books (I forget which one exactly), one of the characters learns to fly by falling and being distracted at the last second, causing them to accidentally "miss" hitting the ground. It's one of the sillier parts of the series, and that's saying something.

I think that's actually the definition of orbit

 

[TerraDave]

The Aimless Game: This is a game that might have a very interesting, highly detailed setting where theoretically the PCs could be involved in a myriad of adventures. Unfortuantely, the game doesn't really offer any details on what the PCs are supposed to be doing within the setting.

Blue Planet 2nd edition comes to mind immediately. The game is set on Poseidon, a planet outside our solar system we can only reach by going through a stable wormhole just beyond the planet Pluto (it was still a planet when the game was published). Something like 92% of Poseidon's surface is covered by water, hence the name Blue Planet, and it was full of interesting creatures, factions, and a mysterious alien intelligence. You could play an uplifted orca or dolphin, a genetically modified human with gills or a diving reflex similar to a whale, or even a regular old human. But there wasn't anything in the book to give you any direction on what kind of campaign to run.

Actually, I cant say that is alien, as a lot of campaigns and games seem to fall into this.

 

[Libertad]

That seems reasonable to me. Even if it exists that doesn't mean its common; you can't assume a Hercules or a Beowulf or a Circle of Eight will be available on hand when you need them, even if such exists

As explained, the problem isn't with the concept in and of itself. Rather it's the fact that the DM was repeatedly leading the PCs on a string to the point that every hook for action was preemptively solved and taken care of, effectively making the sessions plotless.

 

[el-remmen]

Back in college in the mid-90s, one of the other local DMs (who I never actually played with) made all PCs, based on the statistic that 10% of the population has some form of same-sex attraction, roll a D10. If you rolled a 1, you were gay (he might have later switched to a table based on the Kinsey Scale spectrum).

This was really alien to me and seemed like a real mistake. I was (and still am) all for people playing queer characters (I have myself), and agree that not every bit of character creation needs to necessarily be in the player's control, but I also think it is in everyone involved's best interest for sexuality to be a choice left up to the player. I think he thought he was being an ally and often said in defense of this rule, "Actually gay folks don't have a choice, why should your character?" Woof.

 

[billd91]

Back in college in the mid-90s, one of the other local DMs (who I never actually played with) made all PCs, based on the statistic that 10% of the population has some form of same-sex attraction, roll a D10. If you rolled a 1, you were gay (he might have later switched to a table based on the Kinsey Scale spectrum).

This was really alien to me and seemed like a real mistake. I was (and still am) all for people playing queer characters (I have myself), and agree that not every bit of character creation needs to necessarily be in the player's control, but I also think it is in everyone involved's best interest for sexuality to be a choice left up to the player. I think he thought he was being an ally and often said in defense of this rule, "Actually gay folks don't have a choice, why should your character?" Woof.

I'm going to suggest an alternate view based on games I've encountered.
There was a guy who ran some pick-up tables at Gen Con WAY back in the early 1980s (at UW-Parkside and early years at Mecca in Milwaukee) who had the players roll for their sexual orientation in a similar way. 10% chance of being gay, something somewhat higher for bisexual, the rest for heterosexual. His tables were always full, the games relatively light-humor based, and people would play with him over multiple years. A friend of mine would try to get a game in with him whenever he could, which is how I heard about this.
And that DM would set off pretty much anybody's gaydar, and though I don't have confirmation he's gay, I'd put money on it. I figured he included it as something of a lesson in inclusivity and in empathy from someone within the LGBTQ+ community. How was this going to affect your view of your character? You going to feel bad about it... or accept it as millions of LGBTQ+ people have done in their real lives for generations?

I think people's attitudes have moved on from those days with respect to broader player agency and very personal choices to the point where someone might not accept this kind of thing, but that doesn't mean its origin is incompatible with attitudes within the LGBTQ+ community or allyship at the time.

 

[el-remmen]

I think people's attitudes have moved on from those days with respect to broader player agency and very personal choices to the point where someone might not accept this kind of thing, but that doesn't mean its origin is incompatible with attitudes within the LGBTQ+ community or allyship at the time.

As I said, I do think he was trying to be an ally, and maybe he was resisting the presumption that all characters are heterosexual (and the fact that he had several queer folks in his groups bears this out). But as someone who had already been playing queer characters and with queer folks for years at that point that kind of roll was definitely alien to me.