Other Modes of RPG Play?

[timbannock]

Versus mode is certainly a thing, but I've never really seen a working example of it. Streetfighter: The Storytelling Game, Marvel Heroic, and some of the various wrestling games can certainly handle it, and I bet some of them even assume it, but I've never run it. Streetfighter certainly had examples of it, but it's been way too long since I read it to recall how setting up the arena and adjudicating things fairly worked.

 

[Deset Gled]

I would think that Theatre of the Mind, Miniatures, and VTT would all be considered different modes of play. Each of those have their own subsets of specialized play as well. And WotC absolutely dabbles in all of them.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Does Play by Post count?

 

[rhythmsoundmotion]

I would think that Theatre of the Mind, Miniatures, and VTT would all be considered different modes of play. Each of those have their own subsets of specialized play as well. And WotC absolutely dabbles in all of them.

I was thinking this. But also tournament versus none tournament play.

 

[darjr]

Does Play by Post count?

Nice! I forgot.

 

[Laurefindel]

I would think that Theatre of the Mind, Miniatures, and VTT would all be considered different modes of play. Each of those have their own subsets of specialized play as well. And WotC absolutely dabbles in all of them.

I was going say something along these lines.

Some games are designed to work with props, usually a map and minis, running on rules that allow players a certain level of tactical analysis but also dependant on definitive and precise awareness of the environment (which works best with visual support, physical or virtual). The results of many actions hinge on precise directions and distances, precise pool of points (including hit points or spell slots), precise effects based on precise conditions, etc. I call them objective games. 3e and 4e D&D were like that (5e is too, though it tries its best not be). Personally, I find VTT and miniature-based games similar in that respect (only, the medium is different)

Some other games are much more abstract both in their spatial relationship (a Theatre of the Mind style of play) and conditions are based on adjectives rather than precise calculations of points (hit points are not calculated, but you know you're wounded). Some don't involve dice at all. I call those subjective games. Blades in the Dark is kind of like that.

Most games fall somewhere in between but usually lean toward one or the other, and they play quite differently.

Also there are games that put the narrative role of the game squarely on the gamemaster. Classic D&D is like that. Some other games give enormous narrative control on players instead, like 10 Candles for example. Going into one expecting the other can be quite confusing and frustrating for everyone.

 

[GMMichael]

Mike brings up that while games like Magic the Gathering and Warhammer have many different ways to play -- all supported by the company behind them -- D&D really doesn't have anything like that.

. . . Mike brings up that there really isn't an RPG that focuses on an hour of gameplay (there might be but I don't know it).

Shadowdark focuses on one hour. At a time.

So here's the question. What games and systems would you say have a really different way they run at the table than D&D?

I wrote Modos RPG for modular play options, and I'd say that it plays differently as you add (or subtract) modules from it:

• Basic rules only: plays like simple games, the card game War as an RPG, or possibly Dread.
• Add character rules module: becomes a basic RPG with super-streamlined rules for short sessions or fast scenes.
• Add extended conflict module: resembles a generic RPG with a universal conflict framework and more tactics.
• Add combat module: takes on the full familiar RPG dichotomy of In Combat / Not In Combat.
• Add magic module: for fantastic-mode or even supers-mode.
• Add additional modules: anything goes. Extra mods can add crunch, accelerate, go LARP . . .

 

[aramis erak]

The Ray Winninger interview got a lot of attention but I failed to talk about Mike Mearls's interview with Stan! on the same channel.

Mike brings up a really interesting thought that might have gotten buried in the other thread I wanted to pull on:

The different modes of RPG play.

Mike brings up that while games like Magic the Gathering and Warhammer have many different ways to play -- all supported by the company behind them -- D&D really doesn't have anything like that.

Now we could argue that D&D is different because each of us has the ability to change our game in lots of ways:

• Different allowed sources.
• Different campaign worlds.
• Different house rules.
• Different numbers of players.
• Different durations of the game.
• A different number of games per month.

Mike brings up that there really isn't an RPG that focuses on an hour of gameplay (there might be but I don't know it).

One way to think about this is how WOTC could do something like this but worry about what they're going to do or not do? This is a problem the whole RPG community can think about.

So here's the question. What games and systems would you say have a really different way they run at the table than D&D?

Some that come to mind based on ones I've played.

• Ironsworn with its one-on-one or solo play.
• Thousand Year Old Vampire with its journalistic play.
• Powered by the Apocalypse games with their focus on story-driving mechanics.
• Super-light games like Lasers and Feelings and Honey Heist.
• Kid-focused games like No Thank You Evil.
• The mystery / horror aspects of Call of Cthulhu.
• Completely collaborative games like Fiasco.
• Old-school focused games like Shadowdark and OSE.

What are some others that jump to mind?

If you wanted to start a lunch-hour game, what system would you choose?

Wick's Houses of the Blooded and Blood and Honor - rolling for narrative control, not for success, and anyone who passed the line gets to tweak the success/failure defined by the highest roller.
The Fantasy Trip and GURPS (RAW core only) - highly tactical combat with realism attempt, one a light universal task mechanic (which, in TFT, often gets warped by adventure designers who couldn't be bothered to actually KNOW the system they're writing for). The dearth of utility magic in TFT also makes it different from even the GURPS Core Rules magic.

Also, not all very-lights feel alike. NTYE is also pretty damned light.

3:16 (2 sessions only) is an ultralight, but it feels very different from L&F (⅓ session, players hated it)... even tho both reduce things to what is, to me, absurdly light (one scale in L&F, in 3:16, you have combat and non-combat scores as separate scales).

There's a qualitative difference between super-broad ratings vs very narrow ratings, even when all else is the same.

Resolution mechanics make a huge difference for me. 1d20 vs 2d10? Very different, besides the 1 point minimum and half point average differences.

 

[loverdrive]

Mike brings up that there really isn't an RPG that focuses on an hour of gameplay (there might be but I don't know it).

MUJIK IS DEAD is aiming at an hour-long singular sessions, so is my Swashbuckling!

Towered Princess - a 5 minute game shoots even lower, you'll never guess how long an average session lasts

 

[pedr]

Are there two slightly different discussions happening here?

There is a wide range of play activity which is encompassed in 'roleplaying game' - as noted, that could run almost from roleplaying-only collaborative fiction-writing in forum games to I guess something as game-only as Gloomhaven. Thinking about the many very different things that go into engaging in playing different games is worthwhile as designers can learn from each other, players can identify things they enjoy doing more than others and play games which focus on those aspects, etc.

But what might be interesting about trying to emulate the different ways of playing M:tG is the way that WotC overtly or tacitly provides support for different approaches in that game, but it's much less explicit in D&D: there isn't anything written into the rulebooks to help (for example) asynchronous forum play, speeds and spell-ranges are written with in-world distances which lend themselves to precise measurement rather than fast/loose approaches, monsters are designed to fit into the assumed approaches to play, and even the long-rest mechanic suits some types of game more than others. And so on. A product which was directly aimed at 'playing D&D in one-hour blocks' or 'playing D&D with the under 8s' could benefit from some different approaches.

Maybe that could be things that are as simple as 'here's a list of monsters at each CR which are quicker and easier to run, and don't rely on particular tactics or understanding complex mechanics in order to fulfil their role in a fun fight, which makes them great if you're trying to run two quick combats and some interaction in 55 minutes.' Or 'we've designed these spells in particular to be quick to run. It's probably best not to cast time stop and agonise over everything you could do with your extra time if you're trying to finish an adventure in an hour or two. Consider casting Power Word Kill (and, DMs, consider just telling players which enemies have below 100hp)'. But there could be direct mechanical things too, like a named mode of play where initiative is 'highest modifier goes first, play goes clockwise around the table', monsters always do static average damage, no-one uses spells or features which interrupt other turns, and so on.

It's interesting to hear that the new starter set will have a card-based character creation process they're calling 'the quickest way to start playing except for being given a pre-gen.' That's the kind of thing that it would be worth WotC innovating on, based on what they know about the different ways in which people want to interact with the game and its rules.