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

But, to be clear - when taking turns in combat, you have shared context. If running social scenes in this manner, you might not. Flipping through, say, five unconnected scenes means a lot of context switching for the GM, and the results are likely not going to be as good as if the GM can focus on one context.

That is a possible hurdle, yes, though I don’t think it must be the case. To lean on @loverdrive ’s original suggestion of Breaking Bad, there is still context that connects all the characters, even when they’re in different scenes pursuing very different things. All of it still connects back to the drug business.

It just seems like an odd and difficult way to run a campaign. Why are we even playing together as a group?

It requires some patience but more importantly, it requires that any given player cares about what happens with the other characters. If that’s the case, then seeing how things go for others isn’t a problem.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

And the bolded part is where I'm having trouble envisioning how this works. I've run games where the PCs had different goals and concerns, but I've never even heard of a game where there was no "adventure" with all the PCs participating in it. In the Alien starter adventure Chariot of Fire, each of the PCs has their own set of goals that are sometimes at odds with one another, but they're all crewmembers of the same ship and presumeably want to get out of the situation with their lives intact.

It just seems like an odd and difficult way to run a campaign. Why are we even playing together as a group?
Imagine an RPG where each PC is a merchant in a bazaar selling a particular kind of goods. They spend all day in close proximity to one another and have similar broad goals, but they are not aligned and certainly not on an adventure. They compete for customers and have to deal with thieves, corrupt city officials and all sorts of calamities and nonsense. Sometimes they can work together to solve a mutual problem and sometimes they undermine one another.
 

Why are we even playing together as a group?
Because we're friends who enjoy RPGing together? That's always been my main reason.

I've run games where the PCs had different goals and concerns, but I've never even heard of a game where there was no "adventure" with all the PCs participating in it.
As I already mentioned, I think Apocalypse World is the poster child for this.

The last time I ran Cthulhu Dark, I told the players I wanted us to play in late-Victorian England. Character creation consists in choosing a name and occupation: one player chose an American journalist visiting England, reporting on imperialism for a left-wing paper; the other chose a butler sent to London on an errand because his master was indisposed. I started with the journalist and introduced a mystery/lead; I then cut to the butler and introduced a different lead; then back to the journalist, where I had a fire start in the apartments he was visiting; and then to the butler, who - as it turned out - was next door to the fire. It didn't take long to intertwine the mystery of imperial dealings in Bohemia and East Africa and the mystery of the indisposed master: the point of intersection was were-hyenas. The two PCs crossed paths more than once, but never actually worked together.

In my Classic Traveller game, which as I said is a weak case of the "no team" phenomenon, the players control positions each with multiple characters: at least two in each position are unequivocally PCs, and then the rest in the position are semi-PCs bleeding into NPCs. One of the player's main PC owns the starship, and has his goals, which tend to involve raising revenue but also obtaining technology for his homeworld. A second player's main PC wants to master psionics. A third player's main PC wants to learn about aliens.

As referee, I try and create situations where these various goals are in play, and potentially at cross purposes. In our more recent sessions (not super-recent given the pandemic and its lingering consequences) the various characters have been spread across different locations - on various worlds, in various vessels, etc - and the action has involved cutting between them. The starship-owning PC's position includes a NPC from whom he won the ship in a bet, and who is his lady-friend; she is also a surgeon and bio-weapons experimenter who is breeding Aliens (TM) in the ship's sick bay, which is a source of concern. The psionic-aspiring PC has a habit of law-breaking and causing trouble; most recently she blew up a noble and retinue from another nearby world, which seems apt to cause blowback. Some of the PCs have also had recent word that an Imperial armada, which has some knowledge of their toying with psionics, is crossing the galactic rift in pursuit of them.

I would describe this game as involving a series of unfolding and ramifying situations, cutting across the different player positions in various ways (eg one of the experimental Aliens badly mauled another PC's NPC girlfriend; she is now in the sick-bay being "tended" by the NPC doctor). Various characters work together from time-to-time, as suits the players and the situation at hand. But it's not much like D&D-style party play: there's no common "thing" that they're all committed to achieving at any given time. It started out a bit more like that, but as the player positions built up (due to the PCs recruiting various people as they went along) it changed into what it is now.
 

I have one: can we get rid of combats as a time filler activity?

I am in the process of converting a Pathfinder AP (Iron Gods) to 5E and I had forgotten how full of meaningless combat they were -- mostly to hit the required XP to level the PCs up, I think. Since I am using milestone leveling for this campaign (a rarity for me, but I tend to use it with "plotted" adventures) I can skip a bunch of the filler fights, and I don't think I'll miss them.
Yeah, when I was running PF arcs, I'd cut out huge swathes of combat and increase the social and exploration stuff. There are really good stories buried under needless fighting.
 

Imagine an RPG where each PC is a merchant in a bazaar selling a particular kind of goods. They spend all day in close proximity to one another and have similar broad goals, but they are not aligned and certainly not on an adventure. They compete for customers and have to deal with thieves, corrupt city officials and all sorts of calamities and nonsense. Sometimes they can work together to solve a mutual problem and sometimes they undermine one another.
And here again I have to say that I have a very broad definition of team and I'll go ahead and add "adventure" as well. If my unaligned booksellers are working together to thwart a corrupt city official....well, that's a team working together during an adventure to me.
 


If your target players are PbtA veterans, that's great!

But, have you considered that using veterans as the source of design, you are apt to be putting in things or expecting techniques that new hands will find challenging? If you don't care about that, cool, but it you do care, you have to think for a moment.

A lot of elements of game design are there for good reason. They accomplish some goals, or the like. Removing them may have gameplay impact.
In my experience (yeah, limited, I'm but one woman, but still), the only people who struggle with partyless games and other non-D&D-esque things aren't actually new players, but those who have played D&D or other old- or midschool games and now expect everything to be exactly the same.

Fresh players, who have never played any TTRPG, on the other hand, get into the groove immediately. Unlearning things, after all, is harder than learning them.
 


In more character focused play when the focus is not on my character, I get to have the same sort of fun I have watching an ensemble drama. I am invested in the other characters, their struggles and what they hope to achieve. Seeing what happens to them is exciting to me. Another layer of enjoyment comes from seeing how the lives of these characters intersect, to see the fallout from my character's decisions on them as well as vice-versa. It also makes the scenes we get to have together feel really special.
 

Sure. Bad example on my part. It’s what popped in there when I was thinking about it. The general point is that we don’t need more and more game systems. There’s already more than anyone could ever hope to use. And they’re increasingly minor variations on already common themes. I’d like to see more settings and genre books without attached systems.
Wouldn't that just be a novel? Or a history book? Or speculative future book?

As customer of games, I am a sucker for new settings, but I want a system attached to it. The system is often very important to creating the feel of the settings.

As for the indisputable fact that there are more systems out there than I could reasonably expect to play in what remains of my life...so what. There are more books than I can hope to read. More movies and TV series than I can hope to watch. More music than I can hope to listen to. I wouldn't expect others to stop creating new stuff. Actually, I appreciate when someone has taken a variety of influences and synthesize that into their own vision.

I find that what I'm looking for outside of 5e these days are not new, rich, detailed settings and systems to run new campains in, but rather small, well designed, self-contained systems and adventures that I can pick up and just run a game or two in. I would like to see an adventure book with a rules-light rules system printing in the adventure book. I haven't bought any of the Awfully Cheerful Engine booklets yet. They seem to offer what I'm looking for. Though I'm not sure if you have to by #1 (the ACE core rules) to play the other books.

One of the best examples of what I'm talking about is Labyrinth, a single book that runs you through the plot of Jim Henson's movie the Labyrinth. It consists of the rules (which are easy to pickup) and a replayable adventure. It is also a beautiful book that any fan of the movie would be happy to have on their bookshelf. I don't need a lot more settings that I have to match with a system and come up with my own adventures or buy separate adventure material. Let me by an adventure with some rule that I can play through and move on to something else. Doesn't seem to be a lot of that on the market.
 

Remove ads

Top