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

[overgeeked]

You never have private scenes in your games, where one character meets an old friend or another has to talk to the head of their guild or whatever?

Second verse, same as the first. In most team-based RPGs there are at most vignettes that don’t include most of the players. If the referee is worth their salt they’ll keep these to a minimum, keep them short and sweet, and not let players spotlight hog.

 

[overgeeked]

To be honest, "spotlight hogging" doesn't seem like a problem to me. I mean, you want spotlight -- you take it. "Meanwhile, at Kardak's hideout...", gesture at the game master as if "go on" and puff!

If somebody is being silent, I assume they don't have anything to say. Expecting other players (GM included) to read your mind and hand spotlight to you doesn't seem like a particularly bright idea to me.

Sounds like a great way to quickly have a table full of players all jockeying for position and trying to talk (then yell) over each other to grab the referee's attention and keep the game focused on themselves rather than recognizing it's a group activity.

 

[overgeeked]

Pacing is definitely one of the main jobs of the GM so they do need to be cognizant of too much time spent not engaging all the players* but that doesn't mean you can't spotlight.

*This distinction is important and there are tools and techniques to engage players even if their characters aren't involved.

Hence the "hog" at the phrase spotlight hog. Spotlight time is fine, when limited. Players spotlight hogging is not. The referee letting any player spotlight hog is also bad form.

 

[loverdrive]

Sounds like a great way to quickly have a table full of players all jockeying for position and trying to talk (then yell) over each other to grab the referee's attention and keep the game focused on themselves rather than recognizing it's a group activity.

Or, hear me out, have a table full of players who are really interested in seeing characters they like struggle and change, and sometimes interject when they have a great idea.

If I come to play (or run, it doesn't really matter that much) a character-driven game, it's because I like the characters. Otherwise, I wouldn't be at the table, I would be at home playing Red Alert instead.

 

[Reynard]

I don't want to argue about play style preferences, but I will say that there's a certain level of being a good player that involves allowing your fellow players to tell their story and do their thing, even if it means you are "sitting out" for 20 minutes in one particular session, because your turn is coming.

 

[kenada]

"d20 + modifiers against DC" is obviously superior to whatever TSR did with attack rolls, but that's a single specific mechanic, not a design tradition.

I don’t think THAC0 was good. That’s not what I mean. The skill mechanics and saving throw mechanics put the target number on the players’ sheets. It makes resolving those rolls faster and makes writing content easier because you can just say “this requires a save vs. dragon’s breath” and not have to care about balance because the appropriate progression is baked into the system. And to be clear, I don’t mean the different dice mechanics either. They could have unified skills to work like saving throws (d20 vs. number on your sheet), and that would have been fine (if not preferable).

 

[Blue]

Something to let go would be that each pillar of play has differing pre-defined levels of granularity instead of the time spent on it being based on how important it is to the players.

So if (uncertain) activity X is not of much import but we do have some moderate level of care about the output, solve it with a die roll (or whatever). If it's more important, have it mechanically heavier (though don't weight it more towards the average with "more of the same type of roll"). If it's of great importance to the players, then zoom down to a high level of granularity that's going to take some time to resolve.

To use some high fantasy examples, a wandering monster, haggling for expensive items, navigating to the next port or tavern brawl might be dealt with with a die roll, because they are of low import to the player. And enough levels of response that it's not "you succeed/failed to navigate" but also "it took you three extra days" or "some other dwarf out-drank you and you came in second" or whatever. Note that inherently means that we aren't artificially increasing stakes by taking a scene that the players don't care about and out of nowhere assigning arbitrarily high stakes like possible character death in a system designed for resource attrition.

On the other hand, mayhaps being able to flow the tracks of the kidnapper is quite important, and especially do they arrive before or after the "extraneous" kidnappees are disposed of. That might be zoomed in, with more rolls and some meaningful choices about approach. Same thing for a moderate skirmish, or convincing the sheriff that the party didn't steal the dowry chest.

And a final level that zooms all the way in, only for scenes that are the most important to the players. They should involve everyone, and have meaningful choices made along the way that inform the result. This is probably the only level that might get down to task-resolution granularity. This is the big "convince the duchess her husband is betraying her and the duchy" or "stop the ritual turning people into abominations" or whatever. These come around only once or thrice in an adventure, a few more times that that in an arc.

The idea that all of activity X is zoomed into THIS level and all of activity Y is zoomed out to THAT level, without being able to focus session time on what is actually important to the players, is an relic that does not serve the table.

 

[overgeeked]

Or, hear me out, have a table full of players who are really interested in seeing characters they like struggle and change, and sometimes interject when they have a great idea.

I've had tables like that. Everyone talking over each other. Raising voices to be heard. Trying to get the referee's attention. At the time, a more accurate description would be they were a table of self-involved players wanting to be the center of attention who had no interest in ever letting the spotlight go once they had it. They and their character were the only thing they cared about, the rest of the table be damned.

If I come to play (or run, it doesn't really matter that much) a character-driven game, it's because I like the characters.

Here me out, there's no mutually exclusive bits there. You can like the characters, run a character-driven game, but not have the players trying to out-shout each other to get your attention, or ignoring the quieter players.

I don't want to argue about play style preferences, but I will say that there's a certain level of being a good player that involves allowing your fellow players to tell their story and do their thing, even if it means you are "sitting out" for 20 minutes in one particular session, because your turn is coming.

One more bit of "how games work" that no consensus can be reached on. To me a good player is one who doesn't try to spotlight hog. Someone who recognizes it's a group activity and will not intentionally make the rest of the group sit around waiting for them. See the caster player who refuses to read up on their spells. See the decker in Shadowrun. Etc. A good player won't try to make that happen. A good referee won't let that happen.

 

[Reynard]

Something to let go would be that each pillar of play has differing pre-defined levels of granularity instead of the time spent on it being based on how important it is to the players.

So if (uncertain) activity X is not of much import but we do have some moderate level of care about the output, solve it with a die roll (or whatever). If it's more important, have it mechanically heavier (though don't weight it more towards the average with "more of the same type of roll"). If it's of great importance to the players, then zoom down to a high level of granularity that's going to take some time to resolve.

To use some high fantasy examples, a wandering monster, haggling for expensive items, navigating to the next port or tavern brawl might be dealt with with a die roll, because they are of low import to the player. And enough levels of response that it's not "you succeed/failed to navigate" but also "it took you three extra days" or "some other dwarf out-drank you and you came in second" or whatever. Note that inherently means that we aren't artificially increasing stakes by taking a scene that the players don't care about and out of nowhere assigning arbitrarily high stakes like possible character death in a system designed for resource attrition.

On the other hand, mayhaps being able to flow the tracks of the kidnapper is quite important, and especially do they arrive before or after the "extraneous" kidnappees are disposed of. That might be zoomed in, with more rolls and some meaningful choices about approach. Same thing for a moderate skirmish, or convincing the sheriff that the party didn't steal the dowry chest.

And a final level that zooms all the way in, only for scenes that are the most important to the players. They should involve everyone, and have meaningful choices made along the way that inform the result. This is probably the only level that might get down to task-resolution granularity. This is the big "convince the duchess her husband is betraying her and the duchy" or "stop the ritual turning people into abominations" or whatever. These come around only once or thrice in an adventure, a few more times that that in an arc.

The idea that all of activity X is zoomed into THIS level and all of activity Y is zoomed out to THAT level, without being able to focus session time on what is actually important to the players, is an relic that does not serve the table.

Is that a thing in modern RPGs? I feel like D&D at least abandoned that element 20 odd years ago.

 

[Blue]

Is that a thing in modern RPGs? I feel like D&D at least abandoned that element 20 odd years ago.

Sorry?

Please, show me zoomed out combat rules.

Show me zoomed in social rules with meaningful tactical choices at the same degree as any combat. With all of the players having meaningful ways to contribute.

D&D is a poster child of this.