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

[pemerton]

Sort of like how some wuxia stories portray the jianghu, where everybody knows each other by reputation and knows that today's ally might be tomorrow's enemy, and vice versa?

That wasn't what I had in mind, but might work. I don't think I know the full range of stories you're referring to, but the first thing I thought of was the film Ashes of Time.

What I had in mind was something where the PCs are each pursuing their goals/concerns, but these connect or overlap or intersect in some fashion. In film, Pulp Fiction might be one illustration of the idea.

 

[Yora]

One other thing that should go is specialty designed, bespoke systems for every minor variation of game idea. You don’t need 500 pages of rules to separate Mouse Guard from Mice Templar.

It's all about the brand recognition. I think the glut of licensed games is targeted at fans of the source material who aren't very much into RPGs and are not familiar with the rules systems that are out there.
These games exist because people will buy the brand, not because developers have ideas for a new system.

 

[pemerton]

A further thought on the PCs are not a team thing.

Maybe the closest analogue is to soap opera: there are recurring protagonists, related in various ways, with problems and events that intersect their various lives. Events might bring different protagonists together from time to time, in various ways. But the protagonists are not any sort of "team" or collective. They're just doing their respective things!

 

[Reynard]

A further thought on the PCs are not a team thing.

Maybe the closest analogue is to soap opera: there are recurring protagonists, related in various ways, with problems and events that intersect their various lives. Events might bring different protagonists together from time to time, in various ways. But the protagonists are not any sort of "team" or collective. They're just doing their respective things!

Because the soap opera elements are strong in the genre anyway, this would probably work pretty well for a supers campaign where the PCs aren't a team but rather rival heroes in the same city with different heroing philosophies. Daredevil, punisher and Spidey butt heads a lot but still had to come together sometimes to stop Kingpin.

 

[Cadence]

Because the soap opera elements are strong in the genre anyway, this would probably work pretty well for a supers campaign where the PCs aren't a team but rather rival heroes in the same city with different heroing philosophies. Daredevil, punisher and Spidey butt heads a lot but still had to come together sometimes to stop Kingpin.

Is it "not being on the same team" or "not being in the same scenes" that is the big difference?

Sci-fi and Fantasy literature and film (from LotR to SW) seem to do the later regularly. In books that do that a lot, I sometimes find myself reading chapters out of order if I find one part being much more interesting than the others or like that character more.

 

[Umbran]

The risk I see in a no-advancement system is that you'd then need 15 different games (thus fragmenting the player base) to represent the different degrees of PC and-or opposition power that roughly map to today's levels - in other words, you'd need a game that approximated 0th-level play, another game for 1st-level play, and so forth up to near-supers-level play.

No, you don't need that.

the Sentinels Comics RPG (a superhero game) is a good example of this - characters have dice assigned to various powers and abilities, and the larger dice are more likely to generate successes. But, what "success" means is not nailed down in the rules in objective terms.

Like the rules do not say you need to get an eleven or better to lift a 20-ton weight, or something. The scale is arbitrary, fixed by the genre expectations, not by the rules - so the same rules handle street-level heroes and Superman, without any rules changes at all. The narration is given to fit the genre needs.

Interestingly, SCRPG also does not have power advancement in its rules.

 

[Jack Daniel]

The answer the main question, no. I see no reason to let go of any traditions in terms of game mechanics or play styles. I perfectly capable of enjoying radically new and different systems while still enjoying my traditional D&D with all its clunky bits.

The only traditions I've been happy to see go are social: gatekeeping, nerd and geek being pejorative, lack of diversity at the game table, etc.

This is where I land. There are no game mechanics that the hobby as a whole should remove from consideration. Some game-designer somewhere could eventually find anything useful.

The OP's question is frankly bizarre to me. It's like asking, "what instruments should musicians just not use anymore when composing new music?"

 

[Umbran]

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?

I'm sure most do. But there's going to be a significant difference between that happening occasionally, and having it be a mainstay of play.

That's not what I'm talking about. As per the post you quoted, I'm talking about PCs whose paths cross and whose "stories" interact without having to be part of the same team.

This would seem to require players to be pretty constantly changing up the characters they play. We would be hard pressed to have every session the same characters have their paths cross without them effectively being a team.

And sure you can do that. But it means that most characters will not see a whole lot of development over time, because none of them can be in focus for particularly long times.

 

[Reynard]

I'm sure most do. But there's going to be a significant difference between that happening occasionally, and having it be a mainstay of play.



This would seem to require players to be pretty constantly changing up the characters they play. We would be hard pressed to have every session the same characters have their paths cross without them effectively being a team.

And sure you can do that. But it means that most characters will not see a whole lot of development over time, because none of them can be in focus for particularly long times.

I am always suspect when someone says something isn't possible in RPGs. If ensemble television can do it, an RPG can do it. it just requires a group of people who are willing to behave in a way consistent with the genre expectations, and capable of letting others have the stage for a bit. These are things that should be true in all games all the time. There's nothing worse than a spotlight hog player, except one that completely checks out when it is someone else's turn.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm sure most do. But there's going to be a significant difference between that happening occasionally, and having it be a mainstay of play.



This would seem to require players to be pretty constantly changing up the characters they play. We would be hard pressed to have every session the same characters have their paths cross without them effectively being a team.

And sure you can do that. But it means that most characters will not see a whole lot of development over time, because none of them can be in focus for particularly long times.

Or perhaps when the focus is on one character, the resultant development is greater than when focus is on the entire group?