The conventions and techniques of gaming (brainstorm)

[nothing to see here]

The movie 'Memento' (which I have concluded is my favourite ever) is a huge convention breaker -- the movie -- about an investigator who suffers from the inability to form short term memories -- sucks you into his condition by unloading the plot IN REVERSE...

...it creates this really cool dramatic tension -- each scene you know where they characters are going next...but you have no idea why they are where they are -- or how they got there...truly brilliant film.

There's also a french film (whose name eludes me) which features three short 45 minute mini films -- one an action, one a romance, one a comedy. the catch is that all three films feature the same characters -- in completely different circumstances and contexts -- but with the same name and personality. I'm not a french cinema buff -- but that one's okay.

The catch is this -- chonological linear plots and consistent characterizations are conventions of the film art form. They do not translate well to games -- even cinematic RPG's.

Even the best RPG's do not have what you would call linear plots -- that would imply railroading and derrail the whole collective storytelling thing.

Now game conventions do include things -- like dice rolling -- success over adversity -- and improvement over time.

The game that flaunts these conventions the most -- IMO -- is Paranoia. I've only played it once -- but the edition I played was diceless (which is not unique) -- success was completely based on abrbitrary DM decisions -- which was fine -- because the fun of the game was not based on you character's successes -- but on just how cataclysmically you could fail...I was young when I played it (or most games for that matter)...but it was a hoot.

 

[reanjr]

There's also a french film (whose name eludes me)

It's simply called The Trilogy. Stephen King has been known to do this. In his books Desperation and The Regulators (under the pen name Richard Bachman), he wrote two entirely different novels with the same characters.

 

[JimAde]

The single-shot was also used in an episode of the sitcom Mad About You. A husband and wife sat in one location doing one scene for the entire episode with no cuts and no commercial breaks. It was cool and very effective. Then in the closing credits, the two characters (the husband was a film-maker) were discussing the technique as used by Hitchcock, and the wife said, "So what's the big deal? Stage actors do that all the time." I laughed out loud.

You do not switch rule sets in the middle of the game.

I once had my GURPS group make a cross-dimensional journey to a D&D-style world. No rules changes, except they had to roll a d20 under their skills instead of 3d6. The lack of bell curve changed the feel dramatically even though the "average" roll is about the same. It was a blast.

Another convention: the tasks and obstacles presented are difficult but attainable.

 

[Umbran]

Even the best RPG's do not have what you would call linear plots -- that would imply railroading and derrail the whole collective storytelling thing.

I'm not sure what you say here is strictly true.

In your normal RPG, if the GM sets up for a specific linear plot, he will probably have to railroad the PCs to keep them on it, unless the players choose to follow it - which isn't that hard to arrange sometimes, if you know your players.

And, frequently enough, when you review a session, or a string of sessions, from a particular character's point of view, you also see what amounts to a linear plot. Gorag the Barbarian sees a nice logical unfolding of elements and causation from A to B to C without much in the way of sidetracks or deviation.

The game that flaunts these conventions the most -- IMO -- is Paranoia. I've only played it once -- but the edition I played was diceless (which is not unique) ...

It isn't unique, no. But it also isn't any of the published versions of Paranoia of which I'm aware. The 1st, 2nd, and 5th (there was no 3rd or 4th) all have a dice mechanic for task resolution. Your GM, of course, was free to muck with that. Showing signs of knowledge of the game mechanic is treasonous and grounds for execution

There is a convention that Paranoia does break - in most games, the PCs are assumed to be working together and cooperating. Paranoia assumes that PCs are actively working against each other, under the illusion of cooperation

 

[nikolai]

• Usually, all the player characters are allies.

I think this is an interesting one to flag. I'm not so interested in totally inverting it (and getting intra-party combat with players killing players), but I think subtly breaking it - so players have different objectives which are at variance with each other - would be very interesting.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

What about "Run Lola Run"?

Telling the same story multiple times with slight variations.

AR

 

[SinisterMinister]

I think this is an interesting one to flag. I'm not so interested in totally inverting it (and getting intra-party combat with players killing players), but I think subtly breaking it - so players have different objectives which are at variance with each other - would be very interesting.

This would work well for one-shots, but would be tough to maintain in an ongoing campaign. Why would the group stay and work together if they had different objectives?

 

[nikolai]

This [players have different objectives which are at variance with each other] would work well for one-shots, but would be tough to maintain in an ongoing campaign. Why would the group stay and work together if they had different objectives?

That's the problem. I'd love to hear any suggestions on how to deal with it.

 

[RFisher]

I venture that a great many of the RPG conventions have been toyed with. Some so much that its hard to call them conventions anymore. There are diceless RPGs, LARPs, refereeless RPGs, &c.

Some of the interesting ones to me:

Reverse dungeon. One of the weaker conventions, as it has been so often violated. Still, I feel comfortable calling such a game "unconventional".

Dork20 cards. I'm not sure what the convention is they're breaking, but they're certainly unconventional. We're having fun with them in the current campaign, though.

Player "narrative" control. Things like Donjon. If a character succeeds at a test, the player decides what happens.

Continuity breaks. I did a special halloween adventure in which I stated we were "exploring another story involving these characters". We used the PCs as they were, and they gained experience from the adventure, but it did not "really" take place at that point in the campaign--if it took place at all. We just ignored the break in continuity for the sake of having fun.

Downeresque. Imagine a campaign like Downer or Order of the Stick in which the characters talk in game terms. They probably do some metagaming as well.

Metagaming. I tend to encourage a level of metagaming when behind the screen. I think much of the fun comes from the players playing the game, even if it makes it less simulationist or narratavist pure. (In some cases, I could even argue that metagaming can be used as a simulationist tool...but that's another discussion.) I can imagine a game could be fun with all-out, no-holds-barred metagaming.

 

[SinisterMinister]

That's the problem. I'd love to hear any suggestions on how to deal with it.

Perhaps they players are in an environment where collaboration is an absolute necessity.

Or maybe players have to bribe one another for assistance (Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan needed Han's ship, Han needed Luke's money). It's a fine line. Either eventually they'll band together in a conventional way, or they'll end up at each other's throats backstabbing (literally?) one another.