A few thoughts/gripes about recent game modern game design.

[JoeNuttall]

This used to be quite a fun thread!

 

[JAMUMU]

This used to be quite a fun thread!

 

[chuckdee]

 

[Alai]

Hero* is a moving train wreck of evolving designer explanations.

Having said that, the first edition was 2000. What are we taking as the base for “modern game design”?

HeroQuestWorldWars?

For sure there was initially a bit of a rush to get it out before the end of the money, and there was clearly some tension between Greg, who seems to have wanted something closer to his "Epic" or "Glorantha the Game" sorts of ideas, and Robin who I think essentially was going for a "pure nar" design all along. Much as he'd make a Sign of Warding if you quoted Big Theory at him, for sure. We basically ended up with Laws's thing in the end -- or at one point, at least, then HQG got tugged a bit in a third direction. Then the publishers seem to lose all detectable interest in it, or at least are so busy and so prioritised on the other game using that setting as to make no difference.

It's a shame we didn't end up with Stafford's vision for his game (with some outside "rules doctor" help perhaps), and Laws's wheeze for his. But I'm not sure there was a path that'd have feasibly resulted in that.

 

[migo]

I'm going to be honest here, almost every time I see house rules for games, I immediately see that most people don't actually understand how RPGs work.

Are you one of the RPG players who has never played Dungeons & Dragons?

M migo Thanks for correcting my list.

However

Spoiler

my original point hasn't been refuted.

My point that you didn't put any real effort into gathering the data and I don't need to spend any more time than you didn't to provide my own data still stands.

ORE gets close to your sweet mark only after you hit 6 dice in a pool. If you only have 4 dice, that's a 50% odds of success...
So it depends on how you built your characters.

And with default character generation rules, I didn't notice any problems with outcomes. Dice pool systems also tend to work better because you're rolling more dice per roll. With single dice systems things can get swingy and you have a string of failures even with fairly high results. Dice pools can also flatten out the effects of imperfectly balanced dice. If you're rolling single dice, it can take a large number of rolls before the outcomes start matching the stated probabilities (if you're using something impartial like Random.org), and it can stick even further in one direction if you're using the same die that is biased one way or the other. This is actually a practical advantage of pre-d20 D&D using a mix of roll high and roll low. If you have a d20 that likes going low, at least you'll be more likely to succeed at the roll low things.

If you only know one GM, that's 100% of all GMs you know...

We knew more than one GM.

OK. You obviously have someone in mind. Have you suggested it to him or her to try a game and explained that this time it would be different?
If that doesn't work, maybe show him/her this thread and ask to participate in an experiment?

This was back in high school, you know, when we had the time to hang out and play games every day.

As a counterexample, it was a new player on her first session (ORE, I think Nemesis) that told me we have too many points. So not everyone wants to have a really competent PC. She just wanted a "normal person gets in the deep and finds it's way over her head", that much was obvious... I just wasn't sure what to do, at the time (my first time meeting such a player).

Just let them not spend all the points I suppose. But it shows that by default ORE systems produce characters of sufficient competence that it's fun enough for people to come back for a second session.

 

[TristramEvans]

my own data still stands.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Are you one of the RPG players who has never played Dungeons & Dragons?

What the fuck are you talking about?

 

[robertsconley]

My point that you didn't put any real effort into gathering the data and I don't need to spend any more time than you didn't to provide my own data still stands.

What the fuck are you talking about?

What EmperorNorton said. And if he and I are agreeing on this on various aspects of your replies I guess pigs can really fly.

 

[chuckdee]

My point that you didn't put any real effort into gathering the data and I don't need to spend any more time than you didn't to provide my own data still stands.

 

[Fenris-77]

 

[Bunch]

This doesn't seem to be improving. I'm going to lock this for a little while.

 

[Bunch]

Ok let's try again with a little more consideration for other viewpoints.

 

[CRKrueger]

One, you're proving my point that a game that requires regular sessions over a long period of time isn't as well designed as one that can be played quicker and in shorter chunks.

I'm doing no such thing. The number of people who play in a amateur sports league are less than the people who play pick up games are less than the people who play at home are less than the people who just watch on TV.

The point is, the more time and commitment something takes, the less people will do it. That says nothing about game design, you can do all of those with Basketball, just like you can run any type of scenario with D&D.

Two, while there is overlap, people from other hobbies who try RPGs will just dip their toes in and not come back. It's not a question of not having the time when they're visiting at the same time, but playing Magic or Mario Kart on the other side of the living room while the RPG players are having their hobby. They have the time to play, and they're choosing not to.

I'm wondering, are you...
1. NSA?
2. Karnak?
3. Someone who's built Cerebro in his garage?

You seem to have an amazing understanding of what "everyone", "most people", "people who conveniently prove your argument", etc. know, think, and feel.

If a player is coming over during game time just to play on a console, my answer is "Uh, no, dude, go home." I don't like 5e at all, but what you're describing is either a Shit Player, a Shit GM, or both. If you can't keep people engaged in what's going on then you need to up your game or find adults who like roleplaying.

 

[EmperorNorton]

I'll just say that the #1 barrier to playing games in my experience is just scheduling cause adults with busy lives have a hard time getting together to do ANYTHING if they don't all have a similar schedule (like all of them working M-F 9-5s).

Even when I'm not currently playing anything it isn't because people are coming over to play Mario Kart or whatever, there are times where I just don't see anyone in person other than my immediate family for months cause coordinating schedules is hard as hell.

 

[AsenRG]

I'll just say that the #1 barrier to playing games in my experience is just scheduling cause adults with busy lives have a hard time getting together to do ANYTHING if they don't all have a similar schedule (like all of them working M-F 9-5s).

Even when I'm not currently playing anything it isn't because people are coming over to play Mario Kart or whatever, there are times where I just don't see anyone in person other than my immediate family for months cause coordinating schedules is hard as hell.

Yeah, that's why I'm suggesting to everyone that cares to listen that the so-called "West Marches approach" is the best way of GMing games for adults. Simply put, play with whoever shows up, and wrap it up - more or less - before the session ends, so you could plausibly "change the party's composition".

Amusingly, it also makes it more likely for PCs to have lives outside of the party as well, and anyone who doesn't show up was simply busy with other stuff!

 

[CRKrueger]

Yeah, that's why I'm suggesting to everyone that cares to listen that the so-called "West Marches approach" is the best way of GMing games for adults. Simply put, play with whoever shows up, and wrap it up - more or less - before the session ends, so you could plausibly "change the party's composition".

Amusingly, it also makes it more likely for PCs to have lives outside of the party as well, and anyone who doesn't show up was simply busy with other stuff!

Yeah, but the context of what’s happening currently in the campaign frequently makes that impossible. That’s why in the old days people had multiple characters and groups running around.

 

[AsenRG]

Yeah, but the context of what’s happening currently in the campaign frequently makes that impossible. That’s why in the old days people had multiple characters and groups running around.

It is a throwback/repurposing of the Old Days for today's environment, so yes, multiple characters are a thing. I came up with something similar after reading Old Geezer's (and later, Chirine's) tales, and then found out about West Marches.
Come to think of it, some of my players might soon need new characters.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Yeah, that's why I'm suggesting to everyone that cares to listen that the so-called "West Marches approach" is the best way of GMing games for adults. Simply put, play with whoever shows up, and wrap it up - more or less - before the session ends, so you could plausibly "change the party's composition".

Amusingly, it also makes it more likely for PCs to have lives outside of the party as well, and anyone who doesn't show up was simply busy with other stuff!

I'm actually considering doing a "West Marches" sort of type game. Not sandbox, because the plan is to do X-Men, and sandbox isn't my style with superheroes (as from the source material, most superheroes are reactive rather than active), but in the "whoever shows up that time is the characters who are there to react to whatever threat happens". Will probably give them more free reign to deal with longer term threats to give some sandbox though. But I mean, when Magneto is threatening to destroy Moscow, you kind of have to deal with it or you aren't playing a Superhero game.

It works for a Superhero game really well. I mean, anyone who has read X-Men comics knows that you end up with things like "Oh Wolverine is off in Madripoor right now dealing with some drama" and stuff like that.

 

[AsenRG]

I'm actually considering doing a "West Marches" sort of type game. Not sandbox, because the plan is to do X-Men, and sandbox isn't my style with superheroes (as from the source material, most superheroes are reactive rather than active), but in the "whoever shows up that time is the characters who are there to react to whatever threat happens".

Sandbox or not*, the point - when talking about how it fits better with contemporary adults - is to have "whoever shows up can play".

Fun fact, in supers, you can also have characters of varying power levels this way. Everyone gets three of three power levels and has to "assign them" each week. The others are doing downtime activities and helping other teams by doing research off-screen, even if it's library research...
Just an idea.
Or give the multi-characters as an option for regular attendance.

*I mean, sandbox makes everything better, but that's really besides the point I want to emphasize here!

It works for a Superhero game really well. I mean, anyone who has read X-Men comics knows that you end up with things like "Oh Wolverine is off in Madripoor right now dealing with some drama" and stuff like that.

Exactly. I'm much less familiar with superhero comics than the average Pub visitor, but even I know that!

 

[EmperorNorton]

I dunno, I don't understand how the concept of a so-called " modern adult" is taken for granted to not include the capacity to make a commitment to be somewhere at a specific time to meet up with friends unless exceptional circumstances come up?

I'm going to take a guess that you are living in a whole different culture in some way than I'm used to. The idea of consistent work schedules is a dream to most of the friends I have. That or having to work 2-3 jobs just to make enough money to survive.

I'm lucky in that I have a consistent (if weird as fuck) work schedule, and my wife has a consistent work schedule as well. But a lot of people I'm friends with just don't.

I find a lot of it is a combination of age and social class. I'm on the older end of my playgroup, and also on the upper end of financial success for my playgroup. But I imagine most people on here are both older than me and probably are more financially secure than me. And probably get to have more regular, steady, understandable hours.

Not all of us get to have 9-5s, or even 9-7s.

 

[Bunch]

Small children mess with it quite a bit too. I have four people I have to manage who are incompetent and work(school) with equally incompetent people. Add to that the schools are underfunded/understaffed, various other organizations now have disconnected leadership due to covid and you have schedules that are just @!#_!#'d. That means at any moment my plans just get obliterated due to understaffing, illness, incompetence.
I mean these days I can't guarantee what I want to buy for dinner will be in stock at the store and I'd I go to a fast food place as a last resort if the staff will have shown up that day.

2020-2021 was the most consistent time since I've had children because we went nowhere, did nothing, ate at home all the time.

Scheduling these days is just a shit show.

 

[AsenRG]

I dunno, I don't understand how the concept of a so-called " modern adult" is taken for granted to not include the capacity to make a commitment to be somewhere at a specific time to meet up with friends unless exceptional circumstances come up?

Bunch and EmperorNorton already answered that partially.

And personally, I work in one of those jobs where my work schedule can't be predicted more than one week in advance. So I try to show understanding to other people whose schedule might be even more prone to changes than mine.

 

[Bunch]

I still think that's just about the priorities people chse i their lives. Sure, there are folks out there that have jobs/careers/etc that they prioritize that keeps them rm having a regular gaming schedule, but how does one extrapolate from that that ALL RPGS should be run as one-shots/rotating cast? Like, these just aren't universal situations that can be appended to the term "modern adult". RPGs exist to cater to that, and a hundred other life scenarios, but that doesn't mean that a game, by default, should. Our hobby is so expansive and the audience so varied that there is not reason every system has to be for everybody, and so is ultimately just a collection of compromises that pleases next to no one.

Misunderstanding. The comments about scheduling are not tied to that bolded statement. They're tied to the comment about my modern adults not being able to commit to a time on a regular basis.

 

[EmperorNorton]

I'd I go to a fast food place as a last resort if the staff will have shown up that day.

Pulled into a Wendy's drive thru the other day and the person was just like "Nah, I'm not taking any more orders". It was like 7pm, and you know drivethru speaker so I wasn't sure so I was like "Hey sorry, I didn't catch that" to just confirm, and person just like, unloaded on their coworkers saying they were the only one there and had been since like, noon and they were just closing up and going home, and I'm like, you know what. Fair. Went to Kroger and just got a freezer meal.

(There is also the Hardee's that I swear to god I have not seen open since like mid-Pandemic, I'm not even sure if they ever are open even though google insists they aren't closed down).

 

[Bunch]

Pulled into a Wendy's drive thru the other day and the person was just like "Nah, I'm not taking any more orders". It was like 7pm, and you know drivethru speaker so I wasn't sure so I was like "Hey sorry, I didn't catch that" to just confirm, and person just like, unloaded on their coworkers saying they were the only one there and had been since like, noon and they were just closing up and going home, and I'm like, you know what. Fair. Went to Kroger and just got a freezer meal.

(There is also the Hardee's that I swear to god I have not seen open since like mid-Pandemic, I'm not even sure if they ever are open even though google insists they aren't closed down).

Yeah combine that with a corporate love for universal numbers and I can't even call ahead to see if something will be open. Which is awesome to drive 15-20 minutes to find out it's closed.

 

[thebigh]

unloaded on their coworkers

Drive-thru guy: [long-winded angry unhinged rant]

Co-worker: Sir, this is a Wendy's.

 

[thebigh]

Look, can people just make their points without telling others they suck? The mods just unlocked this thread and I don't want it to get locked again over a bunch of casual ad hominems, because I'm finding it an interesting debate.

 

[SavAce]

You must suck as a person. I know Bunch said to be nice, but you're not being nice either. What you're describing as a "Shit Player" or "Shit GM", is what I would describe as a friend. And if friends want to hang out and chat, but not participate in the specific activity the rest of us are doing, that's perfectly OK. If I can keep them engaged by switching to a system that is better designed, I will. If that isn't an option, and they just don't like the game type, they don't have to play.

And maybe that's the simple explanation. I know what "everybody" thinks, because I prioritize my friends over a hobby. So I know what people think who don't like the hobby. You shut them out.

Nobody is personally insulting your friends. As far as I can see, CRKRueger was responding to your earlier comment of:

Two, while there is overlap, people from other hobbies who try RPGs will just dip their toes in and not come back. It's not a question of not having the time when they're visiting at the same time, but playing Magic or Mario Kart on the other side of the living room while the RPG players are having their hobby. They have the time to play, and they're choosing not to.

And nothing in that quote indicates that it was anything more than a hypothetical about people from other hobbies. Likewise, his response is not about your friends, it is about how he'd react if it was a situation in his life. He gets to feel that way about his own life and free time, and there is nothing unkind about it. It's like if I had a couple friends over to jam out on guitars, drums and bass. Some people wouldn't mind having other people over at the same time shooting the shit and just hanging out. Other people are there to get into the music and would find other people hanging out detracts from their experience and interrupts the flow and immersion & creativity of what's going on. To feel either way is OK. It is also possible to have friends that are shit guitarists or drummers, but that is not a knock against them as friends, it just means they might not be well suited to coming to the jam. This gets at what I feel is the fundamental self-centeredness of what you're saying.

You describe systems as universally well or poorly designed based on how they suit your personal subjective circumstances.

For me, a game being easier for more people to get involved in is a factor among many when discussing if it is "better designed", but a game with broad appeal but a more shallow "beer & pretzels" vibe might not interest me enough to play compared to a game that demands more. We're all gonna feel differently about how important these factors are relative to each other.

 

[Necrozius]

I did appreciate how the Alien RPG had a game mode specifically catered to one shots (for a variety of reasons: conventions, people with limited time, people who want a quick method to “sell” their friends on a system without too much investment etc). That’s a positive trend (not sure if it is strictly “modern”), but I would like to see more of that.

I guess free quickstarts, with one-shot scenarios with premades cover that though. Free RPG day should be more frequent, I think!

 

[TJS]

I've felt for a while that there's been an increasing trend for games to focus more and more on one shot and convention play.

How many Powered by the Apocalypse games really regularly see any other kind of play? And I suspect the same is probably true of a lot of OSR hacks.

I remember there were two freelancers on the Symbaroum reddit who had written for the game who would regularly argue against anyone pointing out the (enormous) problems with the system who admitted in a different thread that they'd never actually run campaigns with the game but had only run it at cons to introduce it to new players (no wonder they were fucking clueless about the how the system broke down over time).

 

[TristramEvans]

migo has been threadbanned. Normally, since I was participating in this thread I'd ask another mod to handle it, but I'm the only one online at the moment, and this is a cut and dry case of him flat out ignoring Bunch's warning, while commenting that he was doing so deliberately.

As such, we do please ask folks not to make any further replies to his posts, as he is not here to defend his viewpoint.

 

[AsenRG]

I still think that's just about the priorities people chse i their lives.

..."You call yourself a true gamer? But if you had to pick...ah, your job, or RPGs? Tell me, which one is more important to you?!? Ha! That's what I knew you'd pick!"

Sure, there are folks out there that have jobs/careers/etc that they prioritize that keeps them rm having a regular gaming schedule, but how does one extrapolate from that that ALL RPGS should be run as one-shots/rotating cast?

1. "West Marches style" doesn't mean you're running one-shots. Rotating cast, yes...but it just means you don't leave them on cliffhangers or in the middle of a chase. Then before next session you can make up some reason to switch the cast.

2. And nobody says that all games should be run like this. But it's a good idea to consider it as a possible option.

Like, these just aren't universal situations that can be appended to the term "modern adult".

They're pretty universal for adults below 40, IME.

RPGs exist to cater to that, and a hundred other life scenarios, but that doesn't mean that a game, by default, should. Our hobby is so expansive and the audience so varied that there is not reason every system has to be for everybody, and so is ultimately just a collection of compromises that pleases next to no one.

1. There's nothing on the system level. You can run any game this way, from an OSR one to Traveller to Riders of R'Lyeh or RBRB.

2. And I never said it should. But as long as a game doesn't actively prevent you from doing that, you expand the possible audience quite significantly.

 

[robertsconley]

I dunno, I don't understand how the concept of a so-called " modern adult" is taken for granted to not include the capacity to make a commitment to be somewhere at a specific time to meet up with friends unless exceptional circumstances come up?

For one of my friends it is because the first thing on his priority list is his kids' schedule. Which can be and is irregular depending on the time of the year. The solution was to just let us know in advance as most of the time he has a few days notice.

For the majority of the six-person group the complication is that the game day is the only day we all can meet for the campaign. They have varying schedules that make shifting game day problematic. Finally, there are life circumstances changes that play out in the long term.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I've felt for a while that there's been an increasing trend for games to focus more and more on one shot and convention play.

How many Powered by the Apocalypse games really regularly see any other kind of play? And I suspect the same is probably true of a lot of OSR hacks.

I remember there were two freelancers on the Symbaroum reddit who had written for the game who would regularly argue against anyone pointing out the (enormous) problems with the system who admitted in a different thread that they'd never actually run campaigns with the game but had only run it at cons to introduce it to new players (no wonder they were fucking clueless about the how the system broke down over time).

I think PbtA and Blades in the Dark trend more towards short campaigns then one shots; a lot of the GM advice uses terms like "series". Maybe 12-15 sessions in most games I've come across.

It's definitely true of stuff like Fiasco though.

The one thing I'm not sure on is how common the epic campaigns that last years ever were; I suspect they may be an outlier that gets talked about specifically because thy're imprressive.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I dunno, I don't understand how the concept of a so-called " modern adult" is taken for granted to not include the capacity to make a commitment to be somewhere at a specific time to meet up with friends unless exceptional circumstances come up?

In my last group we had:

A nurse who was frequently on call in A&E.

Two people on zero hours contracts who didn't get regular hours.

An actor who needed to drop everything and travel halfway across the country if he got an audition.

Admittedly, the nurse and actor would have existed in the past but the rise of zero hour contracts feels newer and is something I've seen had an effect across multiple games.

 

[TristramEvans]

I made the mistake of thinking the current conversation was a continuation of a earlier topic from the previous page, when instead it is isolated. As such I withdraw my objection

 

[AsenRG]

I made the mistake of thinking the current conversation was a continuation of a earlier topic from the previous page, when instead it is isolated. As such I withdraw my objection

Actually, I hadn't even noticed the connection...anyway, withdrawal accepted!

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think PbtA and Blades in the Dark trend more towards short campaigns then one shots; a lot of the GM advice uses terms like "series". Maybe 12-15 sessions in most games I've come across.

It's definitely true of stuff like Fiasco though.

The one thing I'm not sure on is how common the epic campaigns that last years ever were; I suspect they may be an outlier that gets talked about specifically because thy're imprressive.

Yeah, "series" and/or "seasons" are used pretty regularly in some games. I kind of like it... it's a pretty good descriptor to give a general idea of what's expected.

I think when it comes to the epic campaigns, I think a lot of times it's the term "campaign" itself that is a big factor. For many folks, a campaign revolves around one specific character group. For others, a campaign revolves around the setting itself, so that the campaign consists of multiple character groups in a persistent setting.

I tend toward the first use, generally speaking, but I know many folks use the second. Their campaigns are what I would describe as a setting where multiple campaigns have been played.

 

[DeadBob]

Like lots of early RPG stuff that has stuck around, "campaign" has its roots in war gaming.

Strangely, war game campaigns are generally not envisioned as these open-ended, eternal things the way RPG campaigns tend to be.

ETA: Maybe it's another one of those war game things that ended up getting puffed up on steroids once non-wargamers got their hands on it (and for whom it was a wildly new concept)?

Those things always seemingly end up double edged.

 

[Sharrow]

I think PbtA and Blades in the Dark trend more towards short campaigns then one shots; a lot of the GM advice uses terms like "series". Maybe 12-15 sessions in most games I've come across.

It's definitely true of stuff like Fiasco though.

The one thing I'm not sure on is how common the epic campaigns that last years ever were; I suspect they may be an outlier that gets talked about specifically because thy're imprressive.

As I recall, WotC's big survey that they did before writing D&D3 (so something like 25 years ago - scary), indicated that campaigns tended to run a about a year or a bit under - basically a school or university year, people played weekly (give or take) for around four hours a session, and the most common groups were a GM plus 3-5 players. That's why they designed 3e around these parameters. They did such a good job (and 3e fell apart if not treated carefully when you moved outside those assumptions) that it's become completely normalised in mainstream rpg gaming. It's not even really discussed now, it's just 'how it is'. 4e allowed more space at the top end, 5e seems to have doubled down 'and once you hit the high end, wrap it up'.

Overall, if a year was the median or mean, that suggests that longer campaigns weren't that uncommon at the time, but that super-long ones probably were. Of course the survey was not perfect - not a random sample, and of D&D players. We can only guess at the biases of those who filled the thing in vs those who didn't was, and it doesn't tell us what non-D&D playing groups did, but it's something.

Of course it also doesn't tell us what groups do now, after the rise of OSR, after the rise of game types well suited to short arcs and one-offs, and after Covid and all the upheaval it's caused.