The Forge Archives

I have a fantasy that one day, I'll walk into a game shop and find a very special gaming product one a shelf. The product is sort of like this:

It has pretty high production values: Nice artwork, good binding or boxing. But that isn't what draws me to it. It's what is written on the back:

"Contains 8 ( or 10, or 15) Scenarios in the (X) Universe, designed to be played in 1- 3 hours with as few as 3 or as many as 10 players. All rules needed to play the scenarios are contained within.

Come explore the universe of (x)."

Here is the reason for my post:
As a gamer, I have very little actual time to play. I can read and collect gaming material for hours, but getting several people together to play is tough for me. Even tougher is the fact that, unlike my younger years, my current crop of friends, family and associates are non-gamers, but they are people that I would like to introduce to gaming ( I'd need something akin to a Transitional Game as discussed in several of the Infamous Five threads.

The question to designers and would be designers:
Has anyone either designed, or considered designing, a gaming product where a number of quickly playable adventures was the main goal?

I recall reading in one of thee threads ( or perhaps several) that for economically inclined designers that supplements existed primarily to encourage the purchase of core books. Could the production of a product such as I descrribe aid and abet that goal (core book purchases)?

The closest things I've seen to this out there are a couple of homebrew LARP scenarios on the net. I don't have their URLs right now, but I will try to find them later today. One was called " Boots for the Revolution" ( a semi-humorous event set during the Russian Revolution) and an old west/vampire scenario.

What struck me about these homebrews was that they only had enough rules as to play the individual scenario at hand. The designers did not attempt to cover ways for players to do absolutely anything in tthe setting.

For me, that was very positive.

My personal feeling is that such a product could have two positive effects for designers who wish to sell their product:

1) It sells at least one product in your line to a new gamer/transitional gamer/old gamer with litttle time market= dollars in the bank.

2) Because the scenarios are relatively "closed", probably with limited rules, premade characters, etc, it acts as an advertising tool for your main gamebooks that cover things like chargen and full setting description. Players that like your scenarios, but wish to design their own are inherently referred to your corebooks.

Anyway, everyone's thoughts are appreciated.

Robt.

longtime reader, first time poster.

Isn't that what the 1pg RPG's strive to do? (Not that I've played any of them.) In each book you get the core rules (1pg of rules) and 5 two hour-ish scenerios, right?

Here's the big question: how much would you pay?

Yeah Timfire, that's what the 1PG games are all about.  More info at Deep7.

Vincent Baker's Matchmaker is a one-shot; the entire game is in a leaflet. I've yet to play it, but there was a good actual play report here.

We had a Multiverser demo game posted on the web for several years. The idea was to provide everything needed to play a complete game that would resemble Multiverser. It was clunky, though, and I'm not sure whether we'll put it back up when we get our site problems resolved.

I think that there are demo games out there, although it helps enormously if the individual running the game is familiar with the rules. For example, I just came back from running a couple of tremendously successful Multiverser demo games at a convention, because I finally figured out how to incorporate several of the game's most significant elements within the first two hours of play and still have time in a four hour session to do more. Once I've got it all to paper, I'll probably make it available to people who want to run Multiverser games in demo situations--but it should be noted that you do need to understand the game system to run it.

I suppose part of the problem with what you propose is that games that include the entire game plus setting in a small package must choose between limiting player options on the one side and tending freeform on the other. Either the referee is familiar with the rules needed to resolve a lot of predictable (if unexpected) character choices, or he is empowered to create those rules as needed.

We've got a game in development that's intended to function as an introductory game. The objectives are to get everything needed for play into rules not longer than a standard board game. We're hopeful.

--M. J. Young

The product you described sounds an awful lot like Pantheon from Hogshead Press (which may be out of print now since Hogshead has changed hands)

The pay question:
Depending on production values and scenario count, I'd probably pay $30 or more for a hardcopy or boxed set. Basically, look at it this way:
6 scenarios included, 4 of them appeal to me. 4 weekend sessions with my friends= my cost is $10 per scenario.

Longterm cost is higher, especially if the scenarios were tied to a specific setting, as I would likely buy core books to set up my own adventures in the setting with my newly converted/new gamer adict pals...

BTW, thanks for all of the suggestions. I haven't looked at the one page rules sets, but I will.

One of the questions about the 1pg stuff, though:
Are these rules such that they inclued a whole lot of chargen stuff,etc or are they strictly limited to rules necessary to play the scenario at hand?

I guess what I'm really getting at is what I would call Scenario-Oriented design focus, as opposed to System+Setting oriented desogn focus. What I like about this site is that epople at the Forge often throw out ideas that challenge the way rpgs+stroytelling games are made and played. One aspect that I hadn't seen much challenge of was the idea that players get their most enjoyment from creating their own characters and situations THEN playing the games. With a scenario-oriented focus, this concept is reversed. ScOrDes proposes that players get the most initial enjoyment from the gaming event, and only later decide to create their own characters and adventures once an interest in gamiong has been piqued.

Would this encourage more core rule purchases?  I think the answer is no.  Here's why.  You have core rules and a number scenarios in one product.  Two choices:  either only one person buys it or everyone buys it.

Only one person buys it:  The DM/GM/whatever should be the only one to buy the game.  This is because he won't want all the players intimately familiar with what they are going to be faced with.  If the players bought the book, they'd be tempted to read the scenarios, too, since they payed $X but only used a quarter of the product.  Not economical, so the GM lets all his players get familiar with the rules via his set.  You've just sold 1 copy. :(

Everyone buys it:  The DM cannot or should not share his game materials.  Everyone should have their own.  Buy where is the motivation for the players to buy all those pieces they will never be allowed to look at?  And once they have, how do you fight the temptation?  You've sold N copies, but the DM doesn't have any usable scenarios since everyone has better-than-easy access to them.  And the whole point was to get a bunch of scenarios you can use.

Quote from: Alex JohnsonDM/GM/whatever should be the only one to buy the game.  This is because he won't want all the players intimately familiar with what they are going to be faced with.  

Of course you could just make scenarios that are presenting situations, not revealing secrets.

In this very old thread (Successful RPG Line), Fang Langford talks about Scattershot being marketed in a way similar to what you're talking about. I'm not sure whether he was following through on this before he shelved the project, but i was struck by the parallel thinking.

I actually thought about this aspect after I posted.

I guess I was really thinking in terms of what one of these other folks suggested, which is more along the lines that Situations were being presented. Also, I had started thinking about the concept of "open source" adventure set ups, especially after reading Universalis. Of course, murder mystery games are set up with sealed player info, and I believe everyone, including the hosts of such events participates directly in the game event...

My thoughts on how scenario oriented designe focus could benefit game producers:

1) Designers with an engaging setting and setting-related conflicts who are not great system designers:

They only have to design the rules for any given scenario, not a coherent sey of rules for any adventure with any charcters that might exist in that setting.

2) Designers with a setting that is interesting, but that may have only limited play possibilities:

This is what I call the Blade Runner situation. You've got a really nifty setting and the main conflict involves rogue replicants and the people who hunt them. Moral questions about humanity and sentience and mercy abound. Some shoot-'em ups are possible. My thought: Is it necessary to create an entire traditional length RPG ruleset when most of these questions for the setting could be answered in a few archetypal scenarios? The old FGU game PsiWorld might well have benefitted from scenario oriented design, rather than ruleset oriented design.

3) "Atlas designers"

One of the snarkier comments I read in the Imfamous Five threads was a comment about guys that would rather make up atlases of imaginary places, but write games because atlases of imaginary places don't sell. I'm paraphrasing there. But these are exactly the kinds of designers that I can see benefitting from taking a scenario focus.

4) Designers of already developed game universes that want to bring in new consumers to the fold.

White Wolf springs to mind. White wolf actually produced jumpstart kits for Vampire and Werewolf, but both were designed with training new GMs in mind, not engaging new roleplayers. A packet of simple scenarios for the WW games designed with getting non-rpgers excited about their World of Darkness might go far. Plus, it might be an easy way to touch on several of the major conflicts in the setting (Loss of HUmanity, Generational conflict, sect conflict, internal coterie fighting, endangering the masquerade)

5) Designers who like several different play styles:

By having a variety of easy toi play scenarios in a pack, apotential designer might have one that explores each of the GNS modes, another that deals mostly with premise, and even have another scenario that goes in adifferent direction, such as a boardgame or miniatures game. The scenarios are tied together by setting or theme, rather than an overarching ruleset.


How scenario oriented design helps consumers:

1) Vast cutdown on set up time

I find that with non-rpgers, the greatest turnoffs to playing initially are not things like the geekiness of the hobby or the complexity of the rules. The biggest turnoffs are the length of time required to make characters and the lack of clarity in objective. Scenarios that are straight forward, or that use premade characters with easy to understand motivations would seem to make for accessibility.

2) Crack is addictive.

No, really. Remember, one of my goals in preaching the religion of scenario oriented design is to convince all the game designers on this board to do so, so that I may be lazy and simply pay money for excellent product rather than build it all myself. My other goal is to get my non-rpger friends hooked at the perverse level of gamer junkiedom that I am.

3) Encourage a variety of products to hit the market, and see growth in gamer success for new companies and designers.

If one company focuses on scenario oriented design and is successful, others will follow suit. We saw it with old style rpgs, we saw it witth CCGs. I like having variety to choose from.

Thanks,
Bob

Quote from: komradebob
No, really. Remember, one of my goals in preaching the religion of scenario oriented design is to convince all the game designers on this board to do so, so that I may be lazy and simply pay money for excellent product rather than build it all myself. My other goal is to get my non-rpger friends hooked at the perverse level of gamer junkiedom that I am.

Yes, great stuff.  By loose analogy, I want to be able to buy paintings, not only brushes and easels.  I think that we spend endless amounts aof paper, ink and money reproducing much the same systematic explanatory text on every self-contained RPG... perhaps this effort and investment could be better directed at producing actual consumables, especially ifbthat can be done at a higher standard of qaulity than the home-builder is likely to be able to accomplish.

I agree with a lot of what's been said and raise my hand as a guilty party. Icar (free Sci Fi RPG) is not easy to get into. It seems that the majority of people download it and then struggle to run it. It's inaccessibility, I believe, is on two factors.

1. It's Big
To run a basic game, you will need to read about 190 pages. The whole lot is in excess of 300 pages. Regardless of how easy the game is to read, it's a bulk.

2. It's Sci Fi
No matter how you argue it, there's always more to explain for Sci Fi. Also, Sci Fi is often less popular.

I'll admit that its size is the biggest breaking point and therefore there are plans to produce a Lite version of the rules. This will have all the character sheets and scanrios ready to run in a cut down manner. Although rules will be left out, the core will essentially be the same - allowing people to move onto the "heavy" version if they enjoy it.

I would like to do this to open the game up to more people. Although it's quite easy to play (I'm told), designing a quick-play version is no bad thing. I'm not trying to make money, I just like the idea of people playing something I have written!

Of course, Icar Lite will all come after the Star Enforcer Setting that I am writing (there's always something else!).

Great thread, by the way, it cemented another excuse to do a Lite version!

Icar and contracycle:

You guys have picked up exactly what I was getting at.

Sci Fi, as a genre, seems to be one that might really benefit. I personally like sci fi with all of its variety, but it doesn't seem to be a genre that engages as many of my other gamer friends as fantasy. It ddoes have appeal to my non-gamer friends, though.  a multi-scenario, ready to break out game product might do great things.

As an example, say that you've made a sf game involving starship combat. With a scenario oriented approach, you can dump all the rules for ship construction, your version of physics and all of the technologies for intergalactic warfare out there in your game universe. Instead, perhaps you have an escape type scenario: three lightly armed refugee ships need to escape from a evil raider patrol. The only rules you need are those that pertain to that very specific situation, and which highlight the issues at hand.

Also, doing scenario oriented design does not preclude designer full length settings and systems. Instead, the full systems and settings become toolkits for those players that want to make their own characters and adventures, rather than a weighty excersise in reading for those who only want a quick taste of the game.

Scenarios often seem to be afterthoughts in game production. People will design them and give them away for free, or throw them in with another "more real" supplement. My contention would be that they deserve more emphasis, not less.

Assuming for a moment that you are a commercially oriented designer, it might actually be possible to sell scenario books, and give the "real" rules and setting away- a reverse of the current model.

Part of my desire to see more scenario oriented design is the fcat that I started gaming during TSR's heyday of AD$D products. Part of the reason TSR dominated the market was that they put out slews of adventures rather than rules supplements. It seems like a more White Wolf model to put out slews of non-adventure supplements. I loved the WoD, but frankly the setting became really complex without especially encouraging actual play. Their "By Night" supplements were great settings, but most of the cool conflicts in those settings left player-characters in the role of outsiders, the WoD equivalent of the fantasy rowdies that hang around pubs, waiting for mysterious cloaked strangers with bags of gold to materialize. Any folks out there familiar with "Berlin by Night"?  Imagine how different that would have played if the players were the two competeing princes and their semi-loyal nobles, rather than vampiric wanderers that just happened into town in the midst of the conflict.

Scenario oriented design also offers the ability to use scalabilty, perhaps allowing otherwise unplayable characters to be used. I was reading Jorune the other day, and came a cross the designers strongly suggested prohibition on allowing players to have Shantha characters. Shanthas are simply too powerful. Yes, when compared to other PC races. But are they when compared to one another? A one shot using Shanthas, with a rules system toned down to reflect their qualities with regard to other Shanthas might be emminently playable. It might also give new Jorune players insight into the culture and interests of a normally NPC race. That would be especially useful to new gamers/gamers new to the setting.

Scenario oriented design also allows the ability to focus on what an abilty or item does within that scenario only. Example: I'm building a roaring '20s scenario. One of the characters only has a pistol. I give the character a car that says: .45 Pistol one use only: When you reveal the pistol, announce in a loud voice that you have it. silently count to three. If no other player has interfered, you may fire the pistool in a burst of savage violence. Pick another character as a target. Play rock/paper/scissors. If you win you may choose to kill or wound that character. On a tie you may wound them. If you lose, you've missed. This card is removed from the game once fired.

Okay, I've defined rules for a gun in a way useful to the scenario. I haven't talked about range, penetration, damage (at least not deeply), cover effects, ammo capacity and reloading time, or how this firearm';s abilities compare to a variety of other firearms present in the setting, such as tommyguns, sawnoff shotguns, or .38 pistols. I don't have to. What I've left out is irrelevant to this specific scenario. If I were to build a whole ruleset for a Prohibition era gangster setting, I might want to think about those issues.

Sorry, gotta run to work. Talk to you folks later.
Thanks to everyone for their suggestions and insights.
Robert

I see what you're after. I've got a lot of trouble with it, and it stems from experience.

We designed a stripped demo version of Multiverser some years back, and gave it away free to try to stimulate interest in the game. The stripped version, however, was clunky--if we ever sold a game from that, I don't know it, despite giving away probably thousands of downloads of it.

Why was it so bad?

In order to create such a game, we had to start by turning our core design philosophy on its head. In Multiverser, the basic concept is you have a chance to succeed at anything you can imagine. That's why the rules are so large--they contain detailed information that is broad enough that "anything you can imagine" is at least nominally covered somewhere. To reduce the game to something we could package this way, we had to change it to you cannot do anything that is not included in this package. That was it. Instead of playing yourself, you play one of the three stock characters in the document. Instead of being able to go anywhere, there were four worlds you could visit. Instead of being able to invent new magic, new attacks, new technologies, you could learn from NPCs those skills that were already listed.

So you've got an interesting idea for games, but in the end they all have to say, "You can't do anything that is outside these parameters", because you can't include rules to cover most of those things. That leads at least to the possibility that players can think of things that seem perfectly obvious and plausible but prove to be impossible.

I haven't seen the 1page games; most games that succeed in being short (including the one on which we're working) do so by being very narrow in focus, in the earnest expectation and hope that players won't ever need to do anything not covered.

--M. J. Young