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.

Alex Johnson wrote: 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.

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

komradebob wrote:
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.

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

What if you never set out intending to make a core system?

I've seen a couple of companies make stripped down versions of their games for demos. WW's stripped down Vampire the Masquerade was available on their website. IMO, it is actually better and more playable than their full rules. However, their attached scenarios sucks moonrocks.
Why? Because the scenario was never their emphasis, the ruleset was.

Along with being a rpger, I'm also a miniatures junkie. While searching for piratable/inspirational ideas for a WW1 minis system, I came across this site http://www.juniorgeneral.org/index.html. I'll use this as an illustration of my point.

On this guys site, there are rules for playing the Battle of Verdun. The rules are short, utilise miniatures and are very playable. For Verdun. They do not include everything necessary for every battle of ww1 in every theatre, nor even other trenchfighting. They also don't include things commonly found in more generalized ww1 minis rules, such as troop quality, force organization, morale, ammo, and aircover. The rules only cover what is fundamentally necessary to play the German assault on the French positions at Verdun.

Further down on the same site, the author has rules for a minis bash re-creation of Little Big Horn. The rules for that battle, while also short, are radically different from the Verdun rules. Players take the role of various Indian warbands attempting to outdo one another while massacring the Seventh Cavalry.

My point is this: Both of these rulesets exist because the author was scenario oriented. he doesn't attempt to recreate overarching rules that cover every battle with minis. Nor does he attempt to have a core system that is modified for both battles. Instead, he concentrates on the aspects of each scenario that are important to playing just that scenario.

Now, in a roleplaying application, one might tie together multiple scenarios through setting, rather than rules. That was primarily what I was thinking of when I started this thread. The scenarios may or may not be related to one another by similar rules, or chronology.

Here is a hypothetical product:
Title:Far Marches: Life and Death at the reaches of Human Space
Style: General SciFi (space opera?)

Scenario One: War Council
Frexam colonists have been pushed off their worlds by the advance of the vicious Xenobug Swarms. Their refugees are swarming into the Outer March worlds, threatening trade and overwhelming local officials with their demands for space on populated worlds to settle.
Players take the parts of various OuterMarch Nobles and Merchants appealing their cases to the Emperor to convince him to take action to stop the Frexam. In the mean time, each of the involved parties is attempting to promote their own individual agenda and gfoals at the expense of the other participants.
Style: Think Model UN game.

Scenario Two: Raiders! Five O'clock!
Outer March colonists take matters into their own hands, using their militia ships to attack and turn back a small caravan of Frexam Refugees and their armed escort. The refugees have to survive long enough to make their hyperspace calculations. Neither side can afford serious casualties, though the Outer March militia/stellar lynchmob has murder on their mind!
Style: Straight outerspace wargame with some rping color thrown in.

Scenario Three: Lost souls.
The characters are survivors of a raid like that described above. Their ship is falling apart. Life support is failing. Perhaps a single lifeboat is available!
Style: Character interaction, R-Maps and related moral quandries. Perhaps some puzzles to represent attempts to fix onboard systems. How about a time limit IRL, to add pressure?

Scenario Four: First Contact
Caravan survivors crash on a local world, and encounter strange aliens. Perhaps the aliens can help them, if they can only figure out the strange alien culture. And what might the aliens have for motivations?
Style: I'd base this on an excersise from my anthro 101 course. The players are split into two teams. The aliens have some sort of apparently non-sensical language and activity they are engaging in. The human players have to figure out the simple language structure, and the rules of the activity to succeed in this scenario, within a time limit. Throw in some xenophobia and other strange attitudes and watch the fun.

Okay. None of these scenarios require the same overarching rules. They probably wouldn't even benefit from them if you tried. They are all tied together with setting, and in some sense chronology. Each could be played seperately, using simple rules. Each could be completed in relatively quick order, and with minimal setup reading. This hypothetical product could verywell represent a tie in to a more complete scifi game system and setting.

Bob,

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.

The Sandman: Map of Halaal RPG worked almost exactly like this.

Paul

I'm struck by how much Bob's examples resemble the LARP mechanics and scenarios I've worked with. The text from the pistol could have been taken verbatim from an item card in an SIL-style LARP. In one LARP, Spaceport Adeline, where I was trying to minimize both printed rules and GM refereeing as much as possible, individual weapons got even simpler. There was one blaster that could only be used to escape from being arrested, another that could only be used to rob items from another player-character, and so forth. (One use only, automatic success, in each case.)

I notice that Bob's four SF scenarios all, in different ways, minimize the creative responsibilities of the GM (some appear to require no dedicated GM at all). Which points out one of the key issues for accessible scenarios: whether or not the quality of play will depend on GM skill. I suspect most one-pamphlet rule systems will make the task of playing a player-character simple by making the GM tasks (whether actually performed by a GM or distributed among the players) more important. Overall, this won't necessarily give you the accessibility sought for. Somewhat more hefty content, but designed to be used in a controlled step by step way (as opposed to the traditional "learn all this, then run the scenario with all of it in mind" approach), would appear to be required. The design problems and applicable techniques appear to overlap those of solo RPGs.

- Walt

Wow, Paul, I haven't heard a reference to that game in ages. Did anyone ever win the prize? I remember that was a big advertising point for it. Do you know what the deal on the Sandman's identiy was?

Actually, Sandman: Map of Halaal might be an argument against scenario oriented design. Does anyone know how the product sold over the years?

One of the things I've noticed about tabletop rpg design is well, that the use of a table is implied. I mean an actual table, the wooden or metal kind that you might set at to eat meals. I know that may seem obvious, but it does effect design to some extent. If you have a table, or something substituting as one ( the floor, a coffe table) you have a surface to spread out game artifacts on, roll dice on, stack a pile of books on, etc. I've noticed a general tendency for tabletop rpgs to be system/setting oriented, with adventures/scenarios oftenan afterthought for their designers.

LARP rules seem to be more scenario oriented. Minds Eye Theatre WoD rules and Cthulhu Live seem to be exceptions to this, but then both are translations of tabletop games. I was rereading the old posts about an Arabian Nights LARP last night, and was struck by just how scenario oriented their rules were. To paraphrase (since I can't seem to find the thread right now), the players were given cards that showed their special abilities, items, etc, and the rules for them were written on the card itself. There were not really any overarching rules/system tto learn at the character level.

Ironically, Walt was responding to this thread at the same time I was, and brought up some good points.

Should a stand alone scenario indicate in a blurb whether a GM in a traditional sense is necessary? It would certainly change the dynamic, compared to a shared GM duties approach.

I don't know a lot/anything about SIL style LARPing. What does SIL stand for, and do you have any links to read up on the subject?

Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that they wouldn't mind skipping the "what is roleplaying" essay that seems required in tabletop rules sets, especially since it takes up page count and adds to both printing and shipping cost, presumably. Actually, I'm perverse enough that I actually enjoy reading those essays, along with designer notes and essays on play style and so on, as applied to a particular game setting. As a thought however, consider where and how you are promoting your product. If primarily you are using a website, these are prime candidates for freedownload status. After all, you may well be dealing with a potential audience already familiar with gaming in some form. Even setting itself might be a freebie, not to mention rules, if scenario oriented design iis your goal.

I guess it comes down to this: Is your interest in having players play using your system, or is it to have them play in the game universe you've created?

Hey Bob,

The second box in the series was announced, but as far as I know never appeared. And I can't imagine anyone solving the mystery and getting the prize from just the first game.

I will say that the Casablanca sequence in that game remains one of my most enjoyable player experiences from the 80s. The post-apocalyptic parking garage sequence, however, seemed pretty weak. But I'd buy a similarly designed card-based game in a heartbeat, particularly if it ditched the amnesia/self-discovery component and offered enough cards and guidance to a prospective GM in creating scenarios that it wasn't just a play-once product. (And the various blaster cards that Walt describes are fascinating to consider in the context of such a product.)

Paul

komradebob wrote: Wow, Paul, I haven't heard a reference to that game in ages. Did anyone ever win the prize? I remember that was a big advertising point for it. Do you know what the deal on the Sandman's identiy was?

Actually, Sandman: Map of Halaal might be an argument against scenario oriented design. Does anyone know how the product sold over the years??

komradebob wrote: I don't know a lot/anything about SIL style LARPing. What does SIL stand for, and do you have any links to read up on the subject?

I just checked out the SIL West site and read up on the subject a little. It sounds like these folks are pretty much dead on to what I was thinking when I started this thread. The only difference seems to be an issue of scale. The SIL West site talked about events with like 70+ people, and custom built for the scenario rules. I was thinking something a bit more modest, maybe 3-5 players, perhaps 8-9 for an in-one's-apartment type event.

I must admit that the SIL people really seem to have the style going. I may even take a shot at attending one of these events, since the impression I have from reading their site seems to suggest a better organized event than the WoD LARPs I'd tried out before and stopped bothering to attend from sheer boredom and lack of character hook. (That last bit is strictly my personal opinion. I know dozens znd dozens of folks who think the MET WoD weekly sessions are the best thing since sliced bread or dark beer...).

Ironically, a question of how much I'd pay came up earlier. The SIL West Events seem to run @$75 entry fee plus whatever associated expenses you incur for a 2 1/2 day event. Given the apparent quality, I'd actually consider that a very good buy for my gaming buck...