Hello:
I got a lot of great responses to an earlier thread, but I wanted to start this new one, to get feedback to a core question that occured to me form those posts.

Why does scenario oriented design seem to be a low priority for game designers?

Quick working definition:
Scenario Oriented Design: Game design that emphasizes the play of a given rping adventure, rather than the creation of an overarching rule set meant to be used for all sorts of characters and situations in a given game setting. Hallmarks of SOD might include premade characters integral to the adventure, short rules that cover only actions/abilities relevant to immediate game situation, quick pre-adventure reading time.

I have a few theories to throw out at you folks, but I would certainly appreciate everyone's imput.

Problem: Making a scenario that is self contained may actually be as hard or harder than writing a full, traditional ruleset.

I could see how writing minimalist rules would be just as lengthy a prrocess as writing full rules. After all, a lot of the work might actually end up being a matter of deciding what not to include.

Problem: Growth of protagonism as a valued part of modern RPGs.

SOD would seem at some level to harken back to the days of dungeon crawls and linear adventures. Is it a matter that game designers are afraid to squelch player creativity by taking such an active role in defining the characters and action in a game design?

Problem: SOD seems too simplistic.

Designers are mostly interested in products that have appeal to people who already have some rpg experience. SOD appears to be oriented more toward newbies to the hobby and designers feel that as such these products might have little appeal to veteran gamers.

Problem: Scenarios are seen as add-ons to a game, not the centerpiece.

This struck me when I read some threads concerning the commercial viabilty of supplements to games, especially for smaller game companies. Unlike big companies, smaller publishers can't afford the monetary risk of investing in scenario books that might bomb. Core books are seen as at5 least somewhat better of a risk financially. Scenarios are seen as something best used as a freebie advertising tool for the main rules.

Your feedback is appreciated,
Robert

Well, I've come to be a big proponent of Situation based play and game designs that facilitate Situation based play. I think, if I'm reading you write, that your Scenario based play is largely a narrower application of this concept.

In my useage, the situation is jointly arrived at by collaboration between GM and players, using a system designed and geared for requiring and encouraging that sort of collaboration. Riddle of Steel, HeroQuest, Alyria, and My Life with Master, and are probably the best examples I can think of of systems that do this, with the last two being outright explicit about it in the game text, Hero Quest somewhat less clear, and TRoS having less direction for this in the actual text but alot in the support forum.

What your proposing seems to be along the same train of thought, but going the next step and delivering the actual situation itself rather than just tools and directions for creating one.

On the one hand I like the presumed convenience of it. It would be sort of like the TV Dinner of gaming. Just open the box, pop in the microwave for a couple minutes and go. I can clearly see the utility of such a format.

But, on the other hand, I think the key to making situation based gaming work is the buy in from everyone at the table. Not just the willingness to play, but actual excitement about and committment to the situation by all of the players. This is where the joint collaboration amongst players (GM included) comes in.

I'm having difficulty seeing how one can achieve that level of buy in with a pre packaged situation. So in that sense the idea again seems like a TV Dinner in that the quality wouldn't be as good as a home cooked meal (but many folks eat them regularly anyway).

I'm I tracking what you're saying accurately?

One of the big issues that immediately leaps into my mind is replay value. If I spend X dollars on a product, I want to get some mileage out of it. If we're talking 30 dollars or more, then playing through the scenario once with your game group probably isn't going to cut it for the majority of consumers.

So how do you get replay value in SOD? One way that I can think of is to go the Heroquest route (the old board game, not Glorantha's New Hotness) and have your scenario backbone be dungeon delving. I'm sure there are other premises that could be explored over and over in a more boardgame-like venue, but I'm drawing a blank at the moment.

I am certain, however, that a hybrid board/rp game would generate interest in the gaming community.

Replayabilty:
I think this is a pretty valid concern, esp. related to real world dollars vs. long term use.

As an avid gamer junkie, though, I've bought plenty of game systems that were only used once ( admittedly sometimes over several game sessions), then put away. I've known a lot of gamers with similar habits. Mostly I think it derives from a desire for diversity of experience in settings, etc.

Related thought: Is the realworld game value of an SOD product at least partly based on having multiple related scenarios within the product? I've kinda stayed away from Host a Murder Mystery products on the grounds that, well, they only contain one scenario for my money.

The TV dinner argument:
Also valid. But one of my interests is engaging new would-be gamers. Or to put it another way, I just want folks to eat something. Maybe they'll enjoy the peach cobbler?

Related thought: Is the main joy of gaming directly linked to the ability/necessity of creating something using the rulesets? I guess I'm thinking of creation relative to pre-adventure work: Players creating characters, GMs creating plot starter. If so, I can definitely see how SOD products might go over like lead balloons...

Well, this starts getting into a Publishing matter, but if $30 is too much, how about $7? That's the cost of a movie, and a whole group can pitch in to buy it -- that's probably 2 bucks a person at most. A lot of the people I know basically buy Cheapass games on this basis: not expecting to play it more than once, at least not until a couple of years have passed. I definitely agree with the TV dinner analogy -- even I, who cook pretty well all my own meals, still like to slouch and get something pre-prepared once in a while, so I think it could work.

I've heard good things about the Deep7 1PG products. Even some of the larger games from Deep7 are focused on a particular setup.

John

I actually have been thinking about this, as I've planned publishing my scenario from last Ropecon as a standalone "game". Some background:

In Finland, it is the assumption among roleplayers that the GM, the great auteur that he is, will control most aspects of the game. Therefore we find little resistance against relinquishing control of, for example, character creation. If you don't like it, go play somewhere else.

We also don't have any assumptions about scenarios being a simplistic form. To the contrary, many people will assume automatically that only the artistic players will play with pregenerated characters in a limited scenario. All others play long fantasy campaigns, after all.

My own scenario, if published, would include an enormous amount of background and props, alike to larp documentation. We're talking over ten premade player characters, at least three pages each. Additionally, there'd be suggestions for applying the rules set to other scenarios.

In actual play we have, at least here, much experience with scenario design. What is a scenario but an elaborate convention game? Actually, now that I think about what I've read about the American scene, it seems that this isn't too true. Let me explain: hereabouts there is very little of demoing going on in conventions, and the usual form of play is voluntarily prepared scenario play, where the players sign on at the convention and the GMs get in free. Today many GMs compete in building more elaborate scenarios for conventions than they do for normal play. There's props, extremely little or big play groups, anomalously long or short sessions, experimental play and all other things one rarely sees executed in everyday play. As far as I see, everything needed for a good commercial scenario has already been done in preparation for these big convention games.

So it is with my own scenario (the one I'm thinking of publishing). It includes some four to eight hours of extremely intense play with a rules system that is focused for this and only this. The scenario can be played in a reduced form by some five players, but it takes fifteen. I could readily imagine paying a fiver (or fifteen dollars in book form) for it, when the system can be adapted for other Lovecraftian immersionist scenarios as well.

"The Greates Convention Games vol 1: The Temple". Why not? Do it with enough panache, and nobody even remembers you aren't supposed to sell individual scenarios.

I don't actually have any large point here, I'm just demonstrating that I at least think that what you perceive as problems of the form are just preconseptions that break before the first example to the contrary. If I had more time and less pressing projects, I'd demonstrate this within months.

Do the "Host a Murder Mystery" games provide an example of a single-adventure RPG product & rules?

(I've never seen the inside of one of those boxes, so I don't really know the answer.)

Jasper: Ithink you might be dead on with the cost issue. $7 is about the price I was paying for TSR modules when I first started gaming. I had an enormous collection of them for a while, about a third played, the rest used as inspirational material. I still feel that this is a very play encouraging price range. Strangely, I don't see a lot of adventures produced this way anymore. Big companies seem to ignore them in favor of background/setting supplements, and smaller publishers seem to view them as either a bad investment or somehow impinging on end user creativity.

John: A couple of people have pointed me in this direction. I'll definitely give them a second look.

James: I've seen them pop up several times at thrift stores for around $4 used. They don't seem to have rpg rules in the trad sense. Rather they seem to be a collection of invitations, possibly an audio tape to play at the beginning of the party to set up the situation, several sealed envelopes of plot stuff with instructions about which character gets them and at what point in the evening, and in at least one case recipes for hors d'ouevres to serve at the event.

Eero: Im fascinated by the cultural differences between American and European play styles. I've seen a few threads regarding this on the Forge. Europlayers seem much more comfortable with LARP than Americans, though this may simply be a misperception based on lack of examples from the American scene. I'd be very happy to be proven very wrong about the existence of Scenario Oriented Design being actively pursued.

As a general follow up question about SIL style games. I've seen a couple sites and threads here about the games generally. However, I'm curious if anyone has put up material used in these events as examples of how items/abilities might work. I've seen multiple references to cards being used that describe say, how an item works. I haven't actually seen examples of those cards themselves.

Single-session LARPs doubtless count as Single-Scenario RPGs and amount to Scenario-Oriented Design; I've no idea how widepsread they are, but it's what I'm involved in. Rules not needed for the scenario don't get into the game.

I posted up the most recent set of rules we used in: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10096

Cards vary widely, and are, in essence, highly condensed special rules. Examples from games I've run:

Item: Pistol: When you use this pistol in combat, you do damage equal to (Your Card Draw) X 6. You must shout BANG! very loudly every time you fire the pistol.

Item: Armored Vest: This vest absorbs the first 50 points of damage done to you in the game.

Skill: Forensics: You can use your forensics training to examine dead bodies. A GM will provide information; the time to get a GM represents your examination time. [Note: this is quite dependent on having GMs who Know What Happened - it works in our small games so far. I make players draw a card to determine the rough level of success in using the skill, which has the side benefit of giving me an extra few seconds to think. :) ]

Skill: Death Magic: You may choose to cast a deadly spell instead of conducting any other form of attack in a given round. For every point of your own health you spend, you inflict 3 on the enemy. Thus if you choose to lose 20, the enemy loses 60.

Item/Skill: Medical Kit: You have the skills to use this kit. You may heal up to 60 points of any player's (including your own) Health, 6 times. Leftover points from a use are lost. Check off the circles below as you use the bandages:
0 0 0 0 0 0


Hope that helps.

James:
That was exactly what I was looking for, thanks. I had actually already checked out your rules and found thm interesting.

Do you know if anyone has published any of their item lists/rules and analysis of their workability after an event has been played?

I'm not aware of any publications of such, but that doesn't mean much.

The rules and setup in the above post *mostly* worked very well. The main problem encountered: players got confused about "how-to" for the combat mechanics when a combat was actually in progress. I'm at a loss on how to simplify those further, so the answer must lie in better explanation during the pre-game review of the rules.

However, the games I'm running are done for a selected group of friends - it's a weasel-free environment. Thus the rules don't get tested against players who are actively trying to cheat, and are runnig with players who will try to stay in the spirit as well as the letter of the rules, insofar as they understand them.

Edit: Spelling counts. :)

JamesSterrett wrote: Do the "Host a Murder Mystery" games provide an example of a single-adventure RPG product & rules?

(I've never seen the inside of one of those boxes, so I don't really know the answer.)

Couple more theories for "Why so little Scenario-Oriented Design?" from a game-as-personal-vison standpoint:

1) Who's more likely to become a game designer, the guy who runs his campaign straight out of the pages of Dungeon magazine, or the guy who writes all his own adventures for his group in his own campaign world? I'd say the 2nd guy (or, at least, I am the 2nd guy). And when I think about writing my own game, and publishing scenarios, I can't help but have the gut reaction of "eww, I hate prewritten scenarios."

I'm saying that the folks that like TV dinners are less likely to exhibit the enchantment with food necessary to become a nutritionist in the position to make TV dinners.

2) As you said, writing SOD takes just as long as writing full rules, but will command a lower price, and less chance of converts. What I mean is, suppose I play Sorcerer at a convention. It's a cool game. I buy it and run it for my friends. They like it. Two of them buy it for use in the game. One games with another group, and he shows it to them... Ron's written one game and made three sales, maybe more.

Now, consider Far Marches, the hypothetical SOD you postulated in A product fantasy-One Consumer's POV. I play in one of the four scenarios at a convention. It's a cool game. I debate with myself about buying it, 'cause I've already "used up" 1/4 of the book. But I buy it and run the rest of the scenarios for my friends. They like it, but they have no impetus to buy it, because they've already played it. One of my friends games with another group, so he buys my copy from me because I really don't need it anymore. You've written four games and made one sale, maybe more. Admittedly, you've got a bunch of us eagerly awaiting your next publication, but not much else.

Admittedly, I'm stating the case rather strongly for the sake of argument, but your idea does seem a *very* hard row to hoe. I hope you have a lot of success with it. I'd likely buy Far Marches if you published it.

Mike:
Ironically, I was hoping to hook someone like you into writing it...hehehe

I think the replayability issue is interesting. It's very true that many people buy games they'll play only a few times. (Or not at all, but this isn't a thread about reading metaplot in lieu of gaming.)

Marketing is arguably about pushing the best possibility that could come from purchasing a product. I'm buying a bottle of scrubbing cleanser, but in the back of my head maybe I'm thinking "This stuff will work faster than the other brand, so I'll have more time to spend time with my loving family in our sparkling kitchen." In fact, I'm just going to give the kitchen a once-over. It's not going to change my life.

I would argue that there's a similar thing going on with some RPGs. People may only play them once, but that little Pollyanna voice in the back of their head is saying, "Maybe it'll be a new campaign, and we'll all have a great time, and Bob and Jim won't argue like they used to."

I think there's some element of purchasing a new RPG that, for many people, reaches past what they'll actually get out of it to what they'll hope to get out of it. And scenario-based games don't promise more than just one evening's play, so they don't cater to a purchaser's desires in the same way.

The irony is that I see plenty of Actual Play threads about games like Inspectres and My Life With Master where a group playing through a single scenario provided them with just those benefits. (They aren't scenario-based games, but in practice they're used a lot as one-shots.)

Michael S. Miller wrote:
Admittedly, I'm stating the case rather strongly for the sake of argument, but your idea does seem a *very* hard row to hoe. I hope you have a lot of success with it. I'd likely buy Far Marches if you published it.

As a GM, I run what my players want to play. As a designer, I write up what I run and make it available for fun and free.

My players want to play long, involved campaigns that are quite complex. I could take a SOD and then expand it but I feel that the aim of a SOD is to create a short, single game. The aim of a campaign is to weave a number of games together into a coherent story. Although I have never actually expanded a SOD to a campaign, intuition suggests that a campaign is better formed from inception rather than an alteration of a SOD.

Perhaps a solution to this is to write an Iterative SOD (ISOD). An ISOD would be a campaign setting that is written like a SOD on a game-by-game process. The first chapter would be your typical SOD, with all the rules and setting required to play. The second Chapter would include a few more rules and a bit more setting and another goal for the team. Each chapter from here on would continue to add to the setting and mechanics until you were playing a campaign world with as much depth as any system.

A benefit of this ISOD is that you can stop reading Chapters when the complexity has got to a level you're happy with. If you don't want the additional complexity, don't read further! This is achieved by using advanced or optional rules in non-SOD but the ISOD way appears more elegant.

An ISOD would be a challenge to write as it would not present the game in the order that designers are used to writing in. It would also be frustrating for the experienced GM to pick through. It would have the same detail as the non-SOD game but would cost the same. So the game is unlikely to be 'cheap and cheerful'.

I'm not about to make an ISOD version of Icar as the PDF book would be in excess of 30MB (most of you know I like my graphics!). I am planning to do a SOD version, though.

Side thought:
I've noticed that a lot of indie-published games are the work of one or two people primarily. Do you think that this fact is a barrier to creating follow up scenario products to a core game, much less SOD as I've defined it?

I have to admit that when someone had mentioned the hypothetical SOD product I'd posited on another thread, I'd considered taking a hack at designing it. Then I started getting a headache just considering it.

Big companies, as I recall, when they were putting out lots of modules/scenarios basically tapped their committed fanbase to create more scenarios to then publish and sell. Does this model fail for indies?

contracycle wrote: What horrors, RPG companies would then have to keep producing!

The music business does not produce one record for a band and then leave the buying public to make up their own music. The paper publishing industry does not prduce one book for an author. Having several people eagerly awaiting the next publication is about as good a goal as the product can aim for. You have not written 4 games and made one sale - you have written 1 book and made 1 sale. Fair enough

I don't think that there is anything inherently unsalable about prepublished scenerios, but I think that the most like SOD I have seen that was successful is Living Greyhawk. All of the scenerios are prepublished, but any you can play "any" character in the scenerio and they a scalable for higher threat levels.

However, LG isn't really SOD as I understand it as not all the rules are in the scenerios. You still need seperate core books. The idea of each scenerio being completely stand alone appeals to me as it would allow a game effect that would be otherwise "broken" if it were in the hands of min/maxers to apply as they saw fit. This would allow a high fantasy big-gun such as magic sword of slay anaganist to be doled out when appropriate without the worry that it will ruin every scenerio from then on.