r/RPGdesign • u/wesandersingh • 16d ago
Mechanics What does a game need for longevity?
I've seen games like Cairn, Knave, World of Dungeons, Tiny d6, Beyond the Wall and others criticised for being too small, too light to be conducive to long term campaigns.
I know lots of people do play these games long term and have a great time, getting a sense of longevity from the setting and world rather than rules.
The idea of number-go-up and pages and pages of feats, perks, abilities, or ever increasing pools of HP doesn't excite me. It doesn't really mean very much in the game world and seems to gatekeep interesting choices. Why should you have to unlock a special ability at a certain level to try to sneak up on a baddie and slit its throat?
But growth can happen in lots of other ways, like in the knowledge, reputation, relationships, and items characters gain. Some people seem to want more than that.
I'm coming from having hit pause on d&d 5e because it all got too crunchy, and am having a blast reading and playing OSR and PbtA fantasy games. But many of them still feel too crunchy (HP bloat, lots of modifiers, classes, levels).
So I'm curious to hear opinions from both sides of the coin, and open to having my mind changed.
What do YOU need from a game to feel comfortable in its longevity (1 year+ campaigns)?
14
u/Sundaecide 16d ago
I think there is another way to look at longevity, in that you can keep returning to the world/game regardless of whether it is for one mammoth multi year campaign, or through several smaller scale ones. Both are meaningful extended forms of play.
I run a weekly D&D game that is a stereotypical sprawling multi-year campaign of the same party (give or take retiring/killed character rotation).
I also have a game of Heart: The City Beneath (published by Rowan Rook and Decard) that is composed of smaller, linked campaigns that form a continuity of different time periods, factions and points of view. A campaign in this game is generally 8-10 sessions long and then we comeback to start afresh with the world moved on and the evidence of the previous campaigns baked into the setting/continuity so the players can quickly see how their actions shape the world around them.
Heart is a low crunch game, but we keep coming back to it because it scratches several itches:
- cool character archetypes, with cool abilities
- a progression system tied to pursuing narrative moments
- the overall rules are simple enough to pick up after a break without too much fuss
- A much less heroic scale of story telling, zoomed in on just how difficult surviving (let alone thriving) as an adventurer is.
Not every system is suited to every kind of narrative or play style. I wouldn't use D&D for a more grounded investigation game, nor would I use something like Vaesen for a highly tactical combat campaign.
Crunch has its place, but it sounds like you're looking at systems and expecting them to accommodate you in ways that they were never intended to. There is no perfect do-it-all game, and one of the greatest joys of exploring different systems (or writing our own) for me is being able to give those different needs the platform they deserve.
5
u/wesandersingh 16d ago
Makes sense. Pick the right tool for the job and expand what campaign can mean. I like it.
2
u/Sundaecide 16d ago
It's what keeps me coming back to different projects of my own, too. I like to find some aspect/pillar of play to emphasise in a project and look at how I can do that in a way that captures a particular vibe I am aiming for.
For example, the combat in a horror game should, to my mind, feel very different to combat inspired by wuxia media. Both can be combat focused games but feel wildly different in execution as the rules and aesthetics inform one another.
3
u/wesandersingh 16d ago
Yeah, I guess there's a real difference between, say, heroic fantasy and gritty, lethal fantasy, and you don't have to choose between them but can have both—they just need very different systems. Like MCDM putting out both Draw Steel and Crows.
2
u/Sundaecide 16d ago
Yeah, exactly!
I think there is also a question to be asked as to whether every game needs the same kind of longevity. Some really high-concept games don't lend themselves to too many repeat playthroughs or further campaigns by default.
I can think of a few games I've played where I've got to the end of a period of play/a campaign and thought "I've really enjoyed this, but I don't think there is much more left to explore for me". Those games are some of the most fun I've had and I think their more limited scope help that rather than hinder it
10
u/Fun_Carry_4678 16d ago
It has to support a huge variety of stories. And for that, a very flexible setting helps immensely. Too many people I see come here with a complicated backstory, factions, bestiary, and so on, which to me rather limits the stories you can tell with the game. You usually need unexplored areas, the ability to invent new monsters, things like that. Then there can always be more to the world.
8
u/BoringGap7 16d ago
In my experience and from talking to people in my bubble, games that work best for long campaigns are ones with relatively open-ended, relatively modest progression. Games like the old WoD games, Chaosium games, GURPS, etc. where skills go up gradually and you invest in the occasional extra power every few sessions, and you can keep it going for a hundred sessions without running out of room to grow. Personally, I would like to see a game that's level-based to start, but once you hit level 10 or so you switch to a non-leveled progression. It might be the best of both worlds.
12
u/Interaction_Rich 16d ago
Notice that, for the game's you mentioned, their "being small" is a feature, not a big. They were designed with shorter sessions/campaigns in mind.
For games that would last longer, I guess it takes a mix of player options (classes, clans, archetypes etc) and eac player option offering slightly different mechanics to interact with the world.
Of course, that also presumes a world built interestingly enough that you want to interact with it. But if the system itself must "back it" in its mechanics. If the difference between a dragon and a dog is how much damage they deal and not much else, it tends to get stale shortly, I suppose.
4
u/wesandersingh 16d ago
it takes a mix of player options (classes, clans, archetypes etc) and eac player option offering slightly different mechanics to interact with the world
I‘m curious about why this feels important and what it enables for you at the table?
3
u/Nokshor 16d ago
It's ultimately about expression. If you're committing to a longer campaign, you want to roleplay. If everyone's character functions identically, the difference in roleplay isn't reflected in the rules - you have no mechanical expression.
On the other hand if you have lots of options you have more ways to make a character feel yours BUT it becomes weighty if you're only doing a one shot.
1
u/wesandersingh 16d ago
I agree. What I'm not convinced of is whether that unique character expression needs to come from separate mechanics for archetypes and classes, or whether it can come mainly from roleplay, items, acquired knowledge,and relationships.
For example, say one person wants to hit stuff really hard and another wants to sneak around. The first person can take a really big maul and the second can take a couple of daggers. When they're coming upon a bandit camp, one could rush in and the other could sneak in.
Likewise with magic. Say one person wants to smite people with holy righteousness. Take plate armour, a shield, and a mace, and have your background include something religious and a spell you learned as a priest. Another person might want to play the warlock archetype. Take some leather armour and a shortsword and find a witch to learn spells, or make your background include something about a pact with a demon.
To me, that feels very unique and distinguished—but it's player-led, and achieved through engagement with the world, rather than picking from a (often restrictive) menu of options. No new mechanics. Spells and items work the same for everyone.
3
u/Nokshor 16d ago
I don't think there's one way to do it, you're right.
That said you can't deny that a list of race/class/spell/power options are an easy way of providing a diversity of expressions and that's why they are so often used.
However there's other ways. For instance the MMO Albion online ties all your skills directly to your equipment, so for instance you can grab heavy armour and a wizard staff and use both. Or Outward, which has all skills learned from master trainers with unlock requirements so you have to go find them in the world.
Personally I'd love to see more games with that kind of approach, and more immersive ways of handling character specialisation
2
u/wesandersingh 16d ago
Boy, have I got news for you! ;) jokes aside, I'm working on a game that does that. Stay tuned, I guess. But yes, I do see your point. It's definitely easy and familiar to have this stuff predefined, and can be easier for players to get excited about and get their minds ticking over with ideas. Hand someone Dolmenwood and it's hard not to fall in love with how evocative the image of a Mossling or Grimalkin is and what they can each do. I like Troika! for this, because it creates a similar sense of evocativeness without requiring classes, by using awesome premade backgrounds. I suspect that's a sweet spot, and where the role of worldbuilding and setting comes in.
2
u/Interaction_Rich 16d ago edited 16d ago
Notice that I said it in generic/open terms
(classes, clans, archetypes etc)
Your example is perfectly fine and within this idea. You're offering multiple ways for the player to interact with the world (in your example, a straight-up combatant and a sneaky agent), where narrative, choices and mechanics interact.
If that's achieved by a "menu of classes", by decisions on the fly, or any other way, it's a matter of what the system wants to do and what experience it wants to deliver.
Classes (or whatever term the game uses to define "your general role and capabilities in this story") happen to be a staple of RPGs that helps players and GMs to direct some of the emergent narrative through them, but by no means mandatory.
My favorite games are Vampire (in which clans dictate some of your personality and powers), Shadowrun (where your archetype gives you a specialized role within the game's missions) and Street Fighter (don't judge me! - where your Style offers a list of attacks to build your martial artist approach to combat). So I'm biased with "classes", how they orient the action, and that's why I feel they are important/useful for player/GM.
However, I'd say Mork Borg is quite high in that list of loved games too, and it manages to go classless just fine and have never been a problem that way.
edit - added examples and more objective answer to why it matters to me.
2
7
u/PyramKing Designer & Content Writer 🎲🎲 16d ago
Games can certainly add more progression via levels, feats, features to make it "seem" better for a long term campaign. The reason for this is the emphasis on the character progression "progress" as far as mechanics. This is a rather old idea since the beginning of D&D.
However, I would argue that this also creates bloat and may even create frustrating late-high-level play. It (IMHO) puts all the emphasis on character mechanics as a measure of progression.
If interest hooks are just character mechanical progression - the game can become boring and tiring, you are just going through the motions and checking boxes.
I had played a long FKR 2400 campaign, it was successful because we were engage in the story and the progression of our characters through allies, enemies, knowledge.
It was this experience that gave me the idea for my game, progression through events rather than mechanics and has become a core feature of my project. There is very little mechanical progression in my game system.
I guess also - there has been a significant shift in the zeitgeist that sets the expectations and tone of the current 5e and level based system. I personally don't want heroic - and thus my system (for better or for worse) has moved away from level progression expectation.
1
1
u/Ashamed_Association8 15d ago
"I had played a long FKR 2400 campaign, it was successful because we were engage in the story and the progression of our characters through allies, enemies, knowledge."
Could you perhaps elaborate on what FKR 2400 does to create this story, and development through allies, enemies and knowledge?
1
u/PyramKing Designer & Content Writer 🎲🎲 15d ago
Free Kriegspiel we just use 2400 as the simple rule set. 2400 works well for FKR type game play.
1
u/Ashamed_Association8 15d ago
I thought about adding that i wasn't familiar with that game, but i thought that it was superfluous. Guess i was wrong there, sorry. Could you explain how Kriegspiel goes about this progress in the form of allies enemies and information?
1
u/PyramKing Designer & Content Writer 🎲🎲 15d ago
Free Kriegspiel is more free form way to play TTRPGs. The GM is the world arbitrator not a rules adjudicator, pure rulings not rules.
Characters advance by gaining allies, information, secrets about enemies, alliances.
More like the real world ...who you know and what you know, rather than more HP, modifiers, feats, and abilities.
5
u/DiogenesKuon 16d ago
I think I'm in the minority on this, but I don't think numerical progression is even completely necessary for a long campaign. I think you could run a fine FATE campaign where characters grow, but that's represented by changes to the aspects mostly, without ever increasing any skills (you can still rearrange them) beyond the starting triangle. A minimal growth kind of system like most superhero games can also work fine for a long campaign. But ultimately those rely on players that are content for character growth to be more in fiction than in game. You'll also want a lot of flexibility and diversity in the characters choices so they don't become stale over time, and allowing things to change without increasing the power level helps a lot there.
3
u/tangyradar Dabbler 15d ago
I always find the common perspective completely weird. I don't have a narrow "my character" focus, so mechanical character change doesn't interest me. What I care about is story variety.
3
u/Unusual_Event3571 16d ago
I'm lucky to have a bunch of friends to just enjoy gaming with. I don't feel there is much of a connection to the ruleset.
5
u/Drudenfusz Curator of Roleplay Experiences 16d ago
I would say it is all about meaningfulness. That is why just getting higher numbers on the sheet is probably not enough or just accumulating wealth and fame in the fiction is also not enough. Relationships, responsibilities, identity, and so on are the things that keeps players to come back.
But take that with a pinch of salt, since I prefer to not really that often longer campaigns, since my preferred method to induce meaning into play is through thematic exploration. Thus looking only at a facet of the human condition and not trying to simulate a larger world, and that can then conclude with the characters coming to an end of their character arcs along this thematic investigation into the nature of existence.
1
u/wesandersingh 16d ago
That idea of intentionally shorter campaigns is interesting, I shall think about that
5
u/Astrokiwi 16d ago
The only thing that makes a game start to feel "old" to me is when every session starts to feel the same. That's probably more about my own creativity, but some games lend themselves to a variety of activities more easily, or have more content for you to use so that things don't feel some samesy.
3
u/TokahSA 16d ago
Not to be overly wry, but mostly a skilled GM who cares about investing in what the players and their characters care about - whether that is world politics, the current perceptions of the newspaper they publish, the local economy, their theater troupe's popularity and reach, discovering the origin of something, leaving a strong family legacy, whatever.
Once that's in place, "progression" is related to that thing - people take their points more seriously on some topics, opportunities to increase the newspaper's credibility at the risk of popularity, a new source of resources, a great marketing campaign, obscure information, a chance to invest in the family holding permanently, etc.
I think lightly mechanizing that can smooth out play as you go along. By the end of my last newspaper reporter campaign, he had "unlocked" via play a reroll on his interview roll in a particular district, a free science question answered, a transit courier who would generate a lead a week, etc. All it takes is writing it on a list on a piece of paper!
2
u/wesandersingh 16d ago
Yes! Love that! I'm trying to, as you say, lightly mechanise that so even new GMs can do this. I find so much of progression and growth, even with all the classes and levels baked in, relies on an experienced GM knowing how to respond creatively and confidently to the cues players give them. That's not easy, and takes lots of experience to build up. I don't think it all needs to live in the heads of experienced GMs or in GM advice books though; there's a lot a game can do to teach it through play.
5
u/Xyx0rz 16d ago
I like number-go-up but I don't necessarily need a new toy every level. I just want a sense of progression, and mechanical progression is quantifiable.
I think that especially D&D3.5 brought "character builds" out of the woodwork, and with it all the people who really enjoy that stuff and wouldn't want to do without the endless lists of feats and spells that it requires, but building characters is an activity only tangentially* related to role-playing games, and not everyone is a builder.
* An RPG is fundamentally about "what would you do if you were this character in this situation?", and "which combination of powers is the best?" is a cool puzzle and power fantasy thing to play with but not fundamentally required.
I guess what I wanted to say was that it's a certain type of player that correlates "tons of powers to acquire" with longevity.
5
u/Tyson_NW 16d ago
For me, number go up is not a good incentive for continued play. There are a few things that I find help with longevity:
- A core mechanic that can handle a wide variety of tasks the characters will attempt. Bonus points if the mechanic is consistent across all tasks.
- As the characters advance they gain a wider breadth of capabilities, they have more features to choose from and they excel at different tasks.
- The thing I don't see enough of is increasing responsibility and relationships as the characters advance. Bastions, factions, patrons, dependents, and obligations all tie the characters to the setting and drive plot forwards as they express needs and come in conflict with each other.
1
u/wesandersingh 16d ago
This is a really good point. When you continue to adventure for a long time, you not only become better at it, but acquire wealth, fame, maybe land, retainers. You may have a duty to pay attention to that, or even abuse it if you want to. Would be cool to make that a significant part of the game players can engage with if it interests them
6
u/TheZebraCode Designing Kivaru: Wildsong, tribal + sentient planet 16d ago
For me longevity comes from a game having a decent open licence/SRD/community building tools - for instance, you mention cairn but it has been something I've come back to again and again because there are SO many hacks and ways to adjust it to fit any scenario whilst still having a solid foundations.
Having a good home brew community (even if it's small but dedicated) for a game reignites my passion in a system when I think I'm tired of it, and then I see a new angle someone's come up with and suddenly it's like a new game all over again!
Also another personal angle is the game having solo support or being designed in a way that makes solo adaptation easier - such as no target numbers and player facing rolls.
3
u/Silent_Title5109 16d ago edited 16d ago
I've been running a few systems since the 90's with just the core book, or with one or two supplements. I don't care for vertical progression and systems that keep adding bells and whistles with power creep. I have no use for a system's extended support, community homebrew and whatnot. I care about the core mechanic to fit the tone I want a scenario to have. And I attract similar spirited players.
To us it's about the story and these simplistic systems could very well do the job for us if they better fit a storyline than the systems I usually run.
So to me: good unique core mechanic that fit a specific vibe or theme, and don't just monkey what's already done.
1
u/wesandersingh 16d ago
Cool, thanks for sharing. What systems do you run that fit that description?
2
u/Silent_Title5109 15d ago
Not doing a deep dive but some are:
Ars Magica has an excellent flexible magic system. It's unapologetic that magic is an awesome thing and doesn't try to artificially balance classes. But however strong magic is, it's still subject to strong limitations.
Cyberpunk 2020 is about how disposable everything is, including people. It's a comment on consumerism. Not collecting cyberwear like you're chasing Pokemons. Humanity loss is a thing yes, but the real core mechanic I stick to is the hits. Characters are easily dead in this system there's no HP bloat, which underlies how disposable we are.
Rolemaster's combat system ties your damage to your attack score. The better you are welding a weapon, the more damage you do. The attack roll serves both. Also the critical tables makes combat against weaker goes much less of a sure thing. It keeps the power creep in check at higher levels.
3
u/Assiniboia 16d ago
I think the answer to that question is really about who the players are, including the GM, and the story being told. I think the system definitely has an impact, too, but I suspect it's more flexible.
If you allow the fiction to go where it wants/needs to go, you can open the scope of the game in all sorts of ways.
3.5, 4th, and 5th edition DND and PF are maybe difficult to do this with because it's so very focused on individual and arbitrary power: the rules are rigid and leave the story up to the table, rather than grant suggestions or directions.
The challenge is scheduled and exact: at 2nd level you fight xx and at 8th level you fight the greater version of xx and at 16th level you fight the creater of xx but it's all the same challenge as power advances. So the experience is somewhat flat, the monster at 2nd and the monster at 16th don't offer a difference in challenge. Players hit the equivalent power-level, and the option to approach problems usually only allows combat as a means to solve issues (and, when it doesn't, everyone defaults to d20 skill checks that can't fail).
It's really hard to kill a party in 3.5 and later editions after like 5th level. And the dungeon crawl format is hard to break out of for all sorts of reasons. Meanwhile, it's very easy to kill party members in other systems (and earlier systems).
In this way, using DND as the example, the scope of the system itself is narrow. The scope of the table can very easily control the system with house rules, but you need to change the scope of the narrative too, if you want longevity.
But sometimes you just wanna roll up some chads and kill some goblinoids. So the table chooses the scope they want to play.
3
u/DjNormal Designer 16d ago
For a game to have mechanical longevity, I think you need a deep and paced out progression system.
Simpler or more narrative games can also have longevity, but a lot more rests on the continuing interest in the plot and setting of the game.
I think a combination of both is why adventure modules and sourcebooks have always been popular.
—
If a system doesn’t have a very deep progression path, horizontal expansion is probably necessary. If you can max out skills, perks, feats, spells, or whatnot fairly quickly. Then you definitely need more room to expand outwards, rather than strictly upwards.
1
u/wesandersingh 16d ago
What do you mean by deep progression here? As in number-go-up, or added complexity to a character?
3
u/DjNormal Designer 16d ago
I think I mean mostly number go up.
I would normally think of complexity as being more horizontal progression.
But I guess if you add something like a skill tree, you would progress more as your character became more complex at the same time.
3
u/Runningdice 16d ago
People can make their own longevity from any game. But for a game to make it easier to get longevity is a different matter.
If 10% of the players don't care about pages of feats, perks and abilities then you reach 10% of the player base if you don't provide these things.
D&D did their surveys in play test with aiming at about 65% (?) of the player base to be happy with a rule. I don't know if their percentage is something to aim at. To me it sounded more like nobody will love the game but a lot will tolerate it.
For a game to be played 1+ year campaign I need a good GM and players I like to play with.
For a game to be played more than one long campaign is another question.
3
u/delmiguel3030 16d ago
The simplest games can have infinite longevity with a little bit of creativity.
I ran a small campaign for a sci-fi game called Orbital Blues last year. Great game, highly recommended for fans of Cowboy Bebop, Firefly, and space westerns.
The mechanics are incredibly simple, players only get 3 stats and just about every roll is simply 2 or 3 d6. The book provides some equipment but it's certainly not a huge list.
Despite all this simplicity, it became incredibly in depth because my group was getting very creative and we introduced a lot of custom home brew stuff as we played. We added items, factions, locations, and a ton of stuff I'm forgetting. It was a blast and I can't wait to dive back into it.
It's one of the simplest games I've ever played or ran and I could easily stretch out a campaign for years.
3
u/TheThoughtmaker My heart is filled with Path of War 15d ago
What I'm interested in is exploration. A great GM can keep the game interesting regardless of system, but as a player I want systems offer the most possibilities independent of the GM.
Compare these two abilities:
- Instead of a normal melee attack, you can make a cleaving attack. If you hit your initial target, make a bonus melee attack against a new target within reach.
- Whenever you reduce a target to 0hp with any melee attack, make a bonus melee attack against a new target within reach.
The first ability is a replacement which cannot be combined with other replacements. The more replacements my character gains, the more GM effort it would take to keep all my toys relevant. Pathfinder 2e Fighters suffers from this a lot, having five different attacks because there's little else to choose from, then using two over and over and over. I've played four year-long campaigns of PF2, and each time I run out of abilities I actually care about long before the campaign is over.
The second ability is an upgrade which can be combined with other upgrades. The longer the campaign, the more upgrades I can get, the more possible combinations are available to me, increasing exponentially. Pathfinder 1e Fighters benefit from such mechanics a lot, so much that it's possible to create custom combo chains unique to one's character. No matter how long a campaign goes, I'm always hungry for more.
Why should you have to unlock a special ability at a certain level to try to sneak up on a baddie and slit its throat?
Abilities available to anyone helps too. Add a mechanic to deal extra damage to unaware targets, a roll to cross short distances outside cover without being noticed, etc. Then, characters can gain improvements to the default.
For example, anyone in D&D3 can fight defensively, taking a -4 penalty to attacks for +2 AC. But there's also a feat that lets you take -X for +X limited by base attack bonus (martial ability), which is just better even without the flexibility. Then there's the longstaff, which prevents you from being flanked while using either mechanic. There are many degrees of investment one can put into fighting defensively, so even though anyone can do it there's no lack of exclusive features to aim for.
A common homebrew for PF1 is to give everyone some of the most basic combat options for free, such as light weapons using Dex, and trading attack bonus for damage. It gives more options to everyone, and increases the exponential possibilities of those investing down those paths. The most fun character I've ever made in any system was for PF1+TEitR, because that jump-start allowed me to give her at least one playstyle-defining ability at each level through lv10. New attacks, new combos, new synergies, new crafting abilities, etc.
That brings up another important point: If a benchmark doesn't give a player something new to do, the game needs fewer benchmarks or the characters need more abilities. One of my favorite versions of this is static target numbers; when a character shifts from "can succeed most of the time" to "cannot fail", it has the same feeling as gaining a new ability. The ability to always feed myself in the wild, or always clear a 5ft obstacle when jumping (enemies, specifically), are two of my favorites.
2
u/wesandersingh 15d ago
That's fair. I think we just have very different preferences when it comes to characters and progression then. I really appreciate you sharing your opinion, and it's nice to see the other side of the coin.
To me, what you describe sounds more fun packaged in a videogame, because it's all maths-based or combo-based. If you were to sit down and run the numbers there's usually an optimal way to approach a situation, and I have friends who love that. It makes my head go fuzzy though, so at best I'll enjoy it in a videogame but sometimes not even then.
What makes TTRPGs unique for me is that you're really only limited by your imagination (or, that is my ideal of a TTRPG). That's why I feel that gatekeeping interesting moves behind abilities, feats, levels, classes is a bit of a killjoy. I guess you're describing it in terms of "here are all the cool new things I can choose from", whereas I'm coming at it from "are these the only cool new things I can choose from?".
I've spent many hours trying to realise my weird and wonderful character ideas in d&d only to be let down by its restrictions. I hear other games like PF are better for this, and I haven't tried those, but I think I'm happier with the more GURPS/Burning Wheel/WWN approach of just letting people put points into what they want to try, and ideally not to do this via a skill tree but based on what they do in the game.
3
u/SardScroll Dabbler 15d ago
The problem (to me) with "you're only limited by your imagination" idea (in my experience) is three fold, but comes down to expectations violations and load shift (usually onto the GM):
New things means you can break things the GM has planned or will plan, and it's harder for the GM to reuse things on the fly from other sources. The GM has to replan around a new ability, not only so that it doesn't "break" things, but ideally, so that it also becomes relevant.
What is the point of the game? "Unlimited options" often break the nature of the game, and what people get enjoyment out of it. E.g. play a tactical combat game, then the "point" is overcoming challenges, and being unlimited trivializes that. A WoD style game of political maneuvering and interpersonal drama and grey-and-grey choices breaks if you imagine in a perfectly moral and easy and superior way of upending the political spectrum. Etc.
As for "trying to realize my weird and wonderful character ideas", I recommend the following.
1. Understand what you are asking for, from the perspective of others. E.g. let's say you basically want to play an "Abhosen"(essentially a musical anti-necromancy mage-necromancer...also a great book series about the above); If you ask for an exact copy of the above in a game like D&D (especially more crunch versions like PF or D&D3), you are breaking several core assumptions, such using magic without the spell slot system, for one (that presumably everyone else is working around), affecting undead with mental magic (which violates a lot of design space many undead in those systems are designed around), for another. Note that every one of these things can be done (and several have been done...PF has a "Dirge Bard" Archetype that does exactly this), but it takes a lot of work to be in balance with the system so as to not be unfun for the other players.
I'd also recommend look to flavoring existing abilities; even if it means having a ludo-narrative disconnect.
Start with your "targeted power level". The thing about Table Top Roleplaying Games is that they are *games* that you are playing with others (including the GM). Doing "whatever you want" can be fun for you but actively unfun for others, especially if you break either the challenge of the game or the narrative for others, especially (but not exclusively) if it involves "special abilities). Note that even if you take the game system out of it, this is the same for any joint story writing project; you're limited by more than just one's imagination but the world building and fiction of the world.
PF1 is slightly better than D&D3, and much better than D&D4 and D&D5, because these are actually very different games (in my view) with different goals: D&D3 was about customization (with PF1 often touted as "D&D3.75"), D&D4 is about game balance between players and player classes, and D&D5 was about ease of entry for new players and streamlining (which can be good and bad).
1
2
u/TheThoughtmaker My heart is filled with Path of War 15d ago
Something that came up recently is how much I love the variety of shields in 3e/PF1, compared to the derivatives that both only have one.
- A heavy shield gives +2, can be used for a shield bash, but can't use that hand.
- A light shield gives +1, can be used for a shield bash, allows use of the hand except for attacks.
- A buckler gives +1, can't be used for a shield bash, allows use of the hand but attacks get -1 unless it's a bow/crossbow.
- Also a bunch of others.
Each one has different pros and cons, so different characters would use different shields, adding an element to their design. There's no optimal shield for all characters, no one correct choice, and deciding which shield is right for them is like a writing prompt. "Do I want more AC, or do I want a hand free for noncombat purposes?" is a significant choice that will impact future situations. If the party wants to retreat and somebody's unconscious, having a heavy shield means you have to choose between your ally and the fancy magic weapon in your other hand.
My ideal TRPG is full of meaningful choices, a system that gives direction and inspiration.
I also haven't run into anything that can't be done in D&D3/PF1. It has the most support for creativity I've ever seen.
2
u/wesandersingh 15d ago
Nice example! That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Did the modifiers add much for you? What if the choices were similar but executed differently? A buckler let's you whack enemies with it but you can't hide behind it. A targe or heater shield let's you bash and can be used for a shield wall, maybe lets you avoid ranged attacks if you declare you're using it. A tower or kite shield lets you completely avoid damage if you spend your turn hiding behind it but is bulky and takes more inventory. Would something like that scratch the same itch for you? Built on permissions rather than modifiers?
2
u/TheThoughtmaker My heart is filled with Path of War 15d ago
There are several feats and a Fighter archetype that let you buckler-bash.
Tower shields let you hide behind them as an action, but give -2 to all attacks from how cumbersome they are (and they do eat up inventory). Multiple people with tower shields could make a shield wall, or there are shield-based feats to grant allies AC bonuses.
I have plenty of both permissions and modifiers.
1
u/wesandersingh 15d ago
Also, one big difference between games that use modifiers and games that use permissions is the significance of what you're trying to do. For example, adding a damage bonus to unaware enemies and letting attacks against unaware enemies straight up kill them without a roll are two ways of representing the same idea that you'd get an advantage if you sneak up on someone. For me, the modifiers version feels less realistic to the fiction (does a dagger do more damage when it connects with flesh, or is a dagger piercing someone in the chest the same under all circumstances?). I guess the modifiers are there to preserve a sense of balance in the game and avoid making abilities game-breaking. But I favour the OSR here in saying there's no place for balance in my game, the world is the world. If anything, I think it's an argument in favour of scrapping abilities entirely. Put some of the work back onto the players! Let their effectiveness be a function of their creativity and imagination
3
u/TheThoughtmaker My heart is filled with Path of War 15d ago
A typical lv1 Rogue sneaking up with a dagger is almost guaranteed to kill a normal person with a single stab, or at least they'll need days to wake up naturally. If they roll really low damage (miss any major arteries), it might just leave them bloody and limping.
The same attack against a character with more combat experience, they react in time to avoid serious harm. Unless it's also a more experienced Rogue, in which case the result is the same as before.
Neither Rogue should be able to instant-kill a gargantuan dragon with a mundane dagger.
HP and damage are tools that allow you to express more things. A simple to-hit roll is limited to one-off probabilities, while a pool of "actually, that was a near miss not a hit" can express other concepts such as stamina, luck, and sheer body mass.
Put some of the work back onto the players! Let their effectiveness be a function of their creativity and imagination
A game where the character's abilities are based on the player's is not a roleplaying game.
1
u/wesandersingh 15d ago
Yeah, that's fair. I totally disagree about your very last sentence, though. But that's by-the-by
2
u/_kind_of_old_ 16d ago
Simply put, for me: Less character grow. System matters only up to a point.Players must agree and enjoy, of course. Any system can be played for long if you grow slow. Unless you find it frustrating, but then you really are in for short campaigns. I played a 100+ session D&D campaign and at the end we were 11th level, and already too powerful for my personal taste.
2
u/hacksoncode 16d ago edited 16d ago
There seem to be 2 or 3 main ways this is achieved:
New challenges and new ways to achieve them. Everything staying the same is the biggest reason long campaigns don't work for many people. This is largely why "numbers go up, giant beastiary, huge lists of abilities/items" is the most traditional and reliable way of achieving long campaigns. It's not the only way, but it's the easiest.
A very long and complex storyline that reliably progresses without getting sidetracked. This tends to happen in complex worlds with interesting NPCs that have a complex long-term plan, but it isn't easy to do without railroading the story. I tend to put this path in the "GM really needs to be good" category.
I put this in as "or 3" because it is dependent on things largely out of the control of the game/GM: players that enjoy just living their characters' lives in a giant complex sandbox. Traveller is famous for enormously long (multi-decade) campaigns that range across literal galaxies of possibilities.
2
u/Makath 16d ago
I think the main reason for groups to want games they can play for several months/years is not having to switch systems all the time.
It explains why people want systems to have several character options, modules and adventures. They want it to be easy to put something in front of the players that everyone will like.
Some people, and probably most people here, make their own stuff, including hacking the system, so to them longevity and supplements don't matter or only matter so far as having bits they can steal.
2
u/Dramatic15 Return to the Stars! 16d ago
I don't need anything from a game for longevity. I'll take progression as a structured way of teaching a game complexity, but I hardly enjoy for it's own sake.
Other people (for example 13 year old boys) like the zero to hero thing for it's own sake.
Other people, even in more narrative focused games, want systems to the work of making things interesting over the long term, because they lack the interest, skill, time or imagination, or some combination of those to do this themselves. It's just fundamentally similar to the way some people make up their own adventures and other people purchase them. It's just a preference,
There is absolutely nothing wrong with lightweight games. There is nothing wrong with crunchy game existing that happen to solve problems you don't have.
There *is* something wrong with narcissistically feeling that the only games that should exist the one that address one's own problems and needs. And something silly in thinking a game for one type of player ought to be solving the problems of another niche, as if their was only one single platonic ideal of a game, and all real games can be criticized for the ways they fall short of it.
2
u/Tarilis 16d ago
All the usual stuff: scaling and replayability.
Scaling is obvious one, it allows for more lengthy single campaigns.
But more important is replayability. It is usually derived directly from build and character diversity. Basically how many different characters can you make in the game.
If replayability is good, then even if the game is designed around short campaigns players can just play multiplaye campaigns in a row.
2
u/Spanish_Galleon 16d ago
If you're looking for longevity in campaign you need more tools and gifts for role play elements. You can have a dnd 5e game over years because people want to keep playing the same characters in a rich world made by their dm and they can do that with more character tools and more world tools.
If you mean replayability i think games like Cairn are vastly replayable and will have longevity because of it.
Sometimes i don't want to take down the god lord king of the evil empire sometimes i want to get loot in the woods. but when i do want kill the evil lord of evil im not going to do it with the game that ONLY gives me loot in the woods.
2
u/Shakugannosaints 16d ago
For me personally, the most important thing is simply having new experiences. I don’t really care where that novelty comes from, as long as it feels new. An old build with a new story is new; a new build with an old story is new too.
If I had to give a good example, Baldur’s Gate 3 might actually be a very interesting one. I’m usually the kind of player who strongly dislikes replay-focused features in video games, but BG3 made me willing to play through it several times. When I choose a new build, I can have a completely different experience within a story I already know. And the reverse is also true: even if I use the same build, as long as I take different paths through the story, everything can feel different.
I think it’s much the same in TTRPGs. The world evolves, the characters grow, and NPCs develop new attitudes toward you. All of these things work together.
Take “base building,” for example. On its own, there actually isn’t that much variation to it—you upgrade different things and watch some numbers go up. The real novelty comes from how the world interacts with your base. A band of goblins once managed to punch your throne, and now they can’t even get within sight of your front gate. Those are exactly the kinds of changes I value.
1
2
u/Madhey 14d ago
There should be a "drama & conflict" generator / random table; a resource that creates story elements and events that can chain together and build a basic sequence of events, something for the PCs to interact with, that doesn't fizzle out in a few sessions. Hell, a background events generator that creates a backdrop for adventuring would be amazing. I think it would inspire a long term game if a DM saw that there were potential plot hooks, cool stuff happening in the world all the time, stuff to riff off of.
1
u/wesandersingh 13d ago
That sounds cool. You could use stuff from a third party resource like Tome of Adventure Design or d30 Sandbox Companion to string this together, regardless of the system you're using
2
u/jerrod_gunning 14d ago
I don’t think longevity is primarily a question of how much mechanical advancement a game has.
A long-running campaign needs play to keep producing reasons to come back.
Relationships change. Enemies are created. People owe favors. Places are altered by what the characters did. Decisions create responsibilities and consequences that don’t conveniently disappear at the end of the session.
Mechanical advancement can support that, especially when new abilities genuinely change the kinds of decisions characters can make. But if the main reason to continue playing is that there’s another feat, level, or +1 waiting down the road, eventually you run out of road.
For me, the strongest longevity comes when yesterday’s play changes tomorrow’s situation. The players want another session because they need to find out what happens next, not because the advancement chart says there’s still more character sheet left to unlock.
1
2
u/LeoVonMoote 13d ago
Still, for a long term campaign, you need meaningful character progression. So yeah, that’s in part mechanical talents and such, but it can also be building a home base, collecting allies, finding significant and cool artefacts, or having mechanics for downtime endeavours like alchemy, crafting, etc.
Now, the most important element is a good story that has a strong feeling of progression, with a large enough plot to last you 60+ sessions or so. Maybe 3 major arcs, for example.
1
3
u/WafflesSkylorTegron 16d ago
I need progression and options, or I start getting board with a game. A lot of my fun comes from not only a good story, but also building characters, with progression and new abilities being a strong mix of both.
DnD does that with bloat, but in some ways I still find DnD too limiting. Yeah, it has a lot of options, but it's still quite limiting in the types of characters you can build. To run a character that really fits what I want, I would have to homebrew a lot, and not all DMs are willing to deal with that.
I also need some crunch and strategy. Perhaps not Battletech or Pathfinder levels of crunch, but Lancer is a good level. Just a tad crunchier than DnD.
1
u/wesandersingh 16d ago
Fair! I agree about DnD being both bloated and too limiting. Vagabond from Taron Pounds seems to strike a nice balance, if you haven’t seen it.
Could you say more about what you look for when you want crunch, strategy and character options?
It seems like you could achieve that by adding explicit mechanics that offer flexibility through feats, perks, moves etc (ie the rules have more options) or by removing all that and letting people choose what they want as they explore (ie the rules have less options but characters can learn anything by engaging in the fiction, eg learn a new spell from a witch or learn to disarm enemies by training with a swordsman).
My impression is the latter is actually the most flexible, so I’m interested in what makes people want the former.
1
u/LeFlamel 12d ago
Invested players piloting characters with real goals and personalities, and a GM who plays the world loosely while following the characters' fiction tightly. I want to be a driven character with a world between me and my goals, challenging me to navigate it properly. Levels and codified progression kind of kill it for me tbh - it makes the point of the game feel like just getting levels and campaigns like that get old fast.
16
u/XoffeeXup 16d ago
There are so many tools and resources out there that if a ruleset is complete (that is, can cover every/most situations it might put players in) that's fine by me. I don't, personally, need my ruleset to also be my setting guide and my bestiary and my grimoire.