This is exactly the kind of weird cross-pollination that I come to blogs for.
Short lifespan rules like you describe, they're a good fit for game tables who like to explore lots of different games, or ones who just don't play that frequently, right? If all you do is sip, you might as well have Pepsi. Likewise, no point keeping a rule that only yields benefits in the long term, if you only intend to play in the short term.
I wonder, how much pressure exists to play one game for a long time, but to keep resetting the characters and possibly the story? Like with D&D and other "build games" (where much of the fun comes from building and showing off your character), you often see people say things like, "I almost want to get my current character killed so I can try out my newest one." The allure of novelty is strong, and the irritation of feeling stuck with a bad character is one we all know, I think. One could imagine a D&D-alike where the levels are not a progression system at all, but exclusively a starter limitation, like points totals in Warhammer 40k. You would never REACH level 5, you would only ever START at level 5 -- and you wouldn't play that character long enough to get bored at that level. You could get out your best Vicious Mockeries and shelve that idea before it gets stale, and you could stockpile more Vicious Mockeries for later use while you were playing your other character ideas.
I think with the semi-recent popularity spike in multiverse stories we could see a game that uses this one-shot-adjacent framework to still tell an ongoing story about a consistent (or consistent enough) cast of characters. This Bard isn't a new guy, he's just a version of my previous guy, from a universe where... Etc. But now I'm just rambling.
You're absolutely right that there are certain systems and styles designed for more short-term play.
Your idea on resetting has some precedent in what's called "troupe play". The players have multiple different characters and they can pick one to play as.
The old-school solution to players getting bored is that players are expected to have hirelings and sidekicks of different classes. If they get bored of their main character, they can play as one of these instead.
The section about 4E surprised me because it wasn't really a thing..? I don't remember that from the books and I've never seen or heard anyone do it in real life. Was it part of the marketing?
Great post. I am very much in agreement with the idea that not-fun moments are necessary for a long term to be memorable and have a real lasting effect on a group.
This is exactly the kind of weird cross-pollination that I come to blogs for.
Short lifespan rules like you describe, they're a good fit for game tables who like to explore lots of different games, or ones who just don't play that frequently, right? If all you do is sip, you might as well have Pepsi. Likewise, no point keeping a rule that only yields benefits in the long term, if you only intend to play in the short term.
I wonder, how much pressure exists to play one game for a long time, but to keep resetting the characters and possibly the story? Like with D&D and other "build games" (where much of the fun comes from building and showing off your character), you often see people say things like, "I almost want to get my current character killed so I can try out my newest one." The allure of novelty is strong, and the irritation of feeling stuck with a bad character is one we all know, I think. One could imagine a D&D-alike where the levels are not a progression system at all, but exclusively a starter limitation, like points totals in Warhammer 40k. You would never REACH level 5, you would only ever START at level 5 -- and you wouldn't play that character long enough to get bored at that level. You could get out your best Vicious Mockeries and shelve that idea before it gets stale, and you could stockpile more Vicious Mockeries for later use while you were playing your other character ideas.
I think with the semi-recent popularity spike in multiverse stories we could see a game that uses this one-shot-adjacent framework to still tell an ongoing story about a consistent (or consistent enough) cast of characters. This Bard isn't a new guy, he's just a version of my previous guy, from a universe where... Etc. But now I'm just rambling.
You're absolutely right that there are certain systems and styles designed for more short-term play.
Your idea on resetting has some precedent in what's called "troupe play". The players have multiple different characters and they can pick one to play as.
The old-school solution to players getting bored is that players are expected to have hirelings and sidekicks of different classes. If they get bored of their main character, they can play as one of these instead.
You've certainly got a good point
Trenchant article! Thank you for some great insights into gaming design from the world of marketing.
Thank you, I'll do my best.
The section about 4E surprised me because it wasn't really a thing..? I don't remember that from the books and I've never seen or heard anyone do it in real life. Was it part of the marketing?
Great post. I am very much in agreement with the idea that not-fun moments are necessary for a long term to be memorable and have a real lasting effect on a group.