What were the best parts of his previous games? There are three games I recall Archangel running in the recent past. Let's go over them.
His D&D 3.5 game I always remember fondly. It was well-crafted sandbox worldbuilding, making use of an epic storyline with reactionary consequences. Those are keywords, kiddos. We'll talk them out below. These particular elements of style seemed to work in favor of making sure the players had a fun time while also ensuring there was a forward momentum to the campaign.
When running Spycraft, his worldbuilding seemed more abstract (I didn't play the whole thing, so maybe I'm not precisely accurate), but the mission-based flavor didn't work as powerfully to his strengths, IMHO. Villain design in this campaign was his strongest attribute. He designed an entire organization that worked actively to oppose the team as well as clone their tech. Seeing the shell of the bunker duplicate in the enemy base was a well-placed shot to the heart.
Hollow Earth was his next venture. I think that as a team, we were a little wary of this game. While interested, other games got in our heads before this one, and we didn't give it the chance it deserved. Archangel definately followed the Rule of Cool with this game, and that was the best part we can take from it. Anything to create a great cinematic scene here was done.
So, you can tell from the overview that his D&D game was my favorite, right? I'm not gonna lie, because my own bias is what my personal blog is about, and he did ask, didn't he?
That being said, there are a couple of items that I think that he should shy away from when planning his next game.
Write-your-own-rules. We can get carried away with designing our own special prestige class or jamming a square character concept into that round ruleset. He should stick with a system with enough internal flexability, or force the players to work within existing bounds.
Mission-based sessions. The flow of realistic time with some lulls in the action but a sense of urgency at others was amazingly executed. I think the mission-based idea of no non-token down time and enemies only moving forward when the mission briefing is given isn't as fun as Archangel's other session styles were.
So, we want to utilize the following elements of his style:
Sandbox Worldbuilding: The world is detailed, and it feels like the players can venture to any place they've heard of, and be able to explore.
Epic Storyline: Freedom is nothing without something to threaten it. The stakes must be high, and the plan great in scope.
Villain Design: If the players don't hate or fear their opposition, it just doesn't work.
Reactionary Consequences: The evil plan marches on. The players can oppose it, or they can choose to grow their power base. The enemy can try to predict, but they recover from small failures. Nothing can grind things to a halt except the final showdown.
Big Damn Heroes: I changed my mind. This is better than the rule of cool. The players should feel heroic, even if it's only temporary.
So, what system matches his style in the best manner? The best answer is that I don't effing know. The qualities I've liked best are universal, and more related to how one runs than what one runs. I'll give a couple suggestions, though.
Aces and Eights: This one wins in genre. We don't do anything else in this category, so it'd be a unique experience. Upside is that he'll get to design a county or even state down to the populace, and create a real wide open world for us to explore. The downside is that with realism, the epic part of the story becomes more down-to-earth, perhaps political rather than cataclysmic. That may not actually be a downside, though... Also if it's not fantastical enough, there is Deadlands.
Shadowrun: My own venture into this is a way off, and there are tons of options in this game system that can appeal to his style. Futuristic action, magical worlds, different world locations can be manipulated to create a fun playground. Downside is that it would, in fact, be generally mission-based, but maybe that won't be a hindrance.
Birthright: I've been cooking up a game of Birthright lately, but haven't gotten a ton of time to keep the iron in the fire. It's a fantasy setting, except the setting puts the regents of the kingdoms in the hands of the players. Political scale intrigue and war can balance against adventures to gain relics for the throne. Perhaps he's enjoy
I'll also throw in the rest of the genre uniqueness here that we haven't done/aren't doing now: Superhero, Asian (This can be as basic as playing D&D Oriental Adventures, or a whole system like L5R), Modern Crime/Mafia, Pirates, Arabian, Horror/Cthulu, Steampunk, Monsters(White Wolf). Any option here would be fun and different. Geekdo shows a list of RPG systems by user ranking and family. Maybe an entirely new game would work. I keep seeing obscure ones on the list that I'd love to play.
So, maybe I didn't really answer your question, but hopefully I've given you something helpful to start thinking about it.
Or maybe you should put that energy into KingdoMania. Since you wanted me to bug you about it every chance I get.
I think its more of a matter of what games would the group feel confident playing. We know that there are strengths and weaknesses in our gaming group and we sometimes have to cater to them. Hollow Earth failed because as you said we were worried about it a little (well, except for those who played it at origins) and there was not enough confidence in playing the game. We didn't know what we were doing, where we were going or what was happening from moment to moment.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to gather up a list of options I would suggest we give Archangel a game system where the Fluff is not defined, so he can make his own, the rules are fairly all encompassing and we all can feel comfortable in the system enough that we dont have to worry if it will be fun or not.
In that category, I think we've got DnD 3.5 (we certainly have enough books to do pretty much whatever we want), Spycraft, and Old World of Darkness (although we could branch into new).
The problems with these in the apparent 'taboo' of the group is that if someone else is running a game in a system, noone else can. Which I think is lame. I know that someone wants to run WoD at some point and that would in theory rule that one out, but I think that we should get Archangel the rules for them and let him go crazy. We risk a little of the "fluff" getting into the way but I dunno.
Ultimately, I think WoD, Spycraft, or DnD 3.5 would be ideal. Giving Archangel a system that is new and untested in our group would only breed uncertainty and hinder his world building, when giving him something where the resources are his to mess with gives him an edge.
Also, I need a key of nicknames somewhere on the page, so I can write properly :P
ReplyDeleteCheck the Emperor's Basement sidebar. If you need help, I'll tell you who is who.
ReplyDeleteOn the taboo, we generally like to switch our gears between games, but we certainly can work in the same system. Someone just has to be interested in doing so.
I will fall in line on the set rules, no fluff idea. That said, Shadowrun and A&8/Deadlands can be played sans-background without any modification.
WoD has fluff built into the system, with players choosing clans and such in order to build a character. 3.5 and Spycraft would both be fun, but as I said, I think his strength is not in the mission-based build, but rather the sandbox.
You can have your sandbox and your missions too. This is my intent with my Spycraft game anyways. Perhaps Archangel will be my rotating GC like we had discussed previously.
ReplyDeleteAs for Taboo, I was thinking like Dwarflord would feel a little put out if I was to run Rogue Trader or Dark Heresy (which I have wanted to do), and I don't know how you would feel if I wanted to run Transformers either, but I would totally do so.
I think that I've been wanting to run a space/modern something or another for quite a while now but have been leery to step on anyone's toes. We do like to change up the genres though, so I dunno. We'll figure something out.
Dwarflord has specifically expressed that he would never allow anyone else to run Rouge Trader/Dark Heresy.
ReplyDeleteI feel that I would most enjoy a Fantasy where I can introduce monsters at whim. I also feel that I want to incorporate technology. I prefer to avoid mission-based, and I want to be able to manipulate the setting/fluff to an absurd degree. My conclusion is a D&D 3.5 with d20 modern additions. The setting will be a world where aliens and alien tech once existed. I have some really really fun concepts that I'm playing with. Feel free to inquire.
For the record, feel free to plan and run Transformers if you'd like. I have no issues with anyone else starting a campaign. If someone would like to run it in the slightly-alternate Beast Era that I do, then I'll incorporate the plotline events next time I run it myself.
ReplyDelete