The Curse of Content

[Psyren]

I didn't explain why everyone should feel this way because I don't believe everyone should. Actually I am not even entirely on side of this back and forth, just mostly. This is my opinion on a matter, what's yours?

I can do a longer response if you like but I felt I should clarify that point.

By blanketly labeling it a "curse" or a "problem" - aka something that would be seen as universally or predominantly bad - you are in fact implying everyone should feel this way. You may not have intended that, but the language you chose to use for this is conveying that message.

As for my own opinion - while I acknowledge there are benefits to more freeform and custom/table-driven campaigns, my own preferences lean towards paying for quality game design by folks with the time to dedicate to that. My groups could never run through every module in existence in the limited time we have to play, so there is always something new and exciting to be found in those pages for us. That isn't the case for everyone, and that's okay.

[kyoryu]

As for my own opinion - while I acknowledge there are benefits to more freeform and custom/table-driven campaigns, my own preferences lean towards paying for quality game design by folks with the time to dedicate to that. My groups could never run through every module in existence in the limited time we have to play, so there is always something new and exciting to be found in those pages for us. That isn't the case for everyone, and that's okay.

Prewritten stuff has the advantage of being able to be really tight in the encounter design. The negative is that the choices the players can make at the overall level are generally more limited.

More on-the-cuff stuff has the exact opposite issue - encounters can get kind of samey in a lot of cases, but what you can do in terms of overall problem solving is greatly enhanced.

It's just a matter of which types of things are more important to you.

[Psyren]

I don't even see it as being that hard a dichotomy. Prewritten encounters can be quite flexible if you know what you're doing. And unlike CRPGs, there's no barrier of having to program encounters to be modifiable or scalable on the fly - you can just add more monsters or change conditions of a prewritten encounter (to make it harder), or make conditions more favorable / fudge some rolls once the fight is underway (to make it easier).

[Cluedrew]

By blanketly labeling it a "curse" or a "problem" - aka something that would be seen as universally or predominantly bad - you are in fact implying everyone should feel this way. You may not have intended that, but the language you chose to use for this is conveying that message.

OK what if I just used the word "downside" instead? I'm not sure how to turn that into a snappy title but given time I probably could. Are you implying that my games don't have quality game design? Probably not but the point is implications are everywhere.

Still wording aside I would change that opening post a lot now because it seems to be much more of a culture thing. Which is to say a decision for those who know what they are doing and a... well still a decision, just not as well thought out one by those who are just figuring it out. Point is you can run any sort of game in any system. Theoretically at least, in system does matter and your system choice can help you run games that are more dynamic and flexible. And right now I think that is my main point for this thread.

Its not even anyone should make their game more dynamic. You can get pretty dynamic even in systems that were designed for mostly pre-made content if you want to and, despite the positive vibe dynamic gives off, you don't have to care at all. I don't know why people think I am trying to convince them of anything, I just like talking about ideas.

[Psyren]

OK what if I just used the word "downside" instead? I'm not sure how to turn that into a snappy title but given time I probably could.

"The Potential Downside of Content-driven Games" would be the most accurate title from where I'm sitting. It acknowledges the problem you see, while simultaneously acknowledging it might not actually be a problem for other people, and may even be a feature.

"The Curse of Content" might be pithy, but it also reads as myopic and dismissive.

Are you implying that my games don't have quality game design? Probably not but the point is implications are everywhere.

No - what I said is that I'm willing to pay for it from other people whose job it is to create it, not that paying is the only possible source for it.

Still wording aside I would change that opening post a lot now because it seems to be much more of a culture thing. Which is to say a decision for those who know what they are doing and a... well still a decision, just not as well thought out one by those who are just figuring it out. Point is you can run any sort of game in any system. Theoretically at least, in system does matter and your system choice can help you run games that are more dynamic and flexible. And right now I think that is my main point for this thread.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not as well thought out." I don't think you can conclude how much thought a person put into a decision from the single data point of whether they bought content from a professional/dedicated designer, or made it up themselves.

[Cluedrew]

It acknowledges the problem you see, while simultaneously acknowledging it might not actually be a problem for other people, and may even be a feature.

Wait, do you mean content-based in general can be a feature or that it being harder to run a flexible game can be a feature? The first I agree with, there is a paragraph on "The Blessing of Content" in the first post because of that and I could have made it longer. The second one though has me confused. Even if you aren't interested in doing that I feel that making something harder would be at best neutral.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not as well thought out."

Just people who haven't thought through it as much. I just wrote the first half of the sentence and realized that someone just doing it that way because it was fun last time might not be analysing the design space of play or whatever but they still made a decision and put some thought into it. I suppose the only exception would be some who doesn't realize you could go past the CRPG as a board game format but you would probably figure it out pretty quickly.

[Psyren]

Wait, do you mean content-based in general can be a feature or that it being harder to run a flexible game can be a feature? The first I agree with, there is a paragraph on "The Blessing of Content" in the first post because of that and I could have made it longer. The second one though has me confused. Even if you aren't interested in doing that I feel that making something harder would be at best neutral.

The first one. I don't think using or starting from published content makes it "harder to run a flexible game" at all. (And there again, you seem to be making an assumption that just because it would be harder for you to be flexible under such conditions, it must be true for everyone.)

Just people who haven't thought through it as much. I just wrote the first half of the sentence and realized that someone just doing it that way because it was fun last time might not be analysing the design space of play or whatever but they still made a decision and put some thought into it. I suppose the only exception would be some who doesn't realize you could go past the CRPG as a board game format but you would probably figure it out pretty quickly.

That's source-of-content-agnostic though. Players who only play a certain way "because it was fun last time" can do so whether they run pre-existing modules or their own stuff.

[Dr paradox]

Here's what I will say: getting in the habit of making "content" for players can make it more nerve-wracking to wing it. This is mostly what I've discovered in switching to exclusively online play, because setups like Roll20 necessitate more preparation for a smooth experience.

My current campaign has been heavy on handouts, dungeon maps, and battlemaps in general. because all of these things help to keep players on the same page about what exactly they've discovered and what's in the scene in front of them. This creates a need for me to spend time making these handouts and maps, selecting and placing digital tokens, and so on. I'm pretty happy with the level of polish I've achieved in these, and the workflow that I've set up.

The problem is, that level of polish reveals makes it easier to see the seams between stuff I planned for and stuff that I'm winging. Anytime they get in a fight and I have to scramble to sketch out a loose map and spend a minute paging through my tokens, my players know that this fight is not "critical path," so to speak. Anytime they search an ally's room and I say aloud what's on the incriminating note they found instead of forwarding a PDF, they suspect that I'm pulling this note out of my butt.

On the other hand, maybe I'm just projecting my own anxieties: my players have never called me on cases like that, I've just assumed. That's why I say "content" has made things more nerve-wracking for me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Here's what I will say: getting in the habit of making "content" for players can make it more nerve-wracking to wing it. This is mostly what I've discovered in switching to exclusively online play, because setups like Roll20 necessitate more preparation for a smooth experience.

My current campaign has been heavy on handouts, dungeon maps, and battlemaps in general. because all of these things help to keep players on the same page about what exactly they've discovered and what's in the scene in front of them. This creates a need for me to spend time making these handouts and maps, selecting and placing digital tokens, and so on. I'm pretty happy with the level of polish I've achieved in these, and the workflow that I've set up.

The problem is, that level of polish reveals makes it easier to see the seams between stuff I planned for and stuff that I'm winging. Anytime they get in a fight and I have to scramble to sketch out a loose map and spend a minute paging through my tokens, my players know that this fight is not "critical path," so to speak. Anytime they search an ally's room and I say aloud what's on the incriminating note they found instead of forwarding a PDF, they suspect that I'm pulling this note out of my butt.

On the other hand, maybe I'm just projecting my own anxieties: my players have never called me on cases like that, I've just assumed. That's why I say "content" has made things more nerve-wracking for me.

I'm starting to see that a bit more myself with the digital transition. One of the reasons I dislike going digital is that I have to prepare maps ahead of time instead of always just sketching something on a dry-erase or wet-erase grid. It's harder to pull off digitally, although I'm getting better at it.

And I don't have any personal concerns about "critical path" vs "non-critical path". I'm open about when they deviate from my planning (usually by sequence-breaking, which is fine except it means I have to scramble a bit to get a map in place). And most of that is due to me being lazy about how much I plan.

But the concern is certainly there, at least digitally. And if I used more handouts, it'd be a bigger concern.

[Cluedrew]

The first one. I don't think using or starting from published content makes it "harder to run a flexible game" at all. (And there again, you seem to be making an assumption that just because it would be harder for you to be flexible under such conditions, it must be true for everyone.)

I'm talking about rules structure and not published vs. homebrewed content. The downside has nothing to do with where the content you have comes from but rather how hard it is to create new stuff if something unexpected happens and suddenly you need something you don't have.

And I've never noticed a difference based on who made the original source. In fact even in my "flexible game" model you can use either as a base. Does that make more sense?

[Psyren]

The problem is, that level of polish reveals makes it easier to see the seams between stuff I planned for and stuff that I'm winging. Anytime they get in a fight and I have to scramble to sketch out a loose map and spend a minute paging through my tokens, my players know that this fight is not "critical path," so to speak. Anytime they search an ally's room and I say aloud what's on the incriminating note they found instead of forwarding a PDF, they suspect that I'm pulling this note out of my butt.

On the other hand, maybe I'm just projecting my own anxieties: my players have never called me on cases like that, I've just assumed. That's why I say "content" has made things more nerve-wracking for me.

I would do some handouts (PDFs in particular) post-session for this reason.
Our GM uses the notes function in Roll20, and has gven us both prepared and on-the-fly before. I can only tell the difference sometimes because I'm around when he's preparing.

I'm talking about rules structure and not published vs. homebrewed content. The downside has nothing to do with where the content you have comes from but rather how hard it is to create new stuff if something unexpected happens and suddenly you need something you don't have.

And I've never noticed a difference based on who made the original source. In fact even in my "flexible game" model you can use either as a base. Does that make more sense?

There are different degrees of "new stuff." If for example I slap a template on a monster, or smoosh two existing magic items together, I've "created something new" but the mental and system overhead is comparatively minimal. I can't speak for every game system under the sun obviously, but D&D/PF (our primary poison) makes this kind of "content creation" rather easy, for us.