What I mean by played out is when you've played a game enough to experience most or all of its permutations as written. Your players have tried all the chrome, whether that's the classes, magical options, or items. They've faced most of the published foes, everyone has seen the dice fall every which way and the mechanics are fully explored. Characters have reached high levels. There's no mystery.
But (in most trad RPGs which are not tightly focused) - there remains endless possible variation in plot and campaign parameters, if you choose. You can start over. But is the game played out at that point? Do you prefer move on to another?
Quote from: The_Shadow;1044093There's no mystery.
I wouldn't say that. The players may know what's in the books, but they don't know what's in my head.
I've definitely seen the sentiment.
I remember one guy I played with who declared one day that he had "completed" Greyhawk. He had conquered the game and was going to play some other game now. I can't recall what the other game was that he was moving his attention to. He played Marvel and Ghostbusters with us, so his new no-D&D stance didn't affect us. But whenever a D&D campaign got brought up, he said he wouldn't play that because he had already "beaten" D&D. He drifted away after that. He was actually a pretty good player. I don't miss him though. He was a big proponent of "winning," so he was a bit of a jerk while playing RPGs.
Games with a narrow, specific concept - mostly genre or licensed games - get played out pretty fast. But I find the 'core' systems never do. They are either too big to ever fully explore, or too flexible to run out of room to grow.
Not exactly, but something very close. I do sometimes get "system fatigue" where something I play a lot gets to the point where I still appreciate it, but just want a break with something new. But this isn't because I've exhaustively explored it. It's usually a case of there is something about the system that chafes a little, and now I want to play something that isn't rubbing that sore spot. Usually takes many years to get to that point, though.
Quote from: The_Shadow;1044093What I mean by played out is when you've played a game enough to experience most or all of its permutations as written. Your players have tried all the chrome, whether that's the classes, magical options, or items. They've faced most of the published foes, everyone has seen the dice fall every which way and the mechanics are fully explored. Characters have reached high levels. There's no mystery.
But (in most trad RPGs which are not tightly focused) - there remains endless possible variation in plot and campaign parameters, if you choose. You can start over. But is the game played out at that point? Do you prefer move on to another?
For me, it is usually more that I rotate between what I want to do with regards to various things. Complex systems vs. simple, sci fi vs. fantasy, realism vs. genre-fidelity, etc. So my desire to play (ex.) a Star Wars game is pretty proportional to how long it has been since I last did so.
However, there is definitely a case where you can never have the 'first time you ran into a Mind Flayer' happen twice in one lifetime. There are things in game books (especially ones like D&D that 'are their own thing') that were novel once, and are not now. If you have DM who is sufficiently imaginative that you don't know the spell, magic item, monster list, etc. by heart, that helps a lot.
For me, it's mostly caused by playing systems where I strongly dislike how certain things are done, which are initially bearable, but get harder and harder to deal with as time goes on. For instance, my current group plays a LOT of Pathfinder. I'm fine with it in short bursts, but after a while I tend to bow out and wait for the next game to start. We're a large group, so one or two people skipping out doesn't really impact the group's ability to play.
Beyond that, it's not so much me getting burnt out on systems so much as itching to try different mechanics in different systems. There's so much variety out there, it's a shame to just stick with the same tried and true every single time.
Some games do. The better ones don't, at least not really:).
Then again, I tend to change systems between campaigns just for the fun of it, so it's unlikely to ever become an issue;).
Vampire: The Masquerade in my college town in the nineties. Dominated the whole RPG scene like a cult for the better part of a decade. I went from a big fan to "Jesus, there are other games you know" in about two years.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;1044137Vampire: The Masquerade in my college town in the nineties. Dominated the whole RPG scene like a cult for the better part of a decade. I went from a big fan to "Jesus, there are other games you know" in about two years.
Ugh... Where I live, that was big with LARPers. Creepy LARPers who ran around at night in trenchcoats. Some of them were in the BDSM scene. There were crossovers. Just no...
Quote from: The_Shadow;1044093What I mean by played out is when you've played a game enough to experience most or all of its permutations as written. Your players have tried all the chrome, whether that's the classes, magical options, or items. They've faced most of the published foes, everyone has seen the dice fall every which way and the mechanics are fully explored. Characters have reached high levels. There's no mystery.
But (in most trad RPGs which are not tightly focused) - there remains endless possible variation in plot and campaign parameters, if you choose. You can start over. But is the game played out at that point? Do you prefer move on to another?
Quote from: Krimson;1044098I wouldn't say that. The players may know what's in the books, but they don't know what's in my head.
I agree with both of these points.
The problem for me, and this seems to be the default mode with D&D, is that while each different DM can bring something new to the same game - most DMs follow a pattern which matches what they deliver to the least common denominator of player who expects it. With D&D, its minimize the role-playing and concentrate on murderhoboing. You can do a lot more with the game, any version, but most of the gameplay falls into the same rut because most DMs do not push things outside that envelope of play (partially because that rut is what most players expect).
Quote from: jeff37923;1044147With D&D, its minimize the role-playing and concentrate on murderhoboing.
My games are RP heavy. However, when the players get restless then they get to the murderhoboing. Though I'm not a big fan of random dungeon crawls. Since thieves and rangers are popular, I do a lot of stealth based games and heists, where murdohoboing sometimes needs to be avoided, especially when you are robbing an "allied" NPC. :D
Quote from: Krimson;1044149My games are RP heavy. However, when the players get restless then they get to the murderhoboing. Though I'm not a big fan of random dungeon crawls. Since thieves and rangers are popular, I do a lot of stealth based games and heists, where murdohoboing sometimes needs to be avoided, especially when you are robbing an "allied" NPC. :D
That is what I mean. You can do a lot more with most games than what the default gameplay is, it is just that most do not.
Quote from: Krimson;1044098I wouldn't say that. The players may know what's in the books, but they don't know what's in my head.
Pretty much this. Systems, on the other hand, I can find get played out. Especially those that reward system mastery, like 3.x, where there's a very few series of optimal choices that the game actively funnels you into, unless you willingly kitbash and house rule the ever living *beep* out of it.
Quote from: The_Shadow;1044093What I mean by played out is when you've played a game enough to experience most or all of its permutations as written. Your players have tried all the chrome, whether that's the classes, magical options, or items. They've faced most of the published foes, everyone has seen the dice fall every which way and the mechanics are fully explored. Characters have reached high levels. There's no mystery.
But (in most trad RPGs which are not tightly focused) - there remains endless possible variation in plot and campaign parameters, if you choose. You can start over. But is the game played out at that point? Do you prefer move on to another?
Yes, to one degree or another.
When first learning a game, there's a lot of unknown to discover. After having player it enough, I have been over the space of what's possible more. It depends on how interesting the game is to me, and how many possible situations and moves, whether the game can hold my interest after that point (or possibly just for how long).
A related thing that happens is that when I'm first getting into a game, it's usually easier for me to relate to the game situation as the situation it's supposedly about, rather than the game mechanics. If the game mechanics don't represent the situation the game is supposedly about in a way that makes sense to me, then as I notice that, the game becomes more about the game mechanics and not about the situation. That's one of the main things that has me become disinterested in games, and one of the reasons I tend to prefer simulationist games to abstract or fantastic or gamey games.
Some games manage to seem be both interesting to play and like decent simulations even after many years of playing them heavily. Those tend to be the ones I keep being interested in and that I still want to play.
Quote from: The_Shadow;1044093What I mean by played out is when you've played a game enough to experience most or all of its permutations as written. Your players have tried all the chrome, whether that's the classes, magical options, or items. They've faced most of the published foes, everyone has seen the dice fall every which way and the mechanics are fully explored. Characters have reached high levels. There's no mystery.
I've been playing various types of RuneQuest for well over 30 years and am still surprised at things that happen, so no.
No. Theres allways new trouble to get into.
I tend to find that more complex, specific games get old faster than simple, abstract games. With simpler games, the emphasis tends to be on what you do, not the system. With more complex games, the system is often at the heart of play, and it is easier to get sick of.
This is most clear with combat systems. In a simple combat system, it is usually just a relatively quick way to adjudicate the results of a fight. More complex combat systems are like a kind of game within the game. In the same way I can burn out on playing the same board game all the time, I can burn out on that combat system and by extension burn out on the whole RPG.
That doesn't make games with more complex systems innately bad. I'm just aware that they lend to quicker burnout for me.
I've come to feel this way about Shadowrun. I stopped playing it several years ago, but even then it had been almost a decade since anything in it felt fresh to me. I had a similar feeling toward all of the WoD games around 1999.
Quote from: Baulderstone;1044196This is most clear with combat systems. In a simple combat system, it is usually just a relatively quick way to adjudicate the results of a fight. More complex combat systems are like a kind of game within the game. In the same way I can burn out on playing the same board game all the time, I can burn out on that combat system and by extension burn out on the whole RPG.
That doesn't make games with more complex systems innately bad. I'm just aware that they lend to quicker burnout for me.
I have the reverse reaction. A simple combat system is soon "played out" and we're usually just cranking through an approximately optimal strategy - the choices it offers become rote. At that point I would either like to simplify it to an outright decision or a single die roll and save the time. A complex combat system only feels like a game within the game if it doesn't connect with the game, like settling combat by playing cribbage, because that's when it takes you out of the role playing.
This might just result from differing definitions of "simple".
I would generally say no. However, there are times where I want a lengthy break before I run a game again.
While I am massively burnt out on Pathfinder to the extent that the thought of GMing it makes me feel ill, I wouldn't say it was 'played out' in the sense that I've seen everything it has to offer. It's more GMing 14th level PF with minmax players and going The Horror... The Horror... :)
Games that I have probably had enough of.
Rolemaster: I still love it and occasionally toy with idea of going back to my beloved blue box and Loremaster modules but a quick look at the combat and magic sytems and their complexity makes me sigh and out it back on the Pretty Shelf.
Ars Magica: played it and loved it but jsut can't bring myself to play it again. Don't know why.
Vampire/Mage oWoD et al: much of the aesthetic just pisses me off now.
Games that I still want to go back to.
Runequest
Dragon Warriors
Traveller
Space Master: despite what I said about Rolemaster, the old 1st and 2nd edition Spacemaster is something I see as a lot more playable and the scenarios and setting of the Terran Empire has not dated.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1044106Not exactly, but something very close. I do sometimes get "system fatigue" where something I play a lot gets to the point where I still appreciate it, but just want a break with something new. But this isn't because I've exhaustively explored it. It's usually a case of there is something about the system that chafes a little, and now I want to play something that isn't rubbing that sore spot. Usually takes many years to get to that point, though.
I've definitely had this and assume it's normal for many. After a while you just get bored with a system, and want to try something else for a change. For me it's usually within 12 - 24 months.
Quote from: Baulderstone;1044196I tend to find that more complex, specific games get old faster than simple, abstract games. With simpler games, the emphasis tends to be on what you do, not the system. With more complex games, the system is often at the heart of play, and it is easier to get sick of.
This is most clear with combat systems. In a simple combat system, it is usually just a relatively quick way to adjudicate the results of a fight. More complex combat systems are like a kind of game within the game. In the same way I can burn out on playing the same board game all the time, I can burn out on that combat system and by extension burn out on the whole RPG.
That doesn't make games with more complex systems innately bad. I'm just aware that they lend to quicker burnout for me.
Yes, this. I got burned by Shadowrun, in part, due to its combat system.
When I do, it's less "played it out" and more "got old", and is tied to the genre more than the system. For me, the mechanics either work for me right off the bat or they don't. It's the story or genre that wears thin eventually.
I don't think I've ever played a game where I felt that I'd been there and done everything... One of the reasons I love RPing is that it's always a bit different every time you play.
What does it for me generally is playing the same type of stuff over and over again. I won't partake in a traditional dungeon crawl as I played them to death when I was a kid and I'm thoroughly sick of them now. I won't play Shadowrun as I played it lots and it was always the same type of repetative scenario. I also did'nt like the cosmology which compounded things.
But for certain other games, I could play and run them all day, like WFRP Beyond the Wall or Vampire (Sabbat only).
I GM'd The Enemy Within campaign (WFRP 2e rules but with 1st edition timeline and lore). Took three years but we had quite a few side quests, etc. But I'm already dying to run it again now that I've had a long break.