Suggestions for a "what are RPGs"/"how to play RPGs" resources

[clearstream]

Some good thoughts here. I am a big fan of John Harper/Vincent Baker, and I have to admit that I bring in elements of his design when playing other games, which is where my idea of "universal" advice takes place. Of course there are different RPG styles but there's a big group of games that are quite similar. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here.

I remember so many good ideas to teach about the game. The games that had "choose your own adventure" style opening sections for instance, those were fantastic. I'm just not sure I want to devote that many pages to something people will use once, if at all.

What I am doing at this point is to have that section that refers to real first-time players elsewhere. That may need to be revised if: "something else" doesn't truly exist elsewhere. I then have a section called "What would you say you do here," where I talk about the game's goals and what you do when you play. I then go into a "Here are my influences" section to reinforce that. Next is what the roles of the players and GM look like. Then I do a very high-level summary of what the mechanics are. That's the end of the introductory section and something I would intend to have as a summary product you can download apart from the rules. Oh, and to add a final thing: I provide a glossary for defined terms so that if you wonder what something means, you can look it up here.

Edited to add: I was just reading a new game that I had recommended to me. I don't want to say what it was because the authors are super nice and I'm going to be critical. The "start of the game book" is on my mind because I have read some games recently that all begin with "here's how you make a character." I can't say strongly enough how much I don't like that. I end up having to process a bunch of stuff that isn't defined and look at making decisions when I don't know what I'm supposed to be doing.

I note in your OP you use the wording "I am writing an RPG" which leads me to wonder if
your game is complete and playtested, so that your have a store of questions and examples captured from actual play?

One observation is that it's all too easy to opt into writing parts that ought to be settled last, far too early. But you might lay out your theory of how your game ought to be played, as a guide for your design work. In doing so, you might assemble a reference set of games, fiction, actual plays, and so on, which you can later list out as part of your "how to play".

As a side note, seeing as it sounds like your game isn't a commercial work, I wondered if it might stand as a work of art and thus anticipate effort from its audience to interpret it? Or if it is more akin to a work of craft... most likely then for a narrow and fairly educated audience who may understand your intended mode of play based upon use of a shared vernacular: and thus for whom it is the differences that you believe they will care about that most need explaining so that they can appreciate them and implement them as you intend.

 

[Emberashh]

Arneson's testimony in a deposition in Arneson v. TSR makes mention of Educational Roleplaying in 1962 (10th grade) and 5th grade (1957?)... and how TTRPG is in fact related but not the same.
Apparently, Gygax was trying to refute Arneson's credit by making RPGs as hobby a non-invention...
Gygax's lawyer definitely tried to draw that line... and Arneson distinctly and clearly explained the differences and changes between the use as a tool for teachers and a game...

This is a pretty big nonsequitur to what I said, and the grasped straws here completely miss that the point is that games aren't dictionaries and don't serve the same purpose.

There's often a chance of a novice or even non-gamer finding and reading RPG books/PDFs ...

1. The hanging ellipsis just makes you come off as incredibly annoying. You're not actually gaining anything rhetorically by doing that.

2. This, again, misses the point of what I said. Seemingly deliberately, given I didn't claim this couldn't happen to begin with.

I'm curious where you're getting those numbers

Literacy

www.thepolicycircle.org

And meanwhile, I have no interest in debating this to begin with. It was a crass joke pointing at evangelicals and Karens, the people who drove that panic, as being the type that wouldn't read such sections regardless, and pegging it on them being illiterate idiots, the latter insult needing no citation to prove.

 

[SteveC]

Just a quick comment: I definitely intend to make my game commercially available. I also hope to back up trucks full of cash from all the money that will be generated. Okay, that last point was completely a joke: there are no big trucks full of money for anyone in RPGs. But there is room for, as someone put it, beer money.

And the real reason I want to put a game out is because I haven't seen something that does what I'm looking for in a game. I suppose that's why people who are developing games think on some level.

I've run a ton of games to playtest, and this question never came up. Everyone I've run for were experienced gamers, so they were the sort of people to skip the "what are RPGs" section.

 

[pemerton]

I've run a ton of games to playtest, and this question never came up. Everyone I've run for were experienced gamers, so they were the sort of people to skip the "what are RPGs" section.

This made me think of the following from Baker: anyway: Lazy Play vs IIEE with Teeth

Again, it might not be relevant to you and your game at all. It's just that your reference to "experienced gamers" made me think about expectations/habits that they might be brining with them, that might potentially be absent in players who are strangers or have different experiences.

 

[SteveC]

This made me think of the following from Baker: anyway: Lazy Play vs IIEE with Teeth

Again, it might not be relevant to you and your game at all. It's just that your reference to "experienced gamers" made me think about expectations/habits that they might be brining with them, that might potentially be absent in players who are strangers or have different experiences.

It's funny that you mention that because I think I remember reading that when it was new. I was influenced a lot by this for my game design. I must admit that I run every game with the rules I came up with and haven't found a problem. I always tell people that we roll dice when all three of these things are true:

1. What you do is possible but not certain.
2. There are consequences involved in failure.
3. There are stakes involved so we care about the result.

That isn't how a lot of traditional gamers play (you just roll for stuff that you might fail to be "realistic"). I haven't had any complaints other than some of "without making a lot of checks it can seem too easy sometimes."

 

[Morrus]

Just include a link to Deborah Ann Woll’s explanation to Jon Bernthal. Say “watch this then come back”.

 

[SteveC]

Just include a link to Deborah Ann Woll’s explanation to Jon Bernthal. Say “watch this then come back”.

I think you win. That was so good!

 

[clearstream]

It's funny that you mention that because I think I remember reading that when it was new. I was influenced a lot by this for my game design. I must admit that I run every game with the rules I came up with and haven't found a problem. I always tell people that we roll dice when all three of these things are true:

1. What you do is possible but not certain.
2. There are consequences involved in failure.
3. There are stakes involved so we care about the result.

That isn't how a lot of traditional gamers play (you just roll for stuff that you might fail to be "realistic"). I haven't had any complaints other than some of "without making a lot of checks it can seem too easy sometimes."

(Emphasis mine.) How would you define "stakes"?

Would a fair definition be "consequences that we care about involved in failure" or maybe "consequences that we care about involved in success and failure"?​

​

Or possibly "consequences we care about that we agree to involve in success and failure" - a wager... or "stake" in game terms.​

So now the question I'm angling toward is: can 2. be deleted because 3. says everything we need to say about that?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

(Emphasis mine.) How would you define "stakes"?

Would a fair definition be "consequences that we care about involved in failure" or maybe "consequences that we care about involved in success and failure"?​

​

Or possibly "consequences we care about that we agree to involve in success and failure" - a wager... or "stake" in game terms.​

So now the question I'm angling toward is: can 2. be deleted because 3. says everything we need to say about that?

No, I don't think so. If a player is not both wagering something in some sense, and potentially gaining something, then where's the juice? I mean, there may be corner cases in the flow of play where things are a bit deferred or contingent, but both elements exist.

Think of Defy Danger in DW. Sometimes it might be deployed as a result of some other move, so perhaps the thing which the player is going for was already decided and only the nature of consequences is still at stake, but even here players have options and can reassert some control by describing some positive thing they want as a success outcome. Really there shouldn't be moves that cannot advance your agenda, nor which can't introduce more badness.

 

[SteveC]

Would a fair definition be "consequences that we care about involved in failure" or maybe "consequences that we care about involved in success and failure"?Or possibly "consequences we care about that we agree to involve in success and failure" - a wager... or "stake" in game terms.

This is a really good question, and it relates to the fact that I've been working on this game for a long time. It's older than FitD games, PbtA and even Fate. Back in ancient times, you would see a lot of die rolls made simply because it was just seen as "realistic" to make them. If you were sneaking into a fortress in AD&D there would be so many die rolls that you were just rolling to see when you would fail. I remember making ... and calling for ... die rolls that I sort of dreaded because it was just expected.

I compare that to the Position Roll in Blades in the Dark. You roll a single check to see how far into the process you got based on your approach.

In 2024, is it necessary to keep that language? I would say no, except when we've had discussions of how to run a session here (I was going to say "run a scene" but that terminology can be controversial) you still have people who want lots and lots of checks that pretty much amount to the same thing. That description right there has been one of the things that's been controversial when talking with GMs rather than players. The players don't seem to mind.

My attitude (and this is really what I'd call the modern RPG approach) is to have fewer die rolls but have them be more impactful. Players also have resources they can use to improve their results, but they have a limited number of them so I don't want to reward someone for making a check with ... another check.