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

[kenada]

Yeah, though I would observe that boards themselves do a LOT of work there. I mean, also, your average board game is super simple, mechanically, compared to any RPG. More complex board games, lets say something similar in complexity of rules to D&D like maybe Avalon Hill's classic game "D-Day" which has roughly 20 pages of fairly small text rules, that game DOES spell out exactly what it is, in extremely specific and precise detail! It describes the nature and attributes of the board, how to move things around on the board, what the board represents (France in 1944 and a little bit of Germany and the Low Countries), etc. It describes the process of taking turns, who decides what, etc. You could read that text, with no prior experience of board games whatsoever, and play D-Day.

Now, that doesn't mean RPGs should be doing the same thing, I dunno. I think the market is probably the decider there more than anything.

Does D-Day wax poetic about what board games? That’s the issue. The Pathfinder 2e Core Rulebook spends three pages on it and what Pathfinder is. In comparison, Middara jumps straight into telling you how to set up and play the game. If you’re doing adventure mode, it tells you what that is when it comes time to choose between that and crawl mode. The latter is preferable. Don’t go on about RPGs as a general topic. Say what the game is about and segue into what people do to play it.

For example, Blades in the Dark doesn’t use the terms “RPG” or “role-playing game” until late in the book, and that’s with reference to other games; but it tells you in the first paragraph what the game is about (“… a group of daring scoundrels building a criminal enterprise on the haunted streets of an industrial-fantasy city”).

 

[kenada]

Since this has turned into a general design advice thread: follow these dicta exactly.

(1) Ignore what randos on the internet tell you. 90% of advice is unhelpful (mine is in that other 10%, obviously).

(2) Get to a scrappy playable prototype as quickly as possible, and play it. Don't just write up some big document -- that way lies peril.

(3) Playtest and iterate, even if you're only playing by yourself.

This 10000%. Iteration is very useful for creating non-trivial things. Playing my game for our regular campaign has been incredibly useful for trying out ideas and then quickly discarding them when they suck (even though they sounded on paper theoretically quite nice).

I’ll also leave this link to Vincent Baker on design. He’s talking about designing a PbtA game, but it’s applicable in general.

Powered by the Apocalypse, part 1 – lumpley games

lumpley.games

 

[gorice]

Yeah, that's a really good blog series.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Does D-Day wax poetic about what board games? That’s the issue. The Pathfinder 2e Core Rulebook spends three pages on it and what Pathfinder is. In comparison, Middara jumps straight into telling you how to set up and play the game. If you’re doing adventure mode, it tells you what that is when it comes time to choose between that and crawl mode. The latter is preferable. Don’t go on about RPGs as a general topic. Say what the game is about and segue into what people do to play it.

For example, Blades in the Dark doesn’t use the terms “RPG” or “role-playing game” until late in the book, and that’s with reference to other games; but it tells you in the first paragraph what the game is about (“… a group of daring scoundrels building a criminal enterprise on the haunted streets of an industrial-fantasy city”).

Well, D-Day explains things in pure rules and processes style. There's, IIRC, in my c1976 copy, a separate discussion of the historical situation and what the game is representing, but it is not a part of the rules, proper. I guess it might be in the same booklet.

 

[clearstream]

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.

I'm not questioning "consequences resolution", which I agree is "the modern RPG approach" (a great example being the relocation of the relevant rules in the 2014 DMG to the 2024 PHB), but more homing in on the way your text in 2. points to "consequences" while in 3. it points to "stakes"... the latter being something "we care about". The implication I'm curious about is that the "consequences" might not be something we care about: is that your meaning?

If you do not mean that there can be consequences justifying a roll that we do not care about, then aren't 2. and 3. just saying the same thing? Concretely then, I am asking if you intend any substantive difference in meaning between 2. and 3.?

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.

Yes, to my reading 2. and 3. are or ought to be counted repetitions of the same thing: the roll is meaningful because we're wagering on it something we care about. I think "stakes" is just the right word for that, due to its historical association with games (I write with Poker stakes in mind.) The reason I find that interesting - that these should be consequences that we care about and agree to wager - is that I have a notion that stakes elevate our play.

To try to show what I mean, consider what happens for me the player seated at the table when I describe that my character swings their sword at a dragon and roll 20... a critical hit! Thus far, nothing I'm doing at the table is especially heroic. Rolling a die is trivial - it is no more difficult for me to roll a 20 than a 1 - just as it is no more difficult for me to describe my character swinging a sword at a dragon than it would be for me to describe them making a cup of tea.

The way in which stakes elevate all that, is that supposing we're playing in some sort of OSR mode, the consequences of missing could well be that the hours of play I've invested in levelling my character are wiped clean. Reset to zero. And (let's say) that's something I care about. The point here isn't that one should specifically care about character death, but rather that wagering something that I - the real person at the table - does care about elevates the roll. I care whether it's a 1 or a 20. Supposing that I also have the choice not to make the wager at all - to flee, in my example - then there is both a fictional and a real sense in which it is bold to take on the dragon.

One could observe that would be true whether or not I rolled dice to do so, yet to elevate the real act the result must be uncertain. Otherwise there is no tension - I'm betting on a guaranteed outcome which isn't really a bet at all. I believe "stakes" to be just the right word in connection with play, due to the sense of wagering something material where the outcome is uncertain.

 

[kenada]

Well, D-Day explains things in pure rules and processes style. There's, IIRC, in my c1976 copy, a separate discussion of the historical situation and what the game is representing, but it is not a part of the rules, proper. I guess it might be in the same booklet.

That all seems fine. The analog would have been including a section introducing historical wargaming and touting why it’s so cool compared to other forms of gaming.

 

[SteveC]

I'm not questioning "consequences resolution", which I agree is "the modern RPG approach" (a great example being the relocation of the relevant rules in the 2014 DMG to the 2024 PHB), but more homing in on the way your text in 2. points to "consequences" while in 3. it points to "stakes"... the latter being something "we care about". The implication I'm curious about is that the "consequences" might not be something we care about: is that your meaning?

If you do not mean that there can be consequences justifying a roll that we do not care about, then aren't 2. and 3. just saying the same thing? Concretely then, I am asking if you intend any substantive difference in meaning between 2. and 3.?

There definitely can be consequence we (and by that I mean I as player/GM and now designer) don't care about. A lot of it is multiple rolls to effectively do the same thing. I have played in many games where you had to make stealth checks and, against all odds, the entire party made it. Even the clunky paladin. And then the DM just said "okay, that gets you here, so let's make another round of checks..." It was effectively rolling to see when you would fail. Roll enough checks and even the best thief will miss one. I guess I compare that to a game like Blades where you start a Score by making a Positioning Check that shows you how much of those other rolls you can just skip.

I think in 2024, with so many games moving away from the philosophy of making a ton of checks, you might be able to get away from the "Stakes" requirement. I'm keeping it there because when we discuss this issue with respect to D&D you can clearly see that there isn't a consensus within the gaming community as a whole. I want to be up front about what I don't want to see as a designer.

Edited to add: if you're not me and playing my game, you can feel free to ignore this and roll away, the system just won't really help you out.

I didn't get into it, but when you make a Check in my game, you go through an entire framing process where you describe Intent, Method and Consequences, so everyone knows what is on the line when you roll. I was amused at the new Blades in the Dark supplement that just came out because the changes to the task system are sort of what I do. And those changes have been controversial even with Blades GMs.

Hopefully that makes sense. I think overall I get what you're saying and most of the time you're right. I just want to be up front and tell GMs how the game is designed and let the players know too.

 

[clearstream]

There definitely can be consequence we (and by that I mean I as player/GM and now designer) don't care about. A lot of it is multiple rolls to effectively do the same thing. I have played in many games where you had to make stealth checks and, against all odds, the entire party made it. Even the clunky paladin. And then the DM just said "okay, that gets you here, so let's make another round of checks..." It was effectively rolling to see when you would fail. Roll enough checks and even the best thief will miss one. I guess I compare that to a game like Blades where you start a Score by making a Positioning Check that shows you how much of those other rolls you can just skip.

Yes, and if I understand you correctly, you are not advocating that we should roll in that case (i.e. when it's consequential but we don't care about it). Your example of the stealth checks shows something you wouldn't want groups doing, right?

I think in 2024, with so many games moving away from the philosophy of making a ton of checks, you might be able to get away from the "Stakes" requirement. I'm keeping it there because when we discuss this issue with respect to D&D you can clearly see that there isn't a consensus within the gaming community as a whole. I want to be up front about what I don't want to see as a designer.

Wouldn't you then want to say for your game "roll when there are consequences you care about"? It's hard to understand why that needs separating into two points: roll when there are consequences, and roll when there are consequences you care about (i.e. "stakes").

I didn't get into it, but when you make a Check in my game, you go through an entire framing process where you describe Intent, Method and Consequences, so everyone knows what is on the line when you roll. I was amused at the new Blades in the Dark supplement that just came out because the changes to the task system are sort of what I do. And those changes have been controversial even with Blades GMs.

Hopefully that makes sense. I think overall I get what you're saying and most of the time you're right. I just want to be up front and tell GMs how the game is designed and let the players know too.

I feel like I understand what you are going for, and it is explained by two rules.

Roll when​

1. What you do is possible but not certain​

2. The result has consequences you care about​

​

Something like that? I do believe "stakes" is a good word for 2., although it doesn't yet have the standing to do the work by itself.

 

[SteveC]

Wouldn't you then want to say for your game "roll when there are consequences you care about"? It's hard to understand why that needs separating into two points: roll when there are consequences, and roll when there are consequences you care about (i.e. "stakes").

I think we're largely on the same page. I just see that "and" part of the sentence and have broken it in two. It may be that the results of playtesting will be that those can be combined. I just am trying to make two points that can be distinct for some players. Now those players or GMs might not be my target audience, but I want to at least reach out to them. We will see, I suppose. So generally speaking, I think you're right.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not questioning "consequences resolution", which I agree is "the modern RPG approach" (a great example being the relocation of the relevant rules in the 2014 DMG to the 2024 PHB), but more homing in on the way your text in 2. points to "consequences" while in 3. it points to "stakes"... the latter being something "we care about". The implication I'm curious about is that the "consequences" might not be something we care about: is that your meaning?

If you do not mean that there can be consequences justifying a roll that we do not care about, then aren't 2. and 3. just saying the same thing? Concretely then, I am asking if you intend any substantive difference in meaning between 2. and 3.?

Let's see... Stakes, I wager $20 on this poker hand. Consequences, I lose the $20 I promised to pay The Greek, and I wake up in the alley in the morning short half a pinky. The Greek still undoubtedly wants his money, and I dimly remember him mentioning the next finger would be Sally's, just before Rocko punched my lights out.

Those are different, though clearly in this case related things. I'd say I pick stakes, the GM picks consequences is a decent first cut here.

Yes, to my reading 2. and 3. are or ought to be counted repetitions of the same thing: the roll is meaningful because we're wagering on it something we care about. I think "stakes" is just the right word for that, due to its historical association with games (I write with Poker stakes in mind.) The reason I find that interesting - that these should be consequences that we care about and agree to wager - is that I have a notion that stakes elevate our play.

Well, yet in a game like AW, consequences can be causally unrelated to stakes, and/or thematically unrelated.

To try to show what I mean, consider what happens for me the player seated at the table when I describe that my character swings their sword at a dragon and roll 20... a critical hit! Thus far, nothing I'm doing at the table is especially heroic. Rolling a die is trivial - it is no more difficult for me to roll a 20 than a 1 - just as it is no more difficult for me to describe my character swinging a sword at a dragon than it would be for me to describe them making a cup of tea.

The way in which stakes elevate all that, is that supposing we're playing in some sort of OSR mode, the consequences of missing could well be that the hours of play I've invested in levelling my character are wiped clean. Reset to zero. And (let's say) that's something I care about. The point here isn't that one should specifically care about character death, but rather that wagering something that I - the real person at the table - does care about elevates the roll. I care whether it's a 1 or a 20. Supposing that I also have the choice not to make the wager at all - to flee, in my example - then there is both a fictional and a real sense in which it is bold to take on the dragon.

One could observe that would be true whether or not I rolled dice to do so, yet to elevate the real act the result must be uncertain. Otherwise there is no tension - I'm betting on a guaranteed outcome which isn't really a bet at all. I believe "stakes" to be just the right word in connection with play, due to the sense of wagering something material where the outcome is uncertain.

I'm talking in more story terms I guess. Like, if all that happens is you lose your stakes, then what really drives things forward? Consequences are where Narrativist play plugs in new stuff.