"What is a Role-Playing Game?"

KrakaJak · February 20, 2007, 02:02:49 PM

I was reading through my PHB and I noticed something.

D&D does not have the "What is a Role Playing Game?" section.

I think this is pivotal to its success.

Instead of trying to define an RPG and then continue to go on, they only try to define what Dungeon & Dragons is. Instead of trying to initiate you into the "RPG subculture", it only teaches what D&D is and how to play it.

What if RPGs stop including the "What is an RPG" section from now on. Instead they describe what their game is. The only time people need to know it's an RPG, is when it's on the cover.

That's all I got, but it was an interesting observation/hypothesis none the less

flyingmice · February 20, 2007, 02:17:55 PM

I've been writing RPGs without a "What is an RPG?" section forever. Can I get rich now?

I always figured anyone who bought one of my games had better know what an RPG was...

-clash

Spike · February 20, 2007, 03:17:14 PM

I'm with Clash on this one. I, for one, never bother to read what the guy who wrote the book thinks his game is. I read the stuff that matters and make my decisions from there.

Like, if White Wolf wants me to believe they are selling me a storyteller game, all the paragraphs in teh world won't change the fact that the rules don't really support that premise in the least. Attitude can only carry you so far.

flyingmice · February 20, 2007, 03:20:11 PM

Fluff? We don't need no steenking fluff!

-clash

arminius · February 20, 2007, 03:21:22 PM

Yeah, I hate those "What is an RPG" sections. The only purpose I can really think of for having them is as a sort of apology for the fact that the game doesn't really have hard & fast rules, and therefore needs to fill the spaces with "roleplaying". So the author thinks they need to define "roleplaying" so that the players will understand what to do with the game. The result at the extreme is the sort of rules-mixed-with-analysis-mixed-with-designer's-notes that suggests nervousness on the part of the designer that someone might play the game wrong.

flyingmice · February 20, 2007, 03:24:33 PM

Anything more than "RPGs are like let's pretend with rules. Here are the rules:" is a waste of paper, ink, and time.

-clash

JongWK · February 21, 2007, 12:18:00 AM

Not to be the Devil's advocate, but I can see a perfectly good reason for including the "What is..." blurb. A complete newbie could use some tips.

Of course, it's a whole different beast if the game is trying to dictate a specific approach to RPGs...
*cough* White Wolf *cough* Forge *cough*

Settembrini · February 21, 2007, 12:33:26 AM

QuoteOf course, it's a whole different beast if the game is trying to dictate a specific approach to RPGs...

Then by all means stay away from [reading, not neccessarily playing] burning empires!
Go, ask Spike...

KrakaJak · February 21, 2007, 12:37:37 AM

To Jong: I think every ruleset tries to dictate their specific approach to RPGs.

I think all they really need to do is describe their game. Instead of saying

"A roleplaying game is a game were you play pretend with some complications etc. etc. etc. However our game changes this model a little, by adding in tiddlywinks as a play mechanic". Assuming that your players need to know.

They should just say:

"Game X is a game where you and you friends pretend to be Dungaree's hanging in a store window. It's part wargame, part 'let's pretend', part business model".

joewolz · February 21, 2007, 01:29:54 AM

Quote from: KrakaJakThey should just say:

"Game X is a game where you and you friends pretend to be Dungaree's hanging in a store window. It's part wargame, part 'let's pretend', part business model".

That's forgespeak, right thur.

Calithena · February 21, 2007, 09:38:18 AM

I still don't understand why you need anything other than the combat matrices. What do people think these games are about, anyway?

Warthur · February 21, 2007, 10:30:10 AM

I think a useful "What is Roleplaying?" section is actually a nice insight into what the game designers are trying to achieve with a game, in the same way that a good example of play should show what the designers think a typical session of the game should actually look like.

Unfortunately, lots of "What is Roleplaying" sections are useless. They're either devoted to pointing out how the game in question isn't like D&D, no sir, or they're an afterthought.

KrakaJak · February 22, 2007, 02:36:18 PM

Quote from: joewolzThat's forgespeak, right thur.

Lol:)

Settembrini · February 23, 2007, 05:33:08 AM

They are useful, in that those essays are a pointer to the faction the author belongs to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism

Mark Plemmons · March 05, 2007, 09:25:43 AM

I'd say that "What is Roleplaying?", "What is an RPG?" etc, is a necessity if your game is the first product in a new RPG line, and/or you hope to market it to non-gamers as well.

For example, we hope that our upcoming Aces & Eights western RPG will also appeal to fans of alternative history and/or the Old West genre, but who may not necessarily be RPGers. Giving up a single page (out of 400) to briefly introduce a reader to the concept of RPGs seems more like a benefit than a loss.

Heck, D&D still has two pages worth of similar introduction.

Now, if you're publishing a supplement or adventure to be used with existing rules, then I agree that such an introduction to role-playing is unnecessary.