RPG Design Handbook: Chapter 3 (parts 2 & 3)

(previous posts collected here)

Chapter 3: Methods & Conceptual Frameworks

Part 2: The Lumpley Principle

If you are an experienced RPG player, you’ve probably run into the idea that an RPG consists of two parts, the “Setting” and the “System.” For now, I’m going to stay agnostic as to whether that divide has any meaning outside that of a set of easily comprehensible labels for talking about different components of a game. However, I’m going to be using the term “System” a lot throughout this part of the text, so this section is about defining what I mean.

The Lumpley Principle is one such definition.

The Lumpley Principle:

“System (including but not limited to ‘the rules’) is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play.” (formulated by D. Vincent Baker. Definition taken from the Provisional Glossary at The Forge)

So, System includes not only the formal rules out of the textbook, but any “house rules,” group-agreed-upon behaviors, and the often non-articulated agreements on what “counts” in play that each individual group has. This is a more expansive definition that I think is typically meant when people say “System,” but I think it’s a clear articulation of the fact that the rules that you write effect the behavior of the players of your game.

A main criticism of the Lumpley Principle is that it’s overinclusive and vague to the point of being meaningless. This is best articulated by Malcolm Sheppard here, where he also states that:

Sheppard’s Rules

Rules are game text which directly inform game play.

A game text is written for the purpose of informing play, as opposed to other texts which still inform play, but are not intended to.

I think that’s simple and clear enough that it doesn’t require unpacking. He has more to say on the subject, but that’s the most directly applicable to where I want to go next. “Rules” and “System” do not map one-to-one, and they are not interchangeable when talking about design.

So, we have the concepts of System and Rules. I’ll drop the annoying caps, but when I use the word “system” I’m talking about Lumpley Principle, and when I use the word “rules” I’m talking about Sheppard’s Rules. Which leads us right to…

Part 3: System Does Matter vs System Doesn’t Matter

Design Does Matter is a design philosophy articulated and championed by Ron Edwards, and is the context for many of the independently published games that were developed at the Forge. While it has been extensively debated and refined, the basics of the theory are expressed in a 2004 (? best date I can find) essay by the same title. One note: when Ron says “all three outlooks” he’s talking about the three “Creative Agendas” from the Big Model, another way of thinking about play. For our purposes, I would read “all three outlooks” as “any potential goal for play.”

System Does Matter

One of the biggest problems I observe in RPG systems is that they often try to satisfy all three outlooks at once. The result, sadly, is a guarantee that almost any player will be irritated by some aspect of the system during play. GMs’ time is then devoted, as in the Herbie example, to throwing out the aspects that don’t accord for a particular group. A “good” GM becomes defined as someone who can do this well - but why not eliminate this laborious step and permit a (for example) Gamist GM to use a Gamist game, getting straight to the point? I suggest that building the system specifically to accord with one of these outlooks is the first priority of RPG design. (from the article posted here)

System Does Matter is saying that the system of the game can and should be focused right at the designers goals for play, and that by not doing so you are creating a higher barrier for your potential players to get over if they want to enjoy the game in the way you intended it. This makes the corollary claim that it does not require a certain set of honed skills in order to enjoy a game to the fullest, and that a well-designed game can be enjoyed by groups of people that do not have a lot of play experience together.

So, what’s System Doesn’t Matter? Usually understood as a negative concept (i.e., the opposite of System Does Matter), it’s a shorthand for the widespread opinion that you can enjoy a “bad” game with a “good” group, and that a bad group can destroy even the best game. This is a philosophy that puts the social adhesion of the group playing the game above the intentions and effects of the rules system that they use.

To recast this divide with the language from Part 2 (system does not equal rules!), I would recap thusly:

System Does Matter: Designing rules that aim squarely at your design goals makes it easy for a given group to engage in systems that result in your desired play experience.

System Doesn’t Matter: The rules of a given game will always be trumped by the non-rules systems that a given group already has in place.

I think that System Does Matter is a natural viewpoint for aspiring designers, and it’s the basis of most modern focused design, to various extents. However, when looking at the two statements I’ve made above, they are not mutually exclusive. That is, even if the rules of your game are trumped by the social systems already in place, you can lower the barriers to enjoyment with both focused rule design, and a conscious attention in your game text to articulating the play experience you are aiming for, in order to allow a prospective group to decide whether your game is right for them.

RPG Design Handbook: Chapter 3 (part 1)

(Previous Posts collected here.)

Chapter 3: Methods and Conceptual Frameworks

Introduction & Part 1: The Process of Roleplay

There are a variety of models, theories and frameworks for understanding and thinking about roleplaying. These are valuable to the designer for a couple of reasons. Not only does an understanding of the underlying processes of the activity you are endeavoring to shape give you the tools with which to work, it also gives you a language with which to express your activity. As design is rooted in play, most (if not all) of the material covered in this chapter grows out of and is aimed at interpreting and understanding play.

So, what is it we do when we’re roleplaying?

Roleplaying is an activity made up of two crucial components: creation and collaboration. When a group of people is roleplaying, they are engaged in a process of collaborative creation. We are all working in unison, guided through the system of the game, to create something together that didn’t exist before. The “something” in question is what I usually call the “fiction” of the game, which is a term that entails both what actually happens in the fictional world of the game (i.e. the “plot”), and all of the other details, constructs and context that the events of your game impact on and change in an indirect manner, but which are important to your group (i.e. the “setting” and how it changes, among other things). This concept is also commonly referred to in some circles as the Shared Imaginary Space, or SIS, but I prefer fiction as a more neutral term.

The other critical concept to consider is the nature of the players. Unlike almost every other social activity, people engaged in a roleplaying game are both participants and observers, with each individual player biased towards one or the other end of that continuum in different proportions at different times. A player of a roleplaying game is both participating in creating the fiction, usually through the medium of their character or their role as the Game Master, and simultaneously observing the contributions of others as they interact with the fiction as well.

To summarize, here’s a definition of the basic process of roleplay:

Roleplaying is a process of collaborative creation, wherein each person involved is both a participant in and an observer of changes made to the fiction of that particular instance of roleplaying.

Or, to say it less formally, when you roleplay, you make stuff up with your friends that you all enjoy.

What does this mean for design?

The direct implication of this understanding of roleplay is that game design is simply deciding on certain ways to shape the interactions of the participant-observers with the fiction, using the levers of collaboration and creation. Roleplaying is, at root, a social interaction. Game design is the art and craft of shaping that social interaction towards a desired goal (remember your design goals?), and here we have a handful of vectors (with non-exhaustive questions to think about) to channel that shaping:

• Collaboration. How do the players of your game get to influence each other contributions to the fiction? How does their interaction influence the fiction, or the tools that they each have to bring to bear? What happens if the players of your game choose not to collaborate? Does competition figure in at all?
• Creation. How do players of your game contribute new material into the fiction? How do they negate material? Do they get to create material for each other? How do oppositional creations work?
• Participation. What tools and support does your game provide for aiding or shaping the participation of the players? How is “spotlight time” apportioned, if at all? What happens during the times that players aren’t fully participating?
• Observation. How does someone who is almost fully observing fit into your game, or do they? Does observation have an effect on what’s being observed? Is there support and tools for constructive, productive “downtime”?

Again, this a set of questions aimed to get you thinking about your specific tools, not proscribe them. Notice how these four approach vectors can be combined with one another to generate more food for thought (what happens along the Observation-Collaboration vector, for example?).

While the rest of this chapter will outline and detail more specific models of roleplaying, this overview of its basic process should be kept in mind for the design process. The basic thing to remember is that you are shaping a particular set of social interactions towards to certain goal.

RPG Design Handbook: Chapter 2 (part 3)

(Previous Posts collected here.)

Chapter 2: Core Questions

Part 3: The Power 19

The third broad organization rubric for organizing your approach to a new game design is a set of 19 questions developed by Troy Costisick. This set of questions is the result of really digging into the Big Three and unpacking them, creating a set of smaller scope but more specific questions. These questions can be treated as a checklist, in order to make sure you are at least thinking about each of these elements of your game; they can also be treated as spurs, wherein you try to make sure your game addresses each of them in a meaningful manner.

Finally, they are a powerful tool to apply once you have finished a draft, or at least the core mechanics of, your game. Many of the questions are about specific procedures of play, and how they connect with your design goals. While trying to answer them before you have a lot of material written for the game may identify holes (as in “huh, I should have some kind of mechanic for reinforcing X”), doing it after will allow you to analyze how well the different elements of your design are doing their jobs.

Most of the questions are fairly self-explanatory, though I have a couple notes throughout.

The Power 19 Questions:

1.) What is your game about?**

2.) What do the characters do?**

3.) What do the players (including the GM if there is one) do?**

These three should seem familier - they’re the Big Three. A useful strategy in some cases is to answer the Big Three, and then once you’re satisfied with those answers, unpack and expand upon them by going through the next 16 questions.

4.) How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

5.) How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?

6.) What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)?

7.) How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in your game?

These four are related to the Alternate Three, in that they focus on thinking about how you support your design goals with your mechanics and procedures of play.

8.) How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game?

9.) What does your game do to command the players’ attention, engagement, and participation? (i.e. What does the game do to make them care?)

10.) What are the resolution mechanics of your game like?

11.) How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?

12.) Do characters in your game advance? If so, how?

13.) How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

14.) What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players?

15.) What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why?

16.) Which part of your game are you most excited about or interested in? Why?

I think that this may be a question that you should be asking yourself over and over again throughout the design process. Why am I excited about this game? Is what happens in play reflecting what I thought would happen? It’s easy to get discouraged about your design, especially in playtesting, and keeping the answer to this question solidly in mind may be a helpful thing.

17.) Where does your game take the players that other games can’t, don’t, or won’t?

18.) What are your publishing goals for your game?

19.) Who is your target audience?

The last two are very important questions that directly target the publishing side of design; a huge topic that will be covered later in this book. (Though, my personal opinion is that publishing goals should be considered early in the process - but that’s another matter for another time).

Power 19 Criticism

The final component to the Power 19 is considering their limits. They were developed out of the Big Three and Alternate Three, which themselves are heavily rooted in the focused design school centered around the Forge. The questions carry a number of assumptions behind them, including things like the centrality of character; the power of carrot-and-stick reward systems; and a certain slant towards innovation and uniqueness in design for it’s own sake. This is not to say that every game created with the Power 19 in mind will end up looking or playing the same. Far from it!

Rather, it means that it can be ok to answer a Power 19 question with “This isn’t applicable to my game” or “I’m not considering this as a design goal.” The important thing is that these answers are considered and conscious answers. If answering the Power 19 is making you feel like you’re twisting your game into a new shape in order to do so, then maybe you should go through and “unanswer” some of the questions, until it feels natural again.

Conclusion

All three sets of questions are powerful tools for aiding your game design. Considered seperately or in combination, their main utility lies in making you think about your design in both a conscious and critical manner, with an eye towards setting and then fulfilling your design goals. While specific design methods and techniques may, and probably will, still need to be created and put together in order for your design to work like you want it too, these questions will help you identify the holes in your design and brainstorm how to fill them. Finally, the sets of questions are important both for what they make you think, and for how they make you feel - if your design does not “fit” into them well, consider that it may very well mean that your process or design goals are working from a different set of assumptions - which means you should dig until you discover those assumptions, so that you can harness them to help you in your design.

For more information on The Power 19, check out What are the ‘Power 19′? pt 1 and What are the ‘Power 19′? pt 2. Also, for a discussion of the assumptions underlying the Power 19, see this post at the Story Games forum: Design Tools: P19 as Propaganda.

Static

…page, that is. Up above you can see I added a seperate page to index the RPG Design Handbook stuff.

Oh, and I need to do another print run of carry. Many thanks to everyone who’s picked up the game. I hope y’all get to play it. I’m going to be doing a typo correction re-edit, and I’m adding one rule (it’ll be posted everywhere once I have the wording correct in the text). Feel free to point out typos and other weirdnesses with the text in the comments, if you have a mind to.

Happy New Year, everyone.

RPG Design Handbook: Chapter 2 (part 2)

So far:

• Table Of Contents
• Chapter 1, Part 1
• Chapter 1, Part 2
• Chapter 1, Part 3
• Chapter 2, Part 1

Chapter 2: Core Questions
Part 2: The Alternate Three

The “Alternate Three” are another set of three questions meant to help you focus on what, exactely, you want your game to do, and how you want it to do that. It’s most useful as a filter to pass your actual drafted rules through, as it is really good at picking out where a rules text is inconsistent with the stated purpose of the game. I first heard them expressed by Jared A. Sorensen (author of InSpectres, OctaNe, and Lacuna, Part 1, among others) in this fashion:

• What? What is your game about?
• How? How is your game about that?
• What? What behaviors does it reward or encourage in order to fulfill the How?

What? What is your game about?

We’ve covered this question already in the last section. However, the Alternate Three can help with turning the ad copy answer into the productive answer - so, if you are having trouble finding this answer when doing the Big Three, try doing the Alternate Three first!

Example: “My game is about a world where it’s always night and vampires are the ruling class, but now the sun is rising and the humans are fighting back.”

This isn’t a very useful answer, right now. Via the Alternate Three, we’re going to analyze it and see if we can make it more useful.

How? How is your game about that?

This question is asking what procedures of play enact or create the thing that your game is about. This applies to written rules, to expected interactions, and even to presentation and packaging of your game (if you’re already thinking about that). Basically, when someone sits down to play your game, how will they be enacting the experience that you want them to have? Do you have a resolution mechanic that creates the right kinds of outcomes that you want? Do you have pacing mechanics that structure a play session in the way you want? Do you have a character generation engine that creates the kinds of characters the game requires? When writing rules, you can come back to this question over and over again. How does rule X support premise Y? How does this procedure create that outcome?

Example: “How is my game about a world where it’s always night….(and so on)?”

Let’s say that, in this game, you can play either vampire Nobles or human Revolutionaries. The game has a GM, is structured such that the group of players can be either all Noble, all Revolutionary, or half and half. There’s some rules about player-vs-player conflict when it’s half and half, and the GM gets a different set of responsibilities in this case as well. The resolution system is a percentile roll-under system, and the scope of resolution is primarily about whether discrete tasks are successful or not. There’s also a Prestige mechanic that enables players to gain narrational authority over NPCs that know of their character, and to improve their characters abilities.

So, looking at this limited set of mechanics, how are they about the stated premise of the game? Well…they’re not, really, except for being able to play Nobles or Revolutionaries. The rest of the answer to “what is your game about?” is setting explanation and character concepts.

And here we come to the full usefulness of the Alternate Three. Once you have identified the procedures of play that you, as the designer, pick out as those that support the goal of the game, you can reverse engineer from them back to your “about.” The lesson here is that the game will be about what the procedures of play support, not the other way around.

Example: So, in this case, the game is about the conflict between Nobles and Revolutionaries, which you can explore either from one side, or from the middle (as the character generation implies). It’s about gaining the most mindshare from the general populace (as thats where the Prestige mechanics kick in) via descrete tasks and attempts (looking at the resolution mechanic).

So, we can re-conceptualize the answer to the first question as “This game is about building or squashing a revolution, as both sides act to get the general populace on their side.”

What? What behaviors does it reward or encourage in order to fulfill the How?

This question is about the nuts-and-bolts of how your game will structure the interactions of the players in order to attain your design goals. A resolution mechanic that require a caculator will probably discourge quick-moving, highly stylized play; a simple bidding mechanic will tend to make it difficult to enact deep strategic choices; and so on. This extends to all of your written procedures of play, of course. Characters should have the kinds of abilities that will allow them to interact in the way you want; players should be able to affect different parts of the fiction in different ways in the same manner. One common example of this is the “plot point” mechanic, whereby a player can spend a plot point in order to make a change to the fiction that they usually couldn’t. Depending on how the plot point economy works, this could either encourage players to bide their time and wait for the big scenes to use them (few plot points, rarely refreshed), or to be continually pushing what they want onto the stage, knowing that everyone else can do the same (many plot points, constantly refreshed).

Example: So, what behaviors does our sample game reward or encourage? The character generation encourages making a concious choice about all being in this together, or about the game being more of a personal struggle; the Prestige system rewards gaining the attention of the populace; and the resolution system rewards attempting descrete actions (say, by some kind of long-term experience point gain that happens whenever you engage in resolution, whether you succeed or fail).

Let’s trace the Prestige mechanic back up through the questions. It rewards swaying NPCs to your side; this enables you to gain their mindshare in order to help you in your fight against the other side; this is how the game is about getting the populace to back you in your struggle.

Conclusion

As you can see, the Alternate Three is an interconnected set of questions. This is a powerful tool you can use in order to identify inconsistencies in your design, and address how it all works together. You can trace your procedures of play up and down through the three levels in order to fully conceptualize them as being in line with your design goals.

Next up: The Power 19

RPG Design Handbook: Chapter 2 (part 1)

So far:

• Table Of Contents
• Chapter 1, Part 1
• Chapter 1, Part 2
• Chapter 1, Part 3

Chapter 2: Core Questions

So far, we’ve stated the assumptions this book is going to be based on, and talked about some of the tools you can use to identify your play and design preferences. This chapter is going to describe some systems to use once you’ve had an idea that you want to develop.

Chances are, you picked up this book because you already have a great idea for a game, and want some help in realizing it. Or, maybe, now that you’ve been actively “listening” to how you play, you’re discovering the areas that you want to improve or modify. In any case, this chapter is going to assume that you have some concept that you’re ready to run with. Whether it be one sentance (”Vampire priest’s saving the world from the tyranny of the sun”) or a notebook full of weapon statistics, there tools given in this chapter are meant to shape and channel your ideas into something unique, productive, and producable.

Here are three sets of overlapping questions, each approaching the same conceptual territory from slightly different angles. Those are the “Big Three,” the “Alternate Three,” and the “Power 19.”
The Big Three

The big three questions you need to ask yourself when your ready to sink time, effort, and money into your game idea:

• What is this game about?
• What do the characters do?
• What do the players do?

What is this game about?

The first thing to know about the answer to this question is what it isn’t. It isn’t the sales pitch, and it isn’t the back-cover blurb or ad promo for the game. It isn’t the cool damage mechanic, and it’s not the dragon mythology or the epic backstory. These are all tempting, tempting answers, because they are what we’re used to hearing when we ask what a game is about.

“What is Dungeons and Dragons about?” “Well, it’s about being an adventurer in a fantasy world, where you can do anything you can imagine!”

“What is Vampire: the Masquerade about?” “It’s a storytelling game with a dice pool system where you’re a vampire and you have to deal with your bestial nature all the time.”

“What is Dogs in the Vineyard about?” “It’s about mormon gunslingers in a west that never quite was.”

None of those answers are correct, or useful to designing those games. Or, to put it another way, these are not answers that underlie the actual design content of those games.

Answering this question is almost like answering “Why am I writing this game in the first place?” with something of the construction “I haven’t seen any game that does X, and thats what I want this game to do.”

To take Dogs In The Vineyard as an example, the answer is probably closer to “This game is about judgement, including both the judgements that the characters bring to bear in their roles as gods watchdogs, and the judgements that the players of the game make about their characters.”

This question can be a hard one to answer, or at least it can be hard to find the right words to express your answer. But it’s worth taking the time to think about it, because finding those words will help orient the rest of your design thinking.

What Do The Characters Do?

“Adventure” and “explore the game world” are both bad answers to this question. This is because those are components of almost every game, and (arguably) of every kind of roleplay. Many times, what the characters do is the hook into what the game is about. Or, to put it another way, once you know what the game is about, you can see what kinds of activities the characters will have to have the ability and opportunity to do in order to engage with that subject matter.

To look at our earlier examples: In D&D, characters overcome threats, usually physical or magical, with their strength and wits in order to gain rewards and increased resources. In Dogs In The Vineyard, characters ride from town to town, solving problems and doling out judgement on sinners.

An Aside: See how the answers for a “traditional” design (D&D) and a “focused” design (DitV) differ in scope? Many traditional designs couch their character hook in more general terms with an implied connection to what the game is about, which many focused designs make a direct, strong and explicit connection.

Characters are the vehicle for engagement between the players and the shared game fiction - so, what the characters are up to, whether explicit or implied in the rules text, are one of the first filters through which a potential player will view your game. Many games are “pitched” to a group via what kind of characters they can play (”You play Mecha pilots duking it out with alien invaders!”) as opposed to more conceptual or structural elements of the game (”This game is about imperialism and cultural identity!”) So answering this question is valuable both as a guide for various design elements that center around character building and advancement, and as a conceptual tool for identifying how others will approach your game.

What Do The Players Do?

Again, the number one answer is not a helpful one: “Play their characters.” Again, this is a definitional answer, not a constructive one. Playing a character can take many different forms, and the answer to this question can aim at a number of places. What does playing a character entail? Does the player get complete control over their character, or are there other influences? Are there certain ways of playing (like character immersion, say, or developing backstory through play) that you want to encourage or discourage with your game?

Secondly, there are many more ways a player can have an influence on the game than just by playing their character. For more details on this specifically, see the later sections on Stances and GM Duties & Responsibilities. But, in short, can players contribute to developing the game world? Introduce NPCs? Reward or punish the GM, or other players, for certain behaviors?

You can look at this question as answering why a player will have fun playing your game, and/or as what kinds of interactions an outside observer would see while watching people play your game. This question is all about the actual people at the actual table, and how they engage with the game and with each other through the game.

For more on the Big Three, see What are “The Big Three”?; Troy’s Standard Rant #1; and Troy’s Standard Rant #2.

(Next Up: The Alternate Three)

RPG Design Handbook: Chapter 1 (part 3)

So Far:

• Table Of Contents
• Chapter 1, part 1
• Chapter 2, part 2

A Brief History Of Design Trends

[BIG NOTE: I'm going to need some help here. I'm too young to have experienced the early stuff, and I haven't played enough non-Indie stuff to know how accurate I'm being. This is very much a skeleton - comments to fill it out are totally permissible and appreciated. Or if someone wants to tackle a more complete reckoning on their own, just let me know! I'm using John Kim's RPG Encyclopedia for my date referances.]

Knowledge is power. Like every other creative endeavor, RPG design both builds upon and reacts against what has come before. Your personal gaming history and experiences inform your design, and not just in how they’ve shaped your preferances. I cannot imagine any circumstance under which having a broader experience of published games can be detrimental to one’s design efforts.

I am not saying that you must have logged many hours with every system out there. Nor am I saying that you should try to read every single game text ever published. But you should be aware of how much of the gaming world you know about, and know where to go for more exposure to a given genre, style or method of play.

Many first-time designers are nervous about “stealing” or “plaigarizing” from published games. To this, I can only say that your fear is unfounded. Obviously, lifting an entire system from a well-known published game is probably not the best idea, for a number of reasons. But I’m willing to bet that if you’re reading this book, that wasn’t your plan in the first place.

Non-Lawyer Approved Legal aside: Remember, only the expressions of an idea can be copyrighted, not the ideas themselves. This means that you can take clever mechanics or impressive skill lists that you admire from a published game and mold them to fit yours. They are ideas, and as long as you are not copying the original text (the expression of those ideas), you are legally fine. However, if you everhave a legal question, talk to a lawyer!

Anyway. As long as the peices of your game make sense in the context of the whole and work towards acheiving your goals, there is no problem with being inspired by or trying to imitate the work of a designer that you admire. It is good form to include the games that you looked to the most in your bibliography; many designers include two lists, one of genre or flavor inspiration, and one of mechanical or system inspiration. But your implementation of those ideas will be your own, and thus unique.

So. Now that your fears have been assuaged, here is a very breif rundown of the general design trends since the inception of the role-playing hobby, with some commentary and example games. This is not a definitive list by any means, and many details are probably arguable. But it should at least give you an idea of where to look for certain things.

Wargaming Roots (pre 1975 - 1980)

My understanding is that the games of this time are coming straight out of Chainmail and original D&D. The Dungeon Crawl is the basic adventure arc; the adventuring party is the basic unit of character organization. I think that maps and miniatures were de facto, but I don’t actually know. Design was heavy on dice randomization and in-character effectiveness manifested through skill at arms and fighting.

“Traditional” RPGs Take Shape (1980-1990)
All of the roots and hallmarks of what we now call “traditional” RPGs take shape, though many bits and pieces that are later re-imagined by indie games are present. Most of the big names are released (and re-released in various Editions) during this time, including the founders of almost every big genre of roleplaying, most of which went through many editions during this time. Dungeons and Dragons goes through various incarnations; Rolemaster is released, Tunnels & Trolls gets its 4th edition (among a number of games in the Alliteration & Alliteration model (Villians & Vigiliantes, Pirates & Plunder, etc); Call of Cthulhu is released, Champions is released; James Bond 007 is released; Palladium Roleplaying System is debuted; Elfquest (the first big license, yes?); RuneQuest; Ghostbusters; Traveller; GURPS; Ars Magica; Cyberpunk; the list goes on and on.

This was a big time for the hobby, and saw the development of the three-tier distribution system (manufacturer -> distributor -> retailer -> customer) that dominated the industry through the 1990s. Most of the well-known companies that are still with us were created during this time as well (Steve Jackson Games, Palladium, R. Talsorian).

While there was a wide array of systems being created for all of these games, the general trends continued in the wargaming tradition. Being able to fight, shoot or take damage received more attention in rulebooks then being able to convince someone of an argument or change a belief system. Many elaborate rules systems were being conceived in order to simulate reality, or at least create a versimilitude of various physics in the real world. Randomizers were still primarily dice, though new innovations in character creation and character effectiveness (point-buy systems and life paths) became well known. “Generic” or “Universal” systems were being designed in order to be adapted to any kind of game that an individual group wanted to play. Finally, most if not all of these games set up the “players play their characters, while the GM plays everything else in the world” dynamic (aka “The GM is God” paradigm).

The Rise of “Storytelling” RPGs (1991-2000)

Two games were released in 1991 that symbolized the coming shift in design trends: Amber Diceless Roleplaying and Vampire: the Masquerade. Amber was a system designed entirely without randomizers, with an elaborate bidding/point-buy system for character creation that basically set the characters effectiveness for the rest of the game. Vampire broke with the wargame tradition of RPG design (and marketing), with a self-avowed focus on dramatic storytelling and flawed (anti)heroes, hearkening to the realms of theatre and dramatic performance rather than hex maps and fantasy literature.

While just as many, if not more, RPGs were written and released during this time, fewer of them are still with us today in the way that, for example, Traveller is. White Wolf Game Studios followed up on the success of Vampire with its entire series of related story-telling games, each focused on a different supernatural creature. Many existing games continued to get new editions. Some other notable games (in terms of breaking from earlier design trends) published: Over The Edge; Theatrix; The Whispering Vault; Everway; and FUDGE, among others. Other new games that are closer to “traditional” design include Earthdawn; CORPS; Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay; Fading Suns; Deadlands, and so on.

Some of these games were true breaks with “traditional” design, not only looking elsewhere for methods and techniques to resolve disputes in-game, but also arising from design paradigms and philosophies that were different from traditional roleplaying. Some games were created with mechanics that expressed those philosophies; many made great efforts, but continued to fall into similar patterns as “traditional” games. Combat as the main emphasis for problem-solving and the adventuring party were strong paradigms that dominated even Vampire and its successors. Also, most games continued the “GM is God” tradition.

Focused Design (2000-Present)

Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition was published in 2000, and it represents the beginning of the third “movement” in RPG Design - Focused Design. While closely identified with the “indie movement” (Ron Edward’s Sorcerer was available online since 1998, but it didn’t see a print edition until 2001), by this I mean design that takes into account its designers goals for the game and aims directely towards acheiving its goals. Since 2000, focused design has began to be expressed across the industry.

Focused design can be seen in D&D 3.5 and some of the Open Game Licensed derivatives, particularly Iron Heroes; the New World of Darkness revamp of White Wolf’d Storyteller system; and the vast majority of independently published games that have been developed by designers that have been involved with the Forge, a forum focused on independent design and publication. Some of the more well-known titles from Forge participants include the above-mentioned Sorcerer (and it’s supplements); Clinton R. Nixon’s The Shadow of Yesterday; Luke Crane’s Burning Wheel and Burning Empires; Vincent Baker’s Dogs in the Vineyard, and Fred Hicks Don’t Rest Your Head (among many others). Some other focused-design small-press games include Atomic Sock Monkey’s Truth & Justice and Atarashi Game’s Panty Explosion (again, among many others).

Conclusion

As you can see, the basic focus of this book is on preference and context. Identifing the set of preferences that you want to design for, and the context which your design will inhabit, is the crucial groundwork for your design efforts.

RPG Design Handbook: Chapter 1 (part 2)

Table of contents here.
Chapter 1 introduction here.

Identifying Your Play Preferences

The core tenant of this book is that design is rooted in play. Quite simply, your play, and what you enjoy about roleplaying in general, will directly and fundamentally inform the games that you design. Thus, it is worth taking some time to work on identifying what, exactly, you enjoy about the games that you play, and what you don’t. (Hell, it’s worth doing this even if you’re not formally thinking about designing your own game. But I digress.)

Now, there are a number of conceptual frameworks within which to think about your play. These theories vary in degrees of specificity and philosophy, and many are presented in the next chapter. But, before skipping ahead to figure out which pigeonhole you identify with, you should do some thinking on your own.

This is a two-part exercise designed to get you into the mode of thinking critically about your play.

First, sit down and reflect on the games you have played in the past, and those you are currently participating in. Simply write down what things, in general, you enjoy about these games, and which you don’t. This could be genre of game (”I like fantasy-themed games”), social interactions with other players (”I don’t like it when people don’t speak in-character in dramatic scenes”), mechanical bits (”Dice-pool systems are awesome”), or character-related issues (”I don’t like the ‘flawed hero’ archetype”). Don’t be shy - write down everything that comes into your head.

Now, put that list away. At your next session of play, pay attention to the things that push your buttons, good and bad. Take notes if it helps (and isn’t disruptive to the game). The goal is to note what really excites you, or really annoys you, and then to identify the cause of that excitement or annoyance. After the game, sit down and write out another list like the first, but only about that specific session of play.

So now you have two lists, one of general trends and one of a specific game. Look at them in conjunction - they are both valuable sets of data. Go through them, but after every entry, add the word “because,” then finish the sentence.

“I like fantasy themed games because I love fantasy literature, and I want to explore those worlds on my own.”

“I don’t like the flawed-hero archetype because I find myself more engaged by straight good vs. evil kinds of stories.”

These “because’s” will probably align into some general trends, and you will see some patterns emerge, including using the same “because” for a number of your preferences.

The point of this exercise is not for you to take this list and hold it as your gaming gospel. The point is to get you critically thinking about your play. It’s a total immersion treatment for shunting your brain into a critical pattern of thought, in order to make it easier to both set goals, and make choices that are meaningful in trying to reach those goals. The actual lists are only as important as you consider them to be for your own purposes.

Chances are that this process will also spark some ideas and connections that maybe you hadn’t thought of before. This is good!

Another powerful exercise is something that I gleaned from Luke Crane, the designer of Burning Wheel. I call it the “Immolation Technique.”

Think of your favorite game. Now, go through and purge out of it everything that makes you unhappy. If you want to be really hardcore, take a sharpie and exacto knife to your copy of the game; it will probably suffice to make notes, or just to do it in your head. But by everything, I mean everything: mechanics, GM advice, flavor text, character options - everything that does not make you ebulliently joyful about that game.

Now, chances are, you will be left with a smoking ruin full of holes. The next step is to fill those back in with things that make you happy. Again, making a physical or mental list is probably going to be helpful here. The process of connecting the charred framework to your shiny new ideas - thats the design process.

Again. The first step is critically thinking about what you enjoy and what you don’t enjoy. Identification of preferance makes it easier to set goals, and makes those goals more applicable to what you really want; setting goals make it easier to design mechanics and interactions, and makes those design choices more powerful and meaningful.

Edit: Joshua BishopRoby (who’s name I almost always end up misspelling) is giving the two-list thing a whirl on his blog. Rock.

RPG Design Handbook: Chapter 1

Table of Contents here.

Why Design?

Introduction

Here’s a statement: At some point during your time roleplaying, you have broken, ignored, modified, adopted, or otherwise changed a rule in the game you were playing. Maybe you decided that keeping track of encumberance in AD&D wasn’t worth the time; maybe you realized that not once had you ever spent a point of Willpower in Vampire: the Masquerade. Maybe you created an entirely new monster from the ground up in order to surprise the heroes. Maybe you added a hit location randomizer to better simulate the vagaries of hand-to-hand combat. Maybe you settled everything in the game by talking instead of rolling dice, or the other way around.

Congratulations. You’re a RPG designer.

Like anything else, there are a number of interpretations of the term. For the purposes of this book, it means just what it says: a RPG (I’ll just use “game” from here on out) designer is someone who designs a game. By adding or changing the rules you use in play, you are designing right into the structure of your game, even if it’s just a little bit. It’s kind of like how an interior designer will paint a wall or hang a curtain, even though they didn’t build the wall or install the window. Adapting your environment to your use is design.

I bet that you want to go further, though. You don’t want to be the interior designer; you want to be the architect of the whole house. Right on. Since the beginning of our hobby, there has never been a better time to write and publish your own game. There are huge communities dedicated to design and play; services that enable you to publish texts with a minimum of effort and investment; and the infrastructure to put your game directely into the hands of the consumer or the retailer.

That sounds great, right? But there’s one question that you will need to come back too, over and over again, throughout the entire process: Why am I designing this game?

There are a number of reasons, and none of them necessarily better than another. “Because there isn’t a game out there that does what I want it to do.” “Because I have this great idea, and I want to implement it my way.” “Because I want to make money.” “Because I won’t be able to sleep until someone plays this game.” The only wrong answer is “I don’t know.”

The rest of this chapter is dedicated to giving you the tools to answer this question coherentely and in a way that is useful for the rest of the design process. There are two critical components to consider when you first start thinking about designing your own, original game:

What are my play preferances? Everything you do is informed by your opinions and experiences, and game design is no different. Whether you are trying to fulfill or change your preferences for fun and fulfilling play, identifying those preferences in the first place is a crucial step.

What are my goals for this game? This sounds like an easy question, but its not. Further chapters will have a more detailed breakdown of this question into three, or nineteen, component questions. At the outset, however, you do need to think about your goals - not only for the game design itself, but also for who your audience is and how you will get your game to that audience.

Finally, this chapter will conclude with a breif overview of the design trends over the last 30+ years of the hobby. This is intended both to give you a reference point for the kinds of games that you tend to enjoy and the kinds of design that produced them, and as a resource that will give you a very rough idea of what published games to look at that had goals similar to your own.

One last word. As the term “play preferences” indicates, this book will continually come back to your own play, and how it informs your design. Actually playing games is the only way to learn the critical lessons that will lead to informed design. If you haven’t really played that many games - well, maybe you should do some more gaming and see if there’s already a game out there that fulfills you in play. Even if you have a wide experience, embarking on a design means you should play more, not less. Every game you play will teach you more about design, if you pay attention.

The philosophy of this book can be summed up thusly: The point of design is play. Without play, design is meaningless.

Now, lets get started.

An Indie Designers Guide To RPG Design

Table of Contents

1. Why Design?
- Identifying Your Play Preferences
- Idenfifying Your Design Goals
- Breif History of Design Trends

2. Core Questions
- Power 19
- Big 3
- Alternate 3

3. Methods & Conceptual Frameworks
- The Process of Roleplay
- System Does Matter vs System Doesn’t Matter
- The Social Contract
- The Lumpley & Czege Principles
- Bricolage
- Threefold Model (GDS)
- The Big Model (GNS)
- Design What Matters vs Design (Away) What Doesn’t Matter
- Freeform Play
- Asychronous Play
- Push & Pull

4. Authority/Credibility
- The GM Is Not A Person
- What These Mean For Play
- Examples Of Distribution
- Techniques For Distribution

5. Organizing Play
- Overall Play Structure
- Scene Framing & Techniques
- Pacing
- Story/Plot Creation

6. Organizing Characters
- What Is A Character?
- Players vs. Characters
- Character Advancement/Reward Cycles
- Relationships Between & Among Characters

7. Resolution Mechanics
- Karma/Drama/Fortune
- Manouver Resolution
- Stakes Resolution
- Probability & Expectations Of Probability

8. Mechanical Techniques
- Guages And Dials
- Currency
- [And other things from Design Patterns]

9. Playtesting
- The Purpose Of Playtest
- Organizing A Playtest
- Playtest Stages & Methods
- When To Stop Playtesting

10. Publishing
- Art
- Editing
- Layout
- Printing
- Advertising
- The Internet
- Three-Tier Distribution
- Cottage Distribution
- Conventions
- Promotion & Marketing

11. Annotated Index of Extant Games

Next Up: Should this really be called the “Indie” designers guide?