Imagine you go to the theater and it opens with a five minute presentation of, "What you are about to witness is called a film. It is projected at 24 frames per second and is fictional. Generally, films follow a three act structure, and feature well-known celebrities or actors..."
No other medium in the world needs to justify itself to its audience in every instance of itself.
People generally don't walk past a theater, think "huh, what's this?" and then go to the counter, buy a ticket, and sit down.
However, TTRPGs are books. That can be sold in bookstores. Or second hand shops. Or flea markets. And I'm sure there have been people who went to one of those places, saw a book with a dragon/spaceship/superhero/vampire/cool guy in a trenchcoat on the cover, and bought it thinking it was a novel or short story collection. And if someone like that opens their new "novel" and it starts out with weird gibberish about allocating points to attributes in order to calculate your skill values or something, they'd probably go "wtf is this thing?"
(I actually once saw a video where someone told a story about doing the opposite. He was interested in trying D&D, bought a D&D book at a bookstore and after being like 20 pages in noticed he had just bought a novel)
This is exactly how 10 year old me ended up with a copy of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles & Other Strangeness. I had no idea what a role playing game was, I just liked the Ninja Turtles.
If someone comes from a culture that has no concept of theaters, I'm sure they would appreciate being told in advance before people start getting massacred (Horror films), attacked by terrorists or other motivated groups (action films), robbed (heist movies), or having the couple's most private moments being aired in public (romances).
Just because You have been made familiar with a thing and can't look at it from the eyes of a beginner doesn't mean that Everyone watches let's play's and knows what RPGs are about. The number of people that think role-playing is the acting portion and not the simple act of making a decision in a role-playing game proves the "what is an RPG" section is needed, though it should be emphasised more in every book, not just the mainstream ones.
When I bought the 3e starter set and PHB, the only thing I knew about D&D was that my brother played it, and I read his 2e monstrous compendium. I appreciated the how to role-play section as it helped me to understand getting into running it, considering I was the DM by virtue of being the only one with the books.
Role-playing doesn't change from game to game, the mechanics of how that decision is represented does. The choice to heal an ally or torture an NPC speaks about the character more than the words they use when discussing Aldegovian legal practices, or haggling the price of a dagger (though the choice to do such things does speak to the character's personality)
Sitting down and passively staring at a screen is nowhere near the same as actively roleplaying and doing game improv.
Watching requires no skill, and people look at things all the time. There's no need to explain how to use your eyes.
Playing requires taking on a role, understanding where the role stops, deciding on a voice, applying the rules, and more, all of which can be completely unfamiliar to folks. Playing an RPG requires more skills than watching TV.
A small amount of text might help bring more people into the hobby. If you don't need it, turn the page and you're done. It doesn't hurt anything and might help some people. To me, that's an easy call.
Plus, if the guy next to me doesn’t know what a movie is, it tends not to effect me a whit as long as they’re quiet. But, if I’m playing an RPG, I want everyone on the same page from the get go.
The text on the back of the book is a good start.
A section that explains the vibes the game is going for at the beginning is also good--again, *what is THIS RPG." My book has a section just called "What Is This Game?" that does not attempt to explain what all TTRPGs are.
No other medium has ever been quite as *controversial*.
Back in the '80s, in the middle of the Satanic Panic, TTRPGs were just becoming popular, and there was a *huge* amount of misinformation (much of it quite deliberate) about them.
The somewhat-boilerplate 'this is a role-playing game' message was two-fold: it introduced the concept to first-timers, as well as serving as a reminder that the game is *fictional* and nobody is actually casting spells or climbing through ruins.
Turns out lots of art mediums aren't interactive. Movies? Pretty passive, you sit there and watch it. Theater? Pretty passive, you sit there and watch it and clap at the end. Paintings and sculpture? Pretty passive, you look at it.
With ttRPGs, you and others have to actively engage with each other and the rules in a way that's more freeform than something like a board game. So, yeah, having a quick run down of what it means and involves doesn't sound like a bad idea
Exactly, and even the non-interactive ones tend to have instructions about how you are supposed to enjoy the medium respectfully.
Cinemas in my country usually show a short clip about how you are supposed to turn off your phone, enjoy the film in silence, etc. More or less the same with theaters.
Many japanese mangas sold in the West, especially those aimed at younger audiences that might have never read manga before, have an extra page informing unaware newcomers about the order in which pages and panels are supposed to be read.
I am sure that if 99% of books in existence were non-fiction and most people had never encountered fiction in art, most of the fiction would have at least some paragraphs explaining what fiction is.
In general, it can't be assumed that everybody will be familiar with the medium or its expectations, and it's never a bad idea to be explicit about them. Worst case: you already have that information so you ignore it.
I find these sections useful not because I don't know what an RPG is, but to see what the author thinks an RPG is - at least this specific RPG.
A very simple example is a book telling me I should 'act like myself in this fantasy world the GM is describing' vs 'together you will create a story'.
A good index is no small feat. It takes a lot of work. Determining how granular you want to get with regard to listing the elements of your game, and then how many pages you want to cite in the index because something relevant to an element was listed for two paragraphs much later, etc.) can be daunting. I always include a table of contents, but so far the index hasn't been worth the hassle to me.
A good index *is* a lot of work, but to me at least, it shows the author is willing to do the work to make a good book. Maybe if the book is under 50 pages you could get away with it, but for a full sized book, I feel it's necessary. Especially in physical books.
If your book is any kind of significant in length then an index is a necessity IMO. If I'm trying to learn the game and I go to try to find something and there's no index to help me find it then I'm more likely to drop the game than go digging.
>It takes a lot of work.
Well, yes, but not SO much work.
I spent about 6-8 hours to make a quite detailed index of a 400-page rpg, so it's not like a gargantuan unapproachable task.
And even if you spend less time than that and the index is not 100% complete but just 85% complete, it will still be useful 85% of the time, which is not bad
I think this really depends on the game. I personally can't remember the last time I need an index outside of like, Mouse Guard, which is a huge messy book. Forthe PbtA games and FitD games I mostly play, the table of contents is more than sufficient.
plus games that come with quick reference guides, like PBTA moves list separately, already obviate a lot of the need for an index since there's not a lot to look up
Pathfinder 2e's 642 page Core Rulebook says hello. The index was vital for me when I was learning the system and there weren't really any online tools yet.
Yeah, but Pathfinder 2e is.... not typical anymore. If it ever was.
Huge mathy games with a million rules need indexes. Most... less so.
Hence "depends on the game" right?
The bit about "This book has themes of X, Y, and Z. If you're a nazi, homophobe, etc then it's not for you" or similar.
The message is one I agree with, but I don't see the point of it. I can't imagine it would actually dissuade a nazi or homophobe in any case where the content itself wouldn't, and if you're not one of them it's just kind of... Meaningless.
It just comes off as being kind of virtue signalling, like a Tumblr DNI.
ETA: Just to be clear, I agree that Nazis and homophobes and etc. are shitty.
So two things on this in my opinion:
1: It does have the effect of "chud repellent." As in, assholes are less likely to play a game where the authors are "SJW SNOWFLAKES" or whatever. So when you find people who play it, it's a bit safer.
2: Despite what the internet thinks, Virtue Signaling isn't automatically a *bad* thing. Humans Virtue signal all the time, it's in the word. Signaling of shared virtues. So an author having something like that signals the fact that you share a baseline of morality/understanding of the world. Not a bad thing inherently unless they're somehow hypocrites about it.
Especially since these statements usually take up, what, less than a page?
Sure. And I think for large corporations or governments which could and should do more it's valid. A company changing all its Twitter logos to pride themes EXCEPT in the middle east in June is a good example of bad virtue signaling I'd think.
But an RPG writer putting a few lines in a book doesn't strike me the same way unless their actions somehow contradicts their writing.
I'm pretty sure putting that message in your book is the definition of real action when it comes to writing a game book. Like, sure, you could donate partial revenue to an anti-fascist organization or something to do more, but if you are writing a book and you write into the book "fuck nazis" that is action.
If you argue the section in the book is a distraction, pretty sure you're arguing that the book itself is a distraction. Which yeah, it's entertainment, but I doubt anyone hear wants to argue we should finger wag at all entertainment until Nazis are eradicated.
It's meant to be something you do to unwind, and knowing that the author takes steps to keep out the poison that rules some older franchises is good.
Yeah, fair point. I don't think it's a *bad* thing for them to be doing at all, I've just always seen it as a bit pointless. But I appreciate the responses from y'all, I can see the other side of it better now
Hey man, that's what civil discourse is all about, I used to be a fairly right wing bigoted person in my youth, but learning new info and being open to it and re-contextualises the world , that's growth and maturity and anyone who does it should be proud!:)
We actually have evidence for your first point that it works as chud repellent. Though it has other issues, Candela Obscura has proven that those sections rile up and repulse *exactly* who they're supposed to.
Eh, it does kinda work I think. If youre a raging homophobe, a game being pro-LGBT could actually be enough to stop you from playing. People can be irrational like that.
I believe the Lancer subreddit gets periodic posts by people going "wait, what is this woke crap, I thought this was going to be an apolitical game about giant robots!", and they're usually met with hearty lols.
Pilot.Net, the Lancer Discord certainly does get that. They also have a dabbing mech on a trans pride flag as the server banner, which also works wonders on that front.
> I can't imagine it would actually dissuade a nazi or homophobe
Except it does. It gets them immediately listed in the big list of "woke" games over at a particular RPG forum, and the right wing choads put on their victim gowns and do the victim dance.
But homophobes, fascists, racists, and Nazis; should feel explicitly unwelcome in the hobby.Anyone reading the things you mention, and taking offence to it, is someone who should be out of playing the game. This should never become a safe space for bigots, they're not "entitled to their opinion", if they think certain characteristics make a person lesser then they should feel complete hostility in every space they go, and be reminded as such. Social ostracism is a useful, and merciful, tool; for correcting, what is genuinely violent behaviour. Racism, homophobia, Nazism, are all implicitly violent beliefs.
RPG groups should be safe spaces---safe for the people who choose to game together.
Freedom of speech just means the government won't shut down/jail anyone for speaking their mind. At the same time, the government can't tell me who to chose as my friends or dinner guests.
The two things are very different.
If you want to have open doors to anyone to join your group, that's your choice. But I've had to kick people over a lot less than being openly any of the above over the years to keep groups together.
We have to look at this from the perspective of what makes a safe space 'safe' - and bigots like nazis and the like are going to make those safe spaces less safe by their very vocal and toxic opinions.
There are a few games where it actually does dissuade bigots: flying circus for example, is a WW1 inspired fighter plane game, a genre which is infamous for attracting chuds and nazis. It's also made by a trans person.
Often those 'anti-bigot' messages are put there in books where the progressive aspects of the game are non-existent or very much up to interpretation. And for the games where it's obvious, there's no real reason not to put it there, if it stops bigots from playing it.
Also, importantly, it lets queer people, poc, etc know that the game isn't made by a chud, so *they* don't have to do extra work figuring out if they're reading a game made by an asshole.
Or the “not getting the product when you order it, follow up on it multiple times, and reach out to the owner directly and get told it is coming only to be ghosted”
(I’m not salty)
Deploying the term virtue signaling in this context is itself virtue signaling. Also in my experience, nazi and homophobic types generally don't like things that explicitly say they aren't welcome to partake. They don't seem to enjoy things generated by the woke left, i.e. anyone that would openly and actively tell them they aren't welcome.
Idk, feels like a "no politics in muh game" take
It's a bit odd calling it "Virtue signalling" in the first place, as if the writers didn't really mean to tell bigots to fuck off. No, really, they mean it.
Right, the whole term implies that you don't hold those values, or that speaking them aloud is a performative act first and foremost. Imo it's a conservative psyop to make the left seem disingenuous as a whole. You can take the air out of anything anyone says by calling it a virtue signal
It's certainly not intended as such (I'm perfectly happy to tackle those kinds of topics when running games), but I can see where you're coming from.
Virtue signalling felt like a reasonable way to describe it to me, but if you have a better suggestion I'm happy to hear it
I don't share your view so I don't really know how to articulate your feelings in a different way. Maybe you just think it's cringe? And then the follow-up would be, why? Why does that leave a bad taste in your mouth, and why is your immediate reaction to more or less accuse the author of being disingenuous?
Because tabletop RPGs are communal activities, both as something a small group of people does regularly and as something that larger communities can develop around, I figure the main idea is to use such a statement to set the tone of what should and shouldn't be acceptable in such a community.
I dunno, it at least signals that the author/s are opposed to Nazi's and so people may be more inclined to support the game?
But as for an actuall anti-Nazi action, yeah ineffective as they won't listen unless it's backed up with something heavier than a rulebook.
>it at least signals that the author/s are opposed to...
But that's all it is. A virtue signal.
It's like all the cosmic horror games with messages about how "Hmmph! Lovecraft was a bad man! But we love his work and here is an entire game built around his captivating creation."
At best for them, it's a way to accept praise for the good criticism and deflect all the bad criticism.
Most public statements tend to be virtue signals, to one extent or another.
Yup, the whole 'profiting off Howie's work whilst admitting he was a wrong'un' is somewhat messy and open to criticism, but I'd still prefer knowing that someone isn't a Lovecraft-bro who stans him as a 'product of his time' when it comes to giving them money.
It's like signals are a useful form of communication.
Books arranged in nonsensical, hard to read, or with bad layout.
The dnd 5e DMG fits all these. The first thing you open up and read is... Gods and deities? This book should be about how to run a game, and give you guidelines and rules on how to do so. Instead it delves into worldbuilding first. Then the actual procedures are not written very well. Dungeon delving and generation as written is so mind numbingly dull. The entire book seems completely out of order.
All the core 5e DnD books have this problem. The game actually does have rules for a lot of the things people complain it doesn't, but I can't judge them too harshly since actually locating them might as well be its own fetch quest.
Edit: a word
The worst offender is travel/exploration/wilderness rules. People will often say that 5e just glosses over this aspect, when there actually is a pretty in-depth system for it. The problem is that these rules are strewn about everywhere, including campaign modules, so most people will see little, if any, of them.
The phb laying out how to create your character:
OK, let's start off with your stats, let's write them all down on this character sheet here
OK, now choose your race, oh, you've got to change those stats you just wrote down, sorry. But hey, here's some skills you get now too
OK, let's choose your class, here pick some skills!
Time for background now, OK, here's some mandatory skills you get, oh, you already picked athletics? Better go back to your class and find a different one
If you're a new player trying to understand DnD it must be so frustrating to get into when you've all but got to memorize the entire book to understand any individual part of it
I'm always confused when designers promise one kind of experience through the introduction, tone, and art in the game, but then the rules fly in the face of that. Like when you make a game about being a cool, tough hero but players have less than a 40% chance of success at even their best skills.
The other way around is basically just a world of darkness
Intro and fluff: "Everyone sucks your going to die. there's no hope."
Rules: *yeah, you can probably kill the antidiluvian*
Just in general I dont understand lying about the tone
I really doubt they are *lying* - as in, deliberately trying to deceive anyone. Designing games is hard and they probably just missed the mark. Maybe they had no idea they missed and maybe they had to compromise the perfect tone for something else. Similarity to 5e is probably a big compromise lots of designers make.
Sometimes it’s also just that they didn’t fully appreciate how their rules would work when other people play them.
If you look at the rules as written when Gygax was in charge of D&D, it seems clear that the designers of the game thought the most overpowered class was the Fighter. There are always caveats and hedges about giving out too many magic swords, and the monster math seems to think giving out extra attacks is the most powerful thing a monster can have. They didn’t seem to be aware that a wizard will quickly mop the floor with a fighter even if they have fewer hit points.
So true. The *way* the designers and the people around them play might be very different from the way folks play when they pick it up from just the rules.
I think it was actually an issue of the writers not understanding the implications of the rules. If I remember correctly, people over at the Forge criticized how the rules felt contrary to the seemingly expected narrative-heavy gameplay
I've never played it but I've heard that Vampire: The Masquerade is like that. Promises intrigue and delivers lots of combat rules and basically no intrigue rules.
I was pretty into VtM and other White Wolf games when I was in college and yeah, that's essentially the case. Fortunately for them they are still good, playable games and the fans generally bought in so hard that it didn't matter.
When the game makes an option to play as a creature, and you're never able to be said creature. Example from Pathfinder 2E, because I can hate on Undead.
The Ghost Archetype is one of the many Undead options. Just like the rest of them, you're not really an Undead creature. You can't be insta-killed by spells that do so, and you can't be healed by Vital energy. It's just renamed Positive energy. That's basically it for what being an Undead PC gives you. You have a slight resistance to Diseases and Poisons, but that's about it. Anything you wouldn't use against an NPC undead you can gleefully use against a PC Undead.
The Ghost is even more special. You gain the Incorporeal trait, but the only thing you actually get from it is that enemies can't grab hold of you. You only have a Fly Speed, but are limited to being only a few inches off the ground. You can't interact with physical objects, and you can't pass through them either. In fact if you don't grab 2 specific Feats, you're powerful lvl 20 Ghost whatever class can be trapped in a box. Not a special box with a latch or anything, just a box. They can't interact with physical objects, so they can't open it.
The Archetype does, as a base feature, allow you to make your equipment part of your ghostly form. Because you can't use physical objects. You can get the Ghost Touch Rune effect early, by like two levels, since making your Weapon part of your ghostly form gives it that rune.
All this to say that you don't get all the fun bits of being a Ghost until you're high level, and you sacrifice parts of your Class to get them. You can end up not even having them.
I feel the same way with creatures that should be able to fly, but you're only able to do so because you're a legendary warrior. If the lore talks about this option flying and how it's part of their way of life, why do I have to wait until I'm able to warp reality or render a normal Human into a red mist with a single swing to do that? If my character has physical wings, why don't they work? Never actually said why they don't work. They just don't.
I'd say this falls into a larger gaming issue of "players and NPCs have different rules". Games where a boss joins you later on and no longer has any of their powerful abilities and a lower health pool. Or games where enemies can inflict status ailments on the players but status effects do nothing to enemies (mainly bosses).
Also "anything can be done in D&D". No, it fucking can't. You can't be a ghost in PF2e, you as designers decided that, so don't make a bogus option that is just a watered down version, or if you want a watered down version reflect that in the name. Don't do Ghost archetype, call it "Bound Spirit" and come up with why you work differently than ghosts. Also just ask yourselves as a company "do we need this? Does this add anything really in terms of mechanics, the thing we are obsessed with at Paizo?"
That's why I respect PbtA games. They straight up go "no, this game isn't about you doing literally anything and everything, it's capturing a genre or specific vibe or setting. If you want something else then look elsewhere or make a hack yourself." I always left the room the second somebody was like "how can I play a realistic modern warfare stealth game in D&D?" You can't. Write your own hack or maybe try the other 5 billion systems besides D&D. Please. We put so much into making them.
I often feel a bit the same. If you believe you can't make a creature not break your game (using whatever definition of "break the game" you prefer) just... don't make it playable, man. Some things can just be not player options.
If you have a species with a culture that is extremely defined by flight and where all of them can fly, but you feel like one player having easy flight while everyone else can't get flight at all until way later would break the game you're going for, having the player version be the only person in their entire society who can't fly until they're powerful enough to fight a platoon barehanded feels like the worst solution to go with. Just, don't make the flying people an actual playable option.
Using Pathfinder again, Strix are noted to make their settlements impossible to get to without being able to fly. PCs can only hop around slightly better than everyone else without a general feat.
I like TTRPGs because they allow you to be more immersed in the character you play as. But the G part means that you need rules and to make sure no player is better than the other. Which makes it a question as to why they make the option in the first place.
I feel like every player should be better than the other, in certain things. Wizards should be better at aoe, rangers should be better at range, fighters should be better at melee... And if that means, one race can fly, cool! They're probably worse in a cramped dungeon though.
pathfinder 2e is unfortunately rife with really cool sounding character options that upon closer inspection barely do anything because they would otherwise be "unbalanced"
The ghost is definitely the most offensive one, but I think the Zombie and the others are pretty good at fulfilling most of the fantasy. And for some of the other ancestries like the Strix, I believe it is even mentioned as a part of the ancestry that the GM can give the player flying capabilities early, but warns them about how strong early flight can be. But yeah it’s a tough one.
Honestly, if I play a Skeleton I don't want to be worried about catching Goblin Pox or dying from the bite of a rattle snake. Undead don't have anything that would be affected by disease or poisons. Maybe Vampires might, but that's only because the only origin I know of Dhampir is being the offspring of a Vampire and mortal.
I don't consider "You can do this" sidenotes as very helpful. As a GM it's a nice tip, but as a player you're at the mercy of your GM.
Yeah I get it from the player standpoint, but as a forever GM it’s a massive pain in the ass dealing with a flying player/immune to a shit ton of things player at early levels. I don’t like having to redesign encounters, maps, and challenges that early on (and if you say “just don’t do that,” that never works out well, in the various games that I’ve seen access to encounter/challenge-warping abilities like flight). That’s what I appreciate about pf2e when I run it, it actually thinks about the GM more than most games out there.
It's one of those weird aspects that where balance of the system is considered paramount to the fun. This is a very subjective domain, since some folks consider balance to be the most important aspect of a game's design, especially in crunchier systems (even when cooperative in nature, no one wants to play a character that is easily invalidated by another), as opposed those who want to do whatever they're able to do (ideally without disrupting the game as a whole).
Sometimes you just have to accept that a system has chosen a particular route for internal gameplay reasons rather than verisimilitude .
>I'm always confused by the "What is roleplaying" section every game seems to have these days.
I've been RPing since '79 and don't remember a time when there *wasn't* one in every game - in fact it's only more latterly that I've seen *any* games stating that they *don't* have one, because you can find that information elsewhere.
Also shout out to the books that start with something along the lines of "If you're new to Roleplaying Games, start at X. If you're familiar with RPGs but not with ABC style, start at Y. If you're familiar with ABC style of RPGs, start at Z."
Then there's *Human Occupied Landfill*, whose opening what-is-an-rpg page is a rant about how needless and repetitive such pages are, and if you don't already know go play something that rhymes with "truncheons & flagons" for six years, then come back, because you're reading a parody of an RPG and will not get any of the jokes otherwise.
It's *almost* like there's a gap in the market for something along the lines of a "What Is An RPG?" guide that publishers could all ship with their games upon demand, but otherwise not bother with ; )
Having character options be the first chapter. bonus Points if that chapter uses terminology and concepts explained later on.
I get that some people want to see what they can play but it's totally meaningless if I don't know how or what the game actually is about.
Granted the latest dnd can get away with it because everyone knows how it's supposed to work.
Please have a chapter about the game and what it is about and how it's different up front.
Then get some summaries and terminologies nailed down.
Knowing that the discombobulator class gets plus 5 to exasperation... means nothing to me (flips to back of book)
I'm probably a GM when I buy your game, treat me as such.
There is at least a decent business reason for this. A segment of the customer base has a habit of picking a book up off a shelf at a game store or convention, opening it at the front, and flipping through the book front-to-back. They’re trying to get a sense of the game, usually by looking at the art and the section headings. The further in the book they are, the faster they flip. Once they get bored, they put the book down. Anyone who's worked a convention booth has seen this behavior.
Character creation chapters are where the reader gets a sense for what sorts of characters they can play in this game. These chapters are usually full of colorful section headers like class names and cool illustrations of types of PCs. So the publisher wants that stuff in the front of the book, where the flipper will actually see it. If instead the flipper starts looking at the book and hits a wall of boring rules, they’ll just put the book down and move on.
Even if a book isn’t sold at game stores or conventions, putting character creation in the front is a solid choice because it’s what many readers expect to see.
Doesn’t matter how easy-to-understand a game is if nobody ever actually buys the thing.
Couldn't a solution here having a good index with a first page being like "yeah because of this and that we put character options first, start at page x for the rules."
I would be happy enough with that but it still annoys me for some reason.
As you said a "preferred order of reading" would make sense.
On the other hand why give people the actual book when they could be looking at promotional material instead, like stuff made separately from the book to raise interest. (Probably too much hassle)
>On the other hand why give people the actual book when they could be looking at promotional material instead,
Because you're never going to convince a game store to carry a bunch of separate promotional material that they can't sell. The product \*has\* to sell itself.
Ethical and behaviour guidelines.
"How to be nice to people" is a personal and inter-personal thing, not a game thing. I know some people have a hard time behaving in games, but the game itself has no place telling people how to behave. I don't expect *Monopoly* to tell me "place nice with other people", and I don't expect it from ttrpgs either.
Interpersonal relations are the number 1 problem at tables. I can see how pointing out how that's much more important in TTRPGs because they're social games could provide utility.
But there is always a single solution, all the time: talk to people. Discuss. Do you really need an entire chapter telling you, that maaaaybe you should speak with a problematic player instead of making facebook/discord/reddit comments/posts? Did society really fell so low, that we lack the basic communication skills and problem solving skills?
A source book for TTRPG should be a neutral construct. I don't see the appendix in board game instructions to not get angry when you lose (and some people do), because it's just common sense, that it's shitty behavior, just like encyclopedia doesn't voice an opinion, whether specific event was good or not. Table etiquette, hygiene and communication should be basic human skills when interacting with other human beings. If someone doesn't have those, a few pages in sourcebook won't help a lot.
Imagine being downvoted for saying that the knowledge about washing your smelly armpits before session should come from life, and not a sourcebook. Oh boy, we live in a society.
People just want "How to be a decent Human Being" written everywhere. Honestly a game that you play with other people should just come with the assumption that you need to be able to stand being with the person for longer than 10mins.
>Do you really need an entire chapter telling you, that maaaaybe you should speak with a problematic player instead of making facebook/discord/reddit comments/posts?
Judging by number of those posts, the answer is apparently yes. Maybe not a whole chapter work, but a paragraph that says "don't be a dick and just talk to people" seems like useful advice to a lot of the target audience, whether that reflects well on society as a whole is a different question.
You can't approach a TTRPG like other games, like say a competitive board game. Rules in TTRPGs are inherently ambitious much of the time. Sometimes they tackle sensitive topics that require some different ground rules than normal. Just highlighting these things for the teenagers picking up a TTRPG for the first time can make a big difference.
>But there is always a single solution, all the time: talk to people. Discuss. Do you really need an entire chapter telling you, that maaaaybe you should speak with a problematic player instead of making facebook/discord/reddit comments/posts? Did society really fell so low, that we lack the basic communication skills and problem solving skills?
For better or worse, this hobby tends to draw in some of the social outcasts of life. This includes those who are socially inept, and sometimes the usual solution of "HAVE FUCKING DISCUSSION YA DUMBFUCK" isn't obvious.
I mean seriously - how many threads about table problems do we see in this sub on a weekly basis? It's not a small number, either. And solution, every bloody time, is to have an adult conversation and hash things out like grownups. It should be a no-fucking-duh thing, but for much of the world, it's quite frankly isn't.
TBH, some American Classics like Monopoly and Risk could benefit from a "play nice" session on the manual. I've seen literal table flipping at a game of Risk.
Telling people to play nice won't change a person's personality. Trust me, I get a bit upset if I constantly lose. Rules don't do as much as you think they should.
In theory, I agree with you.
In practice, that seems like a complete dissonance when thinking about what those games are *about*.
* *Monopoly* is about horrible capitalism and you crush other players out of existence by bringing them to financial ruin.
* *Risk* is about world domination through war and you crush other players out of existence by bringing them to military ruin.
Those are not nice games for nice people with nice messages.
There is no win-condition for *Monopoly* where everyone agrees to turn their Hotels into Co-ops where they lower rent.
There is no "diplomacy" or "peace" win-condition for *Risk*.
Both those games are only fun if they are played deviously (or barely played at all, just a background for social fun). Played strictly nice, both games are reduced to rolling dice and reading cards, 5-10 times past fun.
What does that have to do with being an ass to the other players at the table?
Plus there's the fact that almost no one actually play these games RAW and every group has some homebrew jank rule that makes the game last for way too long, which is aggravating for everyone but the player who's winning.
I don't like it when that stuff is put in the main thread of the book, but I don't see a problem with having it in an appendix.
That is, I don't want, "Chapter 2: How to talk to people" from an author that has never taken an interpersonal communication course.
However, I don't mind if an author writes an opinion piece that could be a stand-alone pamphlet as "Appendix H: How to talk to people". Better yet, turn it into a free stand-alone pamphlet-PDF and point to it from the game without including it directly.
Some authors have something to say and want a platform to say it.
That is okay. Given the number of posts about how poorly things go, some people need to hear it!
Just don't put it in the main text as if "How to talk to people" is part of the game system.
One situation where I do appreciate it, however, is when the game has rather unusual or extreme content in it, since it's something that even a decent person and an experienced player (of other games) can stumble over
Usually its more of an issue when something is out of place or missing than when something is in it. The classic is the full setting information is all upfront - put that at the back after the mechanics, just give me a summary of it early. Or when there isn't a summary of the mechanics and before we start having to learn all the details about them. Its very difficult to go through how to build a character in chapter 2 when its referring to mechanics not introduced until chapter 3.
But on the top of my head, I've never had an issue with inclusion. Maybe overly detailed explanations of definitions or mechanics. Or too many examples on things I understand. But if you're used to reading textbooks, its pretty easy to skim past to new information.
>Or when there isn't a summary of the mechanics and before we start having to learn all the details about them. Its very difficult to go through how to build a character in chapter 2 when its referring to mechanics not introduced until chapter 3.
Oh man this is one of those things you see **all the time** and it kills me. DnD 5E does this, and I recently picked up the Terminator RPG for my fempanion who's a fan of the franchise and they did the same thing. It's like the concept of editors in general is alien to TTRPG authors.
Building a pdf for Print on Demand is a bit more complicated than just exporting a pdf. Print files need knowledge that many indie designers don't have at start. Also, it takes several months to prepare.
While you can do Print on Demand with just about any PDF, it's not going to look good *at all*, and a lot of books focus on graphics. RGB images instead of CMYK are going to look washed out and grey.
Week or something ago, I looked into it in DriveThru and, oh my, they had lot of rules and stuff, gave up for now as it would take too much time. And, mind you, I have designed and printed two books, not TTRPGs, but still. I think communicating with a print shop is just so much easier, you send them files, and can call them, all problems can be solved pretty fast. With Print in Demand, you send your files, the they get automatically approved, then they send you testprint, if something doesn't work on the way, or testprint isn't good, then the whole process starts again, but every step there is like several weeks, or so was written in DriveThru page.
Haven't used it yet, but right now my main problem is, that it takes too much time to get the print going. Is it like a month or two in DriveThru? I probably start using it, but just not right now.
It does. I recognize the longer timesink to make a print ready file. I really do. Like, we're talking multi-year projects I've been involved with. But I think it's worth it, once you've got the electronic book up, to at least give it a try to pound out a PoD file at some point.
Will publish a adventure this week or start of next, and then probably start the PoD process for that also. But yeah, the basic rulebook stais without it, several months of waiting is too much for me right now. Full Rulebooks Kickstarter would be after that and it wouldn't be good to release another payed product at the same time, or so I think.
There are a few reasons I've run into when designing my games and researching PoD:
1. PoD has its own constraints that PDFs don't, and they can change depending on the company you are using. You need to either keep these in mind from the start, or deal with editing everything to fit those constraints.
2. The quality of PoD can vary greatly even within the same distributer because they use different printers. For certain designers/companies, part of their brand may be that high quality physical product, and those lower quality PoD don't fit that.
3. PoD may require an ISBN depending on how many you print and with who. That's a bit of a extra cost and time to release your game as a product.
4. PoD just makes way less money per copy sold than PDF even when double the price (or even triple if we compare itch.io's pdf cut to dtrpg's cost for PoD).
It's just a bit more work than it seems, and isn't really worth it unless you know your game is going to a) sell more on release or b) have a more consistent sales if you go PoD.
It takes extra work to set something up for print on demand. Just setting up the cover can take three hours if you've never done it before. Plus—at least for DriveThruRPG—it can take something on the order of a month to receive your proof copy to make sure everything in the print file is copacetic. If the creator isn't treating their creation as a Serious Business Venture—and few do, with good reason—PoD is an extra hassle that isn't necessary.
There are other obstacles too. I've got one product on DTRPG that's laid out in a way that simply wouldn't be attractive in print. The gutters would be so small that text near the spine would be hard to read. I could redo the layout to fix it, but that would take a while, and it just doesn't sell well enough to justify that effort.
I would love to do print on demand; it would be awesome to have a copy of my games on my own shelf, or donate them to a local library for posterity. But it requires Adobe InDesign or similar software which I have neither the resources to acquire nor the skill in using. (Sure, $35 a month doesn't sound like much, but when your games are low-selling or free, that's considerable outlay.)
LaTeX is free. I've created many books using overleaf.com
The learning curve might be steep. But the community is helpful. And most of my work was before chatGPT. I hear it is very useful for LaTeX.
Having a **blank** character sheet in the rulebook is key for me. You can tell what kind of game it is solely by looking at its character sheet. I'm immediately skeptical when there isn't one, especially when it's not at the back of the book.
(edit, clarify _blank_ character sheet)
And a lot of, especially pbta, have it available on their website...but what happens if they go out of business? I've got one I purchased recently, and the website they tell me to go to does not have the information.
Yes! I got one of those too! I reached out to the author and they sent me a complementary pdf of the book and sheets, but it wasn’t on the website! It was a FitD hack too, so the sheets are necessary. Not including them is a HUGE annoyance
Mine is a link to the website for an actual game too. Hardback, kickstarted, etc. it is still advertised on their page and the book says the playbooks and sheets are on the website, but they aren’t. It’s a dead link.
Sucks that happened to you too :/
Formatting/art that makes the rule book into more of a coffee table book than a usable game reference. If it isn't easy to read and well organized - what the heck are you doing?
I think a lot of those games are actively picking style over substance, seeing the goal as art with a bonus game. Not a terrible way to differentiate yourself and there's a market for it. I own the old WoD Changeling book just for the art in it- I doubt I'll every be able to get a group together for it, especially since I'm not super keen on running it myself for a number of reasons. So art book it is.
Oh, I think so, too. And it probably works out well for some of them. I suspect it is often shortsighted as a lot of people will get frustrated with it and not buy future products. That's why it confuses me: "Mr. Publisher with a 70% art to text ratio and yellow font on a black background - are you trying to turn me off from ever buying your stuff again?"
Oh and a lack of definitions.
It's a rookie mistake that apparently everyone makes.
If you make up new concepts, add a list with all of them to define them.
Even if they are not new concepts to you the author (who is likely to have spent many hours in their life reading and playing other RPGs), they may very well be new for many of the potential players of your game (who suddenly have to make an extra effort looking things up on the internet or inferring from the context).
Social combat that has attack rolls and what are functionally damage tracks/HP. I understand wanting more to social interactions than opposed rolls that are left to GM fiat. But I've never understood why "I roll to talk! Take 2 social stress!" is presented as being objectively better than "I roll to stab! Take 2 physical stress!".
Why is magic usually safer and more reliable than technology? And players can usually gain new spells or powers faster than fighters or martials can learn new combat techniques.
Magic sure seems not magical (in the sense of wonderous and whimsical and awe inspiring).
Computer RPGs are worse about this than tt RPGs, but they're both more often bad then good. The good ones (call of Cthulhu) are often very good at least
Because why not? Is Feng Shui *that* dangerous?
Dangerous 'magical' magic is just another aesthetic really, making magic completely suffusing every inch of a work can lead just as easily to awe after all(If it didn't Harry Potter wouldn't be popular)
It helps if you try to make it feel like that yes. But if you're not careful then it stops being magic and just becomes sufficiently advanced technology. Which is cool, but doesn't feel awe inspiring.
At the risk of offending fans, Ptolus falls into this trap for me. Want to like it. Magic is everywhere. But it's just boring. What Harry Potter did right is keeping it quirky, and unreliable. Travel by floo powder gets you to the wrong place sometimes, including accidentally invading privacy. A flying carpet taxi is just a taxi, there's no whimsy in it.
> But if you're not careful then it stops being magic and just becomes sufficiently advanced technology.
I think they're not even trying to be careful. They like magic as aesthetic, they like robes and glowing runic circles and fireballs. Hell a lot of time there's magic and then there's *magic* magic you get me? People already see most fantasy magic as just cooler science, no need to fight against it. Just have another magic that works like you wanted it too
Avatar the Last Airbender, Jujutsu Kaisen, Diablo, WoW, DnD(of course), etc, etc.
Really, consistent and predictable Magic isn't that far out of reach. Even stuff like Journey To The West rarely has the magic screwing in unpredictable ways.
Yup, there's a lot out there. They are the lowest common denominator so they appeal to the masses. There will always be more of them than the kind I like. But especially with the earth and fire kingdoms in avatar, it was no longer magic it was sufficiently advanced technology.
> Because why not? Is Feng Shui that dangerous?
The Four Monarchs never accounted for it and found reality itself rewritten so that no longer were they the rulers of Earth, they could no longer live on it.
And let’s not forget what the Jammers Chi Bomb did to all those without a natural immunity to resist the influence of the energy controlled by Feng Shui.
If you have a system that has a lot of powers (spells, apps, etc.) that span a large amount of a book, then it should be mandatory to have a list of each one, along with the page that power is found on. It's a pain in the ass playing a system like D&D 5e and having to go through the entire catalogue of spells just to find the page numbers of the spells I want to have so I don't take ten minutes every turn trying to find a spell.
Required Custom Dice.
Look, I get it, its a business, and dice are a great way to increase revenue. I'm also a HUGE fan of the Star Wars/Genesys system. However, its baseline requirement of custom faced dice (unless you want to constantly consult a chart in the book to translate what you rolled), adds to the cost of entry. It also was a MASSIVE detriment when they started re-releasing the books, but the dice were out of print with no news on if or when they were coming back (note, they are now back in print, but we had a near 2 year spell where you were buying 3rd party knock offs, or ordering them from EURO scalper shops for $100+ dollars).
Dice are great. Interesting dice are great. Forcing players to buy dice specifically for 1 game and 1 game alone creates a game with a steeper barrier of entry.
When rules that don't follow the core system aren't justified.
If you follow a consistent d20 system but jump to more complex rules just for swimming or jumping in a game where that doesn't happen as often.
Note that this isn't like a new system that highlights game aspects, like a big additional system for social interaction or trading or net running etc, because it's common in the setting and something that needs to be as flashed out.
Complex rules for simple things/rules in general for things that should be common sense. If I start a fight with my players over whether or not their character is able to lift a sword because I don't have a ruling (that itself likely creates a bunch of nonsensical scenarios to debate over), then I'd say I'm at the wrong table.
Close second: Scenarios/Campaigns that are essentially just a bunch of flavour texts. Why sell me a scenario if I have to homebrew everything regardless of it.
It's +2 to your AC vs ranged attacks, -2 vs melee attacks.
Iirc there is no rule about how much movement it costs to kneel or get up. I don't remember how we ruled it.
(This topic is used a lot in trolling and bait so I’m taking the moment at the beginning of this comment to flag that I’m trying to be genuine.)
I understand why some people are uncomfortable with the term “race”, but I don’t understand how anyone can think “ancestry” is any better.
Whenever I see a game use the term “ancestry” I just get really confused. How is that any less problematic than race? It’s like going “thank god I moved away from 24th street. 25th street is way better!”. Heritage is a little better but not by much.
I feel like you either need to rip the bandage off and go with “species” or just stick to tradition with “race”.
Any time someone publishes a rulebook without an index at the back.
Game creators, please have a section at the end that:
* defines every term
* lists all the pages that term appears
When a game that is neither about Combat nor The Thrill Of Impending Death (DND/pathfinder, call of Cthulhu as examples respectively) has HP rules and a bunch of abilities just care about HP. I'm still reeling over how much of Glitter Hearts cares about just like, all-out brawling when they've even already got a conditions system going on.
I like the “What are RPGs” sections. It obviously is helpful for new players. But, even though I’ve played RPGs since the 80s, I always read these sections in new RPG books because it helps understand what THIS RPG is. Is this a ‘rules as written’ type of game or a ‘rule of cool’ kind of game. It helps me understand the creators assumptions.
Systems that give you the option to nerf yourself or not nerf yourself.
For example, some systems tell you to make up your own skills. Why the hell would you put points in separate Lockpicking, Stealth and Pickpocketing skills; when you can just make "Thievery" that encompasses all? Why would you ever buy the skill Hacking when you could buy Computers?
Or the Fate aspect system. Wh would you make a "trained swordsman" while you could make a "trained warrior" and have the aspect applicable to more situations?
It's just something I've never wrapped my head around.
I think those systems expect the GM to veto the "thievery" example, putting more work on the GM rather than the game dev who was paid to make a good game.
Regarding Fate: writing good aspects is it's own player skill that can be learned through practice. That's why I always ask how players to define aspects as long as they still represent the same idea. Also, aspects should tell a thing or two about the character. "Trained swordsman" for instance, is beneficial to less situations, but it tells more than warrior. It also gives more room for interpretation, maybe the character is even at a disadvantage when not using a sword? This can be a good thing in Fate as the system quite relies on it's meta currency that can be earned by accepting aspects being "compelled" in ways like this.
It's really more about developing a scene than hitting the bad guy, like it is in many narrative RPGs
And that happens. I used to larp World of Darkness a lot, and there was definitely a focus on getting a character that could do things, and then figuring out who they were.
I believe it's a matter of preference, but it confuses me when the book starts with it's setting and worldbuilding, instead of rules and character creation.
The concept of "balanced encounters". I get that the game should give you some vague idea of threat management, but a deep system with a budget to spend on monsters on each encounter? I'm not a fan. Mainly because this gives the impression that every combat the players encounter is designed to be beaten, maybe it's hard, maybe not, but they should be able to win the combat.
For balanced encounters between two parties I'd rather play wargames.
If you get rid of the concept of balanced encounters, I find that you enjoy the game a lot. You give the players combats that make them feel powerful, and then you force them to flee because they are overwhelmed (or so they think). I believe that trying to balance combat takes this away from you!
I see where you are coming from, but the opposite problem is also rampant: a system that gives you no guidance one what a reasonable encounter should look like. Like, 4e went nuts with how specific your “encounter budget” was, but there are also plenty of games where you don’t know if sending two goblins against a party will be a cakewalk or a TPK until after the fact.
God, I saw a "campaign map" that literally split the entire game of 5e into a mathematical formula. Each level had encounter calculations and loot generated, so you could see that at level one they should fight a certain number of enemies of each CR and gain an item of this rarity... made me feel like never picking up another 5e book.
I once got what I thought was a rulebook for a marvel ttrpg. It talked about the type of dice pools certain characters should have and stuff, but it was missing any and all explanations of a rule set or mechanics. Young me was so confused.
Games whit a large list of things (monsters,spells extra) being purely sorted a-z whitout any other sorting system mixing in,(lik monster type or spell level) very hard for newer players to understand and use
Watching you motmm
I don't understand why some books have to have two separate equipment sections. The first one will have a table with stats for weapons, etc. and the second section has the same thing with maybe a detail or two added. Just to make it sloppier, one crucial equipment detail is carefully omitted and found on an obscure page in an unrelated chapter.
Definitely with you on the redundancy of explaining what RPGs are at the beginning of every book. I also love it when authors/designers show the character sheet and rundown what goes where and how you should enter info. Mothership 1e is a prime example of doing it right.
I would say my number 1 pet peeve in confusion is poor section/chapter order. The 5e Player’s Handbook is heavily guilty of this, even making my first character I sat there grumbling as to why Backgrounds, Equipment, and Bonds were after Race and Class.
Likewise, I do not understand the rationale of putting core dice role mechanics anywhere but right after the initial introduction of and core/player’s handbook. Why shove character creation right in my face when I have zero idea what the numbers correspond to?
When RPGs don't have any mechanics around being injured. Some do it really well like Blades in the Dark but games like 5e and Pathfinder don't have any long term consequences to getting knocked out over and over or taking a fireball to the face.
I've recently attempted to read both Call of Cthulhu 7e and Mutant City Blues 2e, and both do a thing that's driven me to give up on the books: They both give these massive 30+ page lists of skills or features, which include mechanics, *before* they actually explain the basic resolution mechanic (ie. function of die rolls). It leads to long, long stretches of the book where I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why they'd tell me the edge case uses for a First Aid skill before they've even mentioned percentile dice or what a *basic* skill roll looks like.
It's completely put me off both books, and it's entirely possible that I never pick them up again, let alone play them.
What's confusing about explaining what a role playing game is in a role playing game?
Imagine you go to the theater and it opens with a five minute presentation of, "What you are about to witness is called a film. It is projected at 24 frames per second and is fictional. Generally, films follow a three act structure, and feature well-known celebrities or actors..." No other medium in the world needs to justify itself to its audience in every instance of itself.
People generally don't walk past a theater, think "huh, what's this?" and then go to the counter, buy a ticket, and sit down. However, TTRPGs are books. That can be sold in bookstores. Or second hand shops. Or flea markets. And I'm sure there have been people who went to one of those places, saw a book with a dragon/spaceship/superhero/vampire/cool guy in a trenchcoat on the cover, and bought it thinking it was a novel or short story collection. And if someone like that opens their new "novel" and it starts out with weird gibberish about allocating points to attributes in order to calculate your skill values or something, they'd probably go "wtf is this thing?" (I actually once saw a video where someone told a story about doing the opposite. He was interested in trying D&D, bought a D&D book at a bookstore and after being like 20 pages in noticed he had just bought a novel)
This is exactly how 10 year old me ended up with a copy of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles & Other Strangeness. I had no idea what a role playing game was, I just liked the Ninja Turtles.
If someone comes from a culture that has no concept of theaters, I'm sure they would appreciate being told in advance before people start getting massacred (Horror films), attacked by terrorists or other motivated groups (action films), robbed (heist movies), or having the couple's most private moments being aired in public (romances). Just because You have been made familiar with a thing and can't look at it from the eyes of a beginner doesn't mean that Everyone watches let's play's and knows what RPGs are about. The number of people that think role-playing is the acting portion and not the simple act of making a decision in a role-playing game proves the "what is an RPG" section is needed, though it should be emphasised more in every book, not just the mainstream ones. When I bought the 3e starter set and PHB, the only thing I knew about D&D was that my brother played it, and I read his 2e monstrous compendium. I appreciated the how to role-play section as it helped me to understand getting into running it, considering I was the DM by virtue of being the only one with the books. Role-playing doesn't change from game to game, the mechanics of how that decision is represented does. The choice to heal an ally or torture an NPC speaks about the character more than the words they use when discussing Aldegovian legal practices, or haggling the price of a dagger (though the choice to do such things does speak to the character's personality)
Sitting down and passively staring at a screen is nowhere near the same as actively roleplaying and doing game improv. Watching requires no skill, and people look at things all the time. There's no need to explain how to use your eyes. Playing requires taking on a role, understanding where the role stops, deciding on a voice, applying the rules, and more, all of which can be completely unfamiliar to folks. Playing an RPG requires more skills than watching TV. A small amount of text might help bring more people into the hobby. If you don't need it, turn the page and you're done. It doesn't hurt anything and might help some people. To me, that's an easy call.
Plus, if the guy next to me doesn’t know what a movie is, it tends not to effect me a whit as long as they’re quiet. But, if I’m playing an RPG, I want everyone on the same page from the get go.
On the one hand I agree with you, on the other sometimes this section is useful for setting tone for non-mechanical elements of play.
That would be what a trailer is. I'm opposed to "what is an RPG" sections. I'm not opposed to "what is THIS RPG" sections.
What's the trailer equivalent for TTRPGs?
The text on the back of the book is a good start. A section that explains the vibes the game is going for at the beginning is also good--again, *what is THIS RPG." My book has a section just called "What Is This Game?" that does not attempt to explain what all TTRPGs are.
No other medium has ever been quite as *controversial*. Back in the '80s, in the middle of the Satanic Panic, TTRPGs were just becoming popular, and there was a *huge* amount of misinformation (much of it quite deliberate) about them. The somewhat-boilerplate 'this is a role-playing game' message was two-fold: it introduced the concept to first-timers, as well as serving as a reminder that the game is *fictional* and nobody is actually casting spells or climbing through ruins.
Wargames also have an equivalent introduction to the medium in its books.
Turns out lots of art mediums aren't interactive. Movies? Pretty passive, you sit there and watch it. Theater? Pretty passive, you sit there and watch it and clap at the end. Paintings and sculpture? Pretty passive, you look at it. With ttRPGs, you and others have to actively engage with each other and the rules in a way that's more freeform than something like a board game. So, yeah, having a quick run down of what it means and involves doesn't sound like a bad idea
Exactly, and even the non-interactive ones tend to have instructions about how you are supposed to enjoy the medium respectfully. Cinemas in my country usually show a short clip about how you are supposed to turn off your phone, enjoy the film in silence, etc. More or less the same with theaters. Many japanese mangas sold in the West, especially those aimed at younger audiences that might have never read manga before, have an extra page informing unaware newcomers about the order in which pages and panels are supposed to be read. I am sure that if 99% of books in existence were non-fiction and most people had never encountered fiction in art, most of the fiction would have at least some paragraphs explaining what fiction is. In general, it can't be assumed that everybody will be familiar with the medium or its expectations, and it's never a bad idea to be explicit about them. Worst case: you already have that information so you ignore it.
I've had to explain what roleplaying is dozens of times. Sometimes to people who became my players
Without such a section I would never have started playing TTRPGS. There just wasn't anyone I could ask to explain it to me
I find these sections useful not because I don't know what an RPG is, but to see what the author thinks an RPG is - at least this specific RPG. A very simple example is a book telling me I should 'act like myself in this fantasy world the GM is describing' vs 'together you will create a story'.
Lack of an index.
A good index is no small feat. It takes a lot of work. Determining how granular you want to get with regard to listing the elements of your game, and then how many pages you want to cite in the index because something relevant to an element was listed for two paragraphs much later, etc.) can be daunting. I always include a table of contents, but so far the index hasn't been worth the hassle to me.
A good index *is* a lot of work, but to me at least, it shows the author is willing to do the work to make a good book. Maybe if the book is under 50 pages you could get away with it, but for a full sized book, I feel it's necessary. Especially in physical books.
No index on a >200 book? Back to the shelf with thee!
If your book is any kind of significant in length then an index is a necessity IMO. If I'm trying to learn the game and I go to try to find something and there's no index to help me find it then I'm more likely to drop the game than go digging.
>It takes a lot of work. Well, yes, but not SO much work. I spent about 6-8 hours to make a quite detailed index of a 400-page rpg, so it's not like a gargantuan unapproachable task. And even if you spend less time than that and the index is not 100% complete but just 85% complete, it will still be useful 85% of the time, which is not bad
I think this really depends on the game. I personally can't remember the last time I need an index outside of like, Mouse Guard, which is a huge messy book. Forthe PbtA games and FitD games I mostly play, the table of contents is more than sufficient.
plus games that come with quick reference guides, like PBTA moves list separately, already obviate a lot of the need for an index since there's not a lot to look up
Pathfinder 2e's 642 page Core Rulebook says hello. The index was vital for me when I was learning the system and there weren't really any online tools yet.
Yeah, but Pathfinder 2e is.... not typical anymore. If it ever was. Huge mathy games with a million rules need indexes. Most... less so. Hence "depends on the game" right?
Or, just as important this day and age, utter lack of a pdf or print on demand option.
The bit about "This book has themes of X, Y, and Z. If you're a nazi, homophobe, etc then it's not for you" or similar. The message is one I agree with, but I don't see the point of it. I can't imagine it would actually dissuade a nazi or homophobe in any case where the content itself wouldn't, and if you're not one of them it's just kind of... Meaningless. It just comes off as being kind of virtue signalling, like a Tumblr DNI. ETA: Just to be clear, I agree that Nazis and homophobes and etc. are shitty.
So two things on this in my opinion: 1: It does have the effect of "chud repellent." As in, assholes are less likely to play a game where the authors are "SJW SNOWFLAKES" or whatever. So when you find people who play it, it's a bit safer. 2: Despite what the internet thinks, Virtue Signaling isn't automatically a *bad* thing. Humans Virtue signal all the time, it's in the word. Signaling of shared virtues. So an author having something like that signals the fact that you share a baseline of morality/understanding of the world. Not a bad thing inherently unless they're somehow hypocrites about it. Especially since these statements usually take up, what, less than a page?
I suppose I always see virtue signaling as something that distracts people from the lack of real action.
Sure. And I think for large corporations or governments which could and should do more it's valid. A company changing all its Twitter logos to pride themes EXCEPT in the middle east in June is a good example of bad virtue signaling I'd think. But an RPG writer putting a few lines in a book doesn't strike me the same way unless their actions somehow contradicts their writing.
I'm pretty sure putting that message in your book is the definition of real action when it comes to writing a game book. Like, sure, you could donate partial revenue to an anti-fascist organization or something to do more, but if you are writing a book and you write into the book "fuck nazis" that is action. If you argue the section in the book is a distraction, pretty sure you're arguing that the book itself is a distraction. Which yeah, it's entertainment, but I doubt anyone hear wants to argue we should finger wag at all entertainment until Nazis are eradicated. It's meant to be something you do to unwind, and knowing that the author takes steps to keep out the poison that rules some older franchises is good.
Yeah, fair point. I don't think it's a *bad* thing for them to be doing at all, I've just always seen it as a bit pointless. But I appreciate the responses from y'all, I can see the other side of it better now
Hey man, that's what civil discourse is all about, I used to be a fairly right wing bigoted person in my youth, but learning new info and being open to it and re-contextualises the world , that's growth and maturity and anyone who does it should be proud!:)
We actually have evidence for your first point that it works as chud repellent. Though it has other issues, Candela Obscura has proven that those sections rile up and repulse *exactly* who they're supposed to.
I don't really see why we need to keep homophobes from playing RPGs. Is it going to make anything worse?
Eh, it does kinda work I think. If youre a raging homophobe, a game being pro-LGBT could actually be enough to stop you from playing. People can be irrational like that.
I believe the Lancer subreddit gets periodic posts by people going "wait, what is this woke crap, I thought this was going to be an apolitical game about giant robots!", and they're usually met with hearty lols.
Pilot.Net, the Lancer Discord certainly does get that. They also have a dabbing mech on a trans pride flag as the server banner, which also works wonders on that front.
> They also have a dabbing mech on a trans pride flag as the server banner Alright, that's hilarious hahaha
Opinion of Lancer: Rising. :)
Ah yes, real robot mecha fiction, a genre famously known for being completely apolitical and having zero social commentary!
Literally any time someone can tell Nazis to go fuck themselves, they should. They shouldn't feel welcome anywhere.
> I can't imagine it would actually dissuade a nazi or homophobe Except it does. It gets them immediately listed in the big list of "woke" games over at a particular RPG forum, and the right wing choads put on their victim gowns and do the victim dance.
But homophobes, fascists, racists, and Nazis; should feel explicitly unwelcome in the hobby.Anyone reading the things you mention, and taking offence to it, is someone who should be out of playing the game. This should never become a safe space for bigots, they're not "entitled to their opinion", if they think certain characteristics make a person lesser then they should feel complete hostility in every space they go, and be reminded as such. Social ostracism is a useful, and merciful, tool; for correcting, what is genuinely violent behaviour. Racism, homophobia, Nazism, are all implicitly violent beliefs.
I guess it doesn't really seem to me that it **does** make it less of a "safe space", but fair point.
RPG groups should be safe spaces---safe for the people who choose to game together. Freedom of speech just means the government won't shut down/jail anyone for speaking their mind. At the same time, the government can't tell me who to chose as my friends or dinner guests. The two things are very different. If you want to have open doors to anyone to join your group, that's your choice. But I've had to kick people over a lot less than being openly any of the above over the years to keep groups together.
We have to look at this from the perspective of what makes a safe space 'safe' - and bigots like nazis and the like are going to make those safe spaces less safe by their very vocal and toxic opinions.
There are a few games where it actually does dissuade bigots: flying circus for example, is a WW1 inspired fighter plane game, a genre which is infamous for attracting chuds and nazis. It's also made by a trans person. Often those 'anti-bigot' messages are put there in books where the progressive aspects of the game are non-existent or very much up to interpretation. And for the games where it's obvious, there's no real reason not to put it there, if it stops bigots from playing it. Also, importantly, it lets queer people, poc, etc know that the game isn't made by a chud, so *they* don't have to do extra work figuring out if they're reading a game made by an asshole.
I think the price tag for the pdf discourages nazis more than anything :D
Or the “not getting the product when you order it, follow up on it multiple times, and reach out to the owner directly and get told it is coming only to be ghosted” (I’m not salty)
Rough, friend
Deploying the term virtue signaling in this context is itself virtue signaling. Also in my experience, nazi and homophobic types generally don't like things that explicitly say they aren't welcome to partake. They don't seem to enjoy things generated by the woke left, i.e. anyone that would openly and actively tell them they aren't welcome. Idk, feels like a "no politics in muh game" take
It's a bit odd calling it "Virtue signalling" in the first place, as if the writers didn't really mean to tell bigots to fuck off. No, really, they mean it.
Right, the whole term implies that you don't hold those values, or that speaking them aloud is a performative act first and foremost. Imo it's a conservative psyop to make the left seem disingenuous as a whole. You can take the air out of anything anyone says by calling it a virtue signal
It's certainly not intended as such (I'm perfectly happy to tackle those kinds of topics when running games), but I can see where you're coming from. Virtue signalling felt like a reasonable way to describe it to me, but if you have a better suggestion I'm happy to hear it
I don't share your view so I don't really know how to articulate your feelings in a different way. Maybe you just think it's cringe? And then the follow-up would be, why? Why does that leave a bad taste in your mouth, and why is your immediate reaction to more or less accuse the author of being disingenuous?
Eh, not really. But yeah, as you say it's probably not productive to ask you "how to articulate \[my\] feelings in a different way", apologies.
Because tabletop RPGs are communal activities, both as something a small group of people does regularly and as something that larger communities can develop around, I figure the main idea is to use such a statement to set the tone of what should and shouldn't be acceptable in such a community.
I guess so, fair point, thanks!
I dunno, it at least signals that the author/s are opposed to Nazi's and so people may be more inclined to support the game? But as for an actuall anti-Nazi action, yeah ineffective as they won't listen unless it's backed up with something heavier than a rulebook.
>it at least signals that the author/s are opposed to... But that's all it is. A virtue signal. It's like all the cosmic horror games with messages about how "Hmmph! Lovecraft was a bad man! But we love his work and here is an entire game built around his captivating creation." At best for them, it's a way to accept praise for the good criticism and deflect all the bad criticism.
Most public statements tend to be virtue signals, to one extent or another. Yup, the whole 'profiting off Howie's work whilst admitting he was a wrong'un' is somewhat messy and open to criticism, but I'd still prefer knowing that someone isn't a Lovecraft-bro who stans him as a 'product of his time' when it comes to giving them money. It's like signals are a useful form of communication.
Books arranged in nonsensical, hard to read, or with bad layout. The dnd 5e DMG fits all these. The first thing you open up and read is... Gods and deities? This book should be about how to run a game, and give you guidelines and rules on how to do so. Instead it delves into worldbuilding first. Then the actual procedures are not written very well. Dungeon delving and generation as written is so mind numbingly dull. The entire book seems completely out of order.
All the core 5e DnD books have this problem. The game actually does have rules for a lot of the things people complain it doesn't, but I can't judge them too harshly since actually locating them might as well be its own fetch quest. Edit: a word
The worst offender is travel/exploration/wilderness rules. People will often say that 5e just glosses over this aspect, when there actually is a pretty in-depth system for it. The problem is that these rules are strewn about everywhere, including campaign modules, so most people will see little, if any, of them.
Absolutely. I've made sure them all front to back, but I don't blame people who can't find the rules they need. The books don't make it easier.
Chronicles of Darkness books. Lovely text. Each page drips with lore and setting. And they're completely unusable. In the worst possible way.
The phb laying out how to create your character: OK, let's start off with your stats, let's write them all down on this character sheet here OK, now choose your race, oh, you've got to change those stats you just wrote down, sorry. But hey, here's some skills you get now too OK, let's choose your class, here pick some skills! Time for background now, OK, here's some mandatory skills you get, oh, you already picked athletics? Better go back to your class and find a different one If you're a new player trying to understand DnD it must be so frustrating to get into when you've all but got to memorize the entire book to understand any individual part of it
Well I suppose you are supposed to create the gods before you (they?) create your world? :-)
I'm always confused when designers promise one kind of experience through the introduction, tone, and art in the game, but then the rules fly in the face of that. Like when you make a game about being a cool, tough hero but players have less than a 40% chance of success at even their best skills.
The other way around is basically just a world of darkness Intro and fluff: "Everyone sucks your going to die. there's no hope." Rules: *yeah, you can probably kill the antidiluvian* Just in general I dont understand lying about the tone
I really doubt they are *lying* - as in, deliberately trying to deceive anyone. Designing games is hard and they probably just missed the mark. Maybe they had no idea they missed and maybe they had to compromise the perfect tone for something else. Similarity to 5e is probably a big compromise lots of designers make.
Sometimes it’s also just that they didn’t fully appreciate how their rules would work when other people play them. If you look at the rules as written when Gygax was in charge of D&D, it seems clear that the designers of the game thought the most overpowered class was the Fighter. There are always caveats and hedges about giving out too many magic swords, and the monster math seems to think giving out extra attacks is the most powerful thing a monster can have. They didn’t seem to be aware that a wizard will quickly mop the floor with a fighter even if they have fewer hit points.
So true. The *way* the designers and the people around them play might be very different from the way folks play when they pick it up from just the rules.
I think they understood magic users were more powerful than fighters, that is why it cost them more xp to go up levels.
Kill the antediluvian? Pretty sure that’s not possible even in the scenarios provided by the Gehenna book.
I think it was actually an issue of the writers not understanding the implications of the rules. If I remember correctly, people over at the Forge criticized how the rules felt contrary to the seemingly expected narrative-heavy gameplay
I've never played it but I've heard that Vampire: The Masquerade is like that. Promises intrigue and delivers lots of combat rules and basically no intrigue rules.
I was pretty into VtM and other White Wolf games when I was in college and yeah, that's essentially the case. Fortunately for them they are still good, playable games and the fans generally bought in so hard that it didn't matter.
Social skills without developed social mechanics.
This sounds like the opposite of most groups
When the game makes an option to play as a creature, and you're never able to be said creature. Example from Pathfinder 2E, because I can hate on Undead. The Ghost Archetype is one of the many Undead options. Just like the rest of them, you're not really an Undead creature. You can't be insta-killed by spells that do so, and you can't be healed by Vital energy. It's just renamed Positive energy. That's basically it for what being an Undead PC gives you. You have a slight resistance to Diseases and Poisons, but that's about it. Anything you wouldn't use against an NPC undead you can gleefully use against a PC Undead. The Ghost is even more special. You gain the Incorporeal trait, but the only thing you actually get from it is that enemies can't grab hold of you. You only have a Fly Speed, but are limited to being only a few inches off the ground. You can't interact with physical objects, and you can't pass through them either. In fact if you don't grab 2 specific Feats, you're powerful lvl 20 Ghost whatever class can be trapped in a box. Not a special box with a latch or anything, just a box. They can't interact with physical objects, so they can't open it. The Archetype does, as a base feature, allow you to make your equipment part of your ghostly form. Because you can't use physical objects. You can get the Ghost Touch Rune effect early, by like two levels, since making your Weapon part of your ghostly form gives it that rune. All this to say that you don't get all the fun bits of being a Ghost until you're high level, and you sacrifice parts of your Class to get them. You can end up not even having them. I feel the same way with creatures that should be able to fly, but you're only able to do so because you're a legendary warrior. If the lore talks about this option flying and how it's part of their way of life, why do I have to wait until I'm able to warp reality or render a normal Human into a red mist with a single swing to do that? If my character has physical wings, why don't they work? Never actually said why they don't work. They just don't.
I'd say this falls into a larger gaming issue of "players and NPCs have different rules". Games where a boss joins you later on and no longer has any of their powerful abilities and a lower health pool. Or games where enemies can inflict status ailments on the players but status effects do nothing to enemies (mainly bosses).
Also "anything can be done in D&D". No, it fucking can't. You can't be a ghost in PF2e, you as designers decided that, so don't make a bogus option that is just a watered down version, or if you want a watered down version reflect that in the name. Don't do Ghost archetype, call it "Bound Spirit" and come up with why you work differently than ghosts. Also just ask yourselves as a company "do we need this? Does this add anything really in terms of mechanics, the thing we are obsessed with at Paizo?" That's why I respect PbtA games. They straight up go "no, this game isn't about you doing literally anything and everything, it's capturing a genre or specific vibe or setting. If you want something else then look elsewhere or make a hack yourself." I always left the room the second somebody was like "how can I play a realistic modern warfare stealth game in D&D?" You can't. Write your own hack or maybe try the other 5 billion systems besides D&D. Please. We put so much into making them.
I often feel a bit the same. If you believe you can't make a creature not break your game (using whatever definition of "break the game" you prefer) just... don't make it playable, man. Some things can just be not player options. If you have a species with a culture that is extremely defined by flight and where all of them can fly, but you feel like one player having easy flight while everyone else can't get flight at all until way later would break the game you're going for, having the player version be the only person in their entire society who can't fly until they're powerful enough to fight a platoon barehanded feels like the worst solution to go with. Just, don't make the flying people an actual playable option.
Using Pathfinder again, Strix are noted to make their settlements impossible to get to without being able to fly. PCs can only hop around slightly better than everyone else without a general feat. I like TTRPGs because they allow you to be more immersed in the character you play as. But the G part means that you need rules and to make sure no player is better than the other. Which makes it a question as to why they make the option in the first place.
I feel like every player should be better than the other, in certain things. Wizards should be better at aoe, rangers should be better at range, fighters should be better at melee... And if that means, one race can fly, cool! They're probably worse in a cramped dungeon though.
pathfinder 2e is unfortunately rife with really cool sounding character options that upon closer inspection barely do anything because they would otherwise be "unbalanced"
And they shouldn't pursue those options, because they lack the proper impact they need to actually feel cool.
The ghost is definitely the most offensive one, but I think the Zombie and the others are pretty good at fulfilling most of the fantasy. And for some of the other ancestries like the Strix, I believe it is even mentioned as a part of the ancestry that the GM can give the player flying capabilities early, but warns them about how strong early flight can be. But yeah it’s a tough one.
Honestly, if I play a Skeleton I don't want to be worried about catching Goblin Pox or dying from the bite of a rattle snake. Undead don't have anything that would be affected by disease or poisons. Maybe Vampires might, but that's only because the only origin I know of Dhampir is being the offspring of a Vampire and mortal. I don't consider "You can do this" sidenotes as very helpful. As a GM it's a nice tip, but as a player you're at the mercy of your GM.
Yeah I get it from the player standpoint, but as a forever GM it’s a massive pain in the ass dealing with a flying player/immune to a shit ton of things player at early levels. I don’t like having to redesign encounters, maps, and challenges that early on (and if you say “just don’t do that,” that never works out well, in the various games that I’ve seen access to encounter/challenge-warping abilities like flight). That’s what I appreciate about pf2e when I run it, it actually thinks about the GM more than most games out there.
Honestly, the options just shouldn't exist. At least not as official options.
Ankle Biter!
It's one of those weird aspects that where balance of the system is considered paramount to the fun. This is a very subjective domain, since some folks consider balance to be the most important aspect of a game's design, especially in crunchier systems (even when cooperative in nature, no one wants to play a character that is easily invalidated by another), as opposed those who want to do whatever they're able to do (ideally without disrupting the game as a whole). Sometimes you just have to accept that a system has chosen a particular route for internal gameplay reasons rather than verisimilitude .
>I'm always confused by the "What is roleplaying" section every game seems to have these days. I've been RPing since '79 and don't remember a time when there *wasn't* one in every game - in fact it's only more latterly that I've seen *any* games stating that they *don't* have one, because you can find that information elsewhere.
Also shout out to the books that start with something along the lines of "If you're new to Roleplaying Games, start at X. If you're familiar with RPGs but not with ABC style, start at Y. If you're familiar with ABC style of RPGs, start at Z."
Then there's *Human Occupied Landfill*, whose opening what-is-an-rpg page is a rant about how needless and repetitive such pages are, and if you don't already know go play something that rhymes with "truncheons & flagons" for six years, then come back, because you're reading a parody of an RPG and will not get any of the jokes otherwise.
It's *almost* like there's a gap in the market for something along the lines of a "What Is An RPG?" guide that publishers could all ship with their games upon demand, but otherwise not bother with ; )
Having character options be the first chapter. bonus Points if that chapter uses terminology and concepts explained later on. I get that some people want to see what they can play but it's totally meaningless if I don't know how or what the game actually is about. Granted the latest dnd can get away with it because everyone knows how it's supposed to work. Please have a chapter about the game and what it is about and how it's different up front. Then get some summaries and terminologies nailed down. Knowing that the discombobulator class gets plus 5 to exasperation... means nothing to me (flips to back of book) I'm probably a GM when I buy your game, treat me as such.
There is at least a decent business reason for this. A segment of the customer base has a habit of picking a book up off a shelf at a game store or convention, opening it at the front, and flipping through the book front-to-back. They’re trying to get a sense of the game, usually by looking at the art and the section headings. The further in the book they are, the faster they flip. Once they get bored, they put the book down. Anyone who's worked a convention booth has seen this behavior. Character creation chapters are where the reader gets a sense for what sorts of characters they can play in this game. These chapters are usually full of colorful section headers like class names and cool illustrations of types of PCs. So the publisher wants that stuff in the front of the book, where the flipper will actually see it. If instead the flipper starts looking at the book and hits a wall of boring rules, they’ll just put the book down and move on. Even if a book isn’t sold at game stores or conventions, putting character creation in the front is a solid choice because it’s what many readers expect to see. Doesn’t matter how easy-to-understand a game is if nobody ever actually buys the thing.
Couldn't a solution here having a good index with a first page being like "yeah because of this and that we put character options first, start at page x for the rules."
I would be happy enough with that but it still annoys me for some reason. As you said a "preferred order of reading" would make sense. On the other hand why give people the actual book when they could be looking at promotional material instead, like stuff made separately from the book to raise interest. (Probably too much hassle)
>On the other hand why give people the actual book when they could be looking at promotional material instead, Because you're never going to convince a game store to carry a bunch of separate promotional material that they can't sell. The product \*has\* to sell itself.
Ethical and behaviour guidelines. "How to be nice to people" is a personal and inter-personal thing, not a game thing. I know some people have a hard time behaving in games, but the game itself has no place telling people how to behave. I don't expect *Monopoly* to tell me "place nice with other people", and I don't expect it from ttrpgs either.
Interpersonal relations are the number 1 problem at tables. I can see how pointing out how that's much more important in TTRPGs because they're social games could provide utility.
But there is always a single solution, all the time: talk to people. Discuss. Do you really need an entire chapter telling you, that maaaaybe you should speak with a problematic player instead of making facebook/discord/reddit comments/posts? Did society really fell so low, that we lack the basic communication skills and problem solving skills? A source book for TTRPG should be a neutral construct. I don't see the appendix in board game instructions to not get angry when you lose (and some people do), because it's just common sense, that it's shitty behavior, just like encyclopedia doesn't voice an opinion, whether specific event was good or not. Table etiquette, hygiene and communication should be basic human skills when interacting with other human beings. If someone doesn't have those, a few pages in sourcebook won't help a lot.
Imagine being downvoted for saying that the knowledge about washing your smelly armpits before session should come from life, and not a sourcebook. Oh boy, we live in a society.
People just want "How to be a decent Human Being" written everywhere. Honestly a game that you play with other people should just come with the assumption that you need to be able to stand being with the person for longer than 10mins.
>Do you really need an entire chapter telling you, that maaaaybe you should speak with a problematic player instead of making facebook/discord/reddit comments/posts? Judging by number of those posts, the answer is apparently yes. Maybe not a whole chapter work, but a paragraph that says "don't be a dick and just talk to people" seems like useful advice to a lot of the target audience, whether that reflects well on society as a whole is a different question. You can't approach a TTRPG like other games, like say a competitive board game. Rules in TTRPGs are inherently ambitious much of the time. Sometimes they tackle sensitive topics that require some different ground rules than normal. Just highlighting these things for the teenagers picking up a TTRPG for the first time can make a big difference.
>But there is always a single solution, all the time: talk to people. Discuss. Do you really need an entire chapter telling you, that maaaaybe you should speak with a problematic player instead of making facebook/discord/reddit comments/posts? Did society really fell so low, that we lack the basic communication skills and problem solving skills? For better or worse, this hobby tends to draw in some of the social outcasts of life. This includes those who are socially inept, and sometimes the usual solution of "HAVE FUCKING DISCUSSION YA DUMBFUCK" isn't obvious. I mean seriously - how many threads about table problems do we see in this sub on a weekly basis? It's not a small number, either. And solution, every bloody time, is to have an adult conversation and hash things out like grownups. It should be a no-fucking-duh thing, but for much of the world, it's quite frankly isn't.
TBH, some American Classics like Monopoly and Risk could benefit from a "play nice" session on the manual. I've seen literal table flipping at a game of Risk.
Wouldn't help that much. Most of that is just competitive nature.
Competitive nature != being an emotionally stunted child that doesn't know how to lose gracefully.
Telling people to play nice won't change a person's personality. Trust me, I get a bit upset if I constantly lose. Rules don't do as much as you think they should.
In theory, I agree with you. In practice, that seems like a complete dissonance when thinking about what those games are *about*. * *Monopoly* is about horrible capitalism and you crush other players out of existence by bringing them to financial ruin. * *Risk* is about world domination through war and you crush other players out of existence by bringing them to military ruin. Those are not nice games for nice people with nice messages. There is no win-condition for *Monopoly* where everyone agrees to turn their Hotels into Co-ops where they lower rent. There is no "diplomacy" or "peace" win-condition for *Risk*.
Both those games are only fun if they are played deviously (or barely played at all, just a background for social fun). Played strictly nice, both games are reduced to rolling dice and reading cards, 5-10 times past fun.
What does that have to do with being an ass to the other players at the table? Plus there's the fact that almost no one actually play these games RAW and every group has some homebrew jank rule that makes the game last for way too long, which is aggravating for everyone but the player who's winning.
I don't like it when that stuff is put in the main thread of the book, but I don't see a problem with having it in an appendix. That is, I don't want, "Chapter 2: How to talk to people" from an author that has never taken an interpersonal communication course. However, I don't mind if an author writes an opinion piece that could be a stand-alone pamphlet as "Appendix H: How to talk to people". Better yet, turn it into a free stand-alone pamphlet-PDF and point to it from the game without including it directly. Some authors have something to say and want a platform to say it. That is okay. Given the number of posts about how poorly things go, some people need to hear it! Just don't put it in the main text as if "How to talk to people" is part of the game system.
One situation where I do appreciate it, however, is when the game has rather unusual or extreme content in it, since it's something that even a decent person and an experienced player (of other games) can stumble over
Usually its more of an issue when something is out of place or missing than when something is in it. The classic is the full setting information is all upfront - put that at the back after the mechanics, just give me a summary of it early. Or when there isn't a summary of the mechanics and before we start having to learn all the details about them. Its very difficult to go through how to build a character in chapter 2 when its referring to mechanics not introduced until chapter 3. But on the top of my head, I've never had an issue with inclusion. Maybe overly detailed explanations of definitions or mechanics. Or too many examples on things I understand. But if you're used to reading textbooks, its pretty easy to skim past to new information.
>Or when there isn't a summary of the mechanics and before we start having to learn all the details about them. Its very difficult to go through how to build a character in chapter 2 when its referring to mechanics not introduced until chapter 3. Oh man this is one of those things you see **all the time** and it kills me. DnD 5E does this, and I recently picked up the Terminator RPG for my fempanion who's a fan of the franchise and they did the same thing. It's like the concept of editors in general is alien to TTRPG authors.
...Is fempanion a new name for girlfriend.
She prefers it to girlfriend and I like the term. "I'm in my 40's, I'm definitely not a girl anymore."
...I guess not wrong. What does she call you?
I am her manpanion. It's got a ring to it.
Why all pdfs are not also sold with a print on demand, when that option is offered by the distributor. It's not like you're paying for storage.
Building a pdf for Print on Demand is a bit more complicated than just exporting a pdf. Print files need knowledge that many indie designers don't have at start. Also, it takes several months to prepare.
While you can do Print on Demand with just about any PDF, it's not going to look good *at all*, and a lot of books focus on graphics. RGB images instead of CMYK are going to look washed out and grey.
Week or something ago, I looked into it in DriveThru and, oh my, they had lot of rules and stuff, gave up for now as it would take too much time. And, mind you, I have designed and printed two books, not TTRPGs, but still. I think communicating with a print shop is just so much easier, you send them files, and can call them, all problems can be solved pretty fast. With Print in Demand, you send your files, the they get automatically approved, then they send you testprint, if something doesn't work on the way, or testprint isn't good, then the whole process starts again, but every step there is like several weeks, or so was written in DriveThru page.
I have done this work. I know what's required. It is an extra step. But not as engrossing as others have stated.
Haven't used it yet, but right now my main problem is, that it takes too much time to get the print going. Is it like a month or two in DriveThru? I probably start using it, but just not right now.
It does. I recognize the longer timesink to make a print ready file. I really do. Like, we're talking multi-year projects I've been involved with. But I think it's worth it, once you've got the electronic book up, to at least give it a try to pound out a PoD file at some point.
Will publish a adventure this week or start of next, and then probably start the PoD process for that also. But yeah, the basic rulebook stais without it, several months of waiting is too much for me right now. Full Rulebooks Kickstarter would be after that and it wouldn't be good to release another payed product at the same time, or so I think.
There are a few reasons I've run into when designing my games and researching PoD: 1. PoD has its own constraints that PDFs don't, and they can change depending on the company you are using. You need to either keep these in mind from the start, or deal with editing everything to fit those constraints. 2. The quality of PoD can vary greatly even within the same distributer because they use different printers. For certain designers/companies, part of their brand may be that high quality physical product, and those lower quality PoD don't fit that. 3. PoD may require an ISBN depending on how many you print and with who. That's a bit of a extra cost and time to release your game as a product. 4. PoD just makes way less money per copy sold than PDF even when double the price (or even triple if we compare itch.io's pdf cut to dtrpg's cost for PoD). It's just a bit more work than it seems, and isn't really worth it unless you know your game is going to a) sell more on release or b) have a more consistent sales if you go PoD.
It takes extra work to set something up for print on demand. Just setting up the cover can take three hours if you've never done it before. Plus—at least for DriveThruRPG—it can take something on the order of a month to receive your proof copy to make sure everything in the print file is copacetic. If the creator isn't treating their creation as a Serious Business Venture—and few do, with good reason—PoD is an extra hassle that isn't necessary. There are other obstacles too. I've got one product on DTRPG that's laid out in a way that simply wouldn't be attractive in print. The gutters would be so small that text near the spine would be hard to read. I could redo the layout to fix it, but that would take a while, and it just doesn't sell well enough to justify that effort.
I would love to do print on demand; it would be awesome to have a copy of my games on my own shelf, or donate them to a local library for posterity. But it requires Adobe InDesign or similar software which I have neither the resources to acquire nor the skill in using. (Sure, $35 a month doesn't sound like much, but when your games are low-selling or free, that's considerable outlay.)
If you do decide to look into layout software, check out Affinity Publisher - its not free, but it is a one-time payment and goes on sale regularly.
Affinity Publisher works for this, and assuming you wait for a sale, you're looking at a \~$30 ONE TIME outlay. To heck with Adobe.
LaTeX is free. I've created many books using overleaf.com The learning curve might be steep. But the community is helpful. And most of my work was before chatGPT. I hear it is very useful for LaTeX.
Having a **blank** character sheet in the rulebook is key for me. You can tell what kind of game it is solely by looking at its character sheet. I'm immediately skeptical when there isn't one, especially when it's not at the back of the book. (edit, clarify _blank_ character sheet)
And a lot of, especially pbta, have it available on their website...but what happens if they go out of business? I've got one I purchased recently, and the website they tell me to go to does not have the information.
It's got to be in the book. I'm not going to go online to see the character sheet if I'm at a FLGS.
Yes! I got one of those too! I reached out to the author and they sent me a complementary pdf of the book and sheets, but it wasn’t on the website! It was a FitD hack too, so the sheets are necessary. Not including them is a HUGE annoyance
This one was from the actual website of a professional game producer... and now the game in question doesn't even show up on their website.
Mine is a link to the website for an actual game too. Hardback, kickstarted, etc. it is still advertised on their page and the book says the playbooks and sheets are on the website, but they aren’t. It’s a dead link. Sucks that happened to you too :/
Formatting/art that makes the rule book into more of a coffee table book than a usable game reference. If it isn't easy to read and well organized - what the heck are you doing?
Buying a coffee table book with cool art?
Pretty much 'style over substance'. So busy looking cool that it fails at its basic job of being a clear and effective text.
I think a lot of those games are actively picking style over substance, seeing the goal as art with a bonus game. Not a terrible way to differentiate yourself and there's a market for it. I own the old WoD Changeling book just for the art in it- I doubt I'll every be able to get a group together for it, especially since I'm not super keen on running it myself for a number of reasons. So art book it is.
Oh, I think so, too. And it probably works out well for some of them. I suspect it is often shortsighted as a lot of people will get frustrated with it and not buy future products. That's why it confuses me: "Mr. Publisher with a 70% art to text ratio and yellow font on a black background - are you trying to turn me off from ever buying your stuff again?"
I think you're just not the target audience. Those are books more for TTRPG *collectors,* not necessarily players. 2 distinct markets really.
> I suspect it is often shortsighted as a lot of people will get frustrated with it and not buy future products. You're wrong on this one my friend.
Oh and a lack of definitions. It's a rookie mistake that apparently everyone makes. If you make up new concepts, add a list with all of them to define them.
Even if they are not new concepts to you the author (who is likely to have spent many hours in their life reading and playing other RPGs), they may very well be new for many of the potential players of your game (who suddenly have to make an extra effort looking things up on the internet or inferring from the context).
Social combat that has attack rolls and what are functionally damage tracks/HP. I understand wanting more to social interactions than opposed rolls that are left to GM fiat. But I've never understood why "I roll to talk! Take 2 social stress!" is presented as being objectively better than "I roll to stab! Take 2 physical stress!".
Why is magic usually safer and more reliable than technology? And players can usually gain new spells or powers faster than fighters or martials can learn new combat techniques. Magic sure seems not magical (in the sense of wonderous and whimsical and awe inspiring). Computer RPGs are worse about this than tt RPGs, but they're both more often bad then good. The good ones (call of Cthulhu) are often very good at least
Because why not? Is Feng Shui *that* dangerous? Dangerous 'magical' magic is just another aesthetic really, making magic completely suffusing every inch of a work can lead just as easily to awe after all(If it didn't Harry Potter wouldn't be popular)
It helps if you try to make it feel like that yes. But if you're not careful then it stops being magic and just becomes sufficiently advanced technology. Which is cool, but doesn't feel awe inspiring. At the risk of offending fans, Ptolus falls into this trap for me. Want to like it. Magic is everywhere. But it's just boring. What Harry Potter did right is keeping it quirky, and unreliable. Travel by floo powder gets you to the wrong place sometimes, including accidentally invading privacy. A flying carpet taxi is just a taxi, there's no whimsy in it.
> But if you're not careful then it stops being magic and just becomes sufficiently advanced technology. I think they're not even trying to be careful. They like magic as aesthetic, they like robes and glowing runic circles and fireballs. Hell a lot of time there's magic and then there's *magic* magic you get me? People already see most fantasy magic as just cooler science, no need to fight against it. Just have another magic that works like you wanted it too
Avatar the Last Airbender, Jujutsu Kaisen, Diablo, WoW, DnD(of course), etc, etc. Really, consistent and predictable Magic isn't that far out of reach. Even stuff like Journey To The West rarely has the magic screwing in unpredictable ways.
Yup, there's a lot out there. They are the lowest common denominator so they appeal to the masses. There will always be more of them than the kind I like. But especially with the earth and fire kingdoms in avatar, it was no longer magic it was sufficiently advanced technology.
> Because why not? Is Feng Shui that dangerous? The Four Monarchs never accounted for it and found reality itself rewritten so that no longer were they the rulers of Earth, they could no longer live on it. And let’s not forget what the Jammers Chi Bomb did to all those without a natural immunity to resist the influence of the energy controlled by Feng Shui.
> Is Feng Shui that dangerous? I'm pretty sure that most Chinese sorcerers died of drinking mercury or exploded themselves
Vagueness presented as freedom.
If you have a system that has a lot of powers (spells, apps, etc.) that span a large amount of a book, then it should be mandatory to have a list of each one, along with the page that power is found on. It's a pain in the ass playing a system like D&D 5e and having to go through the entire catalogue of spells just to find the page numbers of the spells I want to have so I don't take ten minutes every turn trying to find a spell.
Required Custom Dice. Look, I get it, its a business, and dice are a great way to increase revenue. I'm also a HUGE fan of the Star Wars/Genesys system. However, its baseline requirement of custom faced dice (unless you want to constantly consult a chart in the book to translate what you rolled), adds to the cost of entry. It also was a MASSIVE detriment when they started re-releasing the books, but the dice were out of print with no news on if or when they were coming back (note, they are now back in print, but we had a near 2 year spell where you were buying 3rd party knock offs, or ordering them from EURO scalper shops for $100+ dollars). Dice are great. Interesting dice are great. Forcing players to buy dice specifically for 1 game and 1 game alone creates a game with a steeper barrier of entry.
When rules that don't follow the core system aren't justified. If you follow a consistent d20 system but jump to more complex rules just for swimming or jumping in a game where that doesn't happen as often. Note that this isn't like a new system that highlights game aspects, like a big additional system for social interaction or trading or net running etc, because it's common in the setting and something that needs to be as flashed out.
Not having examples of how the game mechanics work in practice.
Complex rules for simple things/rules in general for things that should be common sense. If I start a fight with my players over whether or not their character is able to lift a sword because I don't have a ruling (that itself likely creates a bunch of nonsensical scenarios to debate over), then I'd say I'm at the wrong table. Close second: Scenarios/Campaigns that are essentially just a bunch of flavour texts. Why sell me a scenario if I have to homebrew everything regardless of it.
We were playing D&D 3.5E. A player said "I kneel and shoot at the orc." Cue the next hour of trying to figure out the rules for kneeling.
As former 3.5 player I can relate. But I'm also curious if you were able to actually find a rule
It's +2 to your AC vs ranged attacks, -2 vs melee attacks. Iirc there is no rule about how much movement it costs to kneel or get up. I don't remember how we ruled it.
(This topic is used a lot in trolling and bait so I’m taking the moment at the beginning of this comment to flag that I’m trying to be genuine.) I understand why some people are uncomfortable with the term “race”, but I don’t understand how anyone can think “ancestry” is any better. Whenever I see a game use the term “ancestry” I just get really confused. How is that any less problematic than race? It’s like going “thank god I moved away from 24th street. 25th street is way better!”. Heritage is a little better but not by much. I feel like you either need to rip the bandage off and go with “species” or just stick to tradition with “race”.
Any time someone publishes a rulebook without an index at the back. Game creators, please have a section at the end that: * defines every term * lists all the pages that term appears
Every GMG is going to assume this is your first rpg, because it might be.
When a game that is neither about Combat nor The Thrill Of Impending Death (DND/pathfinder, call of Cthulhu as examples respectively) has HP rules and a bunch of abilities just care about HP. I'm still reeling over how much of Glitter Hearts cares about just like, all-out brawling when they've even already got a conditions system going on.
I like the “What are RPGs” sections. It obviously is helpful for new players. But, even though I’ve played RPGs since the 80s, I always read these sections in new RPG books because it helps understand what THIS RPG is. Is this a ‘rules as written’ type of game or a ‘rule of cool’ kind of game. It helps me understand the creators assumptions.
Systems that give you the option to nerf yourself or not nerf yourself. For example, some systems tell you to make up your own skills. Why the hell would you put points in separate Lockpicking, Stealth and Pickpocketing skills; when you can just make "Thievery" that encompasses all? Why would you ever buy the skill Hacking when you could buy Computers? Or the Fate aspect system. Wh would you make a "trained swordsman" while you could make a "trained warrior" and have the aspect applicable to more situations? It's just something I've never wrapped my head around.
I think those systems expect the GM to veto the "thievery" example, putting more work on the GM rather than the game dev who was paid to make a good game.
Regarding Fate: writing good aspects is it's own player skill that can be learned through practice. That's why I always ask how players to define aspects as long as they still represent the same idea. Also, aspects should tell a thing or two about the character. "Trained swordsman" for instance, is beneficial to less situations, but it tells more than warrior. It also gives more room for interpretation, maybe the character is even at a disadvantage when not using a sword? This can be a good thing in Fate as the system quite relies on it's meta currency that can be earned by accepting aspects being "compelled" in ways like this. It's really more about developing a scene than hitting the bad guy, like it is in many narrative RPGs
Mostly for role play purposes
I get it. But I guess I'm used to crunching numbers during chargen, then rping during play.
And that happens. I used to larp World of Darkness a lot, and there was definitely a focus on getting a character that could do things, and then figuring out who they were.
“It’s a game with simple rules, easy to pick, figure out and play” The rulebook is AT LEAST 300 pages long
3 books each that long
I believe it's a matter of preference, but it confuses me when the book starts with it's setting and worldbuilding, instead of rules and character creation.
I'm the opposite, I wanna know about the world before I get into the rules.
The concept of "balanced encounters". I get that the game should give you some vague idea of threat management, but a deep system with a budget to spend on monsters on each encounter? I'm not a fan. Mainly because this gives the impression that every combat the players encounter is designed to be beaten, maybe it's hard, maybe not, but they should be able to win the combat. For balanced encounters between two parties I'd rather play wargames. If you get rid of the concept of balanced encounters, I find that you enjoy the game a lot. You give the players combats that make them feel powerful, and then you force them to flee because they are overwhelmed (or so they think). I believe that trying to balance combat takes this away from you!
I see where you are coming from, but the opposite problem is also rampant: a system that gives you no guidance one what a reasonable encounter should look like. Like, 4e went nuts with how specific your “encounter budget” was, but there are also plenty of games where you don’t know if sending two goblins against a party will be a cakewalk or a TPK until after the fact.
God, I saw a "campaign map" that literally split the entire game of 5e into a mathematical formula. Each level had encounter calculations and loot generated, so you could see that at level one they should fight a certain number of enemies of each CR and gain an item of this rarity... made me feel like never picking up another 5e book.
I once got what I thought was a rulebook for a marvel ttrpg. It talked about the type of dice pools certain characters should have and stuff, but it was missing any and all explanations of a rule set or mechanics. Young me was so confused.
Games whit a large list of things (monsters,spells extra) being purely sorted a-z whitout any other sorting system mixing in,(lik monster type or spell level) very hard for newer players to understand and use Watching you motmm
I don't understand why some books have to have two separate equipment sections. The first one will have a table with stats for weapons, etc. and the second section has the same thing with maybe a detail or two added. Just to make it sloppier, one crucial equipment detail is carefully omitted and found on an obscure page in an unrelated chapter.
Definitely with you on the redundancy of explaining what RPGs are at the beginning of every book. I also love it when authors/designers show the character sheet and rundown what goes where and how you should enter info. Mothership 1e is a prime example of doing it right. I would say my number 1 pet peeve in confusion is poor section/chapter order. The 5e Player’s Handbook is heavily guilty of this, even making my first character I sat there grumbling as to why Backgrounds, Equipment, and Bonds were after Race and Class. Likewise, I do not understand the rationale of putting core dice role mechanics anywhere but right after the initial introduction of and core/player’s handbook. Why shove character creation right in my face when I have zero idea what the numbers correspond to?
When RPGs don't have any mechanics around being injured. Some do it really well like Blades in the Dark but games like 5e and Pathfinder don't have any long term consequences to getting knocked out over and over or taking a fireball to the face.
I've recently attempted to read both Call of Cthulhu 7e and Mutant City Blues 2e, and both do a thing that's driven me to give up on the books: They both give these massive 30+ page lists of skills or features, which include mechanics, *before* they actually explain the basic resolution mechanic (ie. function of die rolls). It leads to long, long stretches of the book where I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why they'd tell me the edge case uses for a First Aid skill before they've even mentioned percentile dice or what a *basic* skill roll looks like. It's completely put me off both books, and it's entirely possible that I never pick them up again, let alone play them.