ttrpg playplace

"Proiritising roleplaying" doesn't mean anything – it's a piece of vacuous marketing text targeted at people who've constructed their identity politics upon arguing about the correct way to pretend to be an elf.

The basic problem is that the term "roleplaying" is, itself, not well defined; in practice, it means whatever the person trying to sell you something wants it to mean. Here, for example, by invoking the presence or absence of "mechanical social encounter support" as the distinguishing feature of self-styled "RP forward" systems, you seem to be implicitly defining "roleplaying" to mean "set-piece encounters in which a player character attempts to persuade an NPC to do something for them without resorting to violence". Is this justified? Is playing out the process of hitting each other with sticks not "roleplaying"? Why not?

What most people mean when they toss the term "roleplaying" around in the context of tabletop games is something in the vicinity of "roleplaying is when we do things I'm interested in doing, and not-roleplaying is when we do things I'm not interested in doing". As all game rules are unavoidably opinionated about what player characters ought to spend their time doing – indeed, arguably this is the only thing that rules can meaningfully express opinions about! – the question of "does this system 'prioritise roleplaying'?" is typically reducible to "does this system agree with me about what kind of game I'm playing?". Games are then sorted into "priorities roleplaying" and "does not prioritise roleplaying" based on which side of the answer to that question they fall on for the person doing the sorting.

This is the ultimate root of a lot of this "the best sessions I ever had never touched the rules at all" stuff. For a variety of reasons, many people have genuinely never experienced playing a tabletop RPG whose rules agree with them about what sort of experience of play they ought to be having, and in some cases they can't even imagine what that would look like. If you and the system you're using disagree so badly about what kind of game you're playing that "engaging with the rules" and "engaging with my desired experience of play" are mutually exclusive activities, it's not surprising that ignoring the rules entirely would be your best play.

well, no, i was actually thinking about scenarios like navigating a ball/gala type event and exploring the plot through verbal conversation, but i suppose i didn't say that, so fine, egg on my face

i ask this because i've been thinking a lot about why i keep bouncing off games like Blades in the Dark and Monster of the Week, both of which like to bill themselves as "rp forward". there's a lot of tools and toys to play with in terms of social encounters for both of those games, to be applied in heist and monster mystery situations, respectively, so i think we can safely say that we're aware of what the rules want to be doing in this instance, and are broadly in agreement with them.

but in practice, i often forget that i even have those tools, or the conversation regularly grinds to a halt while people review their abilities lists, and it's just.... weirdly exhausting. and i keep thinking that surely there must be a better way, but i'm not a game designer, so fuck me if i know what that better way might look like. hence, asking an expert.

i suppose we do need more precise terminology, because yeah "roleplaying" is technically applicable to any aspect of game engagement you can think of. "navigating social situations" is slightly narrower, but maybe just "having a conversation" is what we're after. and maybe part of the problem is that most people are already halfway proficient at having a conversation? in ways that we're not proficient at the aforementioned hitting each other with sticks. so we can just Do It without needing to abstract parts of the process into dice rolls and hit points, because we can just observe what the other guy says and then decide how our character feels about it and how they want to respond.

You've settled on defining "roleplaying [mechanics]" as "gamifying having a conversation". What does it mean to gamify having a conversation? In what way, and to what purpose? My previously proposed summary of "[having rules for] set-piece encounters in which a player character attempts to persuade an NPC to do something for them without resorting to violence" is one way of gamifying having a conversation, but you've said that's not what you mean by that; so, what do you mean?

Suppose, for example, that your tabletop RPG character has occasion to play a game of Texas hold 'em. There are two basic ways this could be played out:

Roll some dice to decide who wins, and based on the outcome of that roll, produce a description of your character having played a game of Texas hold 'em.

Pick up a deck of playing cards and play a round of Texas hold 'em, you in the person of your character and the GM in the person of your NPC opponent, making all relevant decisions in character as your respective roles.

We certainly wouldn't say that the second one less constitutes "roleplaying" than the first. Some in-character activities, however, are less amenable to this sort of step-by-step acting out – at least, not without a lot of special equipment – and one of the functions of detailed frameworks of rules, such as the prototypical "combat system", is to furnish a game-mechanical proxy through which this sort of fine-grained IC decision-making can occur.

(Hell, if you were feeling mischievous, you might even argue that a game with a crunchy combat system is more "RP focused" in this sense than one which simply produces produces a description of your character having had a fight, in the sense that it both obliges and enables you to act out the process of actually making all those nitty-gritty IC choices.)

From this perspective, one might easily conclude that the purpose of RPG rules is to furnish such game-mechanical proxies; by extension, when no proxy is needed because sitting at a table poses no obstacle to acting things out in detail, game mechanics need not enter into it.

That's not the only possible perspective on What Game Rules Are For, though. Take me, for example: from my perspective, game rules are toys. They're made of methods and procedures rather than metal and plastic, but they're toys all the same, and I want to mash their faces together like a kid making their action figures make out. Whether or not a game-mechanical proxy is strictly required in order to play out the activity in question just isn't terribly relevant to me, because that's not why I want the rules to be present in the first place.

THAT SOLVES NOTHING, sure, it makes it better. Its not the same friend skipping playing every week, but someone still has to skip playing.

Most modern ttrpgs ive seen either treat the GM as a referee that is supposed to follow the rules, or as an auteur that turns the game the players are going through into a performance. One is a computer and one is an artist, neither of them are gamers.

Older ttrpgs may treat the GM as an oppositional force to the players, but still gives them total power over the game, leading to the classic "rocks fall, everyone dies" situation.

GMs dont have a game to play, they don't have a win condition or lose condition, and they don't have obstacles set by the system to make reaching those conditions a game.

Draw steel and Daggerheart do have metacurrencies that serve as obstacles, which could be a great starting point. Draw Steel's Malice feels more to me like a difficulty dial players can shift, with the GM being only able to choose which Malice abilities to use, but Im also of the opinion that GMs shouldnt be left alone during combat, I make flowcharts for the monsters I make so that the GM can at least have a baseline of what the monster wants to do in every situation, and ideally Malice would be included there (the GM could always ignore it, but the flowchart is meant to mimic the decission process of a monster, even at the detriment of their combat skill if needed). Daggerheart's Fear does have a bit more variety, but its also very similar in its limitations.

A lot of people actually WANT the experience of GMing games. Of running them. Of designing and facilitating, or even just refereeing them. It's fun for us. I may sometimes want to PC a one to three shot type thing but by and large the experience I want from TTRPGs is the one provided by the GM role. Not the PC role. And no, you're right, the role is not the traditional gamer role. It's usually either referee, writer, or level designer but it turns out actually those are all fun and enjoyable experiences and none of them are a "problem".

I would also argue you're also wrong to say we don't have obstacles or win/lose conditions. We have both in spades from the players. You think designing puzzles and scenarios that are difficult enough to be challenging but not SO difficult to be unfair isn't a challenge? You think accidentally creating a TPK or roadblock is not a lose condition? That having the pieces you set up all fall into place isn't a win? That players do not love throwing obstacles at you every chance they get?

Im not saying the GM should play like a PC, what Im saying is that a game system should be able to provide an engaging experience to everyone on the table. Another reason Id want to gamify the GM position is because it helps with the learning curve of how to GM the specific system. Its a good way to tell the GM what they are expected to do.

In another post Ive also talked about how the figure of Game Master and Game Designer can be two different roles. You can design a whole prewritten adventure without running it, and you can run a prewritten adventure by the book without having to create anything. I really value the power to take decisions, and the fact is that if the Game Designer took their time to come up with a good adventure path, the Game Master doesn't need to make a single decision during the game.

As for the roles of writer and referee, I find that having a writer GM tends to overwrite the type of emergent stories the system itself provides, which may be a fun way to spend your time with friends, but I dont think counts as playing the game. It's a bit of a controversial opinion but Im willing to expand on it further if needed. The role of referee is something I also take a bit of issue with as a designer. If you step out of the ttrpg scene you can find similar figures in MtG judges, football referees, boxing referees, etc. But the thing is that those only become necessary during high-stakes games. Playing a casual game with your friends doesnt demand a referee, you and your friends can probably reach a consensus on how to interpret a rule if needed.

Ive spent a lot of time thinking about the role of the GM, and I feel like as a designer, that figure isn't needed at all, and that having one person for every five that want to play the game, having to miss out on playing its not fair for them as an expectation. Some people will do it happily, but I dont think its something i can ask as a mandatory requisite for playing.

Im aware my position is very extremist, but after being mainly a Game Master and Game Designer for years Ive suffered burnout over and over again. I love prepping encounters, designing npcs, coming up with cool adventure premises. But the thing that burnt me out everytime was running the game. I noe realize it was because I was fighting against the nature of the game and tried to force stories to happen instead of trusting the game, and when I tried to fix that as a designer I found myself struggling to find a goal for the GM.

The downside is, that this means there are PbtA games made by people with very little to no understanding of what makes PbtA games work.

I also personally learn a lot by doing and experimenting, so some great games that really excel at being PbtA

Apocalypse Keys: does a fantastic job of explaining why the mechanics it has are present and what they do, which is pretty invaluable.

Nahual: really fun and well put together, honestly super underrated

Patchwork World: creative moves! super approachable as a game! great fun all around

Masks: I think Masks still holds up remarkably well

Under Hollow Hill: another PbtA from the Bakers, and it really showcases that PbtA is not just "these specific types of moves, these specific types of playbooks"

international journal of roleplaying

japanese journal of analog rpg studies

analog game studies

games: research and practice *

journal of roleplaying studies and steam

all journals are open access, meaning you can read them for free, except for the starred one, which is half open access. the two italicized journals are bilingual, the first in japanese and the second in spanish

When writing a TTRPG YOU CAN EXPLAIN WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A CERTAIN MECHANIC. It's legal. You won't go to jail for that. It's so helpful. Please do it.

some of my favourite ttrpg rules

none of these are meant to be "this is the good & right way vs this is the bad & wrong way". just different approaches that work or dont in different contexts

feel free to rb or comment with thoughts, examples, or additional questions for the list :)

is failure a punishment or learning opportunity?

does failure mean you will lose opportunities, resources, situations, or characters exclusively? (ie not meeting a difficulty check in d&d means you may not accomplish a goal, land an attack, protect yourself, or stay alive. nothing else comes from a failed roll) vs failure means you dont accomplish the specific action but get an opportunity or resource for later (such as marking a point of experience on a failed roll in some pbta games or getting eureka points you can spend later in eureka)

does the outcome of the randomizer or the characters' abilities change the characters' actions or the reality of the world?

a failed stealth check causing the character to stumble vs causing an alley cat to meow and draw attention. using a spell to uncover something that was invisible vs using an ability to generate a useful clue that was not there before

do the mechanics invoke ludonarrative harmony, ludonarrative dissonance, a mix, or neither?

do the mechanics and character abilities serve and enhance the intended story, genre, or tone (aforementioned eureka points leading to sudden moments of breakthrough and putting together clues in a mystery game - honestly just all of eureka, but ...)(or, for a solo example, the "journaling" aspect of long haul 1983 being in-character voicemails you leave by recording yourself speaking about the events of the game at set intervals) vs mechanics and character abilities feeling at odds with the story, genre, and tone (the main dice rolling mechanic leading the pcs to be fairly ineffective and weak in eat the reich despite the intended story and character archetypes being a hammy power fantasy)

Is failure a punishment or learning opportunity?

In thinking about this question I found myself looking at the games I have designed (and am currently working on) and discovered that failure just… isn't really a thing within the game, except as an end state? I mean this in the sense that at no point do you "fail" exactly, just that you haven't succeeded yet. In Summit, you progress through finding specific cards in your journey, and not finding them is the closest you come to "failing" before the game concludes, in 3 Shining Motes you lose settlements but can't "fail" until the game itself ends, in The Boulder you lose progress but there's no permanent loss. Even the current game I'm working on, Waning Echoes, doesn't have failure as much as a lack of resources to achieve success or advance your agenda. The only game I've written that does have conventional failure is also the only one that I based on an existing SRD: The Curse Lingers, using Caltrop Core. There, failure uses a mixed success format, with no additional resources being gained unless the GM decides to award some. As a result, it feels like my least (mechanically) interesting game, at least in my eyes.

Does the outcome of the randomizer or the characters' abilities change the characters' actions or the reality of the world?

I realise that, once again, I don't really have any good examples for this: most of my games feature quite narrow player agency - you don't really "choose" what occurs in 3 Shining Motes (though you do have control over your interpretation of prompts) so it's up to the player whether events are driven by the world or individuals. The same is true in Summit, with the cards dictating the challenges, and the player deciding what it took to overcome it. I feel like this might change as I design more multiplayer games, but I find myself leaning towards the perspective of "the characters are capable, but the world doesn't care". Waning Echoes sees each character taking limited actions and getting feedback from them, not from the world (most of the time) but from other characters. Because there's no true failure, there's no way to paint disaster as linked to a character failing - the world is just indifferent.

Do the mechanics invoke ludonarrative harmony, ludonarrative dissonance, a mix, or neither?

I try and integrate mechanics with narrative wherever possible - the card grids in Summit and 3 Shining Motes mimic the landscapes of each game, with Summit's grid growing smaller as the climber climbs higher, and 3 Shining Motes' grid becoming increasingly shrouded as the darkness grows. I've written only a few games I would class as mechanically dense, but all of those have fairly rigid gameplay loops with, once again, The Curse Lingers being my major exception. Waning Echoes is possibly the example that (while not yet complete) best exemplifies my approach to ludonarrative harmony/dissonance - there are different roles a player can have, all concealed from all other players, and all evoking subtly different experiences of the game. One my have a very limited and puzzle-like set of options, while another might be constantly managing an ever-depleting resource. For one character the game is a power fantasy, while for another it's a tense horror game. I want my mechanics to reflect that wherever possible.

These were great questions and definitely got me thinking about the way I design!

I'd be interested to hear how your own games approach these topics! In addition, here's a few questions I find myself wondering about:

How much agency are players given, and how does it vary depending on the game, or even part of the game?

How frequently are randomisers actually used? What about the situations when they are used requires their use?

thank you for this response and these additional questions!!! reading about the similarities and differences in your games was so interesting, especially the solo ones. while i have published a number of solo games, im def a multiplayer person myself and dont tend to play solo games often at all (my research focuses on multiplayer games as well)

i love the questions you added too. i think my games are too plentiful and too diverse to answer any of these cohesively (at this point ive published 27 games, with 3 of those sharing a system of my own invention and 4 built on others' srds / hacks. the other 20 are bespoke. the 2 larger, unpublished games i'm working on rn are also bespoke) but i do love chewing on questions like this :)

another question i thought of that i'll add to our collection as well:

is the gm a referee, a storyteller, or a player? if a mix, then of which?