The Player's Guide to Roleplaying

[Steven Bishop]

This is a book that I would read and buy if need be.  A lot of the posts were kind of confusing to me, because of all the large words used in them and so I could have missed some things.  But there should be a section on "The Ineveitable", the death of your character, even though sometimes it's possible to retire a character and not have them die but live on forever in our dreams.  It is important that new players understand that they will have many characters over the years and that some of them will die and it's not a tragedy, but can be an amazing role-playing session if done correctly.

[clehrich]

Based on a volume to which I am contributing, let me put forward a possible structure.  This is by no means supposed to be complete or comprehensive.

--

Introduction
What is this volume, and why?  Who's in it?  What are the sections?  How should I use this?

1. Foundations
What is gaming?  Where did it come from, and what is its history?  What's doing lately in the hobby?  What about concerned parents and relatives (religious concerns, "Mazes and Monsters"-type concerns, Columbine, etc.)?  If I'm explaining the hobby to a newcomer, what's a good way to go about it?  Where would I start?  What sorts of games are a good place to start?  What sorts of games make useful things to GM, for what purposes?  Indie and non-indie RPGs.  The RPG "scene" in various countries.  Etc.

2. Issues and Applications
Character design.  Setting design.  GM techniques.  Player techniques.  Using "things" (handouts, miniatures, pictures, etc.).  Dice, cards, etc.  Narration and distribution.  Stances.  LARPs and "acting it out".

3. Problems
Social contract problems.  Problem players.  Problem GM's.  "How come my players are so passive?"  When your character dies.  "Balance" in game design.  "Realism."  Genre clash.  Design incoherence.  "Only a game."  Railroading.

4. Theory
GNS.  Threefold.  Mechanics for specific ends.  Experimental design.  Abstract theory and analysis.  Why theorize?  Theory and application in tandem.  Writing and publishing games.  Putting pictures in your game.  Alternative publishing routes.

Appendix: Resources
Websites, interesting games, glossary, author remarks, index, etc.

Images
These should be chosen by article authors and acquired for that purpose, or else commissioned by the editor.  Images will definitely improve the appearance of the product, but should not dominate text.

--

If I were editing this, I would lay down the law about the following:
1. Three deadlines, all absolute without considerable prior warning.  (A) Deadline for first draft.  The drafts are then distributed to all authors, for optional comments and to help the volume cohere.  (B) Deadline for any remarks about drafts, to be made via the editor and passed on at his discretion and in his own terms.  (C) Deadline for final draft.

2. Word count or page length.  I'd want most articles to be 10-15 pages, double-spaced, 12-pt, maximum, including all notes, bibliographies, images, etc.  A few would be predetermined to be long, a few to be short.  Over-long articles will be cut by the editor.

3. Any images must be copyright-free, or else the total process of getting rights and paying for them is the sole responsibility of the article author, who pays out of pocket if need be, and provides full documentation of any such rights.

Based on all this, I'd expect a volume of about 20-25 articles, weighing in at about 250 pages, in trade paperback form.  As a complete package, fully edited and so forth, that might well be an attractive thing for a real publisher, which would guarantee distribution.

A potential legal issue, I believe, would arise if Forge forum articles were reprinted, as there would have to be some discussion of the fact that the articles are otherwise available for free.

--

A problem worth considering early rather than late is the "identity" of the book.  Consider the following three titles:
The Forge Guide to Role-Playing Games
The Compleat Gamer's Bible
Role-Playing Games

The first has a definite identity: The Forge.  But is that appropriate?  Is it helpful?  Do Ron and Clinton say it's OK?
The second has an identity, but it's simply an assertion of authority.  Is that cool?
The third has no identity, and thus is totally flat.

So my point is that the book would need a real identity, and that would have to be pretty clear before the editor asks for articles, because that would be in the request post.

If this were going to be called The Forge Guide or some such, I'd want to see a limited-lifespan forum for discussion of the articles, and some kind of rules about how to discuss them and present pieces without violating one's own copyright in advance (if that's even possible).

Anyway, just some ideas.

Chris Lehrich

[sirogit]

I think a definition of what a "Player" is would be rather important. espicially with detail on games that blur the lines.

Also, should probably talk about how far the game wants to blur the line between tabletop and LARP, with things like, physically acting out actions, props, intereasting game locations, etc. With corresponding dramatic techniques for such decsisions.

[Jonathan Walton]

Chris, your general outline does a fair job of breaking everything down.  I'm going to tweak it and flesh it out a bit and see if I can't come up with something for people to comment on directly.

A problem worth considering early rather than late is the "identity" of the book.  Consider the following three titles:
The Forge Guide to Role-Playing Games
The Compleat Gamer's Bible
Role-Playing Games

Well, as for the first one, Ron and Clinton have been pretty vocal about not using the Forge's name in that way.  It's okay to say that a book was heavily influenced by the Forge, but the Forge is never going to publish or endose anything as an entity.  I strongly agree with this stance.  I also agree with your objections to the others.

I think the key things to consider in determining the identity/tone of any piece of writing are:

1. Who's writing it?
2. Who are they writing to?
3. What are they trying to communicate?

I think my answers would be:

1. Members of the roleplaying community.
2. Members of the roleplaying community and interested outsiders.
3. What roleplaying is, why we do it, how we do it, and possible directions that it might head in the future.

That's kind of why I like "The Player's Guide to Roleplaying," but it's not entirely perfect, because it's not something that non-roleplayers would especially look to, because its title clearly say it's for people who already play.  Maybe something like "Contemporary Roleplaying" would be better, though that sounds a bit academic and not popular.

[Jonathan Walton]

Okay, here's a big old post.  I've taken Chris' project outline and adapted based on my own interests and what I'd want from a book.  Obviously, these are very personal issues and I'm very willing to compromise if people feel the focus would not be as helpful to the audience I'm trying to target.  There are a few questions, thoughts, and blank spots in the outline where I'm not sure how things fit together.  Help me fill holes, resolve problems, and let me know if I'm beginning to bark up the wrong tree.


PROJECT OUTLINE

Title: Player's Guide to Roleplaying: Essays on a Contemporary Creative Medium (tentative)

Forward (optional)
Written by Somebody-Famous-With-an-Approachable-Writing-Style, after reading the volume.  I don't think Vin Diesel would work.  I'm imagining some well-known genre-defying fiction author who's very friendly, like Gaiman or Le Guin.  Or maybe someone from the industry who writes pretty and intelligent stuff about the nature of roleplaying, like Stoltz or Laws or Baugh or Hite (Damn, I can only think of male theorists right now.  Where'd my brain go?).

Introduction
What is this volume, and why? Who's in it? What are the sections? How should I use this? Written by the Editors

Definitions: What is roleplaying?
Comparative Answer ("Roleplaying is like make-believe, jazz, improv theatre, etc...)
Historical Answer ("Roleplaying is a practice that developed in the late 70's...")
Medium Answer ("Roleplaying is exploration of shared narrative space, using...")
Goals Answer ("Roleplaying is about creating certain kinds of experiences...")
Theory Answer ("Roleplaying is something that we have continually struggled to define...")

EDIT: Thoughts: Notice that this section, with the exception of the "Comparative Answer," introduces the other sections of the book, with the exception of "Problems."

History: How did we get here?
Background (Before there was roleplaying...)
The 1970's
The 1980's
The 1990's
2000-2005

Thoughts: History should include both social and play history, reactions to roleplaying in the wider community, and, where possible, information on roleplaying that goes beyond the Anglo-American scene, and beyond the mainstream to look at indie and avant-garde play.

The Medium: How do we roleplay?
Social Contract (group dynamics, being a player, GMs, problem solving, understood rules)
Character (immersion, single vs. multiple, player control, PCs vs. NPCs, protagonism, creation)
Setting (setting creation, shared imagining, suspension of disbelief)
System (Drama/Karma/Fortune, Lumpley Principle, techniques, design considerations)
Situation (plotting, who creates situations, scene framing, bangs/kicks)
Color (communicating color, shared symbolic language)

Question: I'm thinking that Setting and Color are similar beasts in that the tools for creating and communicating them are often very similar.  Can we conflate them?  That way we could have 5 articles in each section.

Question: Where does Ralph's requested discussion of immersion vs. metagame enjoyment come in?  Character?  Later on in Goals?

The Goals: Why are we doing this?
Pleasure & Escapism (fun, entertainment)
Meaning & Aesthetic Appreciation (significance, beauty)
Challenge & Accomplishment (success)
Knowledge & Experimentation (education)
Creation & Memory (expression)
.
Problems: Why can't we do this well?
Communication
Expectations
Design
??
??

Theory: How do we analyze this?
The Value of Theory
Theoretical Directions (different takes on theory, including Threefold, GNS, and alternative takes)
Theory and Design
Theory and Play
Theory and The Industry

Thoughts: I'm unsure about including actual summaries of comprehensive theories/models in the work, since they are available elsewhere in a more comprehensive form.  Maybe we should just leave GNS and Threefold out, though of course they will referenced in other articles (especially "Theoretical Directions").  This way we can have more general articles about theory instead of articles that describe specific theories.

Resources: Where can we find out more?
Glossary
Websites
Interesting games (basically a bibliography of every game mentioned in the book)
Index


PROJECT GUIDELINES

1. Three deadlines, all absolute unless the editors are given considerable prior warning. (A) Deadline for first draft. The drafts are then distributed to all authors, for optional comments and to help the volume cohere. (B) Deadline for any remarks about drafts, to be made via the editor and passed on at his discretion and in his own terms. (C) Deadline for final draft.

2. Page length. Most articles should be 10-15 pages, double-spaced, 12-pt, maximum, including all notes, bibliographies, etc. (not including images, which are added during layout). A few would be predetermined to be long, a few to be short. Over-long articles will be cut by the editors.

3. Any images must be copyright-free and donated to the project by their respective artists.  Images should adhere to the art notes for the book itself, which are drafted by the editors and then revised based on input from the contributors.

4. Since all contributions (articles, artwork, design work, editing, etc.) are donated, the PDF version of the work would have to remain free forever and would be freely distributed, perhaps with a Creative Commons copyright. Print copies of the work (probably done through a POD service, at least initially) would be sold at cost.  This would be written into the legal information for the work.  I'd like to have some sort of contingency plan in case a major publisher outside the industry (say an academic press or Random House) wanted rights to the work, but I don't know what that might be at this point.

5. The result would be a volume of about 30 articles, weighing in at about 300+ pages, in trade paperback form, printed in a standard book format and not roleplaying's typical overlarge size.

[clehrich]

I'm unsure about including actual summaries of comprehensive theories/models in the work, since they are available elsewhere in a more comprehensive form. Maybe we should just leave GNS and Threefold out, though of course they will referenced in other articles (especially "Theoretical Directions"). This way we can have more general articles about theory instead of articles that describe specific theories.

This pinpoints, for me, a problem with the volume as structured here.  It seems to me needlessly abstract, devoting the majority of space to concerns that are not directly practical, and sidestepping the practical when it arises.  For example here, you're dodging discussing the two theoretical trends that are most likely to be recognized or heard-of as such.

This may sound strange coming from me, but I think that the more concrete and practical this volume, the better.  I'd like to see it be something that people who usually think of The Forge and its ilk as a bunch of airy-fairy pseudo-intellectual weenies might respond to with, "Huh, that was actually pretty good, I got something out of that.  Maybe theory is worth something -- though I didn't actually read the pure theory chapters."

I'd like to see, for example, a preponderance of questions of technique (not in Ron's specialized sense): How do you run a session?  How do you design an adventure?  How do you run a session without designing an adventure?  How do you get what you want out of a session?  How do you figure out why you didn't get what you wanted?  How do you think about what you like and don't like about a game?  How do you evaluate a game you just picked up in the store and decide whether it might be something you'd like?

Chris Lehrich

[Jonathan Walton]

Hmm.  I'm sympathetic to your concerns.  I'd really like to get Vincent to write a whole article on "Adventures in Improvizational System" and write a piece on through-framing myself.  It's just harder to outline that stuff, though, since it's much more specific and less general.  More research involved.

So you're suggesting something that really is a toolbox for play creation, instead of discussions that will provoke people to develop new tools or look at existing tools in different ways?  You know, that's really more what I had in mind when I suggested the "Player's Handbook" title in the first place.  Damn cognative drift!  Still, it's the kind of thing that would need to be continually updated as new techniques develop.

Okay, I'll try another outline revision tomorrow, when I've had a chance to sleep on it and come at it fresh.

[clehrich]

Slow down, boy.  Take your time.  This sort of thing has been proposed before, with no result, so you can afford to take some time and get it right.

Yes, I do think it should be a toolbox.  At the same time, I think it should be a toolbox containing some tools that are not always recognized as such.  So practical, yes, but also quite theoretical.  I'm sort of thinking that it should reflect what's really best about the Forge, whether it bears that name or otherwise, i.e. the willingness to use the wildest, craziest, most novel techniques, or to use the tried-and-true, entirely without fear or favor.  Innovative gaming, but mostly because it knows just how many choices there are and has good reasons for the ones it picks at any given moment.

My suggestion is that you start by getting together a rough conception of what has to be in the book.  Then solicit concepts for what else should be in the book.

Chris Lehrich

[Ben Lehman]

What sort of time frame are you looking at for this project?  Perhaps throughout the 2005 year for a GenCon release?  Perhaps 2006 GC?  I'd love to contribute an essay (or two or three...) if you'll have me, especially on Challenge and Competition, and how it differs from power-gaming, triumph, and accumulation.

I would note that GNS is essentially present, just not by that name, which is cool.

I second the thought that all effort should be made to make this a "practical volume."  I.E., if I were to write about Challenge and Competition, I would write about ways that it has been done successfully, ideas for how else it might be done, and things which it combines well with and not so well with.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S.  I have no idea where it would fit, but I have an essay boiling called "understanding the minimax" about the what minimaxing means in the context of gaming and what, if anything, ought to be done to "solve" it.  This essay seems to fit the general course of the book, if not the given outline.

[clehrich]

I just emailed Jonathan about times, having done edited volumes before, and I'll pass on my conclusions.  

I would estimate that from a serious start (such as we haven't really quite gotten to yet) to the actual PDF will take about a year, give or take, not including whatever time it takes for the printer or publisher to transform the PDF into bound volumes (something I know nothing about in this particular publishing area).  Most certainly, nobody should debar himself from contributing on the grounds that he's going to be busy for a couple months; this is irrelevant.  On the other hand, agreeing to be a contributor is a long-term commitment, although the work will be rather sporadic and pre-scheduled well in advance.

I don't know when GenCon is (I admit it!), but I'm thinking we're looking at something like August, 2005 at the earliest for saleable copies.  One should always estimate high on these things -- they never go as smoothly as you think they will.

One remark to anyone thinking of making contributions.  From my experience as a volume editor, you're likely to get quite peeved with Jonathan by the end of the project.  He's going to have to nag regularly, be inflexible, and generally do what he can to keep your nose to the grindstone.  An article that comes in very late will (or should) be discarded, with no credit due.  As a rule, an organized sort of person can edit a volume without trouble, but the authors make an easy process into a nightmare.  If you think you might have trouble finishing an article under pressure, don't volunteer.  If you're one of those people who always gets things done immediately rather than putting it off, Jonathan is going to adore you for the rest of his life.

Chris Lehrich

[Jonathan Walton]

Slow down, boy.  Take your time.  This sort of thing has been proposed before, with no result, so you can afford to take some time and get it right.

Right, that's why I'm waiting until tomorrow to make changes to my outline.  I just didn't want to make reactionary edits until I had time to let things sink in.

I was just thinking about what ideals I would want to hold this project to.  This is what I came up with:

1. Positivity: I honestly don't like the focus on "problems" or disfunction.  Instead of helping people find out what's wrong with their play, I'd rather help them create the kind of play that they want.  You'll still have issues with people who don't know what they really want or think they want something that they actually don't want, but I feel like education and empowerment are two major purposes of the project.

2. Show, Don't Tell: A cliche, but I think this helps put the attention on practical tools for actual play.  All theories should be attached to examples or specific applications.  The proof is in the pudding.  If specific articles are defined by abstract concepts the bulk of the article should be about explaining how to make those concepts work for individual groups.

3. Don't Assume: We can't make assumptions about the types of games the audience is playing or familiar with.  I don't want examples repeatedly making references to specific genres or magic systems or the intricacies of combat, such that it seems like certain techniques are only applicable in specific types of play or that the book is advocating certain genres or styles.  Examples should be as generic and universal as possible, perfect for extrapolating to fit any given game.

I'm going to try to keep these in mind when re-approaching the outline tomorrow.

[Itse]

This sounds like a worthy project (one which I'd love to contribute to at some level). Right now I see a few dangerous things lurking around here, things which have haunted the rpg-literature too much in opininion. I'm bringing these out for consideration. My writing style is offensive-as-usual, but I hope it serves to bring out the the general idea of focus, focus, focus.

1) Forget the beginners, forget the outsiders

To make text readable to beginners and even outsiders most likely means stripping it of anything not obvious. It also usually means lengthy and boring introductions to things that most readers are all too well aware, drowning the ideas in examples. A bulk of the writing energy goes to making the text easy-to-read instead of making the point sharp and clear. There's a lot of people who are quite capable of understanding roleplaying issues without the examples and introductions. There's even more roleplayers who are just not going to bother with a 300 page book which takes a long time explaining things which they already know. A good introductory book is very different from a "toolbox for the advanced learner". Trying to write both is not a good idea.  Talk to me, not to the mysterious Them

2) History? Cut the crap.

I like history. I just don't think it really has much to do with anything. Face it, most roleplayers are under 30 years old, what ever happened in the 70's and 80's just doesn't really touch them that much. Yes, history affects the present, but I have never seen anything really useful in an rpg-history text. If your going to write a whole 500 page book on the subject, then I'd be interested, because then you could really present something which might contribute to my gaming. Just listing "things that were" has been done a dozen times. You can't do much more in under 200 pages, and you don't want that much in a book which is supposed to be of general interest.

3) Why "the why"? Just tell me how

I know why I'm playing. Most people know why they are playing. Saying that "you can play for different reasons" is stating the bloody obvious. "Why" is fun for an introductory article, but honestly, there's not that much meat there. I don't think this even has much to do with actual roleplaying. This is general art/aesthetic blah-blah, and there's just too much of that going around. Tell people that "you can do art" and get on with it. "How" is interesting and useful, "why" is neither, and I think I speak for the majority here. Books about theater, literature or football don't need articles about "why we play" and "can it be x". Anything can be everything; say "this applies to roleplaying" and move on. How to do handle emotional exploration, how to turn the game into narration...

[Jonathan Walton]

My writing style is offensive-as-usual, but I hope it serves to bring out the the general idea of focus, focus, focus.

Actually, it does.  Really well, in fact.  Chris (my new co-editor) and I are starting to trade new outlines back and forth and the early drafts follow your guidelines pretty closely.  It's starting to look much more like a book about helping existing players play better, instead of an introduction to roleplaying.

[Valamir]

Commenting on Itse's comments.

1) I agree.  There is certainly room for text aimed at beginners and "non gamers" but they should almost certainly be seperate volumes (hey...a multivolume set...heh).

2) History.  I would love to see the work permeated by history actually.  NOT in the heres a chapter on 1978 through 1982...here's one on 1983 to 1988 sense.  But rather in every essay where ideas about play are being espoused for there to be a concerted effort to tie that into the history of the hobby.  If the author isn't capable of this, than perhaps there could be a historical editor/consultant who could read an essay and annotate the essays along the lines of "this notion first appeared in  2nd edition Champions before largely disappearing from mainstream RPG texts" or "a series of articles in Dragon magazine in the mid 80s were instrumental in encouraging this style of play".

That might be a rather herculean task, but I'm a firm believer that a big reason why this hobby has difficulty moving forward is that few people understand the historical provenance of it all.    There's an embedded sense of "how roleplaying is supposed to work" that isn't at all supported by the fact that alot of stuff people consider radical or revolutionary today, was actually pretty common or at least had it protogenesis back in the day when nobody but the old fogies really remember it.


3) A key decision that IMO needs to be made up front and adhered to pretty rigidly is whether the text is going to be primarily about practical technique or aesthetic evaluation.  I don't think the two can be combined in one work without being very very deliberate about it...a level of deliberation that I don't think is very possible to achieve in an anthology of essays, unless the editor actually assigns specific essays to specific people complete with a list of topics to cover in the essay.


Sounds like a great project.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I would like to echo Risto's point about the history of roleplaying isn't worth your time. That is, there's an excellent history of roleplaying in the Fantasy Role-Playing Gamer's Bible. It's actually pretty interesting to someone like me when Arneson, Gygax, Wesley, et al are doing their wargaming thing and it eventually "gels" into D&D. But after that, it become "And then this game was published...and then this game was published..." which is not interesting at all.

If you must include anything about history, keep it to a small paragraph. Think of the origin summary at the begining or the Spider-Man newspaper strip. One sentence- boom- you're done. Now back to the show.