Game Rule Clarity: Monopoly vs. any RPG

[Scripty]

Games like The Pool, and even Sorcerer and HeroQuest tend to handle all things in pretty much a simple, direct and uniform way.  It requires a healthy shaker of common sense to run them well though.  

...

Are the rules of The Pool clear enough for anyone to pick up and get them?

...

What I'm getting at it this might be purely rule/mechanical issue.  It might also be in how we approach what the rules are *supposed* to read like, be like.  

Christopher

I have often said amongst many a protesting gamer that the RPG market will not expand significantly until you can fit the rules on the back cover of a book. For the most part, I believe that. It's not just about clarity, IMO. It's also about the amount of time needed to get from opening the book to actually playing a game.

FWIW, you have mentioned HeroQuest, Sorcerer, and the Pool as examples of rule clarity. I agree with you for the most part, but there are a few pitfalls even in those systems, as written.

For HeroQuest, the breakdown, IMO, comes in when magic shows up. This is where a very streamlined rules system goes on holiday. I like the way that magic works in HeroQuest, but I do wish that the rules for magic could just be condensed into "this-->that-->this" like the rest of the system. Also, the default magic rating of 14 runs counter to the rest of the rules, in some instances. For example, if I had a character with a magic ability of JUMP OVER STUFF at 5w and I wanted to jump over a tree, I would roll against a 14. If I had the same magic ability and tried to jump over a giant with a Tall 1w, I'd roll against that 1w. If I used the same ability against a Hobbit with a Size of 10, there are some arguments for using the 10 and some for using the 14. It depends on which section you read and what you read into it.

Clarity, to me, is an issue here. If we could just distill the HeroQuest system down to its core concepts (which the Hero's Book almost does), I think that we would be onto something big. I honestly wish that Greg Stafford would release the core HQ system to a group of designers so that they could do a system/setting book outside of Glorantha that Issaries could (then) publish. So, to steer all this back on topic, I think it's important to have the rules all in one place (ala the back 6 pages of handouts in FengShui) or the two page rules synopsis of Over the Edge both for ease of reference and the importance of being able to see how the rules interact (or are supposed to).

Secondly, you mention Sorcerer. I have a handle on Sorcerer's mechanics but have yet to honestly commit myself to reading the book front to back. I love Sorcerer's supplements (both "Soul" and "Sword"; I haven't gotten "Sex" yet (make of that pun what you will)) but for me the big hangup with Sorcerer is terminology. I don't want a magic sword to be my demon. I don't like thinking of demons in those terms at all. For me, just calling the thing a demon is nearly a misnomer. It's a darkside, a temptation, etc. etc. but so many people that I know think that Sorcerer is about a bunch of demon-worshipping PCs. Primarily, it's because of terminology. Granted, there are lots of funky terminologies for other games as well ("Armor Class" anyone?) but I think this illustrates a point where clarity can be lessened by the wrong word representing the right thing. So, call a demon an obsession, a dark self, a death wish, whatever, but unless it has red horns or runs around making small children vomit pea soup, I think you risk clarity by pushing terms into the abstract boundaries of their meaning. Most people that I know don't think about things in abstract terms such as this. I do, but I'm a wierdo. My wife doesn't and she's the most "normal" person I know (opposites attract).

Of all the games mentioned thus far, I think the Pool comes closest to what we're talking about. It's brief. It means what it says and says what it means. But there's also a shortfall, to a degree, in what happens at A and B and why, IMO. From my readings, I think the Puddle is the most coherent of the Pool/Pool-variant crowd. I came away knowing what to do when and knowing my place in the list of instructions as a player and narrator (or player/narrator). I think it's a good example of how a game can achieve clarity. Its only pitfall in the Monopoly-model, IMO, is with the FIFO of play. Most players that I know are not interested in writing a paragraph about their character. In my experience, there are players who will either write a novella about their characters or who want a list of numbers and a name. I'm not so sure that narrative creation would appeal to those players (hence the genius of HeroQuest's "3 ways to make your character").

Putting all that aside, however, I think you are on to something here, Christopher, and that, by following this "Monopoly model", RPGs could take a step into a new, more user-friendly direction. Perhaps, we could get the kids (10 and under) playing again, rather than playing video games. Continuing on, as I tend to do, I would really like to see RPGs take on this model:

1) Core system explained in 10 pages or less (in plain English, with examples).
2) Setting explained in non-specific, non-metaplot terms in 15 pages, giving people something to play in and not memorize.
3) 10 pages of character templates.
4) 10 pages of 1-page sample campaigns or adventures.

A whole rpg in under 50 pages. Roughly an entire game the size of the Hero's Book, and (like the Hero's Book) priced at under $12.

Any of the rpgs that you listed (HeroQuest, Sorcerer or the Pool) could accomplish that, IMO, with a minimum of fuss. It may not be a model for maximum profits for the big game publishers. But it might be a recipe for an indie revival. Heck, my FLGS carries Ninja Burger and Kobolds Ate My Baby.

You think Stafford would go for something like this, branching the HeroQuest system out beyond Glorantha? What about the Puddle? A book for the Puddle could go:

1) 3 pages for the rules, with explanations and graphics.
2) 15 pages for a setting, with character templates and campaign ideas included.
2) 15 pages for another setting, with character templates and campaign ideas included.
2) 15 pages for another setting, with character templates and campaign ideas included.

If you were a 12-year old with a $20/wk allowance and you had a choice between the Player's Handbook in 2-3 weeks (with nothing else to go on) and a $12 book with 3 kewl settings ready to play...

Well, I know which one I'd choose in my old twelve-year old self.

[James V. West]

I kinda like the idea of a game like this. Short, clear, easy to pick up and run with. I don't have any time to sit and read hundreds of pages of rules or to have to constantly refer to obscure rules here and there when I'm playing (hell, I don't have time to play these days!).

The Questing Beast clocks in at 32 pages. With a smaller font it would probably be 24 and if you took out the artwork we're talking 16 pages or so. I think it's pretty clear and I think it's pretty easy to run with. But I wrote it so I might be biased (anyone think TQB is difficult or unclear?).

On the other hand ('cause there's always one isn't there?), I have a great appreciation and love for big, fat tomes of rules. The sheer impressive size of them! Thumbing through the dense pages for hours on end! But I think this is merely a symptom of nostalgia, common in many of us who grew into role-playing lugging the DMG, PH, MM, FF, and UA around in tattered duffle bags.

What do the new kids see in that? Probably nothing.

(edited to fix a mistake in the link)

[Ron Edwards]

Actually, James, before you posted, I was planning to chime in and point to The Questing Beast as my first pick for a game that meets these criteria.

Best,
Ron

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi all,

Sorry I've been away for a while.  Someone asked me a good question and I had to spend some time getting an answer.  

The question was:

What is the purpose of the clarity I'm seeking?

Well, the real question was, is such clarity possible.  (What people want to do with it is up to them.)  I had no agenda beyond these following mysteries (mysteries to me at least.)

1) Are RPGS of a completely different bread of tabletop entertainment that the rules can't actually be clear, concise and jargon free?

2) If we answer yes to the preceding question, are we indulging ourselves in being a tad lazy, letting ourselves off the hook?  (After all, it is common publishing practice to expect a v.2 of any game now to clean up as much as possible what wasn't clear before.)

3) Given that I'm not talking about Sim games here (the quest for modelling everything is not going to fit in *any* book as far as I can tell), and I'll take for granted someone sly could slip a good Gamist game into one slim volume, would the tools, techniques and temperaments required for Narrativist play require a manual along the line of "How to Draw?" or "Jazz for Beginners"?  The truth is, the rules might be tight, but think over how much bandwidth has been spilled here going over scene framing and such.  In other words, is Narrativist play, with all its best bells and whistles, less a game than a craft and art form, requiring texts and teachers?  Or, and this really could be true, could a stripped down version of Sorcerer (lacking all arguments against older RPGs (which are threaded througout every page)), or The Pool, be picked up and played by people who didn't know any better.  Would scene framing even need to be mentioned?  Would groups find such things on their own, or not miss them if it never occurred to them?  Or would/could it be built into the concise rules themselves.

4)  Can the rules be written in such a manner that if and when a question does arise, the answer can found quickly, and the rule is definitive enough not to require debate, further page flipping, or wondering, "I thought it was in this section, but maybe its over in this one."



I admit, this is one of those kinds of threads that I sometimes start, and sometimes baffle people, where I don't have a point to make, a score to settle, or an agenda at hand.  I heard an interview on the radio talking about well written, clear, concise game rules.*  I wondered about RPG rules.  I posted because this place is where you go to overturn the paradigm.  I'm curious about the answers, but also curious to see what such thoughts might stir in other people's heads.

*A note about clear, concise game rules.  The other night I played Scrabble with friends.  Hadn't played in a long while.  We started fast.  We didn't check the rules, we knew *enough* to get going.  But here's the deal: every time we had a question (and we had a lot), we could check the rules printed on the inside of the box cover and get the answer within seconds.  No need to debate, no need to mull, no need to get on line and see if we could snag an answer off a chat room.  My point is, its not simply a matter of getting the game up and running fast, it's a matter of keeping the game going once its under way.  Comparing the page flipping that went on when I was playing Mage for the first time (all four of us with a copy of the rules, every eight minutes rifle through the books like competative scholars) and the Scrabble game ease and finality to a question illustrates, I think, what I'm pondering.

I really don't know the answer to these matters.  I do know we're *used* to the big fat books James is nostalgic for.  But is that the same thing as not having a choice in the matter?

Christopher

[James V. West]

Damn this thread. Now I'm thinking that writing a "narrativist" game is a lot like pinpointing both the exact location and exact speed of a bullet. That is, if you find one you negate the other.

I think "non-gamers" pick up on abstract rules commonly found in narrativist games quicker than "veteran gamers". They don't have hit points and levels in the back of their mind. They probably remember cops and robbers better.

I'm way outta my league here, but I'm gonna give some gut takes on your specific points:

1) I'm not sure what you mean by "jargon" since all games have jargon. But I'm inclined to say RPGs are not that different from other games. Pictionary is a good example of a boardgame that has a lot of abstract qualities yet doesn't suffer from lack of clarity. I don't see why an RPG couldn't be just as clear, just as concise. I think any problem we're seeing stems from our own muddled notions we bring to the table.

2) Yeah, I'd say so.

3) Yes, again our waters are muddy before we start to swim. I've talked to gamers and non-gamers alike about The Pool and the non-gamers usually seem to have less trouble grokking.

4) I think so, but that's probably the absolute hardest part of designing such a game. How the hell do you make a concise and all-encompassing rule about how a person can be creative in a game that takes place entirely within the imagination?

[Andrew Martin]

How the hell do you make a concise and all-encompassing rule about how a person can be creative in a game that takes place entirely within the imagination?

I think that this can be done by staking out starting points in the imaginary space. For example, supply finished characters, which can be very easily customised, as examples of character generation. Supply a starting relationship map which fits with the above characters, which again can be customised. Supply starting bangs for the characters and an example play session/transcript so players can see how it's done.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi James,

Good call on the "jargon" question.  I take it out of the mix.

Christopher[/i]

[James V. West]

Andrew:

Examples, of course!

I suppose a game like this requires faith in peoples' ability to be creative while maintaining boundaries. Setting those boundaries is the tricky part for me. But I think you're right in saying that clear examples from point A to point Z are one of the keys to doing it.

[Ian Charvill]

1) Core system explained in 10 pages or less (in plain English, with examples).
2) Setting explained in non-specific, non-metaplot terms in 15 pages, giving people something to play in and not memorize.
3) 10 pages of character templates.
4) 10 pages of 1-page sample campaigns or adventures.

A whole rpg in under 50 pages. Roughly an entire game the size of the Hero's Book, and (like the Hero's Book) priced at under $12.

Prince Valiant.

(Actually the first rules section, plus sample adventure plus pregenerated characters runs to all of three pages).

The whole book - which does includes optional Advanced Rules and a lot of illustrations - runs to about 100 pages and retailed at $19.95 in 1989 dollars.

It's OOP - I snagged a copy off Ebay - but it's well worth looking at w/r/t this discussion.  Hmmm, I was sure Ron had a review of it up, but when I looked I couldn't find it (that could be me being a numpty, though).

[Scripty]

Much like James. I have to say I'm out of my league here too, but you've raised some interesting questions, Christopher, that I think deserve some answers.

1) Are RPGS of a completely different bread of tabletop entertainment that the rules can't actually be clear, concise and jargon free?

No. That's my gut reaction. I've seen non-RPGers laugh it up at an RPG table-top mystery game. I've seen kids aged 5-6 break out into spontaneous roleplay during a game of LIFE. I don't think that RPGs are a different breed of entertainment. I think that roleplay is a very natural and even an intrinsic activity. I just think our hobby did an end-around by starting with wargaming first. IMO, RPGs started because wargamers wanted to roleplay. We're still moving back from that, IMO. And, regarding jargon, I agree with James' point that most games have jargon built in. I do think it's important, however, for the jargon to correctly identify (in concrete terms, not abstract terms) what it is describing. For instance, calling Armor Class a Defense Rating instead of Armor Class. Or calling Hit Points, Health Points or some such. The more direct the jargon, the less explanation that is needed.

2) If we answer yes to the preceding question, are we indulging ourselves in being a tad lazy, letting ourselves off the hook?  (After all, it is common publishing practice to expect a v.2 of any game now to clean up as much as possible what wasn't clear before.)

Well, I answered "No" to the question. But your point here is still worth a comment or two. Aren't MOST rpg designers lazy in their designs? How many RPGs are designed for the non-gamer? Most of them that I know are designed by gamers, playtested by gamers in games run by (gasp!) gamers. I once built (and still have it around) a solo "roleplay" engine. It was a great deal of fun and followed your starting character from a mere rascally weasel all the way to becoming a warlord. My friends and I, all gamers, used to play it (not as a roleplay game, but concurrently as several solo sessions) for 8 hours at a time. Hence the funky quotes around "roleplay". It was only roleplay in that you interacted with the elements of the setting (such as ticking the Chandler off for running around with his daughter; or running off the faeries by spraying on some Faerie Repellent), but it was a lot of fun. With all the character templates, I think it clocked in at 360 pages. We loved it and I never once had to walk any of the other gamers through it. They were like fish to water. But then I introduced it to a couple of non-gamers. They didn't know what to do with it at all. They didn't know where to start. I could take any gamer off the street, hand them a ten-sider and leave them alone for the rest of the day. But the average-Joe and Jane couldn't quite put the pieces together (not without considerable help at least). My problems were jargon, presentation and examples of play.

I don't think RPG books are written for the public as a whole. I can understand, to a point, why D&D and other games would rather exploit the market that is there instead of fish around for a new one. But isn't that lazy, to a degree? When CRPGs have finally overtaken us and the last few copies of the Fiend Folio sit collecting dust on a library shelf somewhere, wouldn't we have considered it a mistake NOT to make RPGs more accessible to individuals outside of the hobby now?

3) ... In other words, is Narrativist play, with all its best bells and whistles, less a game than a craft and art form, requiring texts and teachers?  Or, and this really could be true, could a stripped down version of Sorcerer (lacking all arguments against older RPGs (which are threaded througout every page)), or The Pool, be picked up and played by people who didn't know any better.  Would scene framing even need to be mentioned?  Would groups find such things on their own, or not miss them if it never occurred to them?  Or would/could it be built into the concise rules themselves.

Of my recommendations earlier, I can honestly say that I don't think HeroQuest could fit the bill here. Maybe that's because I'm an old-timer, but I don't think that the rules for HQ *could* be explained without examples. But the Pool and especially the Puddle (sorry, James and Ron, I haven't had a chance to look at Questing Beast, yet) could, IMO. Perhaps, if some of the jargon was re-purposed or clarified. For instance, "Monologue of Victory/Monologue of Defeat," isn't there a better term for these things? I don't see a 9-year-old picking up our $10 setting book and understanding the concept *in those terms.* Couldn't we just call it "Narration" or "Storytelling"? Isn't that what it is? For example, when player A rolls so many sixes he gets to "storytell" his victory. When player B, gets so many ones he gets to "storytell" his defeat, etc. etc. Other than that, I don't see a need to include scene framing or any of our narrative jargon. Most non-gamers seem to understand these concepts better than gamers, IME. And a lot of groups, especially the younger crowd, wouldn't miss them. They might be thankful for being saved from yet another tier of jargon. Of course, you could put out a "Narrator's Guide" akin to Robin Laws' "Guide to Good Gamemastering" for those who want more tools to work with.

4)  Can the rules be written in such a manner that if and when a question does arise, the answer can found quickly, and the rule is definitive enough not to require debate, further page flipping, or wondering, "I thought it was in this section, but maybe its over in this one."

I believe so. I think the Puddle is definitely there (for the most part). Your suggestion with the Castle Falkenstein Lite is also a good candidate, IMO. Again, I don't know much about Questing Beast, but Ron and James seem to think that it also fits the bill.

Recently, I myself had an epiphany when playing the "Zombies" boardgame. The system is pretty simple. You run into an obstacle, you roll a d6 (jargon alert!), on a 4,5 or 6 you overcome the obstacle ("zombies"). If you roll a 1,2 or 3 you can either spend a number of "bullets" to boost your roll to a 4 *or* lose a point of health. While playing this game, I felt that it would make a GREAT basic rpg for gamist play. The resulting play of the boardgame was akin to a videogame. The only thing that was really needed was the impetus to interact with the pieces on the board. Find that, and you have a gamist RPG that fits on a postcard.

I definitely think that rules for these games can be written in a manner of which you speak. I'm not sure that a group of gamers alone could do it, however. Non-gamers would be needed. That's where we find out where we've used jargon (like d12) that has honestly become a part of our cultural spectrum over the years. It's NOT jargon to us, but I think we forget that it is to others. That's how we find out where our rules need clarity. I don't think we can force our rules to be clearer. We need fresh eyes, IMO.

And non-gamers too.

Scott

[Scripty]

Prince Valiant.

Kicking...

myself...

now...

Good call, Ian. Prince Valiant. Were it a hotter license at the time I don't think we'd be speculating about this issue on this forum.

[rafial]

Pool variants seem to be getting the most press as far as lightweight (therefore accessible to the non-initiated systems), but how about something like Deep7's like of 1PGs?  I have not myself personally looked at them, but they continually get great reviews, and my understanding of the design principles is that the rules basically fit on the character sheet.  This certainly meets the criteria of "fast lookup" laid out above, and my understanding of the system is that it is pretty simmy, taking advantage of the fact that genres  (pirates, secret agents, cowboys & indians) are ones that people understand the conventions of without need for exhaustive setting writeups or detailed rules.

[Callan S.]

Christopher Kubasik

1) Well, it's more of a sliding scale with a lot of difference in between the two types of game. Monopoly is sort of 'run spot, run' while RPG's are more in the grown ups newspaper area, in terms of the scope their supposed to be covering.

2) This is kind of a funny question...your asking that if we answer yes, we let ourselves be lazy, ie not consice, ie we write too many rules. Letting ourselves be lazy and do more work on rules! ;)

But no, I do get you. It's answering a problem with proliferation rather than concentration. Quantity, not quality.

3) This depends on the intent of the group. You see, monopoly doesn't create anything. If you tape recorded a session it really wouldn't register as art. However, an RPG session recorded, although it would be rough, would have little moments in it which are like art. If narrativism includes the desire to expand and enlarge these little moments, the manual to help it probably would have to be like 'how to draw' or 'jazz for beginers'. Otherwise people keep re-inventing the same wheels.

However, building them into concise rules? I think that would be like trying to build a guitar that played itself 'correctly' when you used it. It would exclude many of the users abilities.

4) Concise rules are nice, but think of it this way. Does Scrabble or Monopoly encourage you to roleplay? I will say, it is possible to do roleplay in them, if you shove it in. But do they encourage it? No? And why? Because your working with so little room there...rolling dice and walking three squares feels so restricted and is so restricted. You need more complexity before the game itself starts suggesting (in a slightly hypnotic way) that your entering another world, etc. I contend that, ironically, the more rules you have (or at least the more you deal with implications of rules), the less it feels like your entering a game and instead it feels like entering a world. So many options open up you can't consider them like you do in chess...so many options must be considered like you yourself do in the real world. I think that's important.

[Scripty]

4) Concise rules are nice, but think of it this way. Does Scrabble or Monopoly encourage you to roleplay? I will say, it is possible to do roleplay in them, if you shove it in. But do they encourage it? No? And why? Because your working with so little room there...rolling dice and walking three squares feels so restricted and is so restricted. You need more complexity before the game itself starts suggesting (in a slightly hypnotic way) that your entering another world, etc. I contend that, ironically, the more rules you have (or at least the more you deal with implications of rules), the less it feels like your entering a game and instead it feels like entering a world. So many options open up you can't consider them like you do in chess...so many options must be considered like you yourself do in the real world. I think that's important.

Now, this is just a statement from my personal experience and preference, so please take it with a grain of salt.

I'm not certain that what you're talking about is complexity. I think Monopoly discourages roleplay because it is inflexible. The system tightly defines the "if...then...that" of gameplay. In many instances, I have had similar experiences with RPGs whose rules are just as inflexible. One that comes to mind is stopping a game entirely to get scientific calculators in order to do a mass combat in Aftermath. We were still playing the game by the rules but we had definitely slipped out of roleplay.

I don't think it's a scale of layers and layers of rules, so much as it is a versatile ruleset that allows for a degree of flexibility in play. For instance, I think it's okay for a game to say "If PC health falls below zero, PC is out of contest, either dying or unconscious." I don't think it's necessarily okay for a ruleset to say "If you roll the square-root of your ability score your weapon falls out of your hand, five feet away from whichever side of your body on which you were holding the weapon."

Here we have two levels of complexity, which, IMO, doesn't affect their effectiveness in a roleplaying session (outside of breaking out a calculator for the math impaired). But one rule is rigid and the other isn't as rigid. I posit that it would be easier to roleplay under the first rule than the second one. Invariably, a player will not be in a space where dropping the weapon five feet to his side is an option (such as a 5' wide tunnel) or will have gotten wise to the rule and attach a strap around his wrist for every weapon he is holding (thus negating or drawing into question whether the rule had any bearing at all). I hope the example illustrates my point.

I understand your point about Scrabble and Monopoly discouraging roleplaying due to the nature of their ruleset. But I think it has more to do with the rigidity of the ruleset rather than the complexity of it. I have played several wargames (Titan, Twilight Imperium, Throneworld, Time Agent, Geronimo, Gettysburg and, even, Chess). Despite varying levels of complexity, none of them really encouraged roleplaying any more (or less) than the other.

Scott

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Scripty,

Great post.  That's why I still think of Sorcerer rules set as a great model in for the agenda of this thread.

*The conflict resolution mechanic is simple, fun and uniform across the game.

*The Humanity loss/gain rolls evoke all the thematic tension, evoke the color of what's going on, and give the game the clear focus.  But remain simple and concise.

*The use of "descriptors" for all the terms and abilities for PCs and demons are there to inspire the imagination of the players, but remain firm and playable.

I do think that if I were hired to edit the book for Parker Bros, there'd be a lot of work to be done.  But this almost all comes down the fact Ron was clearly writing the book for the RPG audience and clearly with as a kind of manifesto of: "Well, dammit, what about playing this way. (Now, could it be whittled down to the size my thought experiment requires and still remain Sorcerer?  I think so, but that's just a gut guess.)

(What might an example of such an massage to the rules be?  Well, let's just look at "conflict resolution."  (This is important to Sorcerer, but not currently explicit in the rules, as the concept developed more clearly in the hobby after the rules were published.)  If I were massaging the rules, I probably wouldn't even mention it as something different than "task resolution."  I wouldn't mention "task resolution" at all.  Clear board game rules state what the game is, what the rules do, and how the players play.  The fact that "conflict resolution" is still not very clear in RPGdom is still no reason to go on about as an issue that has to be "taught".  My rule of thumb would be to always, always choose to write specificly and tightly on how *this* game is played and assume the player was going to come with me on this.  I know that this isn't how most games are played...  But I'd also offer most games aren't as tightly designed mechanically as Sorcerer.  They encourage "playing-all-over-the-place" with the rules.  The assumed people are going to "ignore the rules" for their fun to work.  Sorcerer was designed to actually work.  In this regard, it's got a great leg-up on The Great Parker Bros Experiment.)

"Encouraging" roleplaying, it seems to me, doesn't depend on having a kazilling rules to cover everything and a rule book the size to fit it all.  That's been the model for almost all the length of the publishing history.  But that' doesn't mean it needs to be that way.

All you need are rules that encourage roleplaying.  The thing about the "tight focus" of a lot of Forge type games is that you by definition forgo obsessions with simulating every damned thing, and can focus on: "this game is about this, done through the use of these rules that encourage story/character/color whatnot."  Thus, the rules can be set up like Sorcere: clear, tight, and specific, but not unwiedly.  They encourage roleplaying not because they cover everything, but because they offer the player specific points to engage their imagination with the rules (the descriptors, bonus dice for evocotive description, the Humanity rules), and the let the players go to town.

So, at this point it seems the requirements would be 1) a simple rules set 2) a simple rules set that encourages roleplaying 3) a focused set of rules (as Monopoly or Sorcerer are focused 4) a committment in the text of the rules to describing what the player does.

(This last point seems espeically interesting to me.  Most game texts go on and on about all that a PC *could* do, but finding the rules for what the player does is often a bear.  I think one of Ron's greatest contributions to the hobby is his persistent demand, "Yeah, but what are the players doing?")

Christopher