RPG Primer and Old School Playbook

[-1warrior]

I like it.

The goblin room looks pretty standard.

[Solomoriah]

Just uploaded R6. Parts 1 and 2 are done now; I'll get started on Part 3 tonight maybe.

[JoeCarr28]

A comment on dice ...

Standard xdy dice notation is used throughout without explicitly explaining it (as is done, for example, in the Core Rules). This might not be so immediately obvious to the newcomer.

Also the "funny-looking dice" themselves don't receive any sort of formal introduction. Again, the Core Rules do this well. I'm sure in real-life play the dice would be an immediate source of questions and curiosity for new players.

It's a slightly tricky one. I understand that you're trying to pull the reader into the action as quickly as possible without getting bogged down in technicalities. But, equally, one of the target audiences for this book will be people who don't have an experienced player on hand to explain all this stuff.

Similarly, there isn't currently, as far as I can see, any sort of explanation regarding saving throws - what they are and when they are used - even though they are mentioned.

I guess at this point it's not completely clear was to whether this primer is supposed to be read as a companion to the Core Rules (in which case none of the above really matters), or whether it's supposed to be read as a lead-in to the Core Rules for the complete novice (in which case you may want to explain certain key terms and terminology).

[Solomoriah]

Ideally, I'd like it to serve as an introduction and as a companion to a rulebook. Almost ANY rulebook. The concepts this book is teaching are nearly universal to OSR games; using specific BFRPG rules is necessary to avoid too much hemming and hawing.

But I do see your point and I will review the parts where dice and saves are mentioned and possibly make some revisions.

[JoeCarr28]

Just one other point ...

Do you think you might be unnecessarily limiting the potential readership by having the Old School focus?

"Old School" will have different connotations to different people. For some, it will be a positive, but they are most probably the ones that don't need a primer. For others it will be a negative ("I'm not interested in all that old stuff"). Many will not appreciate what "old school" implies, so it's just another entry barrier for them - another bit of terminology that needs to be explained.

Why not just "RPG Primer"? There's little of what you have written so far that wouldn't be transferable to 5E (for example). Indeed, the original post that inspired this initiative was criticising WotC's marketing of all D&D systems, including the current one. You may well find there's a much wider readership out their than those just interested in Old School games.

[Solomoriah]

I agree in general, but there's a significant problem in writing it "generic."

Fiat, aka Rule Zero.

All the things that make up the Old School are built around the idea that the GM is always right. New School games set the rules above the GM; creativity is stifled, and GMs made homogenous (it's harder to be a truly bad GM while playing New School games "properly" whereas it's pretty easy to be a bad Old School GM). Advice that will make an Old School GM better won't help a New School GM at all.

Once you move beyond the example of play, you pretty much have to choose. Do I tell it Old School, or New School? I really can't do both.

Heck, I don't think I could run a proper 3E+ game. No patience to learn all those detailed niggly rules.

If saying "Old School Playbook" turns them off, well, hey. It will be what I am able to make it.

[Jered Taikith]

I will be the first to agree with the concept of the GM always being right. (Players, leave thy hades-bound books of spurious rules at thy hovel they will not comfort you at mine table. Like it ye not? Then off with ye you mewling pismire.) *cough* Just jesting. Before any of you take umbrage and begin to burn me in effigy let me finish. The GM is always right (in my own humble and admittedly limited view) but it is only one half of the "social contract". The GM, being always right, bears the responsibility, therefore, to make the game playable for the players. Read that as you will (enjoyable, survivable by reasonably wise and intelligent players, etc.). This implicit social contract is not open for discussion or negotiation as it is the certain case that, if the GM violates said contract, said GM's players will walk out on him/her either with or without throwing objects of varying size beforehand. Some of you may be thinking that this is an "of course" point but I would point out that if it and other so called "of course" points were indeed so "of course" than the need for a booklet of this kind would not exist in the first place.

Case in point. I too watched the Gamers on youtube. I too shuddered when the player in question started ranting about the GM breaking the rules. However, I also shuddered when the GM popped a totally unreasonable total party kill twist at the very end of the campaign. That shouldn't happen. At least not the way that it was portrayed in the film. Now if the GM had been giving hints, clues, etc off camera and not shown in the film that this sort of thing was possible along the way then by all means he is justified in doing so.

[shadowmane]

Some of you may be thinking that this is an "of course" point but I would point out that if it and other so called "of course" points were indeed so "of course" than the need for a booklet of this kind would not exist in the first place.

That sentence doesn't make any sense. Did you mean to say "then the need for a booklet of this kind...", or were you referring to something hidden with your "than"?

[Jered Taikith]

Some of you may be thinking that this is an "of course" point but I would point out that if it and other so called "of course" points were indeed so "of course" than the need for a booklet of this kind would not exist in the first place.

That sentence doesn't make any sense. Did you mean to say "then the need for a booklet of this kind...", or were you referring to something hidden with your "than"?

Heh. It is sort of convoluted but you have to read the sentence in context with the whole paragraph (which I admit is even more convoluted). I guess I could have just said: GM fiat is correct but only if making sure the game makes sense, is enjoyable, and is survivable because if not the players will leave and not return.

I should also state that my comment was in no way directed at Solomoriah or anyone else. It was a statement of principle.

[-1warrior]

Well Solo, that is generally true of new school games, but 5E moves away from that. Of course, there were rules lawyers back in the day too.

As for 3E, 3.5E, 3.75E, and 4E you are basically correct.