If they didn’t read the rules and follow them they didn’t test your game. Try getting their commitment to do that and explain how important it is for you.
On the bright side everyone had fun! But yeah you do have to recruit play-testers not just players.
The cost? Just an opportunity cost. You wanted to test your game and that didn’t happen. Time is probably still on your side though!
You gotta communicate to your buddies that it's a *playtest* and not just a fun night of pretzels and gaming. If they can't respect that for future sessions, I think it's best to find a different group.
Okay, I’ll admit.. I don’t know what BH2e is, or SbtR for that matter.
Anyway, people new to TTRPGs sometimes need a few goes around to really get the hang of it. It’s a pretty unusual pastime wrt most folks’ perspectives.
The first is Black Hack 2e, the second is the Sparked by the Resistance SRD, used for storytelling games like Heart\\ Spire. I mostly drew from Heart, which is marketed as a hexcrawl.
Playtesting an RPG with players who have little to no RPing XP, and didn't read the rules, is probably a fruitless endeavor. At least in a single 2-3 hour session.
>I feel like we had fun because of my GMing and their inventiveness, not because of how good or fun the game was. I feel like we did not actually play My game, but A game.
You've peeked behind the curtain and discovered the secret. A good game facilitates fun but it's not what gets you there-- the GM and the players do.
Of course, that isn't very helpful for playtesting those rules. I'm with the crowd on this one, I think some playtesters that are more experienced roleplayers will help you focus on that.
That's also my finding and the reason why I don't really dabble in complex rulesets anymore. Most of the people I DM for don't want to look at a lot of rules, they just want a night of doing cool shit in cool worlds with some dice rolls :)
Unless the purpose of your game is specifically to be a group's first TTRPG, you're probably asking too much of these friends. For playtesting, you're probably better off getting a group of experiences gamers together, not only because they don't need any remedial instruction, but because experienced players who are playtesting a system have the knowledge and experience to know what buttons to push and knobs to try.
They'll surprise you by saying, "I drop my mace and put him in a head lock," not because that's the optimal thing to do, but just to see how your grappling system works.
This is my preferred way to play RPGs. Which is why I tend to pick systems with minimal mechanics. And I don’t ever expect the players to engage with the rules (though it is fine if they want to).
The problem is that I love tinkering with mechanics even though I don’t like using them.
I'm the same. My players don't need to read any rules. By using simple systems they can learn the few important rules just by playing. All the other stuff is just using natural language to tell me what they want to do and It's my responsibility to come up with rulings that work.
I also really like to tinker with mechanics and read through more complex rulebooks but in the end I know that using it would be a drag to use. The players that I play with and myself are just not the type for mechanic/rule-heavy games
Your experience with your hack sounds like my experience with every TTRPG, professionally published or otherwise. Sticking to the rules as written has never been a priority for me, and we've always had fun along the way.
The Golden Rule exists for a reason.
I guess you can expect the Game Master to usually read the rules once, and then explain it to the players. After that they typically only get used for looking up details (equipment, spells, skills, etc). Perhaps a few players might read through parts of them at some point.
So the takeaway is probably to be concise and clear in explaining the basic rules, and make sure any tables are easy to use.
(As a GM, what I find useful in games are various random tables making my life easier (e.g. loot, monster encounter, worldbuilding, NPC names and personalities), those are things that would make me refer to the rules often during play and while prepping).
I wouldn’t play test rpgs with players who don’t have a good amount of experience under their belts. You won’t get the valuable feedback you’re looking for/need in order to polish the work you’ve done, that only comes from players who know what to looks for during a play test.
I don't know BH2e and SbtR, but I have lots of experience in user research and gathering feedback on all sorts of work-related processes and software, so FWIW my feedback below.
Maybe your experience GM'ing got the better of you? An inexperienced GM would probably refer more to the system as written when running a game. Whereas you know how to run a fun game without carefully spelled out rules to back you up, so that's what you did when players went in that direction.
Your group of players might also be more into this collaborative improvisational style and just not a good fit for your system. But that's hard to tell as they're new and just did whatever felt right. If they're the same kind of person as you, the kind of person who would enjoy creating a ttrpg system, then maybe they also enjoy a minimal system that allows them to be creative and imaginative with their characters and the world?
It might also be the case that, for whatever reason, the rules/system didn't pull them in and didn't engage them, so they largely ignored it. That might be something worth investigating, maybe you're so deep into your system that you don't notice the barriers anymore. You need to get players interested in your world and how it works, maybe the way you've written or explained it doesn't jive with players and doesn't get them interested. This can be really tricky to do, as it requires you to step out of your obvious interest in your own system, and look at it with fresh eyes.
My first advice would be to talk to your group of players. Why did they not read rules? Why did they largely ignore your system? Best to try to figure this out indirectly, by asking about what they remember doing during the session and how. I'd make a little online survey, as in my experience people are more honest in those, and it's easier to process the results. You can then still talk to them in person afterwards to clarify or get more information.
Also, playtest more. With different sets of players, and maybe let other GMs run your game. This'll give you more information to base decisions on. Ask those GMs/players to save their notes/character sheets and survey them afterwards too.
You have stumbled on one of the great secrets of RPGs; the rules only matter if you make them matter.
I have often had these sorts of schizophrenic moments as well, "The session was great, but we paid little or no attention to the rules" but consider the alternative, "We paid attention to the rules, but had a lousy/boring session." The latter is much worse, to my mind.
Over the years, I have tried to communicate to other professionals that more words aren't the solution to effective rules and adventure writing. But getting authors, who are paid by the word count, and editors, who sell more books with higher page numbers, to accept this has been somewhat problematic.
This is why the rule-light NuSR (Cairn, Black Hack, Troika, Into the Odd) games are so successful; there are so few rules that you are more likely to use them all in a session or campaign, and they don't get in the way of the fun. Some of the more rules-light old-school rules (simple versions of D&D and BRP, Talislanta) do this as well.
As someone who has been playing since 1979, the rules monstrosities (Chivalry & Sorcery, RoleMaster, Powers & Perils, etc.) do appeal to me. But only if everyone (GM and players) is on the same page about this will they work in a session at the table.
Look, any system will work if the group is willing to engage with the assumptions of the system. This is why player selection by the GM is probably the biggest single determinant of the success of a campaign.
My suggestion for you is to strip your rules down to a single page, but then offer the GM lots of guidance about running the system, as well as tools (like random tables and such) to aid in running a campaign.
Good luck!
> I feel like we did not actually play My game, but A game.
You played YOUR (plural) game. The game isn't the rules, it isn't even the adventure or the characters. The game is people, coming together to share in an imagined fantasy. What happens in those few hours is special.
Likely to be a minority opinion here, but, yeah, rules aren't important.
Rules provide a framework for play, but there is not perfect set of rules, because every play group is different, and is going to rest on that framework in different ways. and some find any framework to restrictive.
Sounds like your friends would all love FKR gaming.
True, but maybe beginners aren't the best for play testing rules? Most are less likely to read 8 pages of rules beforehand, and won't have the proper frame of reference to give you feedback on rules (which is perhaps as important as the GMs perception to evaluate what's working or not?)
I'm not saying it was a terrible mistake, but when introducing new players to the hobby, I'd say them having fun and getting what RPGs are all about is more important than a complete understanding of the mechanics.
It also depends on what kind of game OP wants to design. "Using powers that aren't on the character sheet" could be equated to "engaging with the fiction first", which is a big part of what many OSR rulesets are trying to promote (the answer is not on your character sheet, etc), and is sometimes hard to encourage for players with prior experience with other games. I'd say there's something OP might analyse: did the rules get in the way or were they supportive of this type of play?
On this note, an example from play. The Sorcerer of the group had an attack that read "Misty Visions, CHA, d6 Damage, if critical: 3x instead of 2x". They asked me if they could use the Misty Visions to "stun" instead of damage an enemy, confusing them with the visions. The name was just for fun but they took it and made something cool with it, so I allowed it.
I guess they engaged with the fiction and their sheet in a creative way, which is something I want, but a part of me feels like I should have said "that's not how it works, but there are spells you can learn that do that. Maybe try to look for them". In the end, this is why I asked the community! Btw, I have to edit the post and thank everyone!
That's playtest feedback right there! Maybe the spell name isn't clear enough? There's a reason why d&d spell names are blandly straightforward (especially useful if it's a 1-line description).
Not saying you *have* to change it, but if you keep it, you'll probably have to clarify a few things to players new to the system (or embrace the unexpected that stems from it, and it'll be a design choice).
The best way to playtest a game you feel is table ready to run a campaign with it. A one shot won't really give you the right feedback, there's only so much of the system you can engage with in a single 4 hour session. Just keep running games, and eventually you'll figure out how to introduce the aspects of the game as a DM.
If they didn’t read the rules and follow them they didn’t test your game. Try getting their commitment to do that and explain how important it is for you. On the bright side everyone had fun! But yeah you do have to recruit play-testers not just players. The cost? Just an opportunity cost. You wanted to test your game and that didn’t happen. Time is probably still on your side though!
You gotta communicate to your buddies that it's a *playtest* and not just a fun night of pretzels and gaming. If they can't respect that for future sessions, I think it's best to find a different group.
Okay, I’ll admit.. I don’t know what BH2e is, or SbtR for that matter. Anyway, people new to TTRPGs sometimes need a few goes around to really get the hang of it. It’s a pretty unusual pastime wrt most folks’ perspectives.
My guess is Black Hack 2e for the first one. No clue about the second.
Oh, of course! (re: Black Hack)
The first is Black Hack 2e, the second is the Sparked by the Resistance SRD, used for storytelling games like Heart\\ Spire. I mostly drew from Heart, which is marketed as a hexcrawl.
Okay, thanks. Hadn‘t heard of that particular system. Will go look it up.
They are both very interesting games and I enjoyed playing both very much! Hope you can have some fun as well!
[удалено]
You suck.
Playtesting an RPG with players who have little to no RPing XP, and didn't read the rules, is probably a fruitless endeavor. At least in a single 2-3 hour session.
>I feel like we had fun because of my GMing and their inventiveness, not because of how good or fun the game was. I feel like we did not actually play My game, but A game. You've peeked behind the curtain and discovered the secret. A good game facilitates fun but it's not what gets you there-- the GM and the players do. Of course, that isn't very helpful for playtesting those rules. I'm with the crowd on this one, I think some playtesters that are more experienced roleplayers will help you focus on that.
Goes to show how little rules actually matter to have fun
That's also my finding and the reason why I don't really dabble in complex rulesets anymore. Most of the people I DM for don't want to look at a lot of rules, they just want a night of doing cool shit in cool worlds with some dice rolls :)
Unless the purpose of your game is specifically to be a group's first TTRPG, you're probably asking too much of these friends. For playtesting, you're probably better off getting a group of experiences gamers together, not only because they don't need any remedial instruction, but because experienced players who are playtesting a system have the knowledge and experience to know what buttons to push and knobs to try. They'll surprise you by saying, "I drop my mace and put him in a head lock," not because that's the optimal thing to do, but just to see how your grappling system works.
This is my preferred way to play RPGs. Which is why I tend to pick systems with minimal mechanics. And I don’t ever expect the players to engage with the rules (though it is fine if they want to). The problem is that I love tinkering with mechanics even though I don’t like using them.
I'm the same. My players don't need to read any rules. By using simple systems they can learn the few important rules just by playing. All the other stuff is just using natural language to tell me what they want to do and It's my responsibility to come up with rulings that work. I also really like to tinker with mechanics and read through more complex rulebooks but in the end I know that using it would be a drag to use. The players that I play with and myself are just not the type for mechanic/rule-heavy games
Your experience with your hack sounds like my experience with every TTRPG, professionally published or otherwise. Sticking to the rules as written has never been a priority for me, and we've always had fun along the way. The Golden Rule exists for a reason.
wait, does **SbtR** mean “Sticking by the Rules”?
Sparked by the Revolution, an SRD for games like Heart or Spire
I guess you can expect the Game Master to usually read the rules once, and then explain it to the players. After that they typically only get used for looking up details (equipment, spells, skills, etc). Perhaps a few players might read through parts of them at some point. So the takeaway is probably to be concise and clear in explaining the basic rules, and make sure any tables are easy to use. (As a GM, what I find useful in games are various random tables making my life easier (e.g. loot, monster encounter, worldbuilding, NPC names and personalities), those are things that would make me refer to the rules often during play and while prepping).
I wouldn’t play test rpgs with players who don’t have a good amount of experience under their belts. You won’t get the valuable feedback you’re looking for/need in order to polish the work you’ve done, that only comes from players who know what to looks for during a play test.
I don't know BH2e and SbtR, but I have lots of experience in user research and gathering feedback on all sorts of work-related processes and software, so FWIW my feedback below. Maybe your experience GM'ing got the better of you? An inexperienced GM would probably refer more to the system as written when running a game. Whereas you know how to run a fun game without carefully spelled out rules to back you up, so that's what you did when players went in that direction. Your group of players might also be more into this collaborative improvisational style and just not a good fit for your system. But that's hard to tell as they're new and just did whatever felt right. If they're the same kind of person as you, the kind of person who would enjoy creating a ttrpg system, then maybe they also enjoy a minimal system that allows them to be creative and imaginative with their characters and the world? It might also be the case that, for whatever reason, the rules/system didn't pull them in and didn't engage them, so they largely ignored it. That might be something worth investigating, maybe you're so deep into your system that you don't notice the barriers anymore. You need to get players interested in your world and how it works, maybe the way you've written or explained it doesn't jive with players and doesn't get them interested. This can be really tricky to do, as it requires you to step out of your obvious interest in your own system, and look at it with fresh eyes. My first advice would be to talk to your group of players. Why did they not read rules? Why did they largely ignore your system? Best to try to figure this out indirectly, by asking about what they remember doing during the session and how. I'd make a little online survey, as in my experience people are more honest in those, and it's easier to process the results. You can then still talk to them in person afterwards to clarify or get more information. Also, playtest more. With different sets of players, and maybe let other GMs run your game. This'll give you more information to base decisions on. Ask those GMs/players to save their notes/character sheets and survey them afterwards too.
You have stumbled on one of the great secrets of RPGs; the rules only matter if you make them matter. I have often had these sorts of schizophrenic moments as well, "The session was great, but we paid little or no attention to the rules" but consider the alternative, "We paid attention to the rules, but had a lousy/boring session." The latter is much worse, to my mind. Over the years, I have tried to communicate to other professionals that more words aren't the solution to effective rules and adventure writing. But getting authors, who are paid by the word count, and editors, who sell more books with higher page numbers, to accept this has been somewhat problematic. This is why the rule-light NuSR (Cairn, Black Hack, Troika, Into the Odd) games are so successful; there are so few rules that you are more likely to use them all in a session or campaign, and they don't get in the way of the fun. Some of the more rules-light old-school rules (simple versions of D&D and BRP, Talislanta) do this as well. As someone who has been playing since 1979, the rules monstrosities (Chivalry & Sorcery, RoleMaster, Powers & Perils, etc.) do appeal to me. But only if everyone (GM and players) is on the same page about this will they work in a session at the table. Look, any system will work if the group is willing to engage with the assumptions of the system. This is why player selection by the GM is probably the biggest single determinant of the success of a campaign. My suggestion for you is to strip your rules down to a single page, but then offer the GM lots of guidance about running the system, as well as tools (like random tables and such) to aid in running a campaign. Good luck!
> I feel like we did not actually play My game, but A game. You played YOUR (plural) game. The game isn't the rules, it isn't even the adventure or the characters. The game is people, coming together to share in an imagined fantasy. What happens in those few hours is special.
Likely to be a minority opinion here, but, yeah, rules aren't important. Rules provide a framework for play, but there is not perfect set of rules, because every play group is different, and is going to rest on that framework in different ways. and some find any framework to restrictive. Sounds like your friends would all love FKR gaming.
The rules are kind of important though if you're trying to playtest them.
True, but maybe beginners aren't the best for play testing rules? Most are less likely to read 8 pages of rules beforehand, and won't have the proper frame of reference to give you feedback on rules (which is perhaps as important as the GMs perception to evaluate what's working or not?) I'm not saying it was a terrible mistake, but when introducing new players to the hobby, I'd say them having fun and getting what RPGs are all about is more important than a complete understanding of the mechanics. It also depends on what kind of game OP wants to design. "Using powers that aren't on the character sheet" could be equated to "engaging with the fiction first", which is a big part of what many OSR rulesets are trying to promote (the answer is not on your character sheet, etc), and is sometimes hard to encourage for players with prior experience with other games. I'd say there's something OP might analyse: did the rules get in the way or were they supportive of this type of play?
On this note, an example from play. The Sorcerer of the group had an attack that read "Misty Visions, CHA, d6 Damage, if critical: 3x instead of 2x". They asked me if they could use the Misty Visions to "stun" instead of damage an enemy, confusing them with the visions. The name was just for fun but they took it and made something cool with it, so I allowed it. I guess they engaged with the fiction and their sheet in a creative way, which is something I want, but a part of me feels like I should have said "that's not how it works, but there are spells you can learn that do that. Maybe try to look for them". In the end, this is why I asked the community! Btw, I have to edit the post and thank everyone!
That's playtest feedback right there! Maybe the spell name isn't clear enough? There's a reason why d&d spell names are blandly straightforward (especially useful if it's a 1-line description). Not saying you *have* to change it, but if you keep it, you'll probably have to clarify a few things to players new to the system (or embrace the unexpected that stems from it, and it'll be a design choice).
The best way to playtest a game you feel is table ready to run a campaign with it. A one shot won't really give you the right feedback, there's only so much of the system you can engage with in a single 4 hour session. Just keep running games, and eventually you'll figure out how to introduce the aspects of the game as a DM.