Is it time for the death of the "What is a Role-playing game" section in new RPGs? Do you think it is better to just talk about the game at hand?

this is one thing i have always being undecided about

Heard this before. Its allways pretentious and short sighted foolishness to boot.

Veterans are not the only players out there. Explaining to the totally new what all this is in the book is helpfull in easing them into what can be a rather confusing new world of gaming.

Most RPGs that use it usually devote a page or less to it. Explain how the dice naming system works, some of the basics of play.

Personally I prefer a "what is role playing" combined with an example of play so it is more apparent what is meant.

Quote from: Omega;820146Veterans are not the only players out there. Explaining to the totally new what all this is in the book is helpfull in easing them into what can be a rather confusing new world of gaming.

Do many people who are totally new to gaming actually pick up an RPG and try to read it as their first introduction to an RPG? I did that, but that was long before RPGs were part of the culture.

I suspect the section is usually a bit of a waste for veterans, but if it is a page or so in length it's not hard to skim or skip for an experienced gamer and it takes up less than 1% of publication so its not like inclusion is a big deal based on cost, size, or functionality. From the perspective of textual  completeness some explanation of what an RPG is should be included.

Examples of play are more useful (and should take up more than 1 or 2 pages of text in the publication) since well written examples both explain and clarify rules for all gamers while at the same time illustrating how people might play the game for new gamers.

indeed examples of play are of vital importance

It's time if we've concluded that there never will be a newbie in the hobby, and that there's zero chance a newbie will pick up a book on a shelf, glance at it, and wonder what the heck it is.

For my part, there's a lot of useless crap in gaming books.  Artwork's all but non-essential, however many people demand it: it's not as if people refuse to read other types of books which lack pretty pictures.  If I have to put up with 20-30 pages worth of non-pertinent illos, bored oldbies can put up with some paragraphs of How To Play RPGs.

Admittedly, I hardly bother ever to read these introductory texts except on the most superficial levels, but at least in theory, they are useful for already established players as well, or could be if they were well written: such a text could also act as a mission statement of the authors and can be used to assess their point of view and approach to the hobby and how these opinions influence the games they design.

Its generally useful as an indication of what the game's author(s)'s preconceptions of an RPG are, which aids in understanding design decisions from time to time.

Examples of play are far more important, for both noobs and grogs. In the age of tremendously popular computer RPGs and MMOs, I think a section of TRPG vs. CRPG is more valuable.

Quote from: rway218;820112Is it time for the death of the "What is a Role-playing game" section in new RPGs?

Absolutely yes.  It's particularly useless in small press and self-published games, where if someone's holding the game at all they probably ordered it off the internet and know what a rpg is.

Use that space instead for examples of play, or advice suited to your genre or system, instead of typing up the same boilerplate everyone else does.

Quote from: TristramEvans;820331Its generally useful as an indication of what the game's author(s)'s preconceptions of an RPG are, which aids in understanding design decisions from time to time.

Agreed.  It's not just "the same boilerplate everyone else does."  The "what is an RPG?" sections vary from game to game (or at least from author to author or publisher to publisher) and can serve to illuminate the stance that the game takes from regarding the definition of roleplaying.

There are plenty of RPG forums where the definitions of "RPG" and "roleplaying" are debated frequently, if not continuously.  This is clearly not a settled issue even among the insiders of the hobby.

what is an rpg i can understand thats one of the pillers of this community but the only time i have ever seen somebody debate the definition of role-playing was a freeformer insisting rpgs arent role-playing

Quote from: rway218;820112Is it time for the death of the "What is a Role-playing game" section in new RPGs? Do you think it is better to just talk about the game at hand?

Yes, definitely. Unless your name is D&D, or maybe Pathfinder.  For everyone else, it's pointless.

Though you can go online now to learn any kind of RPG,  I learned the Edge of the Empire Star Wars game by watching people play online before even getting the rulebook, as far as explaining what role-playing games are , and how they are played at the begining of RPG books, anything that helps a newbie climb aboard the train with us all is a good thing I believe, maybe the next Gary Gygax (RIP) hopping on board, you never know.

Quote from: rway218;820112Is it time for the death of the "What is a Role-playing game" section in new RPGs? Do you think it is better to just talk about the game at hand?

No. There are plenty of people who legitimately don't know what an RPG is or what you do with one.