“If you were teaching a intro-level college class on roleplaying game design, what would be the reading list?”Interesting question.I’m going to design this as a survey/history course.
Pair it with Theatrix so you can see two completely different approaches to diceless, non-stochastic games. Amber and Theatrix make a fascinating “compare and contrast” study.
To your list I’m going to add (or at points replace with):
Chivalry & Sorcery (1st edition)
The first game designed from the ground up as a social simulation where your character’s place in society is far more important than grubbing through dungeons, killing things, and looting their bodies. (Indeed for some characters that would negatively impact their experience and growth!) I might put it alongside Traveller to show the difference between a game having a setting and a game being the setting. Also the grandfather of later “mega-mechanics” game systems.
Bunnies & Burrows
To my knowledge the first attempt at making a game (and a pretty CRUNCHY game at that!) that is 100% based on non-human protagonists.
Runequest (1st or 2nd edition)
First non-class-and-level game. Second game that came with a detailed, very non-European fantasy setting. Maybe put it alongside 1974 D&D to show how early people started breaking off from the D&D style.
Maelstrom Storytelling
I’d actually replace Apocalypse World with this because it is the very first game, to my knowledge, that broke completely free of even the vestigial wargames roots of RPGs, complete with traditional story structuring being part of the game mechanisms, no fixed attributes (and no numerical ones), scene-level resolution (you roll once for an entire scene, not turn by turn). It’s innovative enough that it’s of interest. It’s good enough that it’s worth studying. And it has enough mis-steps and flaws that it’s worth discussing. Pretty much any “storygame” owes a debt to this game.
I played amber at a con and it was incredibly fun. I was first in strength and another guy decided to take a chance as he was second in strength and grab me and I got to you a classic. You dare challenge my power!
champions was amazing. only need stadard dice and the one hardcover book could cover any genre although some took a lot of work by the dm. had a guy in college run a fantasy game with it and used the variable power pool for spellcasters (limitation of having to use found or figured out spells). he would allow people to make custom races as long as the points added up. basically he met with each person and asked them what they would like to do with the only limits being points and he would help them figure out the build for the race and the class and etc. it was pretty cool. gurps was great but the books were unending. hero system had a lot of books but the champions hardcover could handle everything, again if you put in the work.
Champions was amazing, but it was also effectively a derivation (and improvement) of the earlier Supergame. (Yes, I know. Stupid title.) Supergame used d% and d6, not just d6, but let’s see if any of this rings a bell: (😁)
you build a character with 250 points¹
you get a number of actions based upon a prime statistic (Dexterity or Intelligence, depending on the type of actions)
two different types of damage (Physical and Agony), one of which is very slow to recover, the other very rapid
a collection of powers that are more descriptions of effects, rather than specific instances (what, not how or why)
a specific form of attack for Charisma (like, you know, Presence…)
… and a cast of dozens.
Champions’ creators have always said they were inspired by Superhero:2044 and Villains & Vigilantes and have never even mentioned Supergame, but I find that a bit sus myself:
Superhero:2044 is a super-rare book. It was not very common to see it at all, ever. (The earlier pre-Zocci edition Superhero:44 was even rarer.)
Neither Superhero:2044 nor Villains & Vigilantes are in any way like Champions (aside from attempted genre).
Supergame wasn’t super-rare. It was never a huge seller, but it was in most decent gaming shops in 1980-1981.
There’s a good mechanical overlap of at least 50% between Supergame and Champions.
The game designer community of the late '70s and early '80s was very close-knit and there was a lot of cross-pollination.
Don’t get me wrong: Champions was the better game. Being inspired by Supergame and making a better game is emphatically not a negative. I just think it’s a bit weird that they refuse to acknowledge the influence.
And in the context of an RPG design essential reading, Supergame needs to be there to show the dramatic change in ideas that were beginning to pop up around that time.
¹ “Prime Statistics, super powers, devices, trainings, and abilities are all purchased using the same character construction points. The points are allocated according to relative effectiveness and usefulness. In other words, one power that costs 20 points is as useful in a variety of situations as any other power, ability, or device that also costs 20 points. Therefore, what is bought with these points is not the how or why of a power, but only the what.”
1974 D&D
Traveller
GURPS or Champions
Paranoia (1st Edition)
Vampire the Masquerade
Amber Diceless Roleplay
Burning Wheel
Apocalypse World
First I’ll double up on this one:
Pair it with Theatrix so you can see two completely different approaches to diceless, non-stochastic games. Amber and Theatrix make a fascinating “compare and contrast” study.
To your list I’m going to add (or at points replace with):
The first game designed from the ground up as a social simulation where your character’s place in society is far more important than grubbing through dungeons, killing things, and looting their bodies. (Indeed for some characters that would negatively impact their experience and growth!) I might put it alongside Traveller to show the difference between a game having a setting and a game being the setting. Also the grandfather of later “mega-mechanics” game systems.
To my knowledge the first attempt at making a game (and a pretty CRUNCHY game at that!) that is 100% based on non-human protagonists.
First non-class-and-level game. Second game that came with a detailed, very non-European fantasy setting. Maybe put it alongside 1974 D&D to show how early people started breaking off from the D&D style.
I’d actually replace Apocalypse World with this because it is the very first game, to my knowledge, that broke completely free of even the vestigial wargames roots of RPGs, complete with traditional story structuring being part of the game mechanisms, no fixed attributes (and no numerical ones), scene-level resolution (you roll once for an entire scene, not turn by turn). It’s innovative enough that it’s of interest. It’s good enough that it’s worth studying. And it has enough mis-steps and flaws that it’s worth discussing. Pretty much any “storygame” owes a debt to this game.
I played amber at a con and it was incredibly fun. I was first in strength and another guy decided to take a chance as he was second in strength and grab me and I got to you a classic. You dare challenge my power!
champions was amazing. only need stadard dice and the one hardcover book could cover any genre although some took a lot of work by the dm. had a guy in college run a fantasy game with it and used the variable power pool for spellcasters (limitation of having to use found or figured out spells). he would allow people to make custom races as long as the points added up. basically he met with each person and asked them what they would like to do with the only limits being points and he would help them figure out the build for the race and the class and etc. it was pretty cool. gurps was great but the books were unending. hero system had a lot of books but the champions hardcover could handle everything, again if you put in the work.
Champions was amazing, but it was also effectively a derivation (and improvement) of the earlier Supergame. (Yes, I know. Stupid title.) Supergame used d% and d6, not just d6, but let’s see if any of this rings a bell: (😁)
Champions’ creators have always said they were inspired by Superhero:2044 and Villains & Vigilantes and have never even mentioned Supergame, but I find that a bit sus myself:
Don’t get me wrong: Champions was the better game. Being inspired by Supergame and making a better game is emphatically not a negative. I just think it’s a bit weird that they refuse to acknowledge the influence.
And in the context of an RPG design essential reading, Supergame needs to be there to show the dramatic change in ideas that were beginning to pop up around that time.
¹ “Prime Statistics, super powers, devices, trainings, and abilities are all purchased using the same character construction points. The points are allocated according to relative effectiveness and usefulness. In other words, one power that costs 20 points is as useful in a variety of situations as any other power, ability, or device that also costs 20 points. Therefore, what is bought with these points is not the how or why of a power, but only the what.”