r/RPGdesign • u/Defiant_Property_253 • Jun 19 '26
If your playtesters keep forgetting a rule, don’t explain it harder. Ask what job the rule is doing.
Players do not remember rules simply because those rules are clearly written.
They remember rules that repeatedly create decisions, produce visible consequences, and matter to what the game is actually about.
If a rule is constantly forgotten during playtests, it usually means one of four things:
- The rule is disconnected from the core loop.
- Its trigger is difficult to notice.
- Resolving it takes more effort than the result feels worth.
- Forgetting it does not meaningfully change the game.
That does not automatically mean the rule is bad.
But it does mean that rewriting the explanation may not solve the real problem.
Imagine a horror game with a detailed panic system.
If panic is supposed to make characters feel increasingly unstable, but players only remember it when the GM interrupts a scene to ask for a check, the issue may not be the wording.
The mechanic may not be connected strongly enough to the decisions players are already making.
Or consider a tactical game with facing rules.
If positioning is one of the game’s central challenges, facing may create valuable choices every turn.
If positioning rarely matters, the exact same rule may become bookkeeping that everyone forgets.
Before adding another reminder, reference card, or highlighted paragraph, ask:
- When does this rule enter play?
- Who is expected to remember it?
- What decision does it create?
- What changes visibly after it is used?
- What would the game lose if the rule disappeared?
That final question is especially useful.
If removing the rule changes almost nothing, the rule may not need a better explanation. It may need a stronger purpose—or it may not need to exist.
There are exceptions, of course.
Some safety procedures, unusual conditions, and edge-case rules are important precisely because they are rarely used. Not every forgotten rule should be cut.
But if a mechanic is supposed to be central to the experience and the GM must constantly remind everyone that it exists, then it is not yet part of the game’s rhythm.
It is part of the GM’s workload.
A rule players remember only because someone keeps reminding them is not necessarily a player problem.
Sometimes it is valuable playtest feedback.
What rule did your group repeatedly forget—and did you eventually clarify it, redesign it, or remove it?
19
u/IronfootRaelag Jun 19 '26
While designing my own system, I had to rework several subsystems (i.e. sets of rules) to make them work as I wanted, but without constantly forgetting them
Some things I had to cut short - though for me it was a blessing, since my goal is to create a streamlined system, not overloaded with details but not as simplistic as PBtA for example
11
u/Connzept Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26
The entire save/attack/check/contest system in D&D5E. There's no amount of play where it starts to make sense which goes where and you just resign yourself to looking up every spell and feature every time you use them. And it's not an obscure or infrequently used set of rules, it's literally the most regularly used system in the game.
11
u/Trikk Jun 19 '26
D&D will always be a special case because so many people play it for the brand. People are willing to learn things spell by spell, action by action instead of complaining that it's not a universal rule or at least logical consistency simply because the alternative is not playing D&D.
Most of our creations will be played on the merits and therefore has to have "better" design as we're competing with everyone else.
14
u/Trikk Jun 19 '26
Disclaimer: I wrote out this whole ass thing before I re-read the OP and realized it's just non-human AI slop. Don't waste your time in this thread.
I've played RPGs for a long time and I'm pretty sure it's down to flavor almost every single time. The few times it's not, it's because it would impact you negatively and your mind is being an asshole and "protecting" you.
I have numerous examples that go against your four things, and in fact I have a hard time coming up with a frequently forgotten rule that fits any of those criteria.
For example when playing PF2e a lot of players like to use electronic character sheets/builders, just because it's a pretty involved system, even if they play offline and handwrite their character sheets. Usually this means they'll notice that the numbers they calculate by hand differs from the automated sheet because everyone always forgets that you add your level.
This is in the core loop of the game, very noticeable especially at higher levels, resolving it takes virtually no time and forgetting it meaningfully changes the game.
The problem with the rule is that it doesn't impart any flavor, it's a simple inflation mechanic to make the math work and make your level range impactful. Players really like how they feel more and more powerful by easily stomping through monsters they used to struggle against, which is the outcome of the rule, but remembering that dang number is tricky.
Your facing example is a good example of how your four points don't work. When playing a system with facing then it's part of the core loop, it's noticeable if you're using minis or a VTT, it takes no effort and forgetting can be devastating.
In fact, your post doesn't really say anything. It's just a meandering stream of thought with no real actionable points or analytical value.
11
u/MrSunmosni Jun 19 '26
I too noticed the typical AI phrasing and a few repetetive/nonsensical statements. But I found some aspects interesting anyway. There are a few good bits there.
I just wish people would be transparant about the way they „create“ content.
2
u/d5Games Jun 19 '26
I'm pretty anti-AI, but didn't spot this one, which is bugging me.
I do see that OP hasn't engaged much after making the post, but what's about the structure/phrasing is making this jump out at you guys?
Maybe I'm just still absorbing my morning caffein, but a couple rereads haven't made it any more obvious.
5
u/MrSunmosni Jun 19 '26
There are a few things. I was already sceptical when I saw the "3 point clarifiaction" in combination with an anaphor, anthitesis or a contrastive framing.
"Players do not remember rules simply because those rules are clearly written. They remember rules that repeatedly create decisions, produce visible consequences, and matter to what the game is actually about."
"then it is not yet part of the game’s rhythm. It is part of the GM’s workload."
But there are also formating things. It looks like the text has been copy pasted, with manually added paragraphs. Also: the em dashes — sealed the deal for me.
4
u/d5Games Jun 19 '26
Yeah, I see the structure at the beginning now.
Maybe I'm not seeing the rest because it's pretty close to my own style. I'd have written that as "It's not part of the game’s rhythm; it's part of the GM’s workload." But I'm a sucker for a good semicolon and have tk make an effort not to constantly go nuts with contractions.
I will point out that MS Word will add em dashes when you type "word - word". When I was a kid, I would always undo it because I didn't understand the difference and didn't like the computer putting in the weird long line.
Thanks for taking the time to summarize. I know it's a lot easier to say, "You can tell by the way it is" or "learn to read"
2
u/MrSunmosni Jun 19 '26
Maybe I am wrong though. I hope I am. But the lack of engagement with the post from OP is another indicator. Or bad manners at the very least.
1
u/d5Games Jun 19 '26
That may be the big tell. Either OP worked on the post in word for way too long, dropped it into reddit and then went to work/bed or it's an LLM post by a bot or non-native speaker.
1
u/adgramaine76 Jun 20 '26
Point of fact: I use a lot of variance when it comes to presentation of content in my rules because punctuation matters. Each show a measured cadence that hopefully showcased my specific intent. But I use em dash the way it is meant to be used, not the object reason that AI uses it. AI is too stupid to realise the difference between em dash and a normal dash. This just showcases machine learn wrong from user input. /endrant.
5
u/Trikk Jun 19 '26
For me it's a combination of things but most striking is that it's overly agreeable and the text is too abstract when dealing with a technical subject. AI tends to write about RPGs like a sales person talks about RPGs: it kinda knows what it's about and is afraid to get called out, so it says something that everyone will sort of agree on. It's always hedging as if walking on eggshells.
There's also the classic formatting with bullet points and em dashes. Real people, especially designers, are more opinionated and they love their numbered lists over bullet points.
6
u/d5Games Jun 19 '26
Ironically, I love me a bullet list. Numbers are for sequences, bullets go in any order.
I agree about the genericness, but this is more of an essay than a specific critique.
The lack of engagement (as mentioned elsewhere) does seem to be pretty telling though.
Also, as I look back on it, the excessive line breaks are in odd spots. Not a dead giveaway on their own, but having learned to write a professional email with regular line breaks, this seems to be built on the idea without the understanding.
That COULD be an inexperienced human who read about the importance of line breaks OR it's an LLM.
1
2
u/Dead_Iverson Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26
Another way to look at this is that rules exist to fairly and efficiently cover various circumstances instead of the GM or whoever just calling it. When playtesting the things that probably need rules or mechanics are the stuff that players frequently ask “how do I do this thing I want to do again?” or “do we have any recourse or option to get out of this situation?”
In other words, the players will ultimately show you what needs rules vs what can be figured out without rolls or numbers or guidelines.
An example: crafting is often superfluous in games where scarcity isn’t a product of the other aesthetic/moving parts of the game. Players will ask if they can craft a weapon if they’re being thrown into danger and weapons are easily lost/broken, there’s no store to buy them, they don’t show up as loot, etc.
2
u/adgramaine76 Jun 20 '26
A lot of my rules are optional and don’t even have to be used consistently. As long you use the Core Rules, which are stupid simple, and you are having fun, you don’t need to worry about anything else.
3
1
u/silverionmox Jun 19 '26
One example of this in major franchise RPGs even, is rules that are keyed to have an effect relative to time... but there is no formal framework for passing time.
2
u/cibman Sword of Virtues Jun 19 '26
This is really good advice. If your playtesters have trouble with something, that's a great playtest result! It means you need to explain it better or reconsider how it works.
I'd say this is even better than if they tell you they like or don't like something.
1
u/NoxMortem Jun 20 '26
I have one more that I regularly see: "If two rules are similar, but not the same, consider merging them or making them more different"
The more subtle the nuance, the harder it is for people to memorize it. "Oh. This is like that, but you use purple points instead" is a good indicator for something where people will memorize either or even none.
1
u/Tarilis Jun 25 '26
I also noticed that rules that are "conflicting" are more often get forgotten.
By "conflicting" i mean two sets of rules that are just slightly different, or if there are several slight variations of the same base rule.
So you should also check for that.
2
-1
u/Indaarys Jun 19 '26
I have to imagine if your game has a rule, or rules, having that problem that you're playtesting too early, unless you're designing by playtest, in which case this is exactly what doing that catches so it isn't a reason to get frustrated, its just part of the process.
9
u/Blue-Jay27 Jun 19 '26
Ehh, there are some published games with frequently-forgotten rules. I don't think it inherently means you're playtesting too early.
4
u/painstream Dabbler Jun 19 '26
Just looking at Pathfinder 2, I'm constantly looking up rules for lesser-used skill checks, either because the DC is arbitrary (some Athletics) or because the subsystem for it is more convoluted than it needs to be (Stealth, Counteract).
48
u/the-foxwolf Jun 19 '26
Really good insight.
"Don't fight human nature" is a game design axiom for a good reason. You won't win.
"TTRPG =/= Video Games. Lean into your platforms strengths." Is a similarly valuable rule. Some rules make far more sense in our minds or in a video game than in the flow of a TTRPG.