I was having a conversation with a friend last night about RPG design and I said something that's been turning over in my head since then.

It was a variation of: "RPG playtesting isn't about rules, it's about testing the communication of the game."

I think I've said variations of this before, but I don't know if I've ever put it quite so pointedly or succulently.

What I mean by that is this:

When you design an RPG, everything in that game should communicate to the participating party (reader, player, GM, whatever) what the game intends to do.

Does the text communicate the intent of how the game should be played?

Do the mechanics communicate how they support that intent?

Does the art communicate the tone, theme, and style of the game?

When you playtest, you shouldn't be asking "does this Armor Class mechanic work mechanically" as your primary question.

Instead, you should be asking: "Does this Armor Class mechanic support the tone, genre, and fictional narrative I want the game to communicate through its mechanical application?" If the answer is yes, you then go "Do the mechanics work mechanically."

It goes on and on. This might sound basic to a lot of folks (of course that matters!) but I suspect most RPG designers do not keep it at the forefront as they are working (I know I certainly don't.)

It's about orienting your design thoughts and processes from a different direction and perspective.

Look at Pendragon. Every rule in that game is 100% about supporting the general conceit of: "You're an Arthurian Knight." There is not a single extraneous rule in there.

I see a lot of games come out that have one really good idea, but the rest of the game is just bolted on (a crime I'm guilty of too frankly, though I think I've gotten better at avoiding that pitfall, I realize I still do it.)

It makes me sad, because if the rest of the game was as good as that one idea, some of these games would change the industry conversation about design.

I dunno. Just RPG design musings this morning (mostly as I consider where I've left weak spots in my past works or design mistakes I wish I'd been aware of enough to make.)

To be clear, since I seem to be getting reactions (so either I was unclear or the point of my statement is being missed):

When I say "RPG playtesting isn't about rules, it's about the communication of the game", I'm not saying don't do mechanical playtesting of those rules.

I am saying that you have to start by orienting the conversation about WHAT the rules communicate (the design intent of the rule), before you start with HOW the rules communicate (the mechanical implementation of that intent.)