The Best and Worst of Rule-Books

[Cluedrew]

It's not something that gets talked about a lot, usually people like to talk about contents of a system independently of how they learned about them. But at some point we have to actually learn about the system. You can have it explained to you during play, watch example play videos or whatever, but at some point you can trace that all back to the good old rule-book.

As someone who is starting to write the rule-book, and as someone who has trudged through a few from the homebrew forum, I've been wondering what makes a good book or bad one. Some of it is just document view; such as having nice headings and fonts, the art is good quality and the iconography is constant and meaningful.

But some of it is more particular to role-playing games. For instance a lot of board game rule-books open with set-up, you know the first thing you do when you play the game. If a role-playing game does that, it just isn't enough context to actually make a character. But then they could stick too much context and I find myself wondering why I need to know about the personal history of the second in command of the this medium sized fraction.

I think the best rule-book I've read recently is FATE Core. They do a good job with there examples (or one main running example) bringing down the generic system down to something concrete. I for one never felt confused about anything they were saying. And the pictures, nothing quite says "yes we mean anything" as well as a picture of a squirrel fixing a cyborg ape's arm in the crafting rules.

Any thoughts on rule-books? Examples of things done well or things done badly? Any tips for someone writing a rule-book?

[Koo Rehtorb]

The most important section of a book is character creation. Have one section with steps clearly laid out in order that you can follow to make a character. For the love of god don't make people flip through multiple chapters to piece together enough information to make a character. And ideally the options you can pick from should be clear and intuitive.

[Khedrac]

I can think of a few candidates for honorable mentions int he "worst" rulebook category (at least this was my take on them):

1. Fire Fusion & Steel (vehicle design rules for 4th Ed Traveller) - the "Printer's Proofs" seen by the authors were not in the same font that the printer used, so in a book which was 90% formulae, 90% of those forumlae were wrong (things like ÷ came out totally wrong). Add to that, this was a SciFi system that tried to use real world physics wherever possible - I was doing a maths degree at the time and I found the maths pointlessly complex.

2. Mongoose RuneQuest 1st Ed - so you have rules for spellcaster characters, but I could not tell from the backgrounds provided how any character could qualify to actually learn spells!

More later (I need to check which one it is where the core rulebook was sufficiently vague on how to create a character one needed to wait for the first expansion to be published. A single worked example would have been enough!)

[BWR]

I like to mention the Rules Cyclopedia for D&D. It was a consolidation of four boxed sets worth of rules into a single volume, and it does so beautifully. Character creation, skills, weapons and advanced combat mechanics including naval and underwater and aerial, encounters and travel, monsters, spells, magic items and mundane treasure, campaign building, a brief introduction to a campaign setting, mass combat, domain management, brief introduction to the greater multiverse, conversion rules to AD&D, general advice on how to run a game, and more. And it did this all in 300 pages, and did it well.
It was intended as a rules compendium for people who already were familiar with things, so it lacked examples and was brief in its description, but at the age of 12 and having jumped to it from Basic after a couple of months, we had no trouble understanding everything it presented.

If you want to see how to stuff wide variety of stuff into a small volume, take a look at how it was done here. Apart from being necessarily brief on some subjects, the greatest flaw I can think of is that the page numbers tend to disappear into the decorations at the bottom of the page.

[Elysiume]

I find the 5e spells section frustrating, coming from Pathfinder. The 5e class lists don't include any spell descriptions, and the spells don't list which classes can cast them. I know what a decent chunk of the spells do coming from Pathfinder, but the rest I need to look up. I'm sure it was done to save pages--adding short descriptions would probably add 10+ pages to the book--but I still find it annoying. Listing which classes can cast each spell, on the other hand, wouldn't be as large of a relative length increase, and would have been appreciated.

I'd generalize this comment as making sure not to overoptimize on making a short book, I guess. Adding a dozen pages to cut down on flipping back and forth might be the right choice sometimes.

[oxybe]

the stuff you find on late night reddit man.

http://knightsttrpg.com/

[Metahuman1]

Honestly, I have a Love/Hate relationship with Legends Of Wulin.


I LOVE a lot of the prose and fluff and description's and what not, but when I'm trying to hack through it to actually piece a character together the couple of times I've gotten it in my head to do so, I've found it nigh infuriating, and figuring out how to do other things like engage in actual combat effectively is similarly maddening for me.

[Knaight]

This does get talked about a fair bit, and the general consensus is what while good rules are pretty common good editing is close to nonexistent. There are a few particular standouts for being terrible. Palladium games in general is near the bottom of the barrel; tables of contents and indices that make basically no sense and aren't even meaningfully ordered (not alphabetically, not by page order, nothing) while outright reporting wrong numbers are common in their games, which is just terrible.

Restricting this to systems that are actually good, Luke Crane needs an editor. Burning Wheel is a great game, and the really general system of core rules first, susbsystems later is solid. The question of what ends up in what chapter on the other hand was pretty badly bungled, and important rules can end up buried in weird places and oddly invisible.

As for general best practices in book organization, there are a few. Have a table of contents and an index, and make sure that they're reasonably thorough and organized sensibly. Make important rules prominent enough to pop out when skimming the book, use headings and subheadings such that everything you might look for directly has an obviously attached sub heading, and use game terms consistently and in a way that distinguishes between the technical jargon and natural language that uses some of the same words.

[Florian]

I´m agreeing with Knaight and want to expand a bit further on it.

Good rule books start with explaining what they are, what they are used for and where what can be found. Explain possible modes of play and options on how you play those. Have a glossary as part of the core rules section and an index in the back.

Separate core rules from subsystems and be quite clear what subsystems are optional. Don't shy away from using a "player section" and a "gm section" and move optional subsystems in the "gm section".

When developing rules, develop a "rules language and grammar" along the way and keep updating the glossary while you do it - this is especially important for people who speak english, as that language is horribly imprecise. Also, develop a format for rules presentation and stick to it.

As "worst", I´d count the following:
- A Time of War, the BattleTech RPG, manages not not even being able to explain what you can do with it, how it shall be played. Sit four people don't and have them create characters and you're at a loss what to do with a House Lord, MechWarrior, Clan Elemental and WoB Spy....
- D&D 4E PHB, which is basically character generation only, with also no clue how to play it, what to do with it.
- Paladium/RIFTS. Boy, what a mess.

As "best", I´d count the following:
- MGT Traveller. Very well organized, handy reference charts, build modular enough to handle expansions easily.
- L5R 4th core rules, with the caveat that they did a good job, but counted too much on expansions, so stuff ends up all over the place.
- Trail of Cthulhu.

[Cluedrew]

So here is what I got so far:
A good introduction is important. (Still working on what exactly a good introduction is.)
Make sure people don't have to flip around for a single section of rules.
Important things should be easy to find and jump out at you when you scan the book.
Make where to find anything as intuitive as possible.
Examples are useful.
A glossary and index, although dry, are useful tools.

When I write them out like that, they all seem pretty obvious. Although I also have a particular question for Florian; What exactly do mean by an optional sub-system? The main thing I can think of are the drop in replacement systems (which I have heard about GURPS having) but seem like an odd thing to include in the core rule-book, although you could. Do you mean "not likely to come up"?

[Florian]

@Cluedrew:

It basically means to sort subsystems by general topic instead of trying to create that one overarching system to handle all of it in one go.

So, for example, if you want to provide "Wilderness Hex Crawl" and "Kingdom Management" rules (and I'm using d20 to illustrate that), create a rules section that handles that topic, as well as associated skills, skill unlocks, feats, archetypes, PrC, spells and magic items that is largely self-contained. Groups that want to use one of the subsystems can add it, but also ignore it when it never comes up.

This is a good way to avoid falling into the "expectations" trap.

Edit: It really helps when you're honest with yourself and your target audience on this. "These rules are made and optimized for a dungeon crawl game, but can´t really manage anything outside of this. You can add the "political" and "kingdom" modular rules that we provided to expand the game, but be aware that... blah blah blah"

[Faily]

- L5R 4th core rules, with the caveat that they did a good job, but counted too much on expansions, so stuff ends up all over the place.



In general, I foudn L5R 4ED to be pretty good. The rulebook has almost everything needed for making a character in one chapter (Kiho and Kata are in a later chapter, but those are mostly optional), and is nicely lined up. The Elemental Books did the interesting change of putting all the mechanics in the back of the book, which is something that has saved me a lot of trouble when looking something up, as every time I need to look stuff up in say Emerald Empire, I need to go hunting for the school or advantage in question.


-

A worst for me is A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying Game by Green Ronin. The rules are kind of spread out all over the place, and there's a good chunk of contradicting rules. The chapter on items and gear start with descriptions on miscellanous items while the table with their cost and weight are several pages further back, but another table is on the page with the misc item descriptions... *sigh*

-

One thing I really appriciate in a rulebook is a good index in the back. While the d20 Rokugan book had tons of issues, I will still say that it has the best index I've ever seen in a rpg book.

[Martin Greywolf]

I second the FATE Core, they did a pretty good job, though the section on adventure creation could have gone more in depth about pacing and how FPs simulate it. I loved that the art gave you stories all by itself - the generic fantasy one was accompanied by the chinatown mystic detective and a cyborg gorilla.

For DnD, I really liked Weapons of Legacy - the items themselves were a bit all over the place, but the concept was good, and the execution of the book was great. Every item had a description, in universe legend and how that legend mutates based on your knowledge rolls. And also an associated adventure. Honestly, this is what artifacts should look like.

And lastly, Planet Mercenary. To give you some context, it's a sci fi you-run-a-merc-company kind of deal, and the book itself exists in universe as a marketing tool for a merc supplier - if the grunts use their guns in game, they will want to buy them. Where it becomes great is that the merc supplier forgot to erase editor notes from the books, and they tell a funny yet touching yet terryfying story. Aside from that, it has the best quick adventure creation I've ever seen.

[kyoryu]

Interestingly, as a *huge* fan of Fate Core, I'm not sure I agree.

Fate Core is an *excellent* book for those who get Fate. For those who don't, much less so. Look at all the people on the internet saying they don't "get Fate", or the misinformation regarding the system.

Atomic Robo, on the other hand, does an amazing job of not just being a reference for the system, but teaching people how to use it effectively.

[Khedrac]

Following on from the suggestion of the D&D Rules Cyclopedia as one of the best, I am going to offer the Metzner Red Box basic set.

The Players book in particular - it began with a very good introduction to what role playing is, designed for people who had never even heard of RPGs. The DM's book then nicely explained more stuff for the DMs.

[TalonOfAnathrax]

Eclipse Phase is just... ugh.
The lore is fantastic and the book is just beautiful. But then it has impossible character creation and things like Weapon range and cost and Weapon damage being several hundred pages apart!

[The Glyphstone]

I'm not sure FATAL ends up on this. On the one hand, it's actually fairly well laid out and has a functional index. On the other hand, everything in that index is....FATAL. Horrifying, nauseating, and outright repulsive.

[Cluedrew]

To kyoryu: What does Atomic Robo do differently that makes it a better introduction than FATE Core?

To Khedrac: It always amuses me how much trouble we on Giant on the Playground have working out what a role-playing game is when it is a section in a number of rule-books. I think that "what is this role-playing game" is an easier question to answer than trying to address the platonic ideal of role-playing. With the added benefit of given more useful information about this particular game.

To The Glyphstone: I forward the premise that a functional index helps you find the things you want to find easily and quickly. If we accept this premise we must also accept that FATAL's index is non-functional.

[Random Sanity]

I've always found examples of play (ideally in a well-placed sidebar) to be a big help in understanding the rules being presented. It's one thing to read "these are the steps you follow when doing X", and it's another to actually follow along as someone does X. Examples aren't always necessary, but they do help with retention so you don't have to look stuff up as much.

Speaking of retention, a bit of humor can go a long way towards making a rule stick in a player's mind. You can understand "X does Y except when Z", but you remember "X does Y except when Z because *WARK!*". :smallsmile:

[kyoryu]

To kyoryu: What does Atomic Robo do differently that makes it a better introduction than FATE Core?

It does a rather brilliant thing where it uses examples from the actual comic, and on the side shows how that would work, mechanically.

Since Fate tends to match much more with how things work in TV/movies/comics/books than how it'd work in a "simulation", this ends up explaining the mechanics really, really well.

[Khedrac]

To Khedrac: It always amuses me how much trouble we on Giant on the Playground have working out what a role-playing game is when it is a section in a number of rule-books. I think that "what is this role-playing game" is an easier question to answer than trying to address the platonic ideal of role-playing. With the added benefit of given more useful information about this particular game.

The Players book in particular - it began with a very good introduction to what role playing is, designed for people who had never even heard of RPGs. The DM's book then nicely explained more stuff for the DMs.
Excuse the self-quote, but the point I was making was that this was a game with a good explanation for people unlike us. Also, this was published back in the 1980s, and went far more mass-market in sales locations than any previous RPG (at least it did in the UK) - iirc you could find the D&D boxed sets in large book shops while the AD&D books (and the rest of the D&D line) were just in the hobby shops.

Another game for the "I don't know what this game was about" category was Everway - 2nd-hand gaming stocks used to be full of this one, but I don't think I ever saw it played (I never tried despite my parents giving me a copy).

[Mordaedil]

I have a deep-seated hatred for Complete Psionics from 3.5 edition, because I bought that book with the hopes of adding fun, interesting choices to my psionic characters and expand psionics a little bit more like the other complete books have successfully added options for core classes.

Instead it introduces 3 new base classes and focuses all of its material exclusively on those three classes and they don't fall into any interesting archetype or provide any interesting mechanics and just feel like they don't belong in any game.

It basically is a book that falls short on every level of what I hoped it could deliver, which was more psionic content to draw upon for all PC's.

[Knaight]

Another factor worth considering is just how interesting a game is to read - the default style is dry and academic, and while this can work it often veers into far too dry and tedious. Meanwhile going against the default style can easily get kitschy.

Still, a few games walk this line very well and end up with a distinctive, fun to read style. They're also often well organized, with Chronica Feudalis being a beautiful example of both of these things.

[Pleh]

As for general best practices in book organization, there are a few. Have a table of contents and an index, and make sure that they're reasonably thorough and organized sensibly. Make important rules prominent enough to pop out when skimming the book, use headings and subheadings such that everything you might look for directly has an obviously attached sub heading, and use game terms consistently and in a way that distinguishes between the technical jargon and natural language that uses some of the same words.

Basically you're saying that a rules reference book has to actually work as an effective reference tool?

I think if more designers spent time playtesting not only the game they made, but the efficacy of their manuals as well, we'd see this problem fixed more often.

[Knaight]

Basically you're saying that a rules reference book has to actually work as an effective reference tool?

Pretty much. Sadly, I'm saying this because they frequently fail to - which, admittedly, is also true of a number of reference texts. I've yet to see an RPG organized as poorly as my Thermo textbook.

[kyoryu]

Basically you're saying that a rules reference book has to actually work as an effective reference tool?

A rulebook actually has several goals:

1) Being a rules reference
2) Teaching people how to play.

(there's probably others)

These are often at odds with one another.

It does make me wonder if there's sense in creating *two* books for most games - a "how to play" book, and a rules reference.


I think if more designers spent time playtesting not only the game they made, but the efficacy of their manuals as well, we'd see this problem fixed more often.

The better ones do, but the problem is that you end up polluting your testers with each iteration. So each rev of the rulebook needs to find a new group of testers. This is not a trivial problem to solve.

[Pelle]

A rulebook actually has several goals:
It does make me wonder if there's sense in creating *two* books for most games - a "how to play" book, and a rules reference.


I think this works great for many board games that do it at least, coming with a learn to play manual and a rules appendix.

[Telok]

Something that showed up last night in my group's starfinder game: page references (or any references) to other important section of the rules.

We fought a monster with a radiation aura. The radiation rules are in the poison section, this was referenced. Radiation can induce radiation sickness which is a disease, which is in the disease section, no reference. But there's a short note in the equipment section about how armor's environmental protections negate radiation, not referenced anywhere else.

So the big monster's scary power was completely negated by a note in the armor section that wasn't referenced anywhere else. The DM was annoyed.

[Pleh]

Interesting. I always found it annoying when rulebooks tried to teach me how to play. The basic function of most games seems pretty self apparent and the only point of query was a rules reference.

I guess I assumed that most groups already know how a ttrpg works and only needed a rulebook to reference the mechanic's specific quirks and nuances.

[Lorsa]

Eclipse Phase is just... ugh.
The lore is fantastic and the book is just beautiful. But then it has impossible character creation and things like Weapon range and cost and Weapon damage being several hundred pages apart!

Also, in the gear chapter, things are in alphabetical order... except when it isn't...

[Cluedrew]

A rulebook actually has several goals:

1) Being a rules reference
2) Teaching people how to play.

(there's probably others)Depending on the system and book I can rattle off a few more:

3) Hook for you to try/buy the system.
4) Telling you setting information.
5) General player/GM advice and tools.
6) System modification advice.


The better ones do, but the problem is that you end up polluting your testers with each iteration. So each rev of the rulebook needs to find a new group of testers. This is not a trivial problem to solve.Which is why very few people, and visiting people if I can help it, get to look directly at my work in progress rule-book. Also it is still a mess and only reaching the point that I don't have to be their two interpret sections for you. Finding play testers is so hard, but so worth it.


Something that showed up last night in my group's starfinder game: page references (or any references) to other important section of the rules. [...] So the big monster's scary power was completely negated by a note in the armor section that wasn't referenced anywhere else. The DM was annoyed.In Ninjas and Superspies the rules for one of your two defence options against ranged attacks can only be found under the rules for a grab attack. In more reasonable cases: I have seen conflicting information in a document because only part of it was updated, I understand the desire to avoid repeating thing for that and other reasons. Still, I think maybe giving off a rule in the two or places it is relevant is a better way to handle it, especially if it is something short.

[kyoryu]

Interesting. I always found it annoying when rulebooks tried to teach me how to play. The basic function of most games seems pretty self apparent and the only point of query was a rules reference.

I guess I assumed that most groups already know how a ttrpg works and only needed a rulebook to reference the mechanic's specific quirks and nuances.

This often works, since many if not most RPGs work off of similar base processes and assumptions. In many cases you can take the same stuff you've been doing, and put the new game's math on top of it, and you're A-OK.

This is both really bad for new players, and fails horribly for games that *don't* use the same base processes. Like Fate Core.

[Pleh]

This often works, since many if not most RPGs work off of similar base processes and assumptions. In many cases you can take the same stuff you've been doing, and put the new game's math on top of it, and you're A-OK.

This is both really bad for new players, and fails horribly for games that *don't* use the same base processes. Like Fate Core.

See, are there really any "new players" if role playing is an intuitive game we play instinctively from a young age? Playing "house" and pretending sticks are guns or swords isn't something people need to be taught to do.

Maybe it's my limited experience with various systems, but it seems more like all of them are just iterations of the basic concept we all are born with.

[Florian]

Maybe it's my limited experience with various systems, but it seems more like all of them are just iterations of the basic concept we all are born with.

Nope. I´d call that the main difference between "low" and "high" concept games.

[johnbragg]

See, are there really any "new players" if role playing is an intuitive game we play instinctively from a young age? Playing "house" and pretending sticks are guns or swords isn't something people need to be taught to do.

Maybe it's my limited experience with various systems, but it seems more like all of them are just iterations of the basic concept we all are born with.

I was chatting with one of my students, and it took several walkthroughs of the concept before he grasped why you couldn't kill the DM in-game.

[Jay R]

One of my favorite rules, in the SPI game Conquistador!, is this:


Expeditions may not move through partial sea hexes or hexsides in contravention of common sense, ....

The specific example given was sailing up to Panama in the Atlantic, and then sailing into the Pacific.

A lot of role-playing games, with D&D at the top of the list, need a rule saying you can't act in contravention of common sense.

[Cluedrew]

See, are there really any "new players" if role playing is an intuitive game we play instinctively from a young age?Oddly enough I feel it is the systems closer to this intuitive style that needs explaining more often than not. At least, if for those coming from the more board game/war-game like systems. Maybe the "uncorrupted" would actually pick it up easier?

One thing I have found that it is actually easier to jump between different mechanics than different logic. A lot of systems use the same sort of paradigm to govern how the game works, switching to a system that use a different paradigm can be quite jarring. I've some people not get it so bad it is painful to watch.

To Jay R: Now that you say that... yeah that probably should be in just about every system.

[Florian]

As a side note: I'm bored to tears by "humanocentric" rules in "anything goes" systems and the whole rules glut that happens because of it. (i.e. what good is a monk class in D&D, when it really can´t handle multi-armed creatures, what's not so uncommon in D&D, so on)

[1337 b4k4]

Some highlights that I like in my RPG rulebooks:

1) Play examples. But please even though the examples are meant to highlight specific things (and thus must be contrived a bit) don't make all the examples full of great rolls that inflates expectations. For example, as good of an example of the character creation process as Traveller's Captain Jamison is, he's also frankly incredibly lucky with ending stats almost universally better than he started, a bunch of money, a pension and a ship. Most players aren't going to roll up a Jamison on their first run.

2) Charts. Give me tables and charts with good summaries of just about everything. Feel free to make a fully fleshed out set of descriptions for every piece of equipment, but then give me a full chart and price list at the end, don't make me flip around to find the full description to find out how much something costs or the base damage values. In fact, to bring up another Traveller example, Starter Traveller comes with 3 books, and the 2nd of the 3 is just a book of all the charts and tables. It very neatly goes a long way towards solving the conflict between a game introduction book and a reference book. Eclipse Phase did a similar thing with a chapter of tables at the end. A full book of tables and charts with page references back to the main book for details for every game would make me a happy GM.

3) A conversational tone. I don't want my rules book to read like a text book, I want it to read like a friend telling me how to play their cool new game.


And some things I don't like:

1) Art behind my text. Look, I'm a huge fan of gorgeous full color artwork (and a huge fan of simple sketches too), but PLEASE but the artwork on its own, either as a block that text is formatted around, or on its own page. We know that humans read (at least english) in part by looking at the shapes of the words, not just the text. Your art behind the text is messing that up and making it harder to scan efficiently.

2) Serif Fonts. I know that serifs are supposed to make text more readable, but at the density of text in a typical TTRPG page it usually just makes it more cluttered to my eyes. The classic D&D/Traveller style with sans-serif fonts is much cleaner to me.

3) Non-fully justified columns of text. If you're going to give me text in columns, I want it justified. I don't know why, but the modern D&D style of just using word wrapped columns without justifying the text bothers me. It's fine if there's only a single column of text, but when you put multiple columns I like them to be justified. And speaking of columns...

4) More than 2 columns of text in the main body. As much as I love the Rules Cyclopedia as a D&D version and as a presentation of the rules, the 3 column format is just too much. If you need 3 columns of text to keep your page count reasonable, you just need more than one book.

[RazorChain]

Good rulebook: good index
Bad rulebook: no index

It's important to me to find what I need

[Max_Killjoy]

Four cardinal sins for RPG rules:

* Scattering information about the same thing across multiple locations -- I shouldn't have to look in the character creation section to determine a character's attack bonus (or whatever for that system), and in the combat section to determine how to roll to attack, and in the skills section under the skill for a specific weapon to find the rules for wielding two weapons. I'd rather see a book waste a few pages on repeating itself, then have related rules and information isolated in scattered locations across the book.

* Scattering core information across half a dozen books -- if a system has magic, the rules for defending against magic shouldn't be in a book published 2 years later focusing on magic, it should be in the damn core rulebook.

* Treating the book as a work of art first, and as a medium for conveying information at best a distant second. Low-contrast text, ridiculous fonts, borders that take up 1/4 of every page, lack of functional borders or markers inside the text, text that meanders around artwork that's just plopped randomly into the page, etc...

* No index/TOC or a terrible index/TOC, unclear section, chapter, etc headers, and otherwise impossible to navigate


I'm sure there are more but these spring to mind immediately.

[2D8HP]

....Low-contrast text, ridiculous fonts, borders that take up 1/4 of every page, lack of functional borders or markers inside the text, text that meanders around artwork that's just plopped randomly into the page, etc...


So much this.

Increasingly, I can only read rules with difficulty, and I need very stronglight and a magnifying glass to even attempt it.

A lot of what Fantasy Games Unlimited published (Aftermath!, Bushido, Flashing Blades, Other Suns, Villains & Vigilantes, et cetera), small type and fading ink makes it a struggle for me to read, and the Wizard of the Coast 5e D&D indices small type and lack of contrast (also true of most of the text of The Sword Coast Adventurers Guide) small type and low contrast makes it difficult to read.

Also, a lot of rulebooks just bury the rules after pages of short stories (l think Vampire started the trend).

Wargame rules (Chainmail, Invasion Earth, Ogre etc.) often seem to assume a background of playing similar games that makes following them difficult for me.

The 1974 to 1979 Dungeons & Dragons, and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons rules needed better editing to be understandable (I still don't understand % Lair, Grappling, and Psionics) with the exception of the 48 pages of the 1977 "bluebook" Basic D&D rules, which I still had to read three times over before I even thought that I had some understanding of the rules (I was ten years old though).

The 1991 "black box"/1994 Classic Dungeons & Dragons rules seem like some of the easiest to learn from, as do the 48 pages of the FATE Accelarated rules.

[Rhedyn]

I submit Savage Worlds core rules and companions as both the best and worse rulebooks.

I think they are the best for the amount of depth and breadth they cover in a small amount of pages. My summaries of rules are generally longer than the actual rules themselves.

On the other hand they are terrible references for rules and the indexes are formatted terribly. The way the rules are built off each other it behooves you to just learn the rules rather than looking them up as needed

[ImNotTrevor]

Shoutout to Apocalypse World. Well laid out, evocative of the mood of the game, and comes with tons of resources both for players and GMs. There is a reason it's my favorite system and rulebook.

For worst? Shadowrun, I think 4e. Nothing happens in order. Hardly a paragraph goes by that doesn't tell you to go 30 pages ahead to refer to another rule. It's like they explain it out of order

[kyoryu]

Shoutout to Apocalypse World. Well laid out, evocative of the mood of the game, and comes with tons of resources both for players and GMs. There is a reason it's my favorite system and rulebook.

It's also worth noting that it does a good job of having "how to play the game" sections and then (sometimes by repeating information) "rules reference" sections. It doesn't hurt that the majority of the hard rules of the game are in the moves, and so are easily put in playbooks (including the MC playbook).

[Velaryon]

A lot of this has probably been said already, but here are the top five things I want in an RPG rule-book:

1. Information should be clearly organized, so that it's easy to see what you need to know and where to find it. There needs to be a useful table of contents and especially an index to help me find specific rules and sections.

2. The book should be sturdy and well enough bound that it can hold up to being carried in backpacks, left sitting open for a few hours, having other books piled on top, or having a pencil used as a bookmark without covers getting torn, pages falling out, or binding cracking. The book doesn't need to be able to survive an earthquake, but it needs to hold up to everyday use.

3. It needs to be functional and readable more than it needs to be pretty. Cool art is a nice bonus, but not if it results in text being difficult to read or charts ending up several pages away from the text that references them.

4. The book needs to be reasonably priced. This is an issue that goes back decades, as I remember complaints about RPG book prices in InQuest magazine back in the 90's. However, D&D core books have at least doubled in price since I started playing (the 3.0 core books were $20 each in the early 2000's), and the supplemental books are insanely expensive. Xanathar's Guide to Everything has an MSRP of $49.95. That's ridiculous. Sure, you can get it a lot cheaper on Amazon, but if you want to support your FLGS, that's a BIG chunk of change for a book that's not even a core component of the game.

5. Most of all, the book needs to clearly tell me how to play the game (if it's a core book), how to use the new rules and options (if it's a supplement), or how to run the adventure (if it's a module). Whatever the most relevant information is, it should be up front and easy to find. In core rulebooks, that usually means a brief explanation of the setting (if needed), followed immediately by character creation rules. Things I do not need in a rulebook include an in-depth explanation of what RPGs are, a history of role-playing games (yes, I've seen this), a lengthy summary of the entire book/TV show/whatever that the game is based on, and lots of full-page illustrations that contribute little more than padding the length of the book to increase the price.



A worst for me is A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying Game by Green Ronin. The rules are kind of spread out all over the place, and there's a good chunk of contradicting rules. The chapter on items and gear start with descriptions on miscellanous items while the table with their cost and weight are several pages further back, but another table is on the page with the misc item descriptions... *sigh*

Was that the ASOIAF game using the d20 system? Because I tried that one once, and it was BAD.

The book was 500+ pages, and the character creation rules didn't even start until around page 90. The book was bloated by, among other things, an extensive summary of A Game of Thrones, an in-depth explanation of what RPG's are, an excessive amount of full-page illustrations, and a whole lot of information about Westeros that should have come later in the book. If memory serves, there might even have been a lengthy list of suggested reading, a.k.a. "every fantasy author ever that might have had an influence on George R.R. Martin and/or Dungeons & Dragons."

There were rules for social standing (ranging from rank 1 for peasants to rank I think 6 for members of House Baratheon), but not a lot of clarification on what exactly that means.

There were poorly-defined rules for building influence with specific NPCs. You got X number of influence points at level up (which might have varied by class, social standing, what feats you took, etc.), but not really a clear indication of what having +15 influence with Hoster Tully or Petyr Baelish actually means.

Then the rest is a typical low-magic d20 that makes rule changes to reflect the setting without really considering how it impacts the actual gameplay.

I really hope that's the system you're talking about, because if it's not, that would mean there are TWO absolutely terrible RPG systems released under the ASOIAF license.

[Pelle]

Things I do not need in a rulebook include an in-depth explanation of what RPGs are

I realize this is what you personally don't need, but it's not strange that publishers include a section on that if the target audience is people who are new to rpgs. I would assume a GoT rpg will see many new players that are fans of the books/show.

[Cluedrew]

Shoutout to Apocalypse World. Well laid out, evocative of the mood of the game, and comes with tons of resources both for players and GMs. There is a reason it's my favorite system and rulebook.My personal favourite system is a Powered by the Apocalypse system. I have never read the rule-book, someone just explained to me how Apocalypse World worked (months earlier and not in reference to this system) and then handed me my playbook and the general reference sheets. About 3 double side pages all told. If what Rhedyn said is true and the book itself is a terrible reference, it might be because you are supposed to use the playbooks. No comment on my favourite system's rule-book because of that.

A question I would like to through out: What about glossaries? They were mentioned previously paired with indexes, but a lot of people have just mentioned indexes as well. (If you are like me and the difference has you confused: An index seems to just point you to where you want to go, a glossary is more like a dictionary in that it actually has information about the thing. I had to double-check.) Does anyone know of rule-books that make a good use of a glossary of rules or keywords or something?

For comments: I like rule-books that are meant to be read front-to-back. I have read/seen a few that seem to assume you will jump around. Some times using information that hasn't come up in the book yet. Other times I just sort of feel like there is something more important we should be covering first. And of course you can't know that until you read the out of order section.

Actually making sure to give the context needed is something that a lot of systems seem to mess up. I had a bit of this problem when reading FUDGE, even having read FATE previously I kind of felt like I didn't have a good feel of the baseline before they started rushing off and describing all the ways to modify this part of the system. That might come with the "system-tool-kit" system a bit naturally, but I definitely felt a few examples on one version would of helped with things like "How powerful is a character who has X points to spend over Y skills?" I left X and Y in there because I have absolutely no idea what reasonable values are. On the other hand I'm pretty sure FATE uses the +4 (I forget the word) pyramid over 15 skills as a default. That might not be quite right but I bet it is close because it lines up with everything I can remember they said about the ramifications of that choice. FUDGE said something about dividing skills up more makes characters weaker, which I already know from the SUE Files (its very broad).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Glossaries are risky--they often don't have the exact wording so it ends up being deceptive. They also miss context, which often makes all the difference. They can be a good reference, but it's a short cut and has to be noted as such.

It's also a problem when the terms aren't supposed to be treated as formal definitions (so the same words get used in different ways in different contexts). It leads people to think of them as formal definitions. Same problem with keyword systems--4e D&D's keyword system led to things like being able to prone an ooze (because prone just meant "this package of status effects, flavored however you wish").

[ImNotTrevor]

My personal favourite system is a Powered by the Apocalypse system. I have never read the rule-book, someone just explained to me how Apocalypse World worked (months earlier and not in reference to this system) and then handed me my playbook and the general reference sheets. About 3 double side pages all told. If what Rhedyn said is true and the book itself is a terrible reference, it might be because you are supposed to use the playbooks. No comment on my favourite system's rule-book because of that.

It seems he was referencing Savage Worlds, which as far as I am aware is not a PbtA system.

The book for AW is great. It spends 90% of the time on GM stuff since the players only really need their playbooks.

[Faily]

Was that the ASOIAF game using the d20 system? Because I tried that one once, and it was BAD.

The book was 500+ pages, and the character creation rules didn't even start until around page 90. The book was bloated by, among other things, an extensive summary of A Game of Thrones, an in-depth explanation of what RPG's are, an excessive amount of full-page illustrations, and a whole lot of information about Westeros that should have come later in the book. If memory serves, there might even have been a lengthy list of suggested reading, a.k.a. "every fantasy author ever that might have had an influence on George R.R. Martin and/or Dungeons & Dragons."

There were rules for social standing (ranging from rank 1 for peasants to rank I think 6 for members of House Baratheon), but not a lot of clarification on what exactly that means.

There were poorly-defined rules for building influence with specific NPCs. You got X number of influence points at level up (which might have varied by class, social standing, what feats you took, etc.), but not really a clear indication of what having +15 influence with Hoster Tully or Petyr Baelish actually means.

Then the rest is a typical low-magic d20 that makes rule changes to reflect the setting without really considering how it impacts the actual gameplay.

I really hope that's the system you're talking about, because if it's not, that would mean there are TWO absolutely terrible RPG systems released under the ASOIAF license.


Well, I didn't even know there was a d20 version. The one I'm talking about uses a roll-and-keep system of d6s.

A real shame that two bad rulebooks have been made for ASOIAF then. In two different systems, no less.

[Cluedrew]

ToImNotTrevor (And sort of Rhedyn): Yup, that definitely says Savage Worlds. The 's' at the end gives away that it is not a Apocalypse World hack... I'm being slightly silly. I did try reading the Savage Worlds ... quick-start guide I think, but that is it.

[Pleh]

Glossaries are risky--they often don't have the exact wording so it ends up being deceptive. They also miss context, which often makes all the difference. They can be a good reference, but it's a short cut and has to be noted as such.

It's also a problem when the terms aren't supposed to be treated as formal definitions (so the same words get used in different ways in different contexts). It leads people to think of them as formal definitions. Same problem with keyword systems--4e D&D's keyword system led to things like being able to prone an ooze (because prone just meant "this package of status effects, flavored however you wish").

Yes, when a term has a hard, mechanical function, glossaries can be nice. I've always appreciated the 3.5 PHB's glossary for terms like Prone, Flat-Footed, and other terms that have very specific meaning and effect that I might occasionally forget the exact phrasing for.

[Knaight]

Glossaries are risky--they often don't have the exact wording so it ends up being deceptive. They also miss context, which often makes all the difference. They can be a good reference, but it's a short cut and has to be noted as such.

It's also a problem when the terms aren't supposed to be treated as formal definitions (so the same words get used in different ways in different contexts). It leads people to think of them as formal definitions. Same problem with keyword systems--4e D&D's keyword system led to things like being able to prone an ooze (because prone just meant "this package of status effects, flavored however you wish").

It depends on the term though. Something like "occupational character class" or "dice pool" or "class level" is safe, as is similar distinct game jargon. Something like "prone" is a bit riskier.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It depends on the term though. Something like "occupational character class" or "dice pool" or "class level" is safe, as is similar distinct game jargon. Something like "prone" is a bit riskier.

Definitely. Terms of art that don't mean much outside the game should be clearly and centrally defined if they're important.

I much prefer rules written in plain language (as opposed to legalistic verbiage). Let words generally have their natural meaning, and define specific exceptions as they arise, in the context of the rule. Unlike some, I'm comfortable with polysemy--the same word can mean different things in different contests and we should cleave to that, not let it cleave us apart.

[Cluedrew]

On Cleave: I did not even know about the second meaning, but yes that sentence makes sense.

On Terms: ... Now I might do something like have a glossary that starts with a line like: All words and terms continue to mean what they do in general use, however in addition there are the following meanings. Or not. It might be better to just aim for terms that don't really have a general use. At this point I think I am just filling space so my post is more than "Wow I didn't know cleave could be used that way."

[Max_Killjoy]

Perhaps if game-specific terms that have technical, in-rules definitions get a special font or formatting when used in that sense within the work?

[PhoenixPhyre]

On Cleave: I did not even know about the second meaning, but yes that sentence makes sense.

On Terms: ... Now I might do something like have a glossary that starts with a line like: All words and terms continue to mean what they do in general use, however in addition there are the following meanings. Or not. It might be better to just aim for terms that don't really have a general use. At this point I think I am just filling space so my post is more than "Wow I didn't know cleave could be used that way."

It's one of the fun auto-antonyms that make the point (about polysemy) quite effectively. Wikipedia has a whole list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym).

Every attempt to make a context-free, ambiguity-free language that's actually usable as a natural language (compared to a computer language) has, so far, fallen quite short. Context matters. It's why glossaries tend to color things, even when they don't intend to. They impose a particular reading on rules text that, shorn of context, causes a lot of problems. Even very formal things (like contracts or laws) that have explicit definitions at the start can be misread or can cause absurdities. And once you start having many intersecting contexts, the number of definitions you need per word explodes tremendously. Not to mention when you have splat writers that don't really pay attention to established definitions...:smallannoyed:

[Velaryon]

I realize this is what you personally don't need, but it's not strange that publishers include a section on that if the target audience is people who are new to rpgs. I would assume a GoT rpg will see many new players that are fans of the books/show.

Call me selfish, but I don't care. Devote half a page to it if you must, but anything that isn't how to play this specific game needs to be minimized, IMO.



A question I would like to through out: What about glossaries? They were mentioned previously paired with indexes, but a lot of people have just mentioned indexes as well. (If you are like me and the difference has you confused: An index seems to just point you to where you want to go, a glossary is more like a dictionary in that it actually has information about the thing. I had to double-check.) Does anyone know of rule-books that make a good use of a glossary of rules or keywords or something?

Glossaries are a plus for me. I tend to prefer a bit more rules-heavy games, where I can have a strong sense of what my character can and can't do, and not too much is left up to the whim of the GM. That's exactly the sort of game that benefits most from having a glossary. I didn't think of it, otherwise I would have included a glossary in my point about having information clearly organized.



Well, I didn't even know there was a d20 version. The one I'm talking about uses a roll-and-keep system of d6s.

A real shame that two bad rulebooks have been made for ASOIAF then. In two different systems, no less.

Oh jeez, it's not the same system? That's even worse.

Now that I'm home, I was able to take a look at the rulebook. The game I'm familiar with was apparently published by a group called Guardians of Order, Inc., whom I've otherwise never heard of.

To clarify a couple of the statements I made about the system earlier:

Technically the character creation rules start at about page 40. However, that's the area about backgrounds and house affiliations and such. The actual character classes begin on page 93, followed by sections on prestige classes, skills, feats, reputation/influence system, flaws, and equipment, all of which lasts until about page 225 or so.

After that there's the combat rules, a section on GMing, tons of information about Westeros, and a small bestiary section. There's an exhaustive list of characters that populate the world, many of them with partial stat writeups (and a lot of those make no sense - like why should Renly be level 9 when one of his defining character attributes is that he's never done anything significant in his life?)

After all that, which takes the better part of 80 pages, there's an interview with GRRM (why?) and then an 80 page appendix which contains a completely separate rules system, to run the game in Tri-stat instead of d20. What is the point of this? Were they planning to include a Tri-stat appendix in every book, if they had made any more? I guess I'll never know.

Overall, for the 2 or 3 sessions we played it before moving on to a different game, the system seemed... almost playable. D20 is not a good fit for ASOIAF since it's a combat-focused system, but ASOIAF is a setting where combat takes a backseat to character drama... which d20 is poorly equipped to handle, even with the badly-grafted-on Influence system.

[Florian]

A question I would like to through out: What about glossaries? They were mentioned previously paired with indexes, but a lot of people have just mentioned indexes as well.

A glossary should include all words that are keyed to hard mechanical effect. If done right, it makes handling complex rules easier, as you just need to insert the key words and be done with it, instead of having to detail the effect over and over again.

An example would be the "Conditions List" as used in the Pathfinder CRB: here you have the key words listed (Prone, Stunned, Dazed, Entangled...) followed by the exact mechanical effect, so it´s enough to just mention the conditions name when using it in a spell, feat or class feature.

[Selene Sparks]

Any thoughts on rule-books? Examples of things done well or things done badly?The best core rulebook I've ever read or used has to be Shadowrun 4A, disregarding the Matrix rules which are entirely nonfunctional(But Shadowrun has never actually had functional matrix rules, and the 4A ones are solvable with little work and a gentlefolk's agreement). Everything is well laid out and there aren't really any ambiguities or gaping holes in action resolution or how really anything works. It's also notable for having a well-grounded metaphysics and just about the only spell list that I've never seen start any arguments.

Another example of something done well is Munchausen. It's the only rules-lite game I can genuinely say I have no problems with. If you want rules-lite, or dislike rules-lite because of the often-occuring bad mechanics and perverse incentive structures, just give it a try.

Any tips for someone writing a rule-book?There are several parts to this because there are several ways a game can fail. First thing is mechanics. You need to have them, and they need to be sufficient to cover whatever you plan on your game doing. A failure in this is, for example, the 5e PHB. Now, I play 5e. It's the D&D game I've played the most in the past two years or so. But, seriously, it's a book for Dungeons and Dragons, there's really no excuse for there to not actually be rules on what happens if you get set on fire, or actually have DCs for basic dungeoneering things like climbing walls. I'm picking on 5e, but it also shows up in a lot of other systems, from retroclones to "rules-lite" games. The point of mechanics is to have an independent system to define specific results of actions within the context of the game, and it needs to be able to handle whatever you need it to and "have the GM rule something or whatever" isn't a good answer because I'm paying for actual rules and if I wanted to make stuff up whenever the PCs do something, I can do that by myself, thank you very much. Related to this is clarity. You need to have your rules say what you want them to say as clearly as possible. When something can be read four or five different contradictory ways, this is a problem that can grind a game to a halt.

Second is, in addition to having rules, seriously playtest them. Make sure they're usable. In Shadowrun 4A, for example, if you read the example for matrix "combat" in the core book, they roll something like 100+ dice and inflict basically no damage and accomplish nothing. This is incredibly obviously a problem, and the fact that they actually rolled it out and didn't see the problem is depressing. In the Shadowrun 5e one, while they try to portray a hacker and a rigger as equally valid archetypes, they actually show in text examples riggers effortlessly shutting down hackers and otherwise demonstrating all the balance problems of a rigger, without seeing this as a problem that riggers are better than absolutely everything that's not a magician(And not even then, really). Seriously, actually run numbers and make sure your rules are consistent and functional. Furthermore, show them to other people, and seriously have people try to break them over their knees so you can find the flaws and fix them. Just brushing off mechanical criticism is going to lead to a mechanically unsound game, and, fundamentally, mechanics are why people are playing your specific game rather than generic competition or just freeforming.

Third is continuity. This part predominantly applies to sourcebooks, but it can show up in corebooks as well. A D&D example is the 3.5 Book of Exalted Deeds, which is one of the worst sourcebooks for 3.5 for this reason. In it, one of the ongoing themes is that the writer brought a bunch of his own baggage into the game(And did so again in some later works), so you get things like a constant conflation of goodly and godly, despite D&D taking place within the Great Wheel where the universe is literally every bit as Evil as it is Good and the core book literally has examples of gods of tyranny and murder. It also features a bunch of "holy" things that generate non-magical effects despite holy things being a type of magic in D&D, and generally a bunch of other inconsistent or incomprehensible nonsense. You can compare this with Shadowrun's remarkably consistent system, to the point where you can totally explain something weird like a possession adept to someone who's never played past 1e, and they'll be able to follow it effortlessly. In other words, you need to keep things consistent throughout. Making a clear, consistent framework up front for whatever you're doing and actually checking work against it solves this issue reasonably well.

Fourth, topic. You need to know what you're writing about, and write about what people will want and avoid writing about things that people will find embarrassing, offensive, or worse. In Exalted, for example, the Infernals book features child molestation as a main part of the faction you're expected to be in. This is very obviously not okay. The 1e Lunars book is basically over a hundred pages of rape apologia. This is very obviously not okay. White Wolf also put out the Gypsy book, which is racist on so many levels I don't even know where to begin. This is, again, very obviously not okay. And those are just a handful of examples. This really shouldn't need to be said, but while you might think that, given that most of the books I've mentioned are at least a decade old if not moreso, this kind of thing is a thing of the past, Onyx Path seriously launched a book series two years ago that's continued into this year that is flat abuse apologia. A degree of transgressiveness is fine, I mean that really is a central part of why VtM was so successful, but you can't have anything like the above examples for what I hope are very obvious reasons.

Related to the above, you should have your books looked at by people who aren't just like you to check your books. I don't think the guys behind VtM were trying to be terrible when they made the Middle Eastern group a bunch of assassins and terrorists, considering when it was written, or the directly Roma-based group illusionists who are literally compelled to be criminals, but it's still incredibly not okay and would have been noticed if you had a diverse group writing or proofing it.

Those are the main pitfalls I can think of, and it's worth pointing out that if you manage to avoid all of them you'll probably be the first ever to have done so. So good luck, and I hope your writing goes well!

[Max_Killjoy]

Before you even playtest, do the math. There are published systems where it's obvious that not only was there a lack of playtesting, there was a lack of doing 5 minutes of math.

Example, I picked up a preview of a system where the average person has to roll noticeably over average in order to get a barely passing result on an average Characteristic test (strength, intelligence, agility, etc). It would seem to me that an average person should pass an average difficulty on an average roll, but evidently these guys decided that "average" doesn't mean what it would seem to mean... or they just didn't do their damn math.

Yes, yes, I know, "math" is evidently a dirty word now for a segment of the gaming "community". :smallconfused: But when I'm looking at a system, that's one of the first things I do... compare what they're telling me about the system, with what the system actually does.

[Nifft]

Any thoughts on rule-books? Examples of things done well or things done badly? Any tips for someone writing a rule-book?

Dresden Files RPG (a FATE system game) - specifically Your Story, which covers the base system, character creation, and cooperative city-building.

I've stolen a lot from that book.

[Cluedrew]

On Glossaries: Thank-you for the insights. I have one thing to add about highlighting special words and terms. Although that is useful it can easily be carried too far. Reading a friend's rule-book (which used that method) I once encountered a sentence like: "Attacking a structure can be used to steal, destroy or corrupt any relics storied there." That was a bit too much. So if anyone is going to try and use that method, I would suggest having a certain minimum standard as for how "special" (either in importance or how many details the game definition adds) before it rates highlighting.

To Selene Sparks: Forget rule-books, that is a pretty solid list of sanity checks for the system itself. With clear examples.

[2D8HP]

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the importance of setting.

If in reading the rules I don't get a sense of an exciting world to explore, i'm just not going to keep reading.

I'd cite

Castle Falkenstein,

Dungeons & Dragons,

Fringeworthy,

King Arthur Pendragon,

Mythic Iceland,

and

7th Sea

as games that have had intriguing settings that made me want to read more.

For both rules mechanics and a setting that fit well together?

King Arthur Pendragon.

Bar none KAP is what I would suggest any would-be-game-designer study to see how it's done right.

[Telok]

Oh gods, yes. Get the math right. And if you're doing a leveled system make sure that characters either improve as they level up or you want to explain clearly why they get worse as the levels increase.

5e did it with the nonproficent saves vs scaling DCs, 4e did it with attack bonus and harder skill challenges being easier to succeed, Starfinder does it with skill DCs having a X+(1.5 * level) formula while PCs get a +1 per level to skills.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Oh gods, yes. Get the math right. And if you're doing a leveled system make sure that characters either improve as they level up or you want to explain clearly why they get worse as the levels increase.

5e did it with the nonproficent saves vs scaling DCs, 4e did it with attack bonus and harder skill challenges being easier to succeed, Starfinder does it with skill DCs having a X+(1.5 * level) formula while PCs get a +1 per level to skills.

A note on 5e's saves--it's not that you're getting worse, it's that the opponents are getting better and you're staying the same. For saves you're good at (proficient and high score), you outscale most level-appropriate enemies. For saves you're ok at (proficient or high score), you stay on level with most level-appropriate enemies. For saves you're bad at (neither proficient nor high score), they get better and you stay the same. That seems reasonable to me.

[Velaryon]

One more thing on the subject of glossaries, though this might say more about the gaming community (particularly the Playground) than about the rule book itself.

One downside of having a list of defined terms in the glossary is that you have to decide what needs to be defined and what doesn't. This can lead to people arguing things like "technically there is no penalty for being dead in 3.5," for example. Some amount of rules-lawyering is inevitable with any system, and it isn't necessarily the book's fault when people make ridiculous arguments like this, but it's worth keeping such people in mind when deciding what needs to be included in a glossary.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One more thing on the subject of glossaries, though this might say more about the gaming community (particularly the Playground) than about the rule book itself.

One downside of having a list of defined terms in the glossary is that you have to decide what needs to be defined and what doesn't. This can lead to people arguing things like "technically there is no penalty for being dead in 3.5," for example. Some amount of rules-lawyering is inevitable with any system, and it isn't necessarily the book's fault when people make ridiculous arguments like this, but it's worth keeping such people in mind when deciding what needs to be included in a glossary.

I agree with this. It's almost paradoxical--the more defined the rule-set, the more loopholes you create and the worse the rules-lawyering gets. True both for law and for game rules.

[Telok]

A note on 5e's saves--it's not that you're getting worse, it's that the opponents are getting better and you're staying the same.

Right. As the charactets get higher in levels they fail more often. Thus as levels increase the character gets relatively worse.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Right. As the charactets get higher in levels they fail more often. Thus as levels increase the character gets relatively worse.

Yes, and that's totally normal for things you didn't spend character resources to improve. One of the central concepts in 5e is that defenses you don't put effort into don't scale with level. AC doesn't scale with level, skills don't scale with level unless you're proficient, etc.

This is intentional. It serves as a disincentive to min-max, among other things. You have to choose--do I want to have better defenses or better offenses?

Also note that level ~ CR is no longer an assumption. So against modal foes (which scale about as level / 2, you're not falling behind that much. And with very few SoD effects, getting hit more is not a big deal.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I'd note that some rulebooks will portray their setting before their game-rules or character creation. It depends on whether they expect you to be familiar with the setting beforehand or not. D&D, for example, assumes that you've read enough fantasy to understand a generic fantasy game, so expenses with the setting information almost altogether. Chronicle of Darkness games, on the other hand, put MOST of their rulebook into mood-setting, thematic explanation, and describing the setting, because they assume you know almost nothing. Their layout can be a bit... tricky however. Often they'll make references to concepts that don't appear until much later in the book, and so it's not until two full read-throughs that you have a full concept of the setting. It makes for a really engaging book to read, but for a player just wanting to make a quick first character, it doesn't work.

[Selene Sparks]

Before you even playtest, do the math. There are published systems where it's obvious that not only was there a lack of playtesting, there was a lack of doing 5 minutes of math.I think this statement deserves a great deal of emphasis, as, despite how certain trends in going in game design, this is something people want.

I think it's worth keeping in mind that, if you look back 10 years or so, one of the promises going into 4e was "the math just works." It was everywhere. Marketing people were saying it, fans were saying it, I couldn't enter a gaming store without seeing or hearing some variation above. Heck, it got me interested in 4e before it came out, and, anecdotally, it was what drew everyone I knew that played D&D prior to try 4e, even after the various marketing debacles. And 4e, before it was actually released, sold like hotcakes.

On Glossaries: Thank-you for the insights. I have one thing to add about highlighting special words and terms. Although that is useful it can easily be carried too far. Reading a friend's rule-book (which used that method) I once encountered a sentence like: "Attacking a structure can be used to steal, destroy or corrupt any relics storied there." That was a bit too much. So if anyone is going to try and use that method, I would suggest having a certain minimum standard as for how "special" (either in importance or how many details the game definition adds) before it rates highlighting.If you're highlighting in a glossary, the standard should be if it's another term in the glossary. If a term isn't important enough to make it into the glossary, it's not important enough to be noted within the definition of other terms, and if it is important enough to be in the glossary, there's value in telling people that so they can immediately flip to the referenced terms.

It's also worth pointing out that, even if its rules content is secondary to the actual text, it's still what people are going to check first in game. So clarity is important. This involves both using words for what they actually mean, rather than simply whatever you feel like(There really is no excuse for how the term Feats in D&D is used), but also not making up words, using foreign words, or using words that are archaic to the point of extinction. A good example of what to avoid is, once again, the 1e Lunars book which, when defining "gods," uses the term itself in its own definition. And that's without getting into its gibberish term for a meeting instead of using "moot" or whatever like any sane person would, or flatly making up a new definition for chiminage essentially unrelated to the actual term. This is important, because you need to know what you're looking up when you look it up, so if you have absurd names for simple concepts, the players will have to actually go through the glossary line-by-line rather than just flipping to what they need, which will grind your game to a halt.

To Selene Sparks: Forget rule-books, that is a pretty solid list of sanity checks for the system itself. With clear examples.One thing I forgot, because It's really not as obvious as the problems, is to know what your system means and use a system to reflect what you want. This is distinct from my previous points in that it's a higher-level problem. Let's take a level-based system versus an unleveled skill-based system for example. If you're building a D&D clone, for example, you absolutely should not try to convert it into a skill-based system, not because of what you're basing it off of, but because a skill-based system isn't good at emulating high fantasy. In a unleveled and skill-based system, it is an objective truth that some mook with a gun and a circumstance bonus is a serious threat at basically every stage of play, whereas in a level-based system this is objectively not the case. If your party at level 10 gets jumped by a handful of goblins with crossbows, that's not even worth staring combat music, let alone actually rolling dice, because they're still just goblins. And it's perfectly in-genre for Achilles or Drizzt or any other such character to behave that way, where it'd be silly and totally genre-breaking for Sam Spade or Dirk Montgomery behaved in that exact way. This is a notable part(although far from the sole reason) why d20 Modern failed so hard; it was fundamentally incapable of telling the stories most people wanted to tell with it.

So, basically, you need to decide on the underlying premise of your system prior to actually writing the system, so you can make sure the system itself is constructed in such a way that it can accomplish what you're going for.

Yes, and that's totally normal for things you didn't spend character resources to improve. One of the central concepts in 5e is that defenses you don't put effort into don't scale with level. AC doesn't scale with level, skills don't scale with level unless you're proficient, etc.

This is intentional. It serves as a disincentive to min-max, among other things. You have to choose--do I want to have better defenses or better offenses?

Also note that level ~ CR is no longer an assumption. So against modal foes (which scale about as level / 2, you're not falling behind that much. And with very few SoD effects, getting hit more is not a big deal.I'm sorry, but this is incorrect on multiple levels. First off, by not having the scaling general competence, it instead forces you to min-max, because the trade-offs you're describing are literally what minmaxing is. You minimize weaknesses and maximize strengths given the available set of resources. If you have to put all your resources into a handful of specific traits to function, you are being forced to minmax to function. Compare this to, for example, a 3.5 Tome of Battle character, where I've made one by randomly determining both my feats and maneuvers, and could function fine. In other words, to disincentive minmaxing, you need to ensure a basic floor of competence such that you can, by default, function well at whatever you're supposed to be doing regardless of any choices you make.

More importantly, what you're describing is bad design, because the Monster Manual features numerous save-or-dies, it's just players don't get them, and a great number of these save-or-dies are on DCs that you won't make unless you're proficient and focused on that stat, because there is no other way to defend against them. This structure is a good thing to avoid, so that you don't have your level 18 barbarian you've been playing all campaign get one-shotted by a demilich because you didn't waste points in Charisma and spend one of your precious feat slots on getting a charisma save. If threats scale, PCs need to scale at the same level. When there are no defenses to an attack beyond "Build the right class," "roll super well," or "don't get targeted," that is a problem, and so is having to choose between things that differentiate your character and things that are required to survive. "I want to have an interesting character mechanically" and "I want to have a character that's good at her job" shouldn't be mutually exclusive with "I want a character that has a decent chance of surviving more than three combats," and if they are, your system has failed in delivering any character that can have more emotional investment than whatever your piece of choice is in Monopoly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Edit: moved off-topic stuff to a spoiler. Sorry.


Funny you should say that--a common complaint against 5e is that it's too soft. That killing high level characters is too difficult, even unoptimized.

Demiliches don't do CHA saves at all. Their "SoD" (which is really "save against a low DC or go unconscious") is CON based, as are all but one of their abilities. And no one dumps CON, and 1/3 of classes have CON save proficiency. Barbarians are particularly good at them as well. So your example betrays your ignorance.

The same goes for all other "SoD" effects in the game. They're either CON or WIS, with a tiny few (like 3?) INT or CHA saves. And those are more CC, not instant death. Every class is proficient with one of DEX (the major damage save), CON (the dominant physical-status effect save), or WIS (the major loss-of-control save). And those are stats that very few people dump anyway--DEX for AC and initiative, CON for HP/concentration checks, and WIS for perception.

More generally, if you require significant level-scaling in defenses, you also require level scaling offenses. This makes the band of enemies you can fight very narrow--things too low can't hurt you, things too high kill you instantly. And those on track just end up feeling the same (because it's a treadmill--as you improve they improve as well). 4e had that problem--it was just bigger numbers with no overall change. Things that deviate from this treadmill in either direction break the game's math into little tiny bits.

5e went a different direction, on purpose and for good reason. Everyone hits more frequently at higher levels. Because hitting is fundamentally fun and missing is fundamentally boring. Everyone wants to feel more powerful at higher levels. People scale not by increasing their defenses significantly, but by doing more damage per hit and being able to tank more hits. This is true across the board. Monsters stay relevant longer in both directions--you can face an adult dragon at lower levels and have a chance if you play right. You can face a horde of orcs at high level and still lose. This means you don't have "must be this tall to ride" barriers (3.5e's problem) or palette-swapped enemies (4e's problem). And all of this is forgiving on the math--no need for maxed-out scores (the game math assumes you'll hit 18 in your primary stat by level 15ish, and never assumes you'll have a 20) or particular items; but if you do the game still fundamentally works. This is a major pro of 5e in my book--it's flexible in power level without breaking. Short of infinite wish loops (which require a particularly strained interpretation to get anyway) there's no "game-breaking" builds. Everything is situational--some better in some places, some worse, but all in a much narrower band.

[FreddyNoNose]

iirc the chivalry and sorcery book (red cover) was horrible.

[Selene Sparks]

Alright, I've kept the subject as closely on direct game design as I could, but I'm still spoilering it so people can skip it.

Funny you should say that--a common complaint against 5e is that it's too soft. That killing high level characters is too difficult, even unoptimized.And one thing I've noticed in my time here thus far is that a large part of the "common" understanding of the game is mathematically wrong.

Take, for example, an adequate CR encounter composed of skeletons with longbows. They have 600' range. Honestly, how many parties can you think of that can meaningfully stand against this? Or look at intellect devourers. They drop one person immediately and then proceed to use that person to beat up the rest, and these are CR 2 so you can have multiple at most levels. A great many grapple monsters, by their CR, will flatly murder one PC before being effortlessly put down because their defenses are awful. I can go on, but I think the point is made. Bounded accuracy means that survivability is dependent solely on the GM avoiding the obvious solution to every problem.

Demiliches don't do CHA saves at all. Their "SoD" (which is really "save against a low DC or go unconscious") is CON based, as are all but one of their abilities. And no one dumps CON, and 1/3 of classes have CON save proficiency. Barbarians are particularly good at them as well. So your example betrays your ignorance. You know, I was honestly planning on just ignoring this diversion, but this sentence really irritated me. Had you bothered to so much as actually crack open your book instead of immediately jumping to defend your favored game from perceived attack, you'd have noticed that demiliches can have access to a DC19 Charisma save or die. So your own "argument" reflects your ignorance.

The same goes for all other "SoD" effects in the game. They're either CON or WIS, with a tiny few (like 3?) INT or CHA saves. And those are more CC, not instant death. Every class is proficient with one of DEX (the major damage save), CON (the dominant physical-status effect save), or WIS (the major loss-of-control save). And those are stats that very few people dump anyway--DEX for AC and initiative, CON for HP/concentration checks, and WIS for perception.Not only are you wrong, you're trying to draw a bordering on nonsensical argument. Disregarding the rather large number of genuine SoDs, does it genuinely matter if a save-or-die isn't a "real" save-or-die when they render helpless and are on things weak enough that they can be spammed on a level that no party can deal with?

More generally, if you require significant level-scaling in defenses, you also require level scaling offenses. This makes the band of enemies you can fight very narrow--things too low can't hurt you, things too high kill you instantly. And those on track just end up feeling the same (because it's a treadmill--as you improve they improve as well). 4e had that problem--it was just bigger numbers with no overall change. Things that deviate from this treadmill in either direction break the game's math into little tiny bits.You're wrong here as well.

First off, requiring scaling offense is, in fact, a good thing! Not only is that kind of scaling literally the only major piece of value in a level-based system, it is important because without it, you run into the problem of the PCs being irrelevant because the local peasant militia can flat-out kill an ancient red dragon. If a single peasant archer can so much as scratch Smaug, you don't need Bard and his magic arrow, you just need a hundred peasants with bows, and you can always scale up. This is the most fundamental problem in 5e. Compare to 3.X, where dragons have both DR and actual abilities that make them actually capable of dealing with the local peasant militia, so the world, in fact, needs heroic characters. Furthermore, 5e still has the kind of barriers you're talking about. No level 1 party is going to be taking on a pit fiend, due to numbers and movement, or a lycanthrope, due to numbers and inability for most of the party to matters. It's not happening, so your objection about number inflation is irrelevant. Furthermore, flight. It's a binary status that, until your casters hit level 5, most parties aren't going to have, and so instantly lose to archers with wings, and you can't introduce any challenge involving flight until the party has it.

Ultimately, if you disagree with the idea of dramatically scaling enemies and abilities, that's totally fine, it's a valid game philosophy and one I can enjoy. But it's not for a leveled system, because doing that is what leveled systems do.

5e went a different direction, on purpose and for good reason. Everyone hits more frequently at higher levels. Because hitting is fundamentally fun and missing is fundamentally boring.This deserves special mention because it is really, really close to being right. People don't want to hit, necessarily, but people want to accomplish something, accomplishing things is fun, and not having anything meaningful happen is boring. You could hit all the time in 4e and it'd still be boring because 4e was boring and you weren't allowed to actually do anything interesting. And 4e's HP bloat survived into 5e just fine, so what you have is more padded sumo combat against level-appropriate things and that is boring.

Everyone wants to feel more powerful at higher levels. People scale not by increasing their defenses significantly, but by doing more damage per hit and being able to tank more hits. This is true across the board. Monsters stay relevant longer in both directions--you can face an adult dragon at lower levels and have a chance if you play right. You can face a horde of orcs at high level and still lose. This means you don't have "must be this tall to ride" barriers (3.5e's problem) or palette-swapped enemies (4e's problem).In this, you are again incorrect. People do want to feel more powerful as they level, and you know what a good way to do that is? Have things that were relevant challenges 10 levels ago be essentially irrelevant. I can't speak for anyone else, but it feels silly to me that a hypothetically extremely skilled fighter is still as easy to hit when she's supposed to be punching gods in the face as when she was struggling against a handful of orcs. And, beyond that, if a CR5 monster can't be effortlessly dispatched at level 15+, your CR and level system is essentially meaningless.

Beyond that, you cannot, in fact, face an adult dragon at a low level unless you're a necromancy-focused wizard or a less efficient necromancer knockoff(or are prepared to abuse Glyph of Warding beyond reason), because they are faster than you, fly, and there is no good source of flight in this game. Hence, a dragon can strafe you're pretty much not going to have an out for it, especially considering the comparative ranges of most of your attacks.

Ultimately, like SoDs, there are still a bunch of "you must be this tall to ride" things in 5e, but they're all attached to monsters in the most asinine way possible. This happens while ignoring the fact that level barriers are good things, because if not, there is literally no point in any combat on a skirmish scale, because massed archers is better than everything else.

As a final note, you have misdiagnosed the problem with 4e monsters; it's not that they're palette-swapped copies of each other, it's that they're not things at all. A monster in 4e, being built on the mechanics of "make stuff up," has nothing to it. There is no depth. They don't have equipment they're using, they don't have any utility powers, they don't even have languages, and so monsters essentially didn't interact with the rest of the world. To hammer home this point if you'll recall, when a druid got a pet bear, the pet bear was fundamentally a different thing from the bear that shows up in the wilds to get stabbed sometimes, and, of course, both blocks of stats didn't even function the same way the players did on a bare-bones mechanics perspective. This was bad, for obvious reasons. And, the real kicker, 5e essentially didn't change this. Yes, we have languages back, which is important because at least that introduced back another method by which the PCs can interact with them, but they, themselves, are still black boxes of fiat, and that kind of asymmetrical design is bad design. In 5e, all I know about dopplegangers is that they can turn into other people, can theoretically lie, can tell if people are lying marginally better than an untrained peasant, can read thoughts, and that they're probably better fighters than your fighter(with 52HP and 2 +6 attacks for 7 damage at CR3). I, however, don't actually know how the transformation works. Do I get to roll to see if I can spot the altered shape? Is the disguise magically perfect? Furthermore, the actual text of thought reading doesn't actually tell me anything of value! I know that all their entry gives them advantage on social rolls, but the fluff text says some marginally useful information, but not only is it not in the ability text, but the fluff text in the Monster Manual is so full of nonsense most of the time, I'm not sure it has any value. Even if you take it, though, that raises the question of why would you even care about insight rolls if you're doing something actually describable as mind-reading? And then how does a doppleganger target? Do they need to see their target? Can they attempt to target squares to see through walls? Do they have some sort of mind sight thing going on? And what about other abilities? Are doppelgangers incapable of learning new skills? There's no means of advancement, so I can't see how you're supposed to model any doppelganger that's not what was just vomited out of a factory, considering that they literally don't get basic knowledges or any skill that's not "I lie relatively decently." Comparing this to the 3.5 doppelganger, where the mechanical effects of the mind reading and shapeshifting are both explicitly spelled out. I know how to advance or alter them without just making stuff up again, because there are, in fact, rules for things like doppelgangers learning spells or picking up some sword tricks or whatever and I know how their skills and feats actually work. They also interact with the world using the exact same systems as the PCs, which is again a good thing, as keeping it simple and consistent is better than having two different rulesets for monsters and PCs for no real reason. And, as a side note they manage to also not flatly be better at punching than a fighter at the appropriate level.

As a side note on doppelgangers, I just noticed that, as per the new fluff, they're an intelligent species who apparently only ever lie, murder, and steal, and reproduce solely by rape-by-fraud. All of which, as the only things they appear to do, somehow means they're neutral, not evil. I don't even know what to say here.

And all of this is forgiving on the math--no need for maxed-out scores (the game math assumes you'll hit 18 in your primary stat by level 15ish, and never assumes you'll have a 20) or particular items; but if you do the game still fundamentally works. This is a major pro of 5e in my book--it's flexible in power level without breaking. Short of infinite wish loops (which require a particularly strained interpretation to get anyway) there's no "game-breaking" builds. Everything is situational--some better in some places, some worse, but all in a much narrower band.Now, here, you're wrong on all points. First, check the expected AC of monsters by level. game assumes you put ASIs into your primary stat at every level you can(which the game expects at 8), because if you fail to, you no longer hit the expected AC on an 8. If you don't, your efficiency drops notably.

Second of all, there's no real flexibility in power, because the PCs don't really gain all that much meaningful power, outside of full casters, most notably wizards(and especially illusionist wizards). At nearly every stage in the game, unless you have magic jar, your entire party is inferior to a bunch of peasants with longbows. The number of threats the PCs can handle that can't be dealt with better with massed fire, maybe from horseback, is minuscule. Outside of the relevant spells to break the action economy(symbol/glyph, conjure/animate whatever, etc), most of the growth in 5e is an illusion; you get to write marginally larger numbers on your character sheet, but it doesn't actually change anything. Maybe you get more damage, but HP bloat outpaces you. Maybe you get an extra AC point or two, but it doesn't make a meaningful difference in the damage output against things from 10 levels ago, let alone this level. Maybe you get more HP, but you're still going to get dropped by a demilich, or an intellect devourer, or a room full of banshees, or whatever.

Second of all, yes there are gamebreaking builds. Skeleton archers>everyone else, by virtue of range and weight of fire. Endless simulacra>Everyone else, for the same reasons. Heck, summoned flying snakes or animated shuriken are more efficient than fighters across the board. Magic jar and lycanthropes means that some casters get to write "immune to the local militia" on their character sheet, and so are better than everyone who can't. And wizards can literally vomit out an arbitrary number of simulacra in a single action if they know the Wish spell.

All of this ties back into the topic at hand in that, if you in fact are going with a leveled system, you need to have level-based escalation and not go down the bounded accuracy path, because bounded accuracy is bad, for the reasons above. If you want a system where a bunch of peasants with bows are always scary and should be a reasonable solution to most problems, set your system up a skill-based one and at least give people more freedom that way.

[Cluedrew]

If you're highlighting in a glossary, the standard should be if it's another term in the glossary.It was just keyword highlighting in the rule-book's general text. I'm not sure that rule-book even had a glossary.


One thing I forgot, because It's really not as obvious as the problems, is to know what your system means and use a system to reflect what you want. This is distinct from my previous points in that it's a higher-level problem. Let's take a level-based system versus an unleveled skill-based system for example. If you're building a D&D clone, for example, you absolutely should not try to convert it into a skill-based system, not because of what you're basing it off of, but because a skill-based system isn't good at emulating high fantasy.This is veering off into the depths of system design (as opposed to rule-book design) but I got a kick out of this it almost exactly describes the system I'm working on. The almost part is that is not supposed to be a D&D Clone at all.

To Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll: I've been working on interspersing the lore with relevant rules (or vice versa depending on the focus of the section). To avoid that problem. Sort of take the idea of flavour text just a bit further. No idea if it will work.

[2D8HP]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CUGACO3WRXE/To5KSQ7_8_I/AAAAAAAAguo/aLnlf1ehXgg/s400/rpg-Stormbringer.jpg

Chaosium's old Stormbringer! (http://siskoid.blogspot.com/2011/10/rpgs-that-time-forgot-stormbringer.html?m=1) game had a "magic system" based on summoning and attempting to control demons and elementals. It was completely BADASS! and I thought it was truer to Swords and Sorcery than D&D, and most every RPG I'm familiar with.

The main flaw as a game was that it's random character creation method typically generated PC's from different nations and backgrounds with very wide power-levels (more so than old D&D) so you'd wind up with a party of one mighty sorcerer and four drooling beggar "sidekicks".

I think a Melee/Wizard/The Fantasy Trip or Champions poinr-buy-ish system would have improved the game.

PC balance matters, and "caster supremacy"is lame.

[Max_Killjoy]

Frankly, I'd consider random PC creation a relic of a time long past... but it keeps popping up.

[gkathellar]

Basically anything by Evil Hat Productions is guaranteed to be physically beautiful and well put-together.

Nobilis 2e is called, "The Great White Book," for a reason. 3e is less physically wonderful but is great in terms of readability.

The core NWoD book is a fantastic bit of game writing - thematic, organized, inviting, and physically quite pretty.

I think a lot of people also underestimate the quality of the 3.5 D&D books (as well as 3e and 4e, to a lesser extent) in terms of layout, typesetting, etc. While not faultless, they are generally triumphs of good editing. Their indexing is phenomenal, and the spells chapter in the PHB is just a vision of best practices. Finally, they're great physical objects, and I've had publishing professionals basically just salivate over my 3.5 books. They have high quality covers and paper, printing where no expense was spared, excellent binding, and are sturdy like oxen. I would go so far as to say that, from a bookmaking and editing perspective, they are so completely unequalled as to almost preclude discussion - how can you compare the highest standard to itself, after all?

[johnbragg]

Frankly, I'd consider random PC creation a relic of a time long past... but it keeps popping up.

I can't imagine using it as the basis for anything anymore, but I do find myself using random generators to choose my race-and-class lately.

[Telok]

Frankly, I'd consider random PC creation a relic of a time long past... but it keeps popping up.

It depends on the tone and focus of the game. Plus how well balanced the buy/roll system in question is. If a trash character ability costs as much to buy as an ability that's critical to character survival you end up with the threads about god-stats/skills. Likewise if the rolling system + game mechanics produces unfun or unplayable characters that's another problem.

The 3.x books did have good organization and usability for the spell sections. I remember trying to figure out what spells a 5e warlock could cast and what they did shortly after 5e came out. I had to bookmark the spell list page and keep flipping back and forth between that and the spell descriptions, just a massive annoyance.

[JellyPooga]

The first and foremost thing, in my mind, that a rulebook should do is sell the game premise of the system.

GURPS does this well by presenting its myriad options in a concise and logical fashion, with good indexing.

Dark Heresy 2ed does this well by its arkwork and platefuls of thematic content.

Cyberpunk 2020 does this well by stating pretty explicitly, right at the start, that style counts for more than substance (AKA: the "screw the rules, full steam ahead" method of playing/running a game). Cyberpunk is a mess of a rule system, but the rulebook is a joy to read because it's just so damned cool.

[Algeh]

Oh jeez, it's not the same system? That's even worse.

Now that I'm home, I was able to take a look at the rulebook. The game I'm familiar with was apparently published by a group called Guardians of Order, Inc., whom I've otherwise never heard of.


I have a Sailor Moon RPG by them! I got it at a library book sale or some other similar event where you can get donated things very, very cheaply as a fundraiser for somebody.

The previous owner put stickers on the cover and used crayons to color in a lot of the black and white pictures, so I suspect it was originally bought for a small child who liked Sailor Moon and was unable to figure out what to do with the rest of the book.

Having tried to read the book, I am not surprised. I decided to amuse myself by reading whatever "what RPGs are and how to play them" essay would presumably be included fairly early on in a book like that when I found it again recently while unpacking some things I'd had in storage. Instead of the "welcome to the exciting world of roleplaying games!" intro I was expecting, the book launched in to an elaborate explanation of every character from Sailor Moon in much the way a fan wiki would (no stats, plenty of information about things like plot arcs, birthdays, sibling names, and which episode we learn those particular things in). I think it then went into individual episode descriptions, but I know it was definitely a large number of pages of flipping before it made any attempt to explain what an RPG is or why you might want to play one about Sailor Moon.

I have NO IDEA who they thought their audience was that this was a good way to get started. I still haven't read the whole book or tried to play the game, so it could be a perfectly good and playable system buried under a bunch of non-game-specific fan info, but odds are I won't go digging deeply enough to find out unless one of my friends really, really wants to give it a try at some point for some reason.

[oxybe]

I have a Sailor Moon RPG by them! I got it at a library book sale or some other similar event where you can get donated things very, very cheaply as a fundraiser for somebody.

The previous owner put stickers on the cover and used crayons to color in a lot of the black and white pictures, so I suspect it was originally bought for a small child who liked Sailor Moon and was unable to figure out what to do with the rest of the book.

Having tried to read the book, I am not surprised. I decided to amuse myself by reading whatever "what RPGs are and how to play them" essay would presumably be included fairly early on in a book like that when I found it again recently while unpacking some things I'd had in storage. Instead of the "welcome to the exciting world of roleplaying games!" intro I was expecting, the book launched in to an elaborate explanation of every character from Sailor Moon in much the way a fan wiki would (no stats, plenty of information about things like plot arcs, birthdays, sibling names, and which episode we learn those particular things in). I think it then went into individual episode descriptions, but I know it was definitely a large number of pages of flipping before it made any attempt to explain what an RPG is or why you might want to play one about Sailor Moon.

I have NO IDEA who they thought their audience was that this was a good way to get started. I still haven't read the whole book or tried to play the game, so it could be a perfectly good and playable system buried under a bunch of non-game-specific fan info, but odds are I won't go digging deeply enough to find out unless one of my friends really, really wants to give it a try at some point for some reason.

GoO was the company who created the Big Eyes, Small Mouth system: the weeaboo animu TTRPG. They got the rights to publish a few different properties under their system, tri-stat. They eventually went bankrupts and had refused to pay several peeps, among other issues. It was a bit of a mess.

I largely remember this because George R. R. Martin (yes, that one) broke the news on his site or blog, regarding the status of GoO, who were in the middle of publishing a Song of Fire & Ice TTRPG, rather then GoO themselves.

In the end, GoO couldn't even live long enough to see the third edition of BESM be published, and the last leg had been taken up by White Wolf's Arthaus branch. There is a free version of BESM called TriStat on drivethru for those that are interested.

In the end, their fall from grace was like watching Yamcha try anything in DBZ.

[Cluedrew]

I can't imagine using [random character creation] as the basis for anything anymore,I did that. Well sort of, I created a short design document about a system that was designed around the concept of: how do you make random character creation fun? I never actually made it so I don't know if it worked.


The first and foremost thing, in my mind, that a rulebook should do is sell the game premise of the system.You know I think that works, which would create three basic tasks for a rule book:
Make people want to play the game.
Help people start playing the game.
Help people to continue playing the game.
And you can break them up into sub-tasks for more detail. Stuff about examples would be in 2, the index and glossary might be more 3. Big flashy images are part of 1.

[johnbragg]

I did that. Well sort of, I created a short design document about a system that was designed around the concept of: how do you make random character creation fun? I never actually made it so I don't know if it worked.

I should amend, or actually withdraw my statement. What I meant was I can't imagine ever again playing a game with 3d6-keep-em stats, then pick your class (and maybe race?) based on what you get. Ha ha your guy sucks herp derp.

When the reality is, using something like http://whothe****ismydndcharacter.com/ with a stat array can be good beer and pretzels (or Mountain Dew and Doritos) fun. It's not the randomness that's unfun, it was the random generation methods that gave you a huge chance of having a character with no real abilities in the game.

For random character generation to be fun, you have to have 1) players with enough experience to take any class in the game and make a passable character (i.e. even if you don't know how to run a warlock or a bard or a warblade, or a Shadowrun hacker or a Vampire Malkavian you've seen someone else play one so you're not totally lost) and 2) a low-stakes game or campaign, where you're not committing to a long future of being your goblin barbarian or tiefling paladin or gnome druid or whatever combo you wouldn't have picked.

[Nifft]

I should amend, or actually withdraw my statement. What I meant was I can't imagine ever again playing a game with 3d6-keep-em stats, then pick your class (and maybe race?) based on what you get. Ha ha your guy sucks herp derp.

3d6-keep-em stats were from a time when your character was expected to die early and often.

Some people didn't name their characters until the character had survived for a few levels, that's how emotionally un-attached you could be in those days. If you don't care enough to name your dude, then you presumably don't care that he sucks.

Balance (such as it was) existed statistically across all your many, many characters. Sometimes you'd get a dude who sucks, sometimes you'd get a dude that was totally tubular and you could actually play a Paladin or Druid. Your awesome dude would probably die anyway, life was cheap in the dungeon after all, but for a while you'd be the top of the heap.

The idea that you were supposed to be emotionally attached to your dude before the first session of play was not yet a thing. The idea that you wrote ten pages of single-spaced backstory for your dude and drew up a family tree -- no, that was not how I saw people playing back in the days of 3d6-keep-em. It was only 3d6-keep-em-for-a-while, because your character was not expected to survive to see high levels. I suspect that it was called a campaign because it was modeled on the idea of an extended military action in hostile territory -- and soldiers died in campaigns, and they got replaced.

[PhoenixPhyre]

3d6-keep-em stats were from a time when your character was expected to die early and often.

Some people didn't name their characters until the character had survived for a few levels, that's how emotionally un-attached you could be in those days. If you don't care enough to name your dude, then you presumably don't care that he sucks.

Balance (such as it was) existed statistically across all your many, many characters. Sometimes you'd get a dude who sucks, sometimes you'd get a dude that was totally tubular and you could actually play a Paladin or Druid. Your awesome dude would probably die anyway, life was cheap in the dungeon after all, but for a while you'd be the top of the heap.

The idea that you were supposed to be emotionally attached to your dude before the first session of play was not yet a thing. The idea that you wrote ten pages of single-spaced backstory for your dude and drew up a family tree -- no, that was not how I saw people playing back in the days of 3d6-keep-em. It was only 3d6-keep-em-for-a-while, because your character was not expected to survive to see high levels. I suspect that it was called a campaign because it was modeled on the idea of an extended military action in hostile territory -- and soldiers died in campaigns, and they got replaced.

I agree, and I want to say that I'm glad those days are (mostly) gone. Wargames with disposable pawns never held much attraction for me, personally.

[johnbragg]

3d6-keep-em stats were from a time when your character was expected to die early and often.

I know. And that's important to point out for younger generations.

But this is a hobby that works on an apprenticeship model. A new player isn't comparing his character to his veteran friend's first character or ten, who are long dead and crumpled up and tossed. You compare your guy to your friend's current character, the survivor of that process, who either has better stats or is higher level, on top of being run by someone experienced.

Playing in those games, where one mistake meant death and you were learning the rules and your character was basically powerless SUCKED. Especially the way we played back then--not being a jerk at the table was not really taught back then. You died, there was really nothing you could do about it, and your friends laughed--at best they used you as a way to distract the monsters while they escaped, at worst they made you drink the mystery potion that-surprise! was poison, or polymorphed you into a toad or whatever. (That's when you learn that your Sleep spell (your only spell, mind you) has no effect on your friend's elf.)


Some people didn't name their characters until the character had survived for a few levels, that's how emotionally un-attached you could be in those days. If you don't care enough to name your dude, then you presumably don't care that he sucks.

You could play that way, but it was a terrible way to bring in new players.


Balance (such as it was) existed statistically across all your many, many characters. Sometimes you'd get a dude who sucks, sometimes you'd get a dude that was totally tubular and you could actually play a Paladin or Druid. Your awesome dude would probably die anyway, life was cheap in the dungeon after all, but for a while you'd be the top of the heap.

And it leant itself to, my guy is awesome, your noob sucks, I can use your noob as a meatshield to keep my awesome guy alive--and there's not much you can do about it.


The idea that you were supposed to be emotionally attached to your dude before the first session of play was not yet a thing.

Forget being emotionally attached to your dude. It was like playing a Monopoly variant, except you're going an ongoing game where the properties are all already owned. And by the way, you die if you roll doubles. Sure, the current owners of the properties are going to have their guys die and the properties become vacant, but you're not going to play that long because your guy died and sucks for you.


The idea that you wrote ten pages of single-spaced backstory for your dude and drew up a family tree -- no, that was not how I saw people playing back in the days of 3d6-keep-em. It was only 3d6-keep-em-for-a-while, because your character was not expected to survive to see high levels. I suspect that it was called a campaign because it was modeled on the idea of an extended military action in hostile territory -- and soldiers died in campaigns, and they got replaced.

You're right, that is the etymology of D&D campaign. And the playstyle was like the culture of the Russian army, where fourth-year conscripts viciously abuse third- and second- and first-year conscripts.

So yeah, that's why I didn't play in elementary or middle school (except for a highly homebrewed thing based vaguely on the Red Box Set with one friend and a single d20) and only really started in high school.

[Jay R]

I should amend, or actually withdraw my statement. What I meant was I can't imagine ever again playing a game with 3d6-keep-em stats, then pick your class (and maybe race?) based on what you get. Ha ha your guy sucks herp derp.

It's worth noting that in original D&D, the stats had far less effect on the character. Until the first supplement came out, Strength only meant a +5% xp bonus for fighters at 13+. or +10% xp at 16+. It didn't affect the chance to hit or damage. CON of 15+ gave +1 hp per die, and DEX above 12 gave +1 to hit (not damage) for a missile weapon. They had no effect on saving throws.

And even in the first rules, there was some swapping allowed. Fighters and clerics could trade away intelligence for wisdom on a 2 for 1 basis, for instance. And since there was no real drawback to a deep dump stat (other than CHA or CON), we used it. Of my first nine characters, all nine had at least a +5% xp bonus.

A character with dead average stats was quite playable. A character with all 18s would have an advantage, but not a huge one. We each had a stable of six or more characters, and we all had one who was our favorite. But they all got used, and your character with the lowest rolls was not appreciably worse off than your character with the highest rolls.

I never heard anybody ever say, "Ha ha your guy sucks herp derp," or any equivalent phrase. The assumption was that clever play would do well, and poor play would not. And it was clearly and observably true - all of Richard's characters did extremely well, all of Pat's did moderately well, and all of Eric's died quickly - because of how well or poorly the player played them.

Good tactics was far more important than good stats.

[johnbragg]

I agree, and I want to say that I'm glad those days are (mostly) gone. Wargames with disposable pawns never held much attraction for me, personally.

That I can live with, when everyone is starting with the SAME or comparable pawns. Paranoia, Goblin Quest, Tomb of Horrors one-shots can all be fun. But 3d6-keep-em plus Darwinian selection, plus differing levels of system mastery (not everyone owned the books, and PDFs and the internet were not a thing) were a toxic brew.

[johnbragg]

Good tactics was far more important than good stats.

Good people were even more important, and the structure of the early game encouraged lousy table play, in my experience.

There's no amount of good tactics that's going to help your weak 1st level Magic-User when the strong (2nd or 3rd level) Cavalier--who's immune to your Sleep spell-- makes him drink the mystery potion.

[2D8HP]

...were a toxic brew.


Oh I remember having lots of fun playing in the (very late) 1970's and '80's, and I don't remember anything being particularly toxic, but I also don't remember feeling much attachment to most characters either, and did play most of them as disposable.

After not playing for decades it was a bit of a shock to find that unlike in "Ye Auld days", I"'ve now become the most cautious player, while the youngsters write long back-stories for their PC"s and then they walk/run into melee range of the foes (but somehow their PC's still survive).

[Arbane]

On the subject of glossaries: I remember being a bit stumped the first time I tried to read through the old TORG rulebooks - "What's a gospog? Stelae? Okay, I KIND of get what a 'cosm' is..." I've seen at least one book with a single game-term at the bottom of each page, that might help...


I was chatting with one of my students, and it took several walkthroughs of the concept before he grasped why you couldn't kill the DM in-game.

Challenge Accepted. :smallamused:


A lot of role-playing games, with D&D at the top of the list, need a rule saying you can't act in contravention of common sense.

The problem is the collision of that with all the things in RPGs that are already in contravention of common sense...


(A lot of D&D5 talk)

Looking back at D&D3.X, I'm not convinced that 'design monsters like PCs' was a good plan - a lot of monsters have abilities that would be utterly game-breaking if PCs had them. (One party I was in in a PF game had a medusa in it - fun character, but her powers were either insta-kill or completely useless.) Also, this results in a lot of straightjacketing on things like feat selection, gives us ultra-accurate bruiser enemies, and really, who CARES how many ranks in Craft: Bones of Its Victims Grogrgalthar The Devourer of Souls has?

On CRs and 'Bounded Accuracy':
ARGH, FLASHBACKS to the Dragon Queen's Horde (I think it was? One of the early D&D5 adventures) where the level 1 PCs have to 'discourage' a blue dragon from attacking a castle. Our wizard got its attention, and was immediately lightning-bolted into a cloud of charged particles. FUN TIMES.
Massed archery is great, but a lot of fights in Dungeons and Dragons take place underground. (And it suddenly makes sense - the monsters are all hiding down there from the archer hordes! :smallbiggrin:)


Frankly, I'd consider random PC creation a relic of a time long past... but it keeps popping up.

I've seen one version of it I kind of like: REIGN's random rolls are a lifepath sort of thing, but the total results should be worth about the same number of character-points no matter what you get - no "player A gets their own duchy and small army, player B gets one limb of their choice severed."


GoO was the company who created the Big Eyes, Small Mouth system: the weeaboo animu TTRPG. (SNIP)
In the end, their fall from grace was like watching Yamcha try anything in DBZ.

I just wanted to tell you that this simile made me chortle in its sheer appropriateness.
(GoO did an assortment of RPG sourcebooks for different anime that were also intended to be useful to non-gamer fans of the shows.)


After not playing for decades it was a bit of a shock to find that unlike in "Ye Auld days", I"'ve now become the most cautious player, while the youngsters write long back-stories for their PC"s and then they walk/run into melee range of the foes (but somehow their PC's still survive).

I consider the change from "desperate treasure-hunting lowlifes" to "heroes" to be one of the good things that's happened to D&D over the years. If only D&D's rules supported it a little better at low levels....

[Anonymouswizard]

First off, indexes! Even a short index can be better than no index. The advantage of an index is that it means that those who aren't used to your system or don't play it regularly can still find the rules. Don't assume that I'm using your book after I've learnt the system, assuming I'm using it before. Plus even afterwards a good index makes looking things up easier (for a bad one see 5e D&D, half the entries send me to another entry when they could just print the page numbers instead, I don't want to check every page under 'movement' to find 'jumping').

I also recommend setting out rules in the order you expect people to need them. In theory core mechanics first or character creation first doesn't matter, in practice more people care about generating their characters and will let the GM remember all the rules (we've been playing for half a year now, can you please remember that 'skill check' means roll a d20 and add your skill total, and there's a space on the sheet for your total).

So the best order is probably character generation -> character options -> basic rules -> core subsystems -> advanced subsystems -> GM rules. Split into as many chapters as you like, and be aware that I'm defining a core subsystem as something that everybody has to use, whether that's combat, spellcasting, or reputation. Nothing's worse than a core element of every character being 200 pages away behind the psionics and show cooking subsystems used by one class or archetype. Bare in mind that you can get away with using a suboptimal order if your writing and layout make up for it (Legend of the Five Rings has character creation nearly a third of the way in after the core rules, and it doesn't suffer for it), but the order should be logical.

Also, any lists you have should be in a logical order, alphabetical is good but it's also fine to separate into sublists if there's no overlap.

For a rulebook that follows the order described above but is horrible is Anima: Beyond Fantasy. A one-two punch of lists not being in any form of order (apparently they were alphabetical before translastion), except in cases such as spells (lower level in the path come first, free access spells are alphabetical by level range) or ki powers (where an ability's prerequisites are always before it in the list, generally directly before it). Plus no index, so you have to navigate it via memory and ToC. It's a system that appeals to me enough that I can do that, but that pales to the games where I can easily find rules in sections I haven't read.

To give a game I think does a core rulebook relatively well, Victoriana is good in all bar tone (which can be a bit too dry and academic). The layout's great, and it's good as a reference due to the decent index (which includes headings I didn't remember were in the book). Plus it does the nice character generation trick of introducing a step and then listing the core options for that step, although by the final mechanical step you have to remember that your choice from 3/4 steps ago will limit your choices (and in some cases might require you to take a specific Privilege just to be rules-legal). Plus to me having a black and white interior is much better than a full colour one, not too much clashing for my attention and if you rarely are rules and art so alike as to be mistakable.

[2D8HP]

First off, indexes! Even a short index can be better than no index...


I know I ranted about this upthread, but I hate the 5e W(otC)D&D (the '91 rules were once know as the T(SR)D&D "fifth edition" see here (http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/17171#)) indices so very much! Not because there badly edited, but because the type is so damn small!


:annoyed:

*rant, rave, mumble, fume*


..To give a game I think does a core rulebook relatively well, Victoriana is good in all bar tone (which can be a bit too dry and academic). The layout's great, and it's good as a reference due to the decent index (which includes headings I didn't remember were in the book). Plus....


Oh! I think I have a copy of Victoriana in my locker at work!

I'll have to check it out.


Since I'm in a ranty mood, I have a real problem with a recent purchase of mine, The Pathfinder Corebook.

Sweet Lolth this book is heavy! I thought the WotC and 2e 7th Sea books were heavy, but I have to take out two to six of my other books out of my backpack to stand carrying this thing!

To there credit, Paizo made a small type paperback version a few years back, but I needed glasses to read it so I put it aside, and misplaced it years ago.


"Indie" game rulebook often do something thst really irks me: "Bonus: PDF content".

Don't make me print out the rest of the book myself, put it between the covers dagnabit!


:furious:

[Floret]

I also recommend setting out rules in the order you expect people to need them. In theory core mechanics first or character creation first doesn't matter, in practice more people care about generating their characters and will let the GM remember all the rules (we've been playing for half a year now, can you please remember that 'skill check' means roll a d20 and add your skill total, and there's a space on the sheet for your total).

So the best order is probably character generation -> character options -> basic rules -> core subsystems -> advanced subsystems -> GM rules.

While I agree with the principle behind it, I have to disagree with the exact order. Give me core rules first, chargen second any time - because if I am supposed to build a character, and make choices, they will be at least partially based on mechanics. And I'd like to have a goddamned clue about what my selections mean (roughly, at least) before being thrown into a bunch of rules for choosing them.

Which is why I agree on L5R 4e, btw. It doesn't suffer for character creation to be that late, I'd say it actively profits.

Most rulebooks I know actually put core mechanics first, though. I only know this - Rules are needed first - because I very much understand the impulse to want to go to chargen first, and tend to skip ahead, only to skip back when I am at a total loss for what the hell is going on.

[Anonymouswizard]

Oh! I think I have a copy of Victoriana in my locker at work!

I'll have to check it out.

Bare in mind that it's not a simple game, and that the fiddly bits mean the system probably isn't entirely suited to your tastes. But the rulebooks are nice, the system is one where modifiers only grow your dice pool, and several areas have been simplified with optional 'Queensberry rules' on the forum (because while the combat rules are great they have this entire 'enemy is attacking you, do you want a chance to harm them this turn'). Still, once you wrap your head around the system it's nice.


Since I'm in a ranty mood, I have a real problem with a recent purchase of mine, The Pathfinder Corebook.

Sweet Lolth this book is heavy! I thought the WotC and 2e 7th Sea books were heavy, but I have to take out two to six of my other books out of my backpack to stand carrying this thing!

To there credit, Paizo made a small type paperback version a few years back, but I needed glasses to read it so I put it aside, and misplaced it years ago.

It's really overlong. I own several books about as thick, but they tend to have significantly fewer pages.


"Indie" game rulebook often do something thst really irks me: "Bonus: PDF content".

Don't make me print out the rest of the book myself, put it between the covers dagnabit!


:furious:


You know, I've not seen that unless it's a free pdf version of the book you're holding (always nice), or 'we haven't included the character sheet to save space'.


While I agree with the principle behind it, I have to disagree with the exact order. Give me core rules first, chargen second any time - because if I am supposed to build a character, and make choices, they will be at least partially based on mechanics. And I'd like to have a goddamned clue about what my selections mean (roughly, at least) before being thrown into a bunch of rules for choosing them.

Which is why I agree on L5R 4e, btw. It doesn't suffer for character creation to be that late, I'd say it actively profits.

Most rulebooks I know actually put core mechanics first, though. I only know this - Rules are needed first - because I very much understand the impulse to want to go to chargen first, and tend to skip ahead, only to skip back when I am at a total loss for what the hell is going on.

As I said, in theory it doesn't really matter. I personally always familiarise myself with the rules before creating a character, but I know many people who would rather not read a single page of rules if the GM can just remember it.

I actually know some which do both, and while I prefer basic rules before character creation, subsystems afterward putting all rules before or after character creation doesn't make any difference to me. I very rarely read rulebooks front to back, skipping around as I see fit.

[Cluedrew]

To Floret & Anonymouswizard: Yeah, I went "preamble -> basic rules -> character creation/advancement -> core subsystems -> ..." that's as far as I have gotten so far. GM stuff and example content will probably follow. I guess my only real addition is I consider the preamble part of the flow, it is supposed to touch on a bit of everything to frame the rest of the book. Probably not something that you will have to re-read that often, but it is there for your first reading.

You don't have to read the everything in order, but up until character creation your probably should. After that you can really jump around. Actually after that things become more introduction order to reference order (things become alphabetic a lot more often) because after you know what you are doing, how to do it and what you are doing it with, I think that is enough ground work.

[johnbragg]

Since I'm in a ranty mood, I have a real problem with a recent purchase of mine, The Pathfinder Corebook.

Sweet Lolth this book is heavy!

Well, they made a decision to combine the PHB and DMG, for a 20-level game (theoretically).

It could easily be four books if they wanted to do that route--PHB, DMG, split into high and low level sections.





"Indie" game rulebook often do something thst really irks me: "Bonus: PDF content".

Don't make me print out the rest of the book myself, put it between the covers dagnabit!


:furious:


I get what they're doing there, though. This is the main stuff in the main book, the important stuff. For the same price, we're also including more bonus content, but not putting it in the main book you have to lug around.

You realize you're complaining about both approaches to "what to do with secondary material"

[Talakeal]

In my system I have the setting and core rules before character creation, and one of the most common complaints I get is that character creation needs to be as early as possible.

One other piece of feedback I have heard is that setting first books, like White Wolf games, only work if you have a lot of fiction segments. Something about it allowing people to feel like the fluff is theirs rather than the authors.

I considered putting in fiction, but to me it always seemed to be sort of indulgent and wasteful, people are here for the game, not to read my ameteur short fiction. What do you guys think about fiction segments in rulebooks?

[2D8HP]

.....What do you guys think about fiction segments in rulebooks?


Since I usually prefer reading the "fluff" instead of the "crunch" I would've predicted that I'd like it more, but the narrative fiction that I've seen in rulebooks (in Castle Falkenstein, 7th Sea, and, Vampire) is just too damn long for my taste.

I think that may be because I read game books to find "fiction that reads like non-fiction" (history, travel guides, et cetera), and I just don't have enough patience for the narratives, and want to get back to setting details without the over long short stories.

[Max_Killjoy]

Too many books that put "core rules" first, then do some other stuff, then come back to more rules, end up scattering rules all over the place to the point that things get missed or misunderstood.

Don't hide the rules for two-weapon fighting in the middle of the "talents" or "skills" just because that's where the mechanical thing you "buy" to get the ability to fight with two weapons is located -- put those rules with the rest of the combat rules.

Don't scatter the rules for healing in five different places, with no cross-reference or mention, just because you have healing spells, healing in herbalism, healing in "physician", natural healing, and a special "feat" or "gift" for regeneration (that's maybe only available to monsters in most occasions, but there's this option, but...)

[PhoenixPhyre]

What do you guys think about fiction segments in rulebooks?

Those work better if the mechanics are strongly tied to a single setting. So for something like WoD, it can work (if written right). For something more like D&D, it has issues beyond about a paragraph in length.

One exception is for thematics--one thing I like about 5e's class entries is that they start with a selection of brief views of the class in action. They show hooks to make someone excited to play the class, giving things that the mechanics will try to allow.


This is one of mine in that vein (as the originals aren't SRD material). The class is about mutations--reshaping the character's physical body to meet various needs.


A gang of ruffians chase a heavy-set man down an alleyway. As they turn a corner, he disappears into the shadows. They pile on past; once they've passed he pours himself from a crack between buildings much too small to fit his frame. Grinning, he reshapes his legs and jumps to the top of the 30-foot-tall building and vanishes into the night.

A slender woman and her team fight a group of ogres that tower over them. Suddenly, her frame expands to twice its prior size and she grabs one of the ogres in a massive fist. With a grunt and a swing, she sends it flying dozens of feet into another ogre threatening her comrade, knocking them both off their feet.

A wood elf fights on a ship’s deck, bare-handed except for gleaming claws that jut from his fists. When allies are dragged under the waves by sahuagin warriors, he dives under the waves, growing fins and gills to come to the rescue.

[Cluedrew]

To Talakeal: I know my first attempt at reading Heart of Darkness, I didn't even get to core rules. The opening bit of lore was interesting, but had no particular hook, then the setting information continued until I got board. Maybe I should of just skipped ahead the first time. Which is what I did next time I read it. (If I didn't say in my review... I never did read all the lore.)

So although maybe that sort of description (as in an atlas) is better at getting information across than a short story. On the other hand the my favourite post in the most recent Let's Build a Setting thread is:
"I don't think I will ever forget my first taste of fresh vegetables. The cabbage cost my parents a months wages, five times as expensive as Dwarfcabbage (saurkraut), and preserved in a box of ice. The texture was so strange as to be almost abhorrent, what kind of food feels crispy?? Yet when it was gone all we could talk about was the cabbage. I didn't eat another for eight years."It makes it feel so much more alive that simply getting facts across. Or it did for me.

So I think it has a place, I'm not sure exactly what it is. How often and how big those bits should be. Should they be connected to try and build a coherent whole or independent to highlight interesting tidbits? Not sure.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To Talakeal: I know my first attempt at reading Heart of Darkness, I didn't even get to core rules. The opening bit of lore was interesting, but had no particular hook, then the setting information continued until I got board. Maybe I should of just skipped ahead the first time. Which is what I did next time I read it. (If I didn't say in my review... I never did read all the lore.)

So although maybe that sort of description (as in an atlas) is better at getting information across than a short story. On the other hand the my favourite post in the most recent Let's Build a Setting thread is:It makes it feel so much more alive that simply getting facts across. Or it did for me.

So I think it has a place, I'm not sure exactly what it is. How often and how big those bits should be. Should they be connected to try and build a coherent whole or independent to highlight interesting tidbits? Not sure.

I like those things as tidbits in sidebars or scattered throughout, not in longer-form (short-story or even multi-paragraph length).

[2D8HP]

I like those things as tidbits in sidebars or scattered throughout, not in longer-form (short-story or even multi-paragraph length).


So very much this.

No pages (or even whole page) of story, instead have it interposed throughout the rules.

[Knaight]

I like those things as tidbits in sidebars or scattered throughout, not in longer-form (short-story or even multi-paragraph length).

I'm with you there - something like REIGN's tiny, tiny narratives that pop up from time to time are fine by me. Starting every chapter with five pages of fiction, not so much.

It also helps that the author of REIGN also writes actual short stories, which is clearly not the case with a lot of these writers.

[Florian]

So very much this.

No pages (or even whole page) of story, instead have it interposed throughout the rules.

Hm. BattleTech (and by expansion, A Time of War) can be a very dry and mechanical affair. Both, ATOW and the ATOW Companion stand out because of the fiction of how it is tied in to what actual characters in that game do.

[Grod_The_Giant]

To Floret & Anonymouswizard: Yeah, I went "preamble -> basic rules -> character creation/advancement -> core subsystems -> ..." that's as far as I have gotten so far. GM stuff and example content will probably follow. I guess my only real addition is I consider the preamble part of the flow, it is supposed to touch on a bit of everything to frame the rest of the book. Probably not something that you will have to re-read that often, but it is there for your first reading.
In my homebrew system, I wound up going intro/core rules/conflict rules/character creation, with optional modules at the back behind the GM and advice stuff. I also included a suggested reading order, because, well...

I think my worst-rulebook-I-actually-use example would be the Mutants and Masterminds 3e Hero's Handbook. It's almost elegant once it clicks, but getting to that point... shudder. Key concepts are scattered all over the place, and some of them (PL caps, Alternate Effects) are given almost casual mentions when they should be key ideas. I at one point was working on a quick-start guide, and my recommended reading order was painful just to look at.


1. Chapter One: The Basics-- Read at least the first eight pages, though all of it would be ideal. You can skim if you’re used to d20 systems, but take special note of the Ranks and Measures chart on page 11,
2. Chapter Eight: Action and Adventure-- Skip ahead to Conflicts on page 188 and read from there up until Actions on 194. Again, you can skim if you’re used to d20 systems, but pay close attention to how damage works on page 189.
3. Chapter Four: Skills. Read the first two pages.
4. Chapter Six: Powers-- Read the sections on Acquiring Powers, Effect Types, and How Powers Work. Don’t worry about the table there. Flip ahead to Descriptors on 152 and read that
5. Chapter Two: Secret Origins. Read the sections on Hero Design and Power Points. Especially read the section on Power Points.
6. Flip back to Modifiers on page 135 and read that.
7. Read the Alternate Effect modifier on page 136-138, along with the Under the Hood sidebar
8. Chapter Seven: Gadgets and Gear. Read the big sections on Devices (157), Equipment (161), and the Under the Hood sidebar on 157
9. Go back to page 50-53 and read the full-page write ups of The Rook and Princess on pages 50-53 are as an example of character creation
10. Flip through the rest of Chapter 6: Powers and check out any Effects that look like they might be useful for your character concept.
11. Do the same for Chapter 5 (Advantages) and Chapter 4 (Skills).

[Cluedrew]

So it is laid out for reference, but with a suggested reading order for your first time though? It is almost the opposite of having a quick reference section.

My layout is still evolving. I've started trying to cram a bit of everything into chapter 1. Touch on all the important concepts right off the bat and hopefully between that the mechanical rules in chapter 2 you should be able jump around after that. In theory, I mean I haven't even written all the concepts that chapter 1 would touch on yet.

Still I am aiming at a roughly front to back reading order. Possibly skipping over the subsystems your character doesn't use. Which is probably inevitable but hopefully I can have it so you only skip forward. Because yes that reading order in M&M is almost nightmarish.

[Grod_The_Giant]

So it is laid out for reference, but with a suggested reading order for your first time though? It is almost the opposite of having a quick reference section.

My layout is still evolving. I've started trying to cram a bit of everything into chapter 1. Touch on all the important concepts right off the bat and hopefully between that the mechanical rules in chapter 2 you should be able jump around after that. In theory, I mean I haven't even written all the concepts that chapter 1 would touch on yet.

Still I am aiming at a roughly front to back reading order. Possibly skipping over the subsystems your character doesn't use. Which is probably inevitable but hopefully I can have it so you only skip forward. Because yes that reading order in M&M is almost nightmarish.
I mean, the book is front-to-back, and the first thing after the generic intro is a three-page quick summary (one page on general rules, one on conflict, one on character creation). I dunno. I probably wrote the reading order at the same time I was working on the M&M one. I guess I was thinking that rulebooks can be intimidating, and I was aiming at new/casual gamers, so a quick rundown on what's most important to read and what can be skipped for the moment seemed like a good idea? Looking back, it's probably scrap-able.