|
Some topics to get us started: This is a thread about the design that goes into the games falling under this heading. I have in mind two main focuses for this thread Focus, the first: This thread is meant to encourage discussion about the design choices made in RPGs, Board Games, and Card Games. There was recently an interesting discussion on the process of designing sets for Magic: The Gathering for instance, that caught my eye over in the DnD Next thread. Focus, the second: This thead should also serve as a resource for game developers. Because most threads are game specific, it's hard to find a place to talk about mechanics or layout in general, and a thread like this might just be the place to compare the merits of d6s vs d8s and the best way to lay out a book that you're writing.
* What's some awful trends in game design that need to see their way out? * What's a mechanically sound game that's difficult to interpret. In other words, what game had a good structure that failed in the design of its materials. * What's a game with awful mechanics but a presentation so good you almost forget the fact? * Why is it so hard to make a useful index? * What's the best way to represent an RPG? Is it better to have a section of rules for everyone, and then a separate rules for DM (Players Handbook and DMG/MM), or to have all of the rules necessary for play compiled in one extra large tome?
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
I'll start with the mechanically sound game: Penny Arcade: Rumble in Ry'leh. Bought this game when only one person showed up for my awful Pathfinder game  . The gameplay is fairly easy to pick up; it's basically Dominion with a graduated cost mechanic and a d20 for some cards. But man if the rules failed to express concisely how to play the game. To note, most of Dominion's rules fit on a single page, whereas PA: RiR spread it out over like 8. Pictures were handy, but despite being very easy to pick up, the rules felt like an afterthought. I'm not sure how long it would have taken to get it if I hadn't played Dominion first.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
piL posted:What's the best way to represent an RPG? Is it better to have a section of rules for everyone, and then a separate rules for DM (Players Handbook and DMG/MM), or to have all of the rules necessary for play compiled in one extra large tome? This is an interesting topic, since there are a few issues at hand. Hypothetically, having player and GM rules separated can be handy. Players generally don't need to know everything the GM does and it can help to not overwhelm new players. It's also helpful for the GM if her rules are isolated in a specific part of the book. However, the GM also needs to know the rules in the player section of the book and it can be rough to determine what's in the player or GM section if you're trying to find a rule in the middle of play. Generally I think it's better to divide rules by what they handle (see Unknown Armies thing below) than in separate GM/Player sections. Part of it I think is the pervasive GM Vs The Players attitude that's in the RPG industry and hobby. A lot of books include the "Players don't read this!!! GM ONLY" sidebar, as if it's a crime for players to know what mechanics the GM has to play with. There's this weird emphasis on hiding things from the players and that poo poo needs to die (outside of games specifically designed that way, more on that in a different post about design philosophy). That divide leads to the assumption that the players and the GM are all that different at the table. Yes, the GM is running NPCs while the players have their PCs, they are doing some different things, but I don't think the GM's job is necessarily all that different than say the Wizard player's job is compared to the Fighter player's job. A lot of the stuff RPG books assume the GM does, it's better if everyone at the table gets involved. GM just has different tools to get things done than the other players do. Apocalypse World/Dungeon World handles this well I think, with the GM playing a lot like the other people at the table (re: Moves). The GM just has a different toolbox. Unknown Armies does this well too, since it divides the rules less by player/GM and more by the tiers of play. People playing Street don't need to know the rules for magic or Archetypes, and neither does the GM. I don't remember if Unknown Armies reserves certain rules for a GM section but I don't think it does. Now, as far as advice goes? That's a bit different. I'm a fan of designer advice on how to play and run a game, and there are a few things that might only be applicable to GMs or to players. I still think a lot of stuff that gets relegated to the GM should be written for everyone, though. The sections in RPGs about running a good game session, pacing, that kind of stuff? Man, show that to everyone. That is everyone's job. Generally I think information in RPGs needs to open the gently caress up and get everyone working together. You'll find this issue more in cargo cult game design than in cool stuff like Apocalypse World and Unknown Armies though. A lot of otherwise great RPGs stick to AD&D-isms just because that's the way it's always been done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
I personally think the player GM divide should be encouraged more in traditional RPGS. Ideally there should be some overlap between GM and players in rules knowledge, but the idea that the GM needs to know all the player rules and all the special gm rules is stupid. As for how books should come? Thats simple. It is the year of our lord 2012, they should come as properly indexed files with support for a variety of platforms. Since there is no printing cost, divide it into as many files as seems appropriate, maybe it is one with link spoilers, or two that share a combat rules section, IDGAF. But there are better formats than bigass bok with lovely index for conveying information.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 00:59
|
|
|
I think a design and layout thread is a pretty good idea. I'm finishing up the layouts for the second playtest phase of my game right now, so I've been thinking about good aesthetics for a couple of months now. I looked to what has been successful and not so successful in other games, and while we could probably all talk about specifics I'd like to start with some general ideas that I formed when I was looking at different professional and indie games. > If you're going to ask me for money to buy your game and you're publishing it as a pdf, please buy a copy of InDesign and learn how to use it. If you're doing a lot of custom frames on different pages, do them by hand instead of using masters. Nothing irks me more than seeing border or text frame popup because you have overlapping master frames. > Please choose appropriate fonts. You are basically writing a niche textbook, and your presentation should be as professional as possible. There are lots of resources available for free that will teach you about basic typography. There had sure as poo poo better not be courier, times roman, whatever-dings, or comic sans in your book. Please make sure you understand kerning and lettering and tracking. > If you intend to have "handwritten" notes from some sort of in character/in world source, don't use some nearly illegible handwriting font. For short quotes of two or three sentences, it's fine to use italics with an attribution. Longer sections should actually be hand written, break out your second hand bamboo wacom, it will be 1000x nicer than JaneAusten.ttf > Add an appropriate amount of white space. > A PDF should be well bookmarked and have a linked TOC and linked index. Place your link anchors so they make sense. > Place character creation steps in sequential order whenever possible. > Experiment with page layouts. Each page in your book doesn't need to have only two columns or only three columns. Sidebars should be on the outside edge of the printed page. > You don't need tons of art and it can all be scanned pencil sketches for all I care, but the art you do include should have a fairly consistent design. No 3d computer rendered people, no poser art and no weird photoshops of still pictures. e: typo angry_keebler fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Jul 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 01:26
|
|
|
I really think we're far too enslaved to the idea of books as RPG tools. The 4E online compendium is a decent example of bypassing that. The standard format since the eighties has been: Player Book (which is not just for players, and often includes rules that game masters need to know) Game Book (which almost always includes rules that players need to know) Setting/Adventure/Monster Book (which is sometimes GM-only, sometimes for everyone, sometimes it's all divided up) It's a very confusing arrangement. The nineties gave us the "core book + infinite splatbooks" model, which is even more ridiculous. D&D 3 and nWoD made the mistake of combining the two models, for extra bonus rules bloat/diminishing returns action. D&D 4th Edition "Essentials" attempted to rectify this. The players' books are, in fact, just for the players. The Rules Compendium is a handy reference for everyone. The adventures and monster boxes are for the DM. It makes sense. A lot of indie games get published as a big fuckoff book of this game. These games inevitably get supplements which invalidate the notion that it's one book, one game. Plus, it's awkward to hand these books around when everyone needs to level up or whatever. So, gently caress books. Why not have smallish, individualized character-creation guides? How about little level-up packets you can distribute after your game session? Put all of the interaction rules in a single book and sell that, maybe. Or make your rules brief enough that they can go on a card or in a pamphlet. Break out of the "adventure book" idea and sell adventures as a map and a series of encounters on a single A4 sheet each. Throw setting info into easily-accessible booklets or guides that can be read in a short sitting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
Gau posted:So, gently caress books. Why not have smallish, individualized character-creation guides? How about little level-up packets you can distribute after your game session? Put all of the interaction rules in a single book and sell that, maybe. Or make your rules brief enough that they can go on a card or in a pamphlet. Break out of the "adventure book" idea and sell adventures as a map and a series of encounters on a single A4 sheet each. Throw setting info into easily-accessible booklets or guides that can be read in a short sitting. You mean like this? Having separate small books sounds like a good idea, but I don't know if it'd be a good idea to adopt what amounts to a microtransaction model. "Want to play the swordmage now? That'll be another $5." Most indie games do manage to remain self-contained at one book; I can't think of too many where you need to buy supplements.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
I think the FATE Dresden Files books do a great job of putting new players on the right path with the way character creation is laid out. It goes from step 1 to 2 et al without really needing to bounce back and forth between sections except to maybe see specific stunts/powers. For FATE at least the list of skills in character creation with a quick 3-4 trappings works great and fits in a side column, D&D not so much. This really is an issue though, simply because characters have so many facets. Sure, the character creation chapter would be fantastic if everything was there to make a character in one go, but even if it guides you from race - class - skills - feats, you still need to jump to the later chapters to find that stuff. That's why I think a PDF/tablet designed game could benefit from just drop downs and poke-able links. Need to pick a race? Have the race list be right there, and poking the "dwarf" icon pops up a quick paragraph on dwarves, what the racial benefits are, and how to apply it. Repeat for the skills and whatever else and suddenly it's a smooth step by step process all very convenient for the player.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
Mikan posted:I still think a lot of stuff that gets relegated to the GM should be written for everyone, though. The sections in RPGs about running a good game session, pacing, that kind of stuff? Man, show that to everyone. That is everyone's job. Generally I think information in RPGs needs to open the gently caress up and get everyone working together. Yeah this is a really good point. The PC book should have all of the rules a player needs to play. Like, shunting all of the falling rules or environmental rules to the GM book is a major pain in the rear end. I don't know if it's supposed to be a way to boost sales or if it's just they can't figure out how to manage layouts. Suppose if you cut back from ~200 spells for the wizard. Maybe you'd have enough room to add a page about wrestling and a page about fire bad! no walk on fire! As for book size, I think an RPG book should be as thick as it needs to be. I'd rather spend 50 - 60 bucks on a 480 page book with layout design by one person that covers everything the player needs to know than 25 bucks on 2 or 3 300 page books with layouts designed by committee. For myself, right now I'm pricing different options and I'm leaning toward Player Book, GM Book, Player Book with GM Book included, and Setting Book.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:You mean like this? Yes, like that, or Old School Hack, which also does it really well. Would you rather pay $5 for a race and class you want to play, or $40 for a book of 14 character options, with about 50% of it something you'd even use? I really feel like the better choice is for something with a much higher signal:noise ratio. SJG does this with a lot of their supplements; they release Action 1, 2, 3, etc. instead of one big ACTION! book. Then again, if we're going to go fully digital, gently caress individual costs. Wouldn't you rather purchase everything in the game for $X/month? No new supplements to buy, no shipping, no worries. I'm not talking about compendium-style stuff, I mean EVERYTHING. Every rule, every antagonist, every adventure, there at your fingertips. One of the things that I was touching on before is that rules need to be accessible. Pages should be laid out so that page breaks don't hide orphan paragraphs with important rules. Ideally, every page should lay alone, and everything should progress logically. Do away with piles of paragraphs; organize the information in a visually interesting manner! One of my biggest peeves is "Chapter X: Combat." Seriously? That's the division here? If I want cover rules, I have to page through this entire loving chapter and try to find them? (I laugh at your suggestion of an index; I've found two well-indexed RPG products in my life.) Instead, watch this:   A chapter for combat basics, one for tactical map-based combat, another for special situations, yet another for injuries! And each one has every single section enumerated. You can say a lot of things about GURPS, but the basic set is loving well-organized. You can do the same thing, even if you only have 1/10 of the rules.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 05:39
|
|
|
Gau posted:Then again, if we're going to go fully digital, gently caress individual costs. Wouldn't you rather purchase everything in the game for $X/month? No new supplements to buy, no shipping, no worries. I'm not talking about compendium-style stuff, I mean EVERYTHING. Every rule, every antagonist, every adventure, there at your fingertips. I think the only problem with this is that it requires a largish company, or at least one with enough people working to reliably produce enough content every month to make a subscription worth it. Luke Crane proposed going to this model with Burning Wheel and pretty much everyone poo poo on him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 05:45
|
|
|
Gau posted:Wouldn't you rather purchase everything in the game for $X/month? No. Subscriptions are the absolute worst cost distribution and obfuscation bogusness. Most people get screwed paying for things they'll never use so a handful of users can get more than they put in. Give me a tangible good or at least an unlimited personal use pdf license. quote:A chapter for combat basics, one for tactical map-based combat, another for special situations, yet another for injuries! And each one has every single section enumerated. You can say a lot of things about GURPS, but the basic set is loving well-organized. You can do the same thing, even if you only have 1/10 of the rules. No Joke. Rules should always be presented Basic-> Optionally Advanced / Optionally Simple. There's no justifiable reason in the world to not meet or exceed GURPS in terms of overal layout.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 06:38
|
|
|
I am 100% serious when I say a Razor/Blades or F2P model could work for a game like D&D. Put out the equiv of the 4e Rules Compendium as a dirt cheap paperback, give it away online for free like an SRD. Let people download it for any device. Then sell classes, adventures, monster packs. 2 bucks for a class, 1 buck for a race isn't going to break anyone's bank. Sell it online and as a physical product, poo poo sell it with minis. As a kid I'd have loved a shelf of minis of cool races and classes that were all "buy this mini, be this type of hero". Let the loving purists and grognards complain but get into department and toystores. THIS HERO COMES WITH ALL THE RULES TO PLAY HIM. THE GAME RULES YOU WILL NEED ARE AVAILABLE IN PRINT HERE OR ONLINE HERE. Edit: The grogs would complain a bit but they could sell bitchin box sets again. Everything you need for Greyhawk, a campaign booklet, an adventure, some maps, some minis, some monsters. Red_Mage fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Jul 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 07:18
|
|
|
What's an example of a rule you found elegant and efficient? Dread/jenga. I don't think it's perfect, but it was an interesting idea. It creates a growing sense of tension. It gives automatic pacing to a session. It isn't without issues- the tower can fall unexpectedly, and jenga itself has no relation to the game. It's the same as using a controller to play an FPS as compared to playing Time Crisis at the arcade. An example which ties in game mechanics to a player's actual physical actions would be Ninja Burger. When casting spells, you have to make hand motions and often perform additional real world actions for the spells to work in the game. The logical conclusion, LARPing, strangely does nothing for me. What's some awful trends in game design that need to see their way out? Iterative design within an IP. D&D 5th edition is just like Halo 4- I'd be more interested in seeing something entirely new than a new version of something old. From a business perspective, I completely understand the allure of building a brand and sticking with it though. I'm not saying you shouldn't explore a rules set or setting with additional content. But, when you cease to innovate, it's time to move on. A trend that should be pushed harder is the expansion of games into multiple mediums. If you already have all the assets/cards/etc, making a web version of your card/board game is pretty drat easy. (Or you can pay someone like me to do it for you) What's a mechanically sound game that's difficult to interpret. In other words, what game had a good structure that failed in the design of its materials. Agricola. I think this game could have been much more approachable with a slightly higher production value. What's a game with awful mechanics but a presentation so good you almost forget the fact? My real answer is Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition, but that's going to catch a lot of flack, and rightfully so. The mechanics in DnD4 are fine, they just weren't what I was looking for. More to the point, I still bought the drat thing because the books were so good looking. Poor mechanics behind a beautiful visage? Chaos in the Old World. Seriously, just play Risk. Why is it so hard to make a useful index? Because it's equally as difficult to find a talented editor. Or rather, a talented editor who fits within the budget of a project. What's the best way to represent an RPG? Is it better to have a section of rules for everyone, and then a separate rules for DM (Players Handbook and DMG/MM), or to have all of the rules necessary for play compiled in one extra large tome? 1 Book, priced between $40-60, should be able to contain all the rules necessary to play an RPG. There are definitely other options though, based on the format a game comes in and the way in which a company plans to expand on the content.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 07:32
|
|
|
Most RPG designers could stand to take a page from board game rules design. Not just in presentation, but also in amount of content. Some fairly complex games with an amazing amount of tactical swing to them fit on just one or two pages. One of the most complex boardgames I know, Twilight Imperium, mostly fits on a booklet that's less than 30 pages and then introduces edge case and unique rules on playing cards. That's not bad for a game with a reputation of being so complex, big and engaging that it can take an entire weekend to play a game of it. And that's an exceptional situation in boardgames, with most fitting on just a couple of pages! Simplify, Simplify, Simplify. Cut down. Reword. Use play aids. Learn to organize your rules better. Spend less time writing those 100.000 word bricks that are completely inaccessible in play and more time designing the game. We can tell when a game was written by the word (0.01 dollars per). To name an example of a horrifically badly organized ruleset, I nominate FATE and its variants. It's a fairly simple game at its heart, with rules which can be (and have been) fit into a trifold booklet. But the rules are worded in a verbose and obtuse manner, it's organized like an old school wargame most of the time and they're always full of long lists of special powers which most people just tend to ignore and which could more easily be condensed to a set of cards or hyperlinks. A ruleset which can be fit into a pamphlet should not take hundreds of pages of space. Verbosity is not a virtue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 15:05
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:I am 100% serious when I say a Razor/Blades or F2P model could work for a game like D&D. That'd work for games like D&D that rely on the supplement treadmill, but for games that actually are self-contained in one or two books, it wouldn't work because then you're just paying for one PDF/book/whatever over and over again. Something like (say) Dresden Files or Apocalypse World wouldn't work on a subscription model. Also I still prefer books over PDFs and find hardcopies easier to use. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 15:12
|
|
|
Hey, this looks like a useful new thread! I know that I've learned a ton about game design from reading TGD in the past, and I want to thank all of you for helping me. I think TGD is the only place on the Internet that is both interested in discussing games on a design level rather than nebulous 'feelings', and is knowledgeable about said design. I'll separate this out to make it easier to read. Sorry about the  , but I have a lot to say! Also, I'll be referencing my current game project, but I won't be specific about it. You can see it if you want, but pulling my dick out and sticking it in random forums (including TGD, once!) isn't such a good idea when I'm still working on it. (The 'current' public version sucks, but I've learned a lot from TGD and experience, and I've got a semi-public which is a lot better and even more in the works.)Just for the record, I'll admit that I'm an inexperienced designer and have no formal business experience or training. I've made a lot of mistakes in both. So if I say anything out of sorts, I apologize in advance. - In terms of books, I don't think the one-book design is inherently bad, but books need to be both better designed and better written. Oh, and loving indexed. There also need to be more introductory products on the market. Very few RPGs go out of their way to give you a proper Red Box style experience, and I think new players would have a much easier time if such things existed. How I want to do it, and am doing it, is to have a package freely available digitally and cheaply available printed, maybe in a nice box - rulebook, intro adventure, pregens. Enough rules to get you started and pique your interest in the full product. Again, just the typical Red Box stuff, but I think where that fails is that your Red Box adventures never have personal investment, and neither do pregen characters. Get people used not just to the idea of adventuring or whatever, but to telling a story and playing a character - give a coherent world to the players and GM, give the pregen characters histories and personalities, and have an adventure which is both fun and exciting! I know Gau will probably hate me for this, but I think that a one-book system with slow, stable expansions is the way to go. Not a billion splatbooks for every occasion, mind you - instead, focus on a high quality core system and fluff, and each expansion advances the fluff and adds new options. Mind you, that doesn't work with every system, since 'new options' can often lead to ridiculous things, but I think it can work with my setup. Compartmentalization sounds great in theory, but I don't think it'd work with a market used to having big, meaty hunks of content. - Other revenue streams: Subscriptions are great, but that requires a constant stream of new content, which isn't ideal for every game...and that can lead to heavy power creep, as we saw with D&D Insider. I think it's worth trying accessories - WotC hasn't had luck with them, but game aids, visual aids, miniatures and toys Modern technology can help here, too. 3D printing is an exciting technology, and though it's not cheap for your average mass production mini, imagine this - going to the company and ordering your own custom versions, which come out exactly as you want it! It's something I'm working on, with a 3D modeller of my own. It depends on the game - something like this works better for games with relatively uniform-looking characters/units. Say, you could order a bunch of Space Marines equipped with whatever custom accessories you want, or your own customized BattleMech! Put new technologies to use, people. It goes without saying that mobile apps and aids help, too. Unfortunately, that's outside my area of expertise and my budget. But if possible, I'd love to have a multiplatform game aid app. - As for indexes: Ideally, you have several indexes - say, an index for rules concepts, an index for character creation info, an index for fluff...as long as there's no overlap, that makes things a lot more convenient. Glossaries help, too - fluff glossaries should also be there. Rules aids - quick sheets with a summary of the rules and conditions. Power Cards from 4e were awesome, those should be available. Explain the rules to your players, explain character creation, help them make good decisions. No traps. Be open with your players. Tell them everything they need to know to play the game! GM and Player info separation is necessary to an extent. I know that you guys see the roles as not that different, but the GM does have concerns that the players don't, and generally more responsibility. Not as much as D&D can have it, where the GM has a huge amount of work compared to the players, but some. Narrative systems can help take this weight off, and you work to have a design where the weight of storytelling is not totally on the GM's shoulders. But for the most part, information should be open. There should be no 'GMs only!' section, only a 'this is more useful for GMs' section. Again, everyone should be able to know whatever they need to play. - Again, sorry about the . I hope I didn't embarass myself too much, and I look forward to learning more lessons from TGD and this thread in the future!
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 17:50
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:To name an example of a horrifically badly organized ruleset, I nominate FATE and its variants. It's a fairly simple game at its heart, with rules which can be (and have been) fit into a trifold booklet. But the rules are worded in a verbose and obtuse manner, it's organized like an old school wargame most of the time and they're always full of long lists of special powers which most people just tend to ignore and which could more easily be condensed to a set of cards or hyperlinks. A ruleset which can be fit into a pamphlet should not take hundreds of pages of space. Verbosity is not a virtue. There's actually two big main stream FATE books I'll break down, one which is good for its size and one which is not. 1) Dresden Files - Big because as it guides the player through creation you get so much fluff of the setting and examples of play and a well worded way for new people to read it and not get bored. It's equal mix of story to get the player into the game as it is mechanics. 2) Legends of Anglerre - Big because jesus christ it is verbose, and nearly half the book are specific stunts laid out like feats, and it has a number of feats (both interesting and blah and some designed as feat trees that rivals D&D). In addition each skill has three trappings on average, but each trapping has like 3 paragaphs to explain a simple concept like "Lying", "Reading a Liar", etc. Where Dresden will say "The Athletics skill is for stuff like jumping, running, wrestling, and general sports ability" with maybe two lines max, LoA will go into 3 full on pages for the trappings of athletics skills for no good goddamn reason. Honestly as a core book I feel the simplicity of Dresden without all the fluff would be awesome, to have a complete book of all the mechanics laid out well and succinct, and let supplements be for all the setting poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:Also I still prefer books over PDFs and find hardcopies easier to use. Absolutely. PDFs are good for reading outside of a session but unless everybody has a 7"+ tablet you end up with everybody staring at their laptops all game. For a bunch of kids getting into gaming, even laptops for ll is kinda unrealistic. In my perfect fantasy world every RPG book comes as a double wire-o 8.5 x 11on 90# no-gloss bright white. There are lots of unfortunate reaities that make this impossible for a mass market game, but it's my dream and all of the full color special editions I print will be made this way, reality be damned.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:Honestly as a core book I feel the simplicity of Dresden without all the fluff would be awesome, to have a complete book of all the mechanics laid out well and succinct, and let supplements be for all the setting poo poo. Well, there's going to be Fate Core that's supposed to cover that, whenever that comes out. And like I said in my LoA review, you could tell that it was designed before Dresden's "cleaned up" version of Fate, and that they were coming from a D&D "feats" mindset.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
How would you say a good layout should look though? Should it start right in after maybe 2-3 pages of "This is an RPG, this is the materials needed, here's on average how a game goeS" of straight up character creation, followed by specifics like the deeper rules, or is there a mix and match method that works better? For reference I'm coming from a design standpoint that a successful RPG should be just as friendly, quick, and useful to get into as fast as possible with rules questions as clear as possible for brand new RPG player.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:I am 100% serious when I say a Razor/Blades or F2P model could work for a game like D&D. I'm actually kind of in love with this model for a Dungeons and Dragons style game. This is what "modular" should mean.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:How would you say a good layout should look though? Should it start right in after maybe 2-3 pages of "This is an RPG, this is the materials needed, here's on average how a game goeS" of straight up character creation, followed by specifics like the deeper rules, or is there a mix and match method that works better? My layout for creating a character and understanding how everything but combat and specific special powers work takes 9 chapters. I've used the following layout structure: Cover -> Introduction and credits -> Introduction chapter with a glossary of important terms, required and reccommended materials, and a brief example of play -> Chapter 1, steps needed to make a character spelled out in order -> Chapter 2, Ability scores an other defining characteristics like HP, movement, luck etc. -> Chapter 3, pick your race -> Chapter 4, pick or roll our personal background/history -> Chapter 5, pick or roll weaknesses -> Chapter 6, pick special perks and powers -> Chapter 7, choose skills and special tricks -> Chapter 8, pick your starting equipment Each chapter is written for an audience with around an 8th grade reading level, with simple language used whenever possible. Each chapter has example sidebars and the end of each chapter has a checklist that tells you exactly what you should have accomplished making your dude. Each chapter is a discrete unit, you don't need to reference the ability score chapter to pick yor skills, for example. I try to make sure I always explain what everything means and how it works, because not everyone knows what HP means or how to read 2d8 + 2. angry_keebler fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Jul 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
Just asking if you don't mind, but in terms of A4 paper roughly how many pages is each chapter?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:For reference I'm coming from a design standpoint that a successful RPG should be just as friendly, quick, and useful to get into as fast as possible with rules questions as clear as possible for brand new RPG player. One overlooked way to do this is by providing as many examples of the rules in motion as you can. Too many games don't give you a decent example of play, and even if they do provide examples it's something general at the start of the book, maybe one when you get to skill use, and a two-page simple combat example. Hell, I don't even think 4e has an example of play, does it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
I recently started thinking about making my own game and my first stop was to see if we had a thread like this. So thanks OP on making it, it's been an interesting read so far. I think RPGs need to advance beyond simple PDFs and poo poo. Obviously the hard copies are awesome for certain situations, but as a guy who reads plenty of PDFs of games, they are a pain and usually could be a world better. For starters, think of all the awesome poo poo you could package with a PDF that shouldn't really be too much of a pain. Hyperlinked sections for a start sure, but you could throw a simple character generator in there, some kind of random encounter tool right in the PDF. Or as part of a pack if you don't have the tools to do that in the PDF. Games these days are sped up by a world of tools we have now that we didn't have back in AD&D times, and slowly we're seeing companies take advantage of that (the Insider and DnD Character Creator, for example). I'm just saying why not include that poo poo right there in the book?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
Fenarisk posted:Just asking if you don't mind, but in terms of A4 paper roughly how many pages is each chapter? The total page count for the chapters I listed for the first phase playtest was ~200 pages, and the layout was semi-finalized with placeholder artwork and whitespace so the final product will probably be fairly similar. They vary quite a bit. The chapter about generating and using ability scores will occupy ~10 pages with artwork, but the chapters with big lists of stuff like skills and weakness/advantage chapters occupy ~40 pages each but also include all the rules you need to create new skills or weaknesses/advantages if there's some skill you just need to have that isn't listed, although I've tried to make the lists fairly comprehensive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
Ok, let's talk modern publishing formats. Apple extended the .epub format a bit, and the authoring tool for this is free. Only iPads can read it, but those things are everywhere. I've thrown a couple of chapters from a FATE SRD into this format, take a look. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/7464346/FateSRD.itmsp.zip This still needs a lot of hyperlinking done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
To Do Good One Must Look Good Hot on the heels of newer means of publishing and the importance of a solid typographical presentation comes, I think, an also increasing importance on graphics and aesthetic. I've done the hobbyist/homebrew rpg development thing for a long while, and with the recent April TG design contest I was encouraged to try my hand at actually publishing something. But even for the contest I slapped together a pdf and people reacted more or less to the tune of that looks really good. At the time of that original post, the mechanics weren't even entirely proven! Now, this isn't to say one should mask possibly shoddy or outdated gameplay with pretty pictures, but instead help make it so that a good game's chances of being successful are increased by their appealing visuals. I feel that this is as true for indie developers as much as it is for the big players in the industry, who have clearly ramped up their art budgets over the course of the past twenty years. Fenarisk posted:How would you say a good layout should look though? Should it start right in after maybe 2-3 pages of "This is an RPG, this is the materials needed, here's on average how a game goeS" of straight up character creation, followed by specifics like the deeper rules, or is there a mix and match method that works better? Everything I've always done has been broken down into four basic sections, with various sub-sections as necessary: The Introduction, which is where I synopsize the general theme of the game, include a glossary (the importance of which I cannot stress enough), credits, required materials, and a table of contents. Characters, where I first focus on character creation, but also stash any additional character-related things like spells, items, and so forth. Playing The Game, whose section title is pretty self explanatory, and can include things like combat, dealing with opposed rolls, or checks versus static values, other game-relevant things like the dangers of traps or how exploring works, etc. Source Material, which contains all the world fluff. Fluff always comes last, because how ever much you might love your precious game world, it's the least important part of the game. I also tend to include npc or monster stats in the fluff section, as these things really are setting-specific. I tend to place examples of how things work right next to the sections that discuss the mechanical renderings of said things. So I never really have one solid block of character creation or gameplay examples anywhere in the book. On What a GM Should Know vs. What Players Should Know I've never really undertaken a project where I've had to split things into player resources and GM resources, but I also don't think that this really needs doing. The workings of the game should be laid bare for everyone involved. About the only things a GM would need to know that the players don't need to know should really only be contained in, say, an adventure module. In my experience a player in one game is apt to be a GM in another.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 02:57
|
|
|
bahamut posted:Everything I've always done has been broken down into four basic sections, with various sub-sections as necessary: Absolutely stealing this idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 03:40
|
|
|
I think we could probably have some system building discussions in this thread too. Anything really specific could/should go in the homebrew thread (should my basic sword do 1d8 or 2d4 damage?) but this thread could cover generic and system agnostic things like should a game even have ability scores or should a game have a bunch of different kinds of swords. Do I need to put ability scores in my game?  Yes. DnD had ability scores, so every game needs them as a legacy mechanic and don't even bother thinking or trying anything new. NO! My favorite darling indie system doesn't have them, and any game that does is made by assholes for assholes.A big theme you see a bunch online, and especially here in TG, is DTAS. The reasoning, which I think is sound, is that ability scores that aren't directly used for anything are worthless so cut them right out. If the only reason your strength score exists is to provide a +X modifier to hit and damage why not get rid of it and just have Buff Bonus (-4 to +4)? I chose to have ability scores in my game, because for my game they form the fundamental basis for making dice rolls. Each ability score is used to figure the basic chance of success of using a skill. A character with an Agility score of 44 has a 44% of succeeding when attempting to use a skill related to agility, like throwing a lasso or doing something atheletic. Each ability score (I have 5) gives the players more options and a significant chance to attempt any sort of related action or use any sort skill. Either choice is fine for your game, but make the decision based on whether or not the ability scores add anything to your game. Unless your ability scores inform and empower the player, get rid of them. There's no reason to add extra math and calculations where unnecessary. e. Get rid of intelligence and wisdom. These are really terrible stats that make the game just god-awful. Either everyone ignores them and plays however they want, or they cling to their Int score like a limpet and make really terrible decisions that screw the other PCs.  Durr my guy only has a 7 int so I throw a hand grenade at my friends durr. Isn't that fun.
angry_keebler fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Jul 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
There's nothing wrong with the concept of Ability Scores, it's how they're used in 4e (and D&D, but let's focus on 4e.) You put points into them or roll (boo) for 3-18. These numbers mean almost nothing, since you'll only ever really use the -4/+4. That's not elegant design, you have two numbers to accomplish one thing and can easily skip a step. But feat prereqs! As implemented, these suck. It means every arcane character needs Dex 13 even if it messes with their scores elsewhere. Thanks, Dual Implement. Oh, and each ability score governs a different amount of skills so putting points in Strength kinda sucks but Intelligence is awesome. 4e tried to remedy this with NADs and AC and all that but legacy mechanics still reign supreme. Combat's the worst part. There's no reason not to prioritize ability scores so you have max bonuses to your attack bonus and secondary riders. (Outside of maaaaybe a few edge cases, but even then.) All of these things combined (plus some other issues) mean DTAS. The thing with DTAS isn't about ability scores it's about design elegance and lovely legacy mechanics and designing for "feel" instead of actual game design. angry_keebler posted:Get rid of intelligence and wisdom. These are really terrible stats that make the game just god-awful. Either everyone ignores them and plays however they want, or they cling to their Int score like a limpet and make really terrible decisions that screw the other PCs. There absolutely need to be mechanics in place for people to play smarter or wiser or more charming characters than the player involved, just as we have mechanics for being stronger or tougher or faster.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
The way I choose to interpret DTAS (aside from Mikan's bit) is a combination of "cut the useless cruft" and "try to have just one resolution mechanic". Cutting the cruft is obvious: if it's a mechanic which doesn't do anything or a number which adds to nothing, cut it. D&D 4e ability scores fall into this where they could as easily have been just the modifier. The other is a bit trickier. In a system where you have a skill system for measuring "learned skill" and an ability score system measuring "natural talent" (and there is far from a clear line between the two outside the world of RPGs), ask yourself this: Are they both required for your system to work? I say that they're not. In a system which has a "Charisma" stat representing an abstract measurement of your innate personal charm, you probably don't also need a system of subdivided skills to charm people with. Use one or the other, because using both is redundant or at best reduces one of them to a modifier of the other. Fenarisk posted:There's actually two big main stream FATE books I'll break down, one which is good for its size and one which is not. Funny thing, though. They're both available at my FLGS. Both of them absolutely intimidate customers, even if Dresden is nominally friendlier. Why? Because they're both massive bricks which are heavier than the clubs you'd use to bash a seal's skull in. That one has friendlier presentation on the inside doesn't matter because they're both falling victim to the problem of looking like serious drat business or collectibles rather than games you play. And that is a serious problem which the current RPG industry is making worse and worse as books get bigger and thicker and more capable of devastating cute animals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:Funny thing, though. They're both available at my FLGS. Both of them absolutely intimidate customers, even if Dresden is nominally friendlier. Why? Because they're both massive bricks which are heavier than the clubs you'd use to bash a seal's skull in. That one has friendlier presentation on the inside doesn't matter because they're both falling victim to the problem of looking like serious drat business or collectibles rather than games you play. And that is a serious problem which the current RPG industry is making worse and worse as books get bigger and thicker and more capable of devastating cute animals. Very good point, which is something I noticed directly for the same game: Savage Worlds. When SW had the explorer's edition, a nice little thin paperback with all the info you need (about the size of the Essentials books but half as thick), anyone I pitched the game to or suggested at game night was like "drat it's all in there? Awesome!" and for 10 bucks would pick up this not-intimidating rules guide/core game. Now that the Deluxe Edition hit as a much thicker hardcover (about the size of a nWoD book), I've noticed the look in their eyes of a deer in headlights is starting to pervade. Personally I think the idea of the smaller trade paperback like SW:EX or the Essentials books is a much easier sell, and hell, they're easier to lug around if people still want the books.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
For the record, there's a digest-sized Savage Worlds Deluxe coming out around GenCon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
Regarding presentation of character options I don't think a playbook model is a good idea to set as the standard, simply because most beginners don't actually know what it is they want to play until they've read about all the options. Of course that also needs the game to not have a bloat of them, if you have five variants of 'dude who hits things' then the idea is more viable. A big thing that helps with layout is having effects-based designs and unified mechanics. Games where the crunch is irreparably tied to background fluff like say l5r need you to be aware of the setting before you make a character, and if you don't have tons of tables and subsystems for traveling times or drama points then you don't need to send them to the GM section as well. What this boils down to is that some games need you to put the boring bits alongside the fun ones, if you want to go old school and sacrifice elegance of mechanics then you're going to have to sacrifice elegance of layout too. Indexes aren't a thing I've found difficult to make, all you really need is to be aware that you need separate indexes and glossaries for things that are rules, fluff, GM advice and the like. They're just time consuming. GimmickMan fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Jul 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
Mikan posted:There absolutely need to be mechanics in place for people to play smarter or wiser or more charming characters than the player involved, just as we have mechanics for being stronger or tougher or faster. Oh sure, just don't call it intelligence or wisdom. I have Education, which represents intelligence or wisdom or accumulated knowledge or any combination thereof. A mentally handicapped adult could have an education score of 80 (out of 100) representing years of memorization and careful study, whle a child genius might have an education of 26, being an inexperienced youth. Go ahead and let the player make a general education check to figure something out or see if the character has specific knowledge or give the player a clue. Play your character as smart or dopey as you like. A number or numbers on your sheet that you absolutely need to have to play a certain kind of class (Int pumped and Cha dumped for the DnD wizard) shouldn't force the player to assume the role of the aloof genius.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
To go back to the idea that "larger game = bad game", I have to disagree with that; I'd honestly rather have a larger game that tells me how it's supposed to work over a smaller game that doesn't tell me anything past "here's the system, we're not going to expand on anything, good luck". I also don't get why people will complain that something like Dresden Files is too big, then go play D&D which requires three books with a larger total page count. Especially when DFRPG and LoA do tell you how to make your own system-balanced content, but for D&D you have to rely on WotC to make new stuff for you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:To go back to the idea that "larger game = bad game", I have to disagree with that; I'd honestly rather have a larger game that tells me how it's supposed to work over a smaller game that doesn't tell me anything past "here's the system, we're not going to expand on anything, good luck". I'm also on this, I never saw either Dresden or LoA as overly large, and though they do get a bit repetitive it is for the sake of making sure the rules are clear. Sure, the books are pretty loving huge when compared to most indie games, but that's the price of having mechanical depth, the necessary fluff for people who can't come up with it, tools for the GM to customize the game to their liking, and enough art to grab your attention and keep it through the walls of text. edit: I mean you could cut down either of those down to half size by taking out art, summarizing crunch, and ditching most of the GM's premade homework (in both background fluff and prebuilt stuff) but that's quite the sacrifice. The PHB/DMG divide gets flak, but there's nothing wrong with wanting to keep the stuff that you need to play in one book and the setting/customization tools/in-depth advice information meant to help the GM in the other. GimmickMan fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Jul 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 04:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
I think the source of the objection has less to do with the size of the source material, and more with the intimidating nature (for someone new to the hobby or a particular area of it) of a huge fuckoff book. It's not the only consideration, for sure; I mean, I love big, huge board-game boxes because if I'm gonna spend $70-100 on a game, I want to feel like I'm getting some value for that money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2012 04:43
|
|