[Layout] Character creation in the front of the book

[Zach]

Good day,

Experience has taught me that it is poor idea to use a term in a book and then define it several chapters later. However after reading Truth and Justice, which puts the system before character creation, I realized how odd it was. I started going through my shelf of gaming books to confirm, and many of them begin with a brief introduction and then skip right into character creation. To a first-time reader, wouldn't this be the equivalent of giving them a set of tools without any guidance toward what to do with them?

In a combat-oriented game, I would realize that having a high parry score is good. That's about it though. Why would I want to be an accomplished dodger instead? I wouldn't have anything firm upon which to found the decision.

Then again, using the L5R 2nd edition book as an example, character creation in the middle has been the source of endless confusion. Everybody in my group knows roughly where each section is, but look-up time is longer than any system that front-loads their books.

[jerry]

In my case, I put character creation up first in Gods & Monsters because I want new readers to be doing something cool first. I want them to see "these are who your characters can be" before seeing "this is how your characters do things".

I do try to explain in general terms what each number or choice means as they make it.

Jerry

[joepub]

What I did in "Perfect" is...
I put a "Character Elements" section in first.
Then a "Game Mechanics and Crime Cycles" section in.
Then a "Character Creation and Evolution" section.


That way you get terms. then you get tests. Then you get to create your own character.
It works really well for people who've read it.

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

For GLASS (see sig), I realized that it would be very hard to make a character without understanding what GLASS Attributes and Abilities mean in-play. Further, one of the core principles informing its design is that I am trying to reduce all significant effects against an opponent to their minimal, core roots (regardless of color or style). As such, my terms might have certain connotations (from other RPGs) which I wanted to quash before anyone got near character creation.

Thus, I chose to define all game terms and systemic relationships BEFORE character creation. (I am still considering this choice, because I am tempted to reorganize so that character creation is first and ALSO includes all necessary definitions and relationships; but see below for my issues with this alternate, inclusive approach.)

But I concur with the above poster, in that it is sort of incoherent to have creation first with explanations of elements all forward-referenced from that section to later "system rules" sections. I have a further justification, also: character creation occurs once per player (for a single game) and yet reference to rules can occur any number of times. Therefore, I feel (felt?) that the core rules, relationships, terms, and systems should be at "heading 1 level" (i.e. major heading; topic of chapters) rather than nested under a character creation "heading 1" as "heading 2 levels" or subordinate sections.

Ultimately, this could be a matter of taste and tradition, rather than a "best practice." However, there is something to be learned from other reference works (of which, I feel, most RPGs are a subset): most of them will define terms and establish general organizing principles before going into particular applications (of which character creation is one).

HTH;
David

[jerry]

Ultimately, this could be a matter of taste and tradition, rather than a "best practice." However, there is something to be learned from other reference works (of which, I feel, most RPGs are a subset): most of them will define terms and establish general organizing principles before going into particular applications (of which character creation is one).

I suppose it depends on whether you see an RPG book as a reference or a guide. There is at least one class of works that will go into applications first and then move to general principles: tutorials. I've generally found that the best tutorials have the reader do something (preferably simple) first, and then go into a deeper understanding of the subject from there.

I've found that if, when teaching a tutorial, I go through general principles and definitions first, people's eyes glaze over. But if I start with something simple that they can do, and then go into principles and definitions as needed, people start to pay attention.

I see an RPG manual as a combination of tutorial and reference. There may have to be a reference for quick lookup (depending on the game, anyway) but the first time they pick up the book every reader needs a tutorial. While they may only need that tutorial once, they do need it first.

Jerry

[Mcrow]

It sort of depends on the book.


If the book has a setting included:

I tend to like the setting first, followed by character generation, mechanics, and developement.

[Certified]

Having a feel for the setting of a game I think is crucial for character concept and design. What you might want to consider is the feel of the game, and how detailed the setting is. Can the reader get a strong feel for the game with just a minor briefing or will it need more explanation to really get into the flavor of the game? 

6th World is setting intensive and the layout includes a short 2-page story and 4-page overview of the world at the beginning of the book to set the tone along with a glossary of in game terms (i.e. not words for rules but slang terms and language used by most people.) This is followed by the character creation with a sample character starting with a background story. There are other interconnected short stories thought the book, designed for flavor and to give players an idea of sample play. 

At the back of the book is additional setting information things the characters and the players might not need to know. Because 6th Worlds setting is not something standard, modern day, or fantasy I thought it was important to include as much setting information as possible without becoming redundant. So in addition to the setting blocks there are notes on the world in general spread thought the book.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

As a general rule, simply posting opinions is not considered a discussion at the Forge. All I'm seeing here is people repeating what they're used to as if it were important.

I suggest checking out these older threads:
Layout question
Book structure - the ordering of chapters

Do not post to these older threads. Instead, read them, and then continue the discussion in this one.

Best, Ron

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

All I'm seeing here is people repeating what they're used to as if it were important.

As I am attempting to argue that RPGs are of a class of publications for which there is already a body of experience and theory, I will proceed with the discussion in which I was engaged with Zach and (now) Jerry. In as much as I am arguing that RPGs are in the class of reference materials, I am expressing an opinion; and I recognize that I am only addressing a subset of RPGs (complex RPGs with a need for fast reference and scanability, not arthaus or ultra-rules-light games with few rules or reference material).

There may have to be a reference for quick look-up (depending on the game, anyway) but the first time they pick up the book every reader needs a tutorial. While they may only need that tutorial once, they do need it first.

I can appreciate that--yet I don't think it really speaks to the organization of a core rulebook. Maybe of a "player's guide" or a book snippet that is used as a handout; but in the core book? I do not agree. It's all a matter of utility: yes, the tutorial would be the first thing a player "uses"--but it would never be used again. That makes me think of, for example, the "traditional" sample scenario--which is almost always at the back of a book, for the GM to use once and forget about. If we still made boxed RPG "sets" with multiple books, that tutorial would definitely be its own book, to be used once and then (probably) stay in the box forever more.

Also, such a tutorial, presumably, would either (a) require a GM to help guide the player through the nuances of rules for the first time or (b) only cover the most general, simplest subset of the rules, not all of them. Thus, it isn't really even a "training aide," per se; rather, it is a form of marketing collateral: a device to help a potential new customer--ignorant of the product, not shopping for it with a desire for it--decide to pay to play. I feel that this is a very meaningful difference between RPG books and the computer model that (I am guessing) you have in mind: a computer handles a lot of "system" behind the scenes, for a new user in a tutorial. It will move the mouse for them, flash and highlight choices, and otherwise behave sort of like a "GM" for the "player" taking the tutorial. But an RPG product will have a tough time doing that stand-alone, with no GM to aide the player in first experience. Thus, this tutorial will (probably) suffer from the forward-reference issue I mentioned above or, worse, from redundant rules text embedded into it: either way, it can't be "played" without frequent interruptions to learn the rules.

I'm not saying a book-opening tutorial is an impossibility or that it won't ever work. I am just asserting that introductory tutorials can't do more than hint at the actual gameplay, without a GM and/or a full treatment of the main rules--in effect, going back to "learn terms first" that causes the eye-glazing you have experienced. And yet, you'd have them at the start of a book, to be thumbed past every time one wants to reference something. SO we introduce a handling issue, without really doing much to solve the marketing goal (unless a GM helps or the potential customer is willing to invest some time learning rules before playing the tutorial).

And now we turn to Issue B above: Suppose it were chess that we were discussing. You could give someone an "overview" of how to play: game goals, the use of pieces, turn-based play. But to actually let someone sample the gameplay, you'd have to give them a situation (a game board arrangement) and teach them the rules for moving the pieces involved in the situation. Note, however, that I need not learn the movement of all pieces in chess, though--which you'd say is a good thing, I imagine, given a tutorial's introductory nature.

But that is a BAD thing, for a game: I might not have any notion of a Knight's style of move, and that style of move might be a deal-breaker for my enjoyment of the game! Your tutorial, thus, could easily misrepresent the gameplay, if it attempts to abbreviate it at all. SO we're back, quickly, to Issue A: GM needed or its just a wrapper for a lot of forward-referenced core rules.

While we're on the subject of "first content," I feel much the same way about setting information, though I recognize that many game books function more as a "travel guide" than a reference work. For instance, Aberrant's style of game depends pretty heavily on the players understanding the "modern realism" flavor of the world. Also, its system is just the same "splat" system that White Wolf has used many times before. Clearly, WW chose to see the core book as more of a flavor product, with the rules coming only after scores of pages of flavor and setting material. BUT one could almost look at that "flavor" stuff as a form of "quasi rule" or (perhaps) "meaningful color": in other words, getting a feel for the world flavor is a MAJOR part of playing Aberrant "right," and so the setting itself takes on duties to guide gameplay and player behavior in as much a way as the dice rolling and turn segmenting rules do. And in that light, the pages of "setting" material serve as both "tutorial" and an introduction to "how to play" in the context of actions taken and attitudes projected. Interestingly, it is not reference material, though; and so Aberrant's core book seems to straddle a gap between a travel guide and an encyclopedia of effects and resolution mechanics. But is that "the one true way?" No: Champions did it the exact opposite: rules in front and setting in back, with few hooks in the setting copy as to "how" to use the setting itself, rule-wise.

Therefore, it seems to me that if the RPG is highly dependant on presenting the game world to convey style of play--and especially if the mechanics are "incidental" or are even copied from a generic system like d20 or Hero--then setting material must take precedence, both for marketting (first glances) and for principle use (reading the book to learn the game and world). But if, instead, the game is a sort of "new toolkit" or otherwise gets a lot of its traction and appeal from mechanical solutions, then learning the ropes is requisite to appreciating the product, and "terms and relationships" take the front-and-center role, both for marketting and for reading and referencing uses.

So in conclusion, sure, the blunt answer to the OP's question is that it is heavily dependant on "what works for your game"--but that does not mean that each game must invent its organization justification in a vacuum. There are precedents that can be leveraged, if one can classify one's RPG as akin to an existing class of book. And, I feel, this discussion could at least frame such classes--even if we begin with dreaded opinion--and move towards considerations of tradition or information theory. (The second linked discussion above begins to develop such classifications, by posing questions about the book's intended use, but then dries up and is incomplete as a guide to book classification. All I am saying is that the answers to some of those types of questions WILL make the book fall into a particular class, and then there are usually very good reasons to adopt all practices for that class of book--none of which are matters of taste or opinion.)

HTH;
David

[Ron Edwards]

One more bit of snotty, defensive whining out of you, David, and your further posts will go into the Inactive File. We've discussed this privately and I'll say it again: your wounded-ego reactions to moderation are not valid here. There is nothing in your post except an attempt to strike back at me, despite dressing it up with intellectualism - you had your chance to say, "Hey, let's develop classification, then, here's a go," and you chose to snipe about opinions instead.

This discussion concerns an important topic. If the posts can't live up to that by entering into real discourse, real thinking, then I'll shut it down. David, you'd do best simply to stop posting to it; I've got better things to do than wipe your nose.

Zach, let's get back to your issue - and it's clear that all of the books you've referenced assume one thing: that one person (owner of the book, GM, social leader, all assumed to be the same person) is "in charge" of the group, and that the process of learning is not actually a book-oriented, book-organizational issue.

As long as this is the case, then frankly, it doesn't matter how the book is organized. The assumption is that the one person has devoured its every page and processed each section's relationship to any other section on his own. Then he feeds pre-digested options to everyone else and (somehow) teaches them to play; they only look up lists and so on for their character-creation options.

The trouble is that no one knows whether an RPG text is supposed to convince people to play this game, or to explain how to play this game. Most of the gaudy settings up-front, most of the elaborate character options, are built to attract people, in terms of consumerism, rather than to explain anything, or for that matter, to be easy or useful during play anyway.

For some texts which simply don't bother to try to convert the reader, but which instead explain the game without any forward-referencing, see Dogs in the Vineyard and Primetime Adventures. Once the task of the book is settled - which is to say, assume the reader wants to play - then an immense amount of distracting, unnecessary material can be jettisoned.

Best, Ron

[Zach]

After reading this thread and the ones linked from it, my book's organization cleared up noticably despite staying within the boundaries of the one-person as a transmitter model. The practical side of my question has been answered. Thank you.

There's something more at stake though, isn't there?

The trouble is that no one knows whether an RPG text is supposed to convince  people to play this game, or to explain how to play this game. Most of the gaudy settings up-front, most of the elaborate character options, are built to attract people, in terms of consumerism, rather than to explain anything, or for that matter, to be easy or useful during play anyway.

For some texts which simply don't bother to try to convert the reader, but which instead explain the game without any forward-referencing, see Dogs in the Vineyard and Primetime Adventures. Once the task of the book is settled - which is to say, assume the reader wants to play - then an immense amount of distracting, unnecessary material can be jettisoned.

Certain books are more effective in communicating their important points though, and proper organization makes it easier for the initial reader to make whatever connections he needs to make to best explain it to the rest of the group. While the clarity of the prose and examples are important, sectional organization is helpful as well. Otherwise why would the first category of convincing/consumer-oriented books be so effective?

Perhaps effective isn't the right word. They succeed at what they set out to do, however -- move books and present new ideas for the purchaser.

Since the convincing book and the explaining book both have situations in which they excel, multiple volumes (like David mentioned) are the most effective at providing the full experience that people look for in a role-playing book. That way the reader has the gaudy ideas (for inspiration and situations in which to use the mechanics), but doesn't need them on-hand for when the actual play is taking place; the mechanics volume is all that's necessary.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Zach,

If this discussion is about clarity and utility, then I agree with you profoundly about the organizational points. If you're interested, check out Sorcerer for a book which is primarily written "forwards," meaning that new concepts build entirely on previous ones ... but also, as the older threads pointed out, this makes a hash of expected organization in gamer terms. I'm also proud of the internal (sub-sectional) layout and guides.

Second, I suggest that the first category of books you're describing do not achieve "effectiveness" even in your corrected sense. A lot of people forget that D&D, for example, has been a financial albatross for whatever company owned it, with the exception of Wizards in the pre-Hasbro window. Most of the companies that people point to as "big" or "successful" in RPG publishing are dismal failures in any sense - in fact, "not bankrupt" seems to be the only indicator of success in this hobby, which is pretty pathetic.

I shall now moderate myself for getting off-topic, though. I'm happy to see that the thread's been helpful to you, and that your book has been improved. So let's call it finished here, and move on to other topics in other threads.

Best, Ron

[Josh Roby]

Zach, I'm glad to hear that you've got an answer that you're satisfied with, so I'll keep my response short.

How you organize your book depends on how you want your book to be used.  Whether you want it to be a much-thumbed reference book (a la GURPS Compendium, for instance) or an entertaining read (a la Lacuna... or anything else Jared's done) or something that will grab the eye of customers from a store shelf and get them to buy it (most White Wolf front-line core books), the intended use must direct the organizational structure if you want the book to function effectively.  Consider the Exalted core book, with its full-spread character splats, long lists of cool abilities, and tantalizing tastes of the setting -- all geared to get customer buy-in for this and later purchases -- which only works if the book is in the potential customer's hand.  Compare that with Sorcerer or Dogs or Capes which are all sold primarily sight-unseen via word of mouth or actual play, and whose layouts try to facilitate player understanding of the underpinnings of the game (something that Exalted doesn't even touch) and to provide easy reference in play.  Very different design principles suited to very different functions of the book.

So the question that you and every other publisher needs to answer is: how do you intend the book to function?