[Cornerstone] Poll: Organizational Writing

[Paganini]

What, in your opinion is the best way to approach layout and writing in an RPG? This is not a general question... I want specific information form individuals about what they find appealing in style and organization.

For example, do you prefer the character creation rules to be presented before, after, or in between the play rules? Do you prefer examples of how to apply mechanics to be grouped together in a GM section, or do you want each example to appear with the appropriate rule? Do you like lots of examples, or do you even want examples at all? Do you like fiction flavor text or not? If so, where do you like it to appear? In Cornerstone, descriptors can be used to model anything in the game world. In your opinion, should the description of how this works be given at the same time as the introduction to and definition of descriptors, or in its own section later on?

What sort of tone do you prefer? Do you like a formal tone or an informal one? That is, do you like to see contractions, slang expressions, first person perspective writing from the author, or do you hate these? Do you like to see the reader adressed as a person, or do you prefer it if the game ignores the reader and simply presents information on how to play?

Bring it on! :smile:

As an explanation of this post, this topic is something that I've had trouble with. It's not too hard to come up with a decent system if you know what you're doing... but it's really hard, at least for me, to take a bunch of well thought out system notes and convert them into an actual engaging, polished, clear, interesting game.

[Le Joueur]

Paganini wrote:

What, in your opinion is the best way to approach layout and writing in an RPG? This is not a general question... I want specific information form individuals about what they find appealing in style and organization.

[Snip.]

As an explanation of this post, this topic is something that I've had trouble with. It's not too hard to come up with a decent system if you know what you're doing... but it's really hard, at least for me, to take a bunch of well thought out system notes and convert them into an actual engaging, polished, clear, interesting game.

Then you might want to read a bit farther down this specific forum to this thread; it doesn't cover everything you asked about, but we have covered a fair piece of it.

By the way Nathan, it's nice to see another expatriot from the egroup.  Welcome!  (Just a warning, these guys aren't nearly the gear-heads as there are back there, but don't sweat it, you'll fit in fine.)

Fang Langford

[Paganini]

By the way Nathan, it's nice to see another expatriot from the egroup.  Welcome!  (Just a warning, these guys aren't nearly the gear-heads as there are back there, but don't sweat it, you'll fit in fine.)

Hey Fang! Good to see you! I'm checking out that thread you sent right now.

And, sometimes it's fun to be a gearhead! I go back and forth myself, but when I actually go to play I usually end up wanting to use something freeform. :smile:

[Mike Holmes]

Who's not a gearhead!

I've got modifications for Rolemaster that I use which make it much more complicated than otherwise. No, really. I've got reams of characters worked out for Hero System. I've actually played first edition Chivalry and Sorcery ("Hey, Dave, have you calculated your Knight's Courtly Romance Factor[KCRF], yet? Remember that you'll need to have your Social Standing and Basic Influence Factor worked out which means that you must generate your father as a character to determine those.") I've even played magic users in that game. Oy, givalt!

Others around here share these predelictions as well. Mike Sullivan (AKA Epoch), ferinstance. So don't sell us short. We can mechanics monkey with the best (IMHO). :smile:

OTOH, Nathan's comment on elegance is well stated. While we can handle complex and crunchy systems, we also appreciate a well designed approach that reduces handling time, etc. And so far, what he has is highly elegant, if lacking in detail mechanics. So I think you hardly have to admonish him on that point, Fang.

Mike

[Le Joueur]

Mike Holmes wrote:

Who's not a gearhead!

I never said they were lacking (after all, I'm here).

Others around here share these predelictions as well. Mike Sullivan (AKA Epoch), ferinstance. So don't sell us short. We can mechanics monkey with the best

It's just that 'back in the day,' all that was ever discussed was the finest of mechanical points.  Around here there is talk of story, panache, and even publishing; certainly less gears and wheels than back there (and then).

Nathan's comment on elegance is well stated. While we can handle complex and crunchy systems, we also appreciate a well-designed approach that reduces handling time, etc. And so far, what he has is highly elegant, if lacking in detail mechanics. So I think you hardly have to admonish him on that point.

I'm sorry if it sounded like admonishment, it was supposed to be a bookmark with little 'fluff.'

Fang Langford

[Cynthia Celeste Miller]

It's just that 'back in the day,' all that was ever discussed was the finest of mechanical points.  Around here there is talk of story, panache, and even publishing; certainly less gears and wheels than back there (and then).

If you're referring to the rpg-create group, I'm inclined to agree.  When we were working on Midway City there, I posted stuff there and let people critique it.  And I did get a lot of great advice and such (especially from Nathan and Brett).  But to be honest, many of them couldn't understand that I did certain things to evoke the atmosphere and flair (even on a subtle level) of the game setting.

For example, the setting was futuristic, cyber-punkish mobster stuff.  So, to get the craps feel, I was adamant about using d6's.  After all, gambling was a big part of the genre.

They couldn't accept that at all, because other dice were "better" for one reason or another.

That's why I'm so enamoured with the Forge!  The denizens seem to understand and even relish such things, rather than just cold, hard numbers.  Sure, there's a place for the latter, but it's not everything.

[Paganini]

On 2001-12-30 15:26, Cynthia Celeste Miller wrote:

If you're referring to the rpg-create group, I'm inclined to agree.  When we were working on Midway City there, I posted stuff there and let people critique it.  And I did get a lot of great advice and such (especially from Nathan and Brett).  But to be honest, many of them couldn't understand that I did certain things to evoke the atmosphere and flair (even on a subtle level) of the game setting.

For example, the setting was futuristic, cyber-punkish mobster stuff.  So, to get the craps feel, I was adamant about using d6's.  After all, gambling was a big part of the genre.

They couldn't accept that at all, because other dice were "better" for one reason or another.

Well, now, don't sell that group short... I'm still a member, and I still really enjoy it. There's no substitute for a detailed understanding of the underlying mathematics involved in mechanics design. There is absolutely no excuse for making a broken mechanic, especially if you're writing a game that's short on rules. If your system uses only one mechanic, then it's imperative that you get that mechanic right, not only in terms of feel, but in terms of math. Different people may have different ideas about what is correct math for a system, but if you don't understand the math, then you'll never be able to judge.

[Cynthia Celeste Miller]

I'm still a member of the group too.  And I enjoy much of the conversation that goes on there.

So, I'm not selling the group short by any means.  It's just that many of the members are extremists, that's all.  And I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way.  I feel there's room for both.

Unfortunately, many won't even consider the opposite viewpoint on design, like with the situation I mentioned in my previous post.

[Mithras]

Layout... there is no right way, is there? But there is always the best way for the game you've written and the genre and mood it strives to emulate. Saying that ...

I like clean, well written, easy to understand, interspersed with fiction and setting stuff. I like to find things popping up that are of use on every page. I like the setting to be meshed in there with the rules, not in a separate volume marked 'The Rules'.

I like light but evocative illustrations, rarely full page stuff. A great establishing cover will make up for that.

I like a very good contents - basically a route map of the book, laying out what I can expect to encounter while I read. And I like to know where I am just by flipping open a page. THe small format of BESM and Hero Wars gets me a little confused as to which section I'm in... do I go back or forward from here? Coloured tabs, page by page chapter heads are a great idea.

I'm sure there's more too. But that'll do me for now.