[Cornerstone] [Genreal Design] Chapter Layout

[Paganini]

Fang: Thanks for directing me to a useful and interesting thread. One thing not mentioned with respect to layout is:

What if you only have one chapter for everything? That is, something like

Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: (Sample Setting)
Chapter 3: Game Rules
Chapter 4: GM Section - (How to apply rules)

In the theme of layout supporting GNS, what order do you think information should be presented in to present a low-handling time narrativist viewpoint game? Should character creation be given before the mechanics or after? Should combat (hehe) be given with the regular resolution mechanics, or set apart?  etc. etc.

[Mike Holmes]

The whole chargen/resolution order thing is much akin to the chicken and the egg. If you present chargen first, it may engage the reader, but he may have trouble understanding why the system is the way it is if he has not seen the resolution system. OTOH, putting the resolution system first can be a dry and uninteresting (if informative) stop on the way to chargen. So what do you do?

I think that a lot of the answer will deal with how long each section is. If the resolution system is complex and includes lots of special cases and whatnot, then I think putting it after chargen is the only reasonable way to go (which is why this is how most traditional systems handle it). But if your resolution system is simple, then putting it up front can help make the chargen make more sense.

In the end they'll get to both sections, and experienced readers will skim to what interests them, so...

Just one opinion.

Mike

[Le Joueur]

Paganini wrote:
One thing not mentioned with respect to layout is:

What if you only have one chapter for everything? That is, something like

Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: (Sample Setting)
Chapter 3: Game Rules
Chapter 4: GM Section - (How to apply rules)

See that's the problem that had been addressed pretty much all over the place prior to the thread I mentioned.  What are you 'Introducing?'  Will there be parts of the Introduction that only make sense after you know the rules or only when you know how to gamemaster?  Can a 'fresh reader' understand the sample setting or how their character is supposed to be a part of the game without knowing how to make a character first?  (What's available, what can't be done, et cetera.)

That kind of question can be asked of any chapter order.  Can a first-time reader understand an early chapter without some knowledge only found in later chapters.  Will the details in one chapter seem largely irrelevant without detailed knowledge of later chapters.  It can be argued that the understanding of every part of a game is dependant on knowledge of the other parts and therefore (at least theoretically) you need to teach all things simultaneously.  There's even a subjective question of how you think a reader will approach your text (read it front-to-back or in no particular order).  There is no 'right answer.'

After running through every possible sequence we could think of, (and since the groups we are writing for include first-time gamers,) we chose to thumbnail everything from a player to gamemaster way, and then return to each point in detail.  Examples will be cleverly disguised as chapter-head fiction and then be decoded during their chapter and in subsequent chapters.

Unlike it sounds like you have for your games, we have the luxury of a sizable product (lots of art, text, and chapters).  You also appear to have the target of an experienced audience.  These can make your game's layout quite different from what we settled upon.

In the theme of layout supporting GNS, what order do you think information should be presented in to present a low-handling time narrativist viewpoint game? Should character creation be given before the mechanics or after? Should combat (hehe) be given with the regular resolution mechanics, or set apart?  etc. etc.

These are subjective decisions you have to make based on how much your imagined reader already knows about gaming, how front-to-back you expect them to read your games, and your own personal preference.  I am no expert on things Narrativist and must beg off advising on that subject.

Fang Langford

[Laurel]

In the theme of layout supporting GNS, what order do you think information should be presented in to present a low-handling time narrativist viewpoint game? Should character creation be given before the mechanics or after? Should combat (hehe) be given with the regular resolution mechanics, or set apart?  etc. etc.

If I was making a Narrativist-oriented game, I would probably use the following:

1. Introduction (short, including very short story-text or art that told a story and most definately an intro that provided insight into theme and tone)
2. Setting
3. Character Creation
4. System Mechanics
5. Everything else

I would want to 'hook' the narrativists with my world, then let them start thinking about their personal characters, and then skim through the mechanics, possibly after they've already made their first character.  


Laurel Stuart
External Developer for Skotos Tech
Creator of Devils Cay  

[Paganini]

On 2001-12-30 10:59, Mike Holmes wrote:
The whole chargen/resolution order thing is much akin to the chicken and the egg. If you present chargen first, it may engage the reader, but he may have trouble understanding why the system is the way it is if he has not seen the resolution system. OTOH, putting the resolution system first can be a dry and uninteresting (if informative) stop on the way to chargen. So what do you do?

I just had a thought. The whole "I need a character to make the system interesting" thing is about providing a frame of reference, right? That is, when reading the mechanics the player wants to have a character as a baseline. What if, instead of having the player create a character before reading the mechanics, you give a sample character at the start of the book. Maybe something like:

Start with a short fiction blurb about a character. Give the game stats for that character. Give the game rules, using that character in all of the examples. That way, the player has a reference point to see how the rules work, and therefore he'll unerstand what's going on in a later section on creating a character.

[Le Joueur]

Paganini wrote:

I just had a thought. The whole "I need a character to make the system interesting" thing is about providing a frame of reference, right? That is, when reading the mechanics the player wants to have a character as a baseline. What if, instead of having the player create a character before reading the mechanics, you give a sample character at the start of the book. Maybe something like:

Start with a short fiction blurb about a character. Give the game stats for that character. Give the game rules, using that character in all of the examples. That way, the player has a reference point to see how the rules work, and therefore he'll unerstand what's going on in a later section on creating a character.

And that's pretty much what I suggested back in this thread.  Except to keep from clashing with the other problem Mike points out, I also did what you just said with the mechanics too.  And only then went into the 'deeper' discussion of everything.  (Each Chapter begins with a really tight example of play, without intrusive mechanical commentary, subtle features are even 'hidden' in these examples so that chapters further away can still refer to the same examples.)

Fang Langford

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

To echo Fang's point, or to provide a parallel one, I cite my own treatment in Sorcerer - give everything in the first chapter, only sketchy. Thus the entire book can then be seen, chapter by chapter, as revisiting and clarifying the elements presented in the first chapter.

I succeeded somewhat better in this model for the first supplement, Sorcerer & Sword, rather than the main book, but that was the intent in both cases.

Interestingly, I am shortly going to present a workshop to my professional academic colleagues regarding teaching science. My topic is, how does one present information in such a way that students do not perceive you to be hand-waving, or enabling you to clarify without being perceived to be "going back" on what you said earlier.

The reasoning is the same: start with a non-precise (sketchy) overview that is accurate, with connections among elements being clearly stated, and give the whole picture then. The remainder of the course is then spent merely clarifying, reinforcing, and adding precision to the existing structure.

Scientists resist teaching in this fashion because they have acquired a trained horror of imprecision. However, therefore, they teach poorly, in many cases. I suggest that the same behavior trait is widespread among role-players who design games - they are horrified at presenting the concept of "roll to hit" without instantly launching into an explanation of how "surprise" modifies that roll, regardless of the fact that they were in the middle of explaining the basics of a normal combat round. In terms of writing (teaching), surprise can wait, as a feature of added precision, but try to tell an old-school gamer anything of the sort.

Best,
Ron

[Paganini]

On 2001-12-31 01:01, Ron Edwards wrote:
Scientists resist teaching in this fashion because they have acquired a trained horror of imprecision. However, therefore, they teach poorly, in many cases. I suggest that the same behavior trait is widespread among role-players who design games - they are horrified at presenting the concept of "roll to hit" without instantly launching into an explanation of how "surprise" modifies that roll, regardless of the fact that they were in the middle of explaining the basics of a normal combat round. In terms of writing (teaching), surprise can wait, as a feature of added precision, but try to tell an old-school gamer anything of the sort.

Greetings Ron! (I feel all shivery inside... the Great One has posted to my thread! WHEE! :wink:

Your scientist analogy is a good one. I hadn't thought of it this way before, but I think you're right. I haven't seen too many RPGs that approach layout this way though... are there any "actual" RPGs (meaning commercial ones) besides Sorcerer that use this idea, or is it a pioneer?

In the specific case of my game, since I only have one mechanic, maybe I could give the mechanic by it self in the overview, then explain all the different ways in which it can be applied in the game. That is, just explain that resolution is done by rolling a d10 and adding descriptors etc., then in the details section show all the different ways it can be used.

[Paganini]

And that's pretty much what I suggested back in this thread.  Except to keep from clashing with the other problem Mike points out, I also did what you just said with the mechanics too.  And only then went into the 'deeper' discussion of everything.  (Each Chapter begins with a really tight example of play, without intrusive mechanical commentary, subtle features are even 'hidden' in these examples so that chapters further away can still refer to the same examples.)

Sheesh! Fang... you always get there before me. Hey, I've got an idea... I'll just give YOU my notes, and let you do all the hard work of organizing. Hehehe! :smile: