Capturing the Spirit

[Jack Spencer Jr]

On 2001-12-31 20:30, hardcoremoose wrote:
Hey all,

I stand firmly on the side of using evocative terminology.  Anyone ever checked out Gygax's Dangerous Journeys (or whatever it was) - that game had to have been the worst in terms of language use.  And this is the guy who gave us D&D.  Sheesh.

I did a quick search and found a review on RPGnet that gives some of the terms Gygax used (and an interesting discussion below about how Gygax may-or-may-not have created the system)  All I have to say is, after the 1st ed AD&D books, I'm unsurprised that Gygax used loopy terms like that.

Movement rates are postulated on suffient daily rest periods so as to obviate the necessity for any protracted rest periods of a day or more during the course of any journey.  If normal movement is exceeded, however, then special rest periods in addition to any subsumed brief breaks in travel are required.

From the 1st ed DMG.  

(side note: this sort of thing is usually a good thing to avoid in your game, flowery or denseprose in one way or another.  It's a good idea to simply state what you mean.  But AD&D was a big seller, so this is no guarentee)

On 2002-01-01 02:18, James V. West wrote:

So my point was that, just as "system does matter", so does everything else.

I does, but like any other artwork is should not be forced or it will feel forced, fake, pretentious, etc.  Cynthia's replacing the terms "adventure" and "campaign" with "series" and "episode" works.  Some others don't work so well.  It's like the author is saying "Hey, look at how different my game is from all the other games you can buy" but in reality you're dealing with a D&D clone and you tick off the original terms in your head  (Defense Protraction means Aromor Class; Impractical Fortune Resolution means Saving Throw, etc.)

Then again, I am of two minds on this.  "Campaign" is part of RPG's wargaming heritage and kicking the sand off our feet, as it were, isn't a bad idea.

On 2002-01-01 02:18, James V. West wrote:

Maybe using GM was a poor choice for the argument. It doesn't really come up that much during play, I know, so I can live with it in most games (just not mine). But other terms that *do* get used a lot ought to evoke the right feel, just as everyone has already said.

But then, this depends on what you're talking about.  Many of the terms outside of the realm of "GM" or even "Dice" or "Character Sheet" are refering to the mechanics of the game itself, and some of them must be renamed (doesn't WotC have a trademark on Armor Class?  I heard they did or they wanted to) and others simply have no parallel in a given game system.  (My game The Wheel has no new term for To Hit {as in To Hit Armor Class Zer0} because there are no mechanics for that sort of thing {I actively tried to have no mechanics in the traditional sense, but I digress})

What I mean is, for most of the oft used terms in a game they will be changed out of necessity or, more accurately, are probably new mechanics and will require a new name in most cases.  Which leaves coining new terms for less important parts.  Less important in the sense that the term isn't used often in-game.

But, like I said, milage will vary and it's part of the challenge to know when to money with it and when to not fix something that isn't broken.

[James V. West]

Cool lingo for Cartoon Action Hour.

Seems like we're all on the same page here.

Each game should be treated as its own entity--which it is. I belive it is always necessary to look at the language and determine what will work best and never to just slap on a traditional moniker without considering if it does the best job.

I find that a lot of the game ideas I have are best suited to certain standard terms ("Adventure" being the one that pops to mind first), but unsuited for others (GM being the primary one). In The Questing Beast, I use the term Guide for the role of the GM because you don't "master" that game, you "guide" it.

Likewise, I'm working on an S&S genre game now and it looks like the term Game Master might actually be the best pick.

[Laurel]

Little Fears is a game that I think went to a lot of work to "capture" the spirit.  I liked the game itself tremendously; I didn't personally like the layout of the character sheet and felt that the childlike trait names and terminology actually distracted me rather than enhancing the experience.

I'm opposed to "filler" art.  I personally would rather have more text, and a handful of high quality + pertinent pieces of art.  I'm a big fan of title fonts and page number styles and borders that work with a game's theme but don't overshadow it.  Subtle almost always works better than glaring attempts at 'in the spirit' in my opinion.  

One of my biggest pet peeves about game design is the use of awkward fonts, graphics, or colors to give specific pages a 'special' touch that renders them virtually unreadable.  Utility over art, in my opinion.    

[Mike Holmes]

On 2002-01-02 13:19, Laurel wrote:
Utility over art, in my opinion.    

Amen. Nothing worse than a beautiful page that makes your eyes bleed reading it. When I buy a game I want something that I can use as a reference when I need to, not something to distract me. Less art, more content, better layout.

Just my opinion,

Mike

[Cynthia Celeste Miller]

You said a mouthful, Laurel.

While I believe a game book should be a work of art in it's own right, people are paying their hard-earned sheckles for a game.  As such, it's not good idea to lose sight of this fact.

There's a fine line between stylish and gaudy.

[Laurel]

Of course, I say off this as a writer non-artist :smile:  I couldn't actually do that kind of spirited-but-utilitarian layout without a patient and willing artist's imput, most likely.

[Spawn]

For me, really great art always captures the mood of an RPG, whether its the cartoon action hour style, fantasy, realistic interperetations etc.    

 Theres just something inspiring about seeing a *really* great piece of art thats related to the game you are going to play, and you know its great if it makes you go "I HAVE to play this......."

 How many people have seen a great painting on the cover of a RPG book and picked it up to have a look? (I do it all the time, so im hoping everyone doesnt reply saying "what the hell are you talking about, I dont even LOOK at the covers!" so I didnt just make an idiot of myself  :D
 
 Of course, you DO need to find someone capable of those kinds of pictures (though obviously it depends on what style you wanted them done in and so on in the first place!), which isnt easy, so I realise im not much help at all!   :oops:

[James V. West]

Covers. Yes indeed. I am drawn to good covers and repelled by bad ones.

But I do have certain criteria for judging a cover (and by the way, this includes all artwork on any product).

First, I don't like Boris Vallejo's wax body style. So I generally look over anything that looks like that. Second, I'm a Frazetta freak all the way so I'm drawn to that style. Third, I'm a big small press fan so I'm always drawn to anything that looks crude, amateur, or just off-the-wall.

If a game has artwork that appeals to me, I'm much more likely to buy it or want it. If the art does nothing for me, it actually deters me from having anything to do with it, even if the system or idea is good. This is personal. So many GURPS books never sparked my attention even when I was into that game because they had so much "thrown on" artwork--and none of it worked together in a pleasing manner.

The old ADnD books are cool because some of that art is very amateur (which I dig) and some is just damn evocative (like Jim Roslof and Bill Willingham--bless their hearts).

Look at Sorcerer. The cover is both edgy and evocative. I love it. It draws me in.

I bought Dragon magazines before I ever played an rpg just because I loved the cover art.

But I agree that the bottom line is the game. It's all about the game. Yet, the game is much, much more than just a system slapped on a setting thrown into a book with some pictures to fill in the white spaces. It has to click. Everything has to mesh.

[Spawn]

I bought Dragon magazines before I ever played an rpg just because I loved the cover art.

 Glad im not the only one to do that! :)