Just a revelation I had while driving home from Maine today.

Much of the discussion about placement in RPGs seems to revolve around the whole "setting, then rules" or "rules, then setting" debate. While this is probably important (a little, anyway), I thought of something that's appears to be universal among RPGs -- putting character creation before the rules.

Now, I do it too. But it dawned on me that maybe I do it because, well, why would you do it any other way? I mean, that's how it's done in every other game, right?

(Yeah, I said this, believe it or not.)

So it got me to thinking. Why is it this way? And in the end, it doesn't make a lot of sense. You THINK you're telling the player, "Here, build a character, then we'll explain how it all works" but what you're really saying is, "Here, build a mechanical representation of the character you want to play, then we'll show you how the mechanics work."

It's kinda like having someone pick out a car for a race and then saying, "Oh by the way...it's an off-road, 4-day rally." when they've selected a sleek Formula 1 racer.

Any validity to this or am I just insane (still)?

..

A friend of mine thinks along these lines, that character creation should come first. His reasoning is this is a good way to jump into the rules to see how everyithing works. Apparently, by his way of thinking, that first character you roll up (using the term 'roll' loosely) probably won't ever be played, but by rolling up a character, you get a better feel for how the game works.

Personally, I'm not so sure character creation should be at the begining or not of a RPG. This is probably one of those, it will go where it should, calls which will vary from game to game.

Of course, my friend is a little hard-nosed about this rather stupid point. He considers D&D3e well-written simply because it starts off with the character creation cheat sheet, while Orkworld, Little Fears and Sorcerer are all sub-par because they put the character creation rules deeper into the book.

I swear. I hang with idiots.

Logan wrote:
Since you're asking about it, have you done the Big Experiment yet? Have you written a game with The Rules first?

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: So it got me to thinking. Why is it this way?

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: Any validity to this or am I just insane (still)?

Hey, that's kinda cool.

I spoke with Mearls about this a week or so ago and we talked about how games should help you play them (or something like that, maybe more coherent). That is, a step-by-step how to do it section, first really simple and general, then later, more specific and with all the bells and whistles.

It definitely flows better...from "what the game is about" to "how to play it" vs. "what the game is about" to "making a character."

And hey! No setting or combat section so I don't have those to worry about!

Jared A. Sorensen wrote:
I spoke with Mearls about this a week or so ago and we talked about how games should help you play them (or something like that, maybe more coherent). That is, a step-by-step how to do it section, first really simple and general, then later, more specific and with all the bells and whistles.

Adam wrote:
[Do I lose Indy Cred for not referring to some ultra-unknown online game that does things the same way? ;) ]

Key20Jason wrote: Yep. Please hand in your ID badge and complementary cupholder on your way out. ;)

Key20Jason wrote: One problem I see is that rules tend to refer to character stats.

Adam wrote:

Key20Jason wrote: Yep. Please hand in your ID badge and complementary cupholder on your way out. ;)

Is there a Key20 preferred way of me discarding Little Fears? :P

Adam wrote:

Key20Jason wrote: One problem I see is that rules tend to refer to character stats.

I don't know if I'm following you here; is this a problem with chargen before rules or rules before chargen?

Key20Jason wrote:

But, seriously, this topic has given me a lot to think about. I'm currently prepping ideas for a new game (whodathunkit?) and I really like the idea of going over the rules prior to character creation.

One problem I see is that rules tend to refer to character stats. And I think putting them up front gets you familiar with the singular self and then you can get into how they move/work/play/etc in the world.

It all depends on the game, as I said. I can't see putting Character Creation in front in The Wheel being a priority. I have it in front anyway, but there is little to creating a character as far as the rules go. If I ever make any of those specific versions of the Wheel (I'm going to refer to the generic version as "Non-commital" rather than Generic or Universal) I may reorganize things.

And I have a notion, tell me how true it is.

RPG books are not reference books, as everyone keeps saying.
They are How-To books.

D&D is set up, mostly, like a reference manual. WHen you need a particular rule, you look it up and use it. Much like a dictionary, thesaurus or encyclopedia.

But an RPG should be a How-To book like a Time-Life book on plumbing. As in How To Play This Game, How to use this setting, How to handle certain situations which are bloody likely to come up.

Maybe we should look up some material on how to write how to books?

It seems to me, and this is just knee-jerk stuff, that a decent how-to book has careful explanation, step by step if possible, of any proceedures. Illustrated, if possible. (This applied to cabinet building ot laying pipe. RPG illustrations usually come in the example of play form)

Above all, they should be easily understood (misunderstanding is the enemy) and concise. If the author wanders off on tangents, the reader gets frustrated.

Which is probably why character creation appears in the front of most books, and probably should for most games these days. It's like that section in front of Practical Cabinetry where the tools necessary are explained and described. You're going to need a hammer while you're building a cabinet. Better make sure you have one and you know how to use it. Be familiar with your tools.

Of course, what tools you have will, hopefully, vary somewhat from game to game.

I am I off base on this?

Funny; I felt that D&D3 was much more a how-to book, at least the character generation chapters [and badly organized to boot, but I've belaboured this point before], whereas most RPGs are less of a how-to and more of a reference book.

I think there's a place for both types of books - I don't think 'experienced' gamers need the how-to books as much as they need good solid references, while how-to books certainly could serve as a good introduction to the hobby for newer participants. . .

Hi Jack,

I think you're absolutely correct about the How-To concept. Of course, you probably knew I'd agree given all my yapping about the Music Metaphor (RPGs as instruments). It makes sense to me to think of them both as instrument and how-to manual in one package, and the organization of them might do well to follow the latter.

Now we have the interesting question, how well does a given how-to manual actually work? There are plenty of them, and I imagine - can't say for sure, don't know - that there are at least a few different ways to organize them. I wonder which might be best for RPGs, or rather, for a given RPG?

Best,
Ron

I like the description of RPGs as How-To books, as it very much matches the current outline of my design. My book currently is setup up to start with some lameish game fiction written by me illustrating the kewl features of the meta-universe behind the game. Then it has three main Game Concepts Chapters.

First is Game Concepts: The Million Worlds - In which the meta-universe is described and the meta-physics of how the worlds are related via the Tenets, describing lots of Capitalized Terms like the Alam Al-Mithral, and the Wunschtraumacht and other cool things in the universe mythos. Here, the how-to is how to understand the nature of the games meta-universe,
one facet of the meta-system that is the game.

Second, is Game Concepts: The Company And The Production - In which I present how-to stuff on my vision of how the game is to be played. Specifically the players make The Company, much like a small theatre company whom all take part in the staging of their Productions. Productions being the Chronicles they stage. (the how-to being ideas of shared creation & meta-design, troupe style play, etc.)

Third is Game Concepts: Rules system - (this being the one that I actually have finished in a usable form.) Here, in this rather meaty section I describe how to use the rules of the game, as presented in the six core ideas Traits, Comparison Tests, Ratings Tests, Outcome Tests, Hero Points, and The GaugePoint/Value System.

Currently this document is 37 pages. It turns out my mechanic is very complex, being performed in the three main stages, with plenty of switches and dials included to alter results towards a particular "Reality",
as well as facillitate detailed modeling in action resolution.

I realized that initially I made this section rather rigorous, providing the players a firm foundation in the mechanics and how they work. I have copious examples. However, one of my friends reviewed and mentioned the density of it, so to facillitate learning it easier, I have added callout boxes to each section, with a single sentence highlighting the main idea to be learned. One of the assumptions/requirements of the game is that the players more or less master the system.

This is doubly so since there is no classic Player GM divide, different players taking on the role of Rules Guide, Chronicle Guide, Meta-Character Guide, etc. I have a few parts to finish on it, but when It is done I plan to post it for feedback.


Now, it is only after these three very much How-To parts of the book, do I present the rest of the game, starting with the Design Architecture, consisting first of the Character Creation system, and then the Setting/Culture/Metability/Tech creation systems.

These sections are much more of a Reference. Being specifications of costs and procedures using the rules and concepts already learnt. I also call them reference because you don't need to KNOW them to play, you merely need to reference them to create the elements for play.

anyway I thought I would take the opportunity to somewhat contribute to the thread, mostly talk about my game, and inflate my posts stat.

I've often thought about putting chargen after the rules, and the thing I keep coming back to is that, in the rules, I want to say things like, "Check your Cool against a difficulty of 15."

Which, even if you know the base die mechanic, makes darn little sense to you unless you:



1. Know what the Cool stat refers to.
2. Know how much Cool ranges (and, hence, how hard the roll is).



Or you tell them to add their attribute and their skill level together, but they don't know what their attributes are and they don't know how the game deals with skills.

Now, you certainly could start the mechanics section by giving an overview of what statistics define a character, and then, afterwards, explain how those statistics are used, and then, after that, how you generate those statistics. But it tends to feel to me that, while I'm telling you what a statistic is and how much it varies and all, I might as well tell you how to generate it and that's that.

Hi Jared,
Well, I have read *what* and *why* chargen first/rules second (as they predominantly exist).

Here's my take. Character generation first but *minus* the numbers and stat crap. Just pure character which also (can) introduce and illustrate setting and premise.

I went so far as to say "don't worry about the numbers and stuff, we'll cover that later."

Jeff

How about the combination of rules and chargen into one. As one reads the rules he is creating a character at the same time. This way examples can be given in a less removed sense. Instead of the usual, Bob has a 6 STR and he rolled a 10 thus he succeeds at the str test. It could be more like, Now look at your STR, anytime you roll strength test and you roll above that number you succeed. Your no longer learning the rules before or after you created a character, your learning the rules as you create a character. And any examples are based on your character instead of some sample character.

Just a thought.
Mario

Mario wrote: How about the combination of rules and chargen into one. As one reads the rules he is creating a character at the same time. This way examples can be given in a less removed sense.

I wrote: Here is what we have in playtest for Scattershot right now:

Introduction - Set the ‘Editorial Voice’

Chapter One - Basics
- Sample Characters
- How to be a player
- Using the mechanics
- Gamemastering

Chapter Two - Character in Depth
- How to create a character
- Genre specific mechanics
- What's in it to play?

Chapter Three - How to Use the System
- When to use the mechanics or not
- Genre specific mechanics (changes depending on the book)
- Whatever lists are needed by genre

Chapter Four - How to Use Combat
- Deciding on the proper use of conflict for your games
- Combat

Chapter Five - Who Plays All the Rest?
- Gamemastering
- Motifs and genre conventions

Chapter Six - Using Other Parts of Scattershot
- Fusing genre conventions from the other products

- Appendix
- Glossary
- index

We expect each chapter to be mostly about techniques rather than mechanics. The position of everything relative to the first chapter allows the reader to put everything into context as they read instead of wondering what the minutiae of characteristics are for or what characters need in combat or how a gamemaster needs to address the detail offered in character creation.