Hi y'all,

One of the things I'm trying to do with MW is edit/layout the text in such a way that all relevent information on a given topic is present on the same page or on pages next to each -- the idea being that the reader can just open up the book and read the information they need without flipping around.

However there's an inherent problem with this - when rules overlap topics. So I've started thinking about repeating certain topics. For example, I have developed rules for damaging abilities. These rules will get doubled in the damage section and the abilities section.

In general, I don't like having to repeat myself. But I think I could get away with it because I would only have to repeat 3 or 4 short sections.

What do y'all think about this?

Thanks!

I think that if you offset it visually from the rest of the page (even a simple box will do) and you are absolutely certain that they are identical copies, that could be a really useful technique.

I could even see it provoking people to think about the links between various sections of the rules. "Hey, didn't I see that back in Chapter 2? Hrm... yes, yes I did... so the same rules apply here and there, interesting."

Actually, I have no problem with this. The emphasis should be on usability, and if this will be helped by repeating a rule, by all means repeat it. As a game player, I would rather see the same rule twice than have trouble finding it during play.

Yeah, repitition is great for learning something new and also useful for reference: when looking up one rule, you'll be reminded of related rules without needing to (a) remember the relevance yourself, or (b) go somewhere else in the text.

Ask yourself this: are your rules there to be read through like a book, or used as a reference?

Probably you'll answer "both" - that then is your answer; to be an effective reference it must provide the information where they look for it (something most commercial roleplaying games fail misserably to do). Just be very careful to change it in both places if you change it in one.

I think that the tip about putting the repeated rules text in a box is an interesting one.

You might also think about repeating it in different words each time, which has the upsides of making your game text more palatable to read as a book and possibly helping someone who didn't get it the first time, but the downside of possibly confusing those who think it is a new or different rule.

yrs--
--Ben

I think the rules wordings should remain the same (unless the rule some kind of different application where its being referenced), because as stated it keeps confusion down.
Setting it off, just before or just after a relevent rule, would work, along with some kind of bold note "Refresher" or something. Either do it word for word or a bullet list (instead of three paragraphs about one roll, just bullet "For roll X, roll 3d6 and count only the 6's" or whatever)

Well, perhaps I said that wrong.

For instance, in Polaris, one of the most important rules is Governance, which is pretty much who has credibility to say what about who. Which players have governance over which play elements comes up again and again throughout the rules.

So what ends up happening is that I have a big list when I introduce the topic of Governance for each player. Then, as each topic comes up again, I talk about Governance restricted to that topic only. In the end, I have repeated myself once over, but I think it works out well.

Of course, I could be wrong. Ask my readers.

yrs--
--Ben

Hmmkay, that makes sense.
I've just hated text books that reference other parts or reference other things: they always seem to try to 'reword' it to fit in the new area...and leave me more confused than before, even when I think I have it to begin with.
Sounds like you're doing some level of introduction and later expanding on it, which definetly works.

I think this partly depends on how big your book is. In my case, with 300 pages of rules/setting, it's my experience that anything I don't repeat doesn't get remembered.

For example, the basic mechanic gets repeated time and time again as I specify how to use it in different situations and examples. Nobody has any problem with that.

The action system gets covered in relation to movement, combat (and other time-sensitive situations), vehicles, computers and "magic". There are occasionally a few questions or differences in how people actually use it, but people pretty much get it.

Explosives get covered twice (combat and partly again in vehicle damage). I've noticed that certain groups have misunderstood (or missed altogether) elements of those rules. The problems are usually not enough to affect enjoyment of the game within a single group, but I notice it at conventions. I tend to see the same pattern for vehicle systems (which get covered primarily in the vehicle section, with reference in the skills and computers section).

Certain subjects that only get mentioned in one place (stun damage, vehicle construction, most computer programs) often don't get used by groups at all (the system is designed to be modular so that for most of these specific cases, you can accurately fudge it with a more general mechanic), or they sometimes use a mangled version of the rule.

I've noticed the same phenomena in rules-heavy systems of all types (AD&D 2 and 3, GURPS, Shadowrun and Palladium just in my personal experience).

So, I would generally recommend the repetition, as long as you focus on repeating the most important stuff the most, and keep each new repetition slightly fresh.

One caution: the more you repeat things, the more work you'll have to do in revision and editing, to make sure that everything matches up

Thanks everyone! I guess I was making a bigger deal out of repeating yourself than it really was. The suggestion to purposely bring attention to the fact that the information is being repeated is interesting, and I'll definitely experiment with it.

Thanks again!