The writing style apparent in games that I read has always had some effect on my attitude toward games, but in many cases in an uncomfortable or ineffective way, and can do a lot to prejudice me against games written in styles similar to those I hadn't enjoyed for one reason or another. I've always appreciated games written in an honest and friendly style, but those are also the types of games that I enjoy; those which are straightforward and gives everyone playing a good idea of how they are enjoyed.

How does a designer plan for tone?

How does it fit into the overall scheme of what sort of play the game as a whole encourages/discourages?

In what games has the tone worked for you and added to the experience of play?

I think tone depends on the person as much as anything. People find their "voice."  I think the tone is important in determining *who* will read your book and rules. The rest who are playing will get their rules from the person who read the book. Of course, this is coming from a gamist perspective. From a narativist perspective, tone has a lot to do with it.

I think if your game is written in a friendly, open manner, more people will read it. For example, some of the old D&D books had bubbles with Elminister commentary on it (who is generally a silly character.) A lot more people enjoyed those books, I'm willing to venture, than those who enjoy the current rules lawyering 3.5 edition.

For a narrativist perspective, the tone has a lot to do with it. Take vampire, mage, werewolf, demon, changling, etc.  Vampire you get a very dark, victorian, political perspective. Werewolf you get an adventuresome, coming into adulthood theme.

My tone often comes off as very serious. Because of this, I won't ever be writing a book based around humor. :P

Warning: Analogies in Progress.

Some people say that their game systems are a blank slate, and in this context the tone of the work puts the first marks on that slate for future users to work with.

Some call the mechanics a base starting point, while the tone of the work gives the first direction to the game.

I could go on....but you're not after that.

Here's my take.

Base mechanics make for a dry read. They can frustrate a lot of players with "grey areas", "loopholes" and "bits that just don't seem to make sense" if they aren't written with incredibly concise and careful terminology. The further you go down that path, the less confusing the rules become, but the less people will be willing to read through the whole book cover to cover. Maybe it's just the groups I'm using to gaiming with, but in the current game systems we've been playing over the two or three years not one of them has read a gaming book cover to cover. Most of them enjoy reading the fluff/flavour text to get a feel for the kind of world they are playing in, but they leave the mechanics to reveal itself in the course of the game. A couple of the players read the emechanics that they think will be most advantageous to their characters in the upcoming story, or they pull out the book a few minytes before they plan to do something "Tricky".

I guess that in a way I'm just repeating what has been written above by David. C above.

But, you do need to consider what you want from your game. People can be very simple creatures, and very easily manipulated (consciously or otherwise). Just one or two examples will start to push minds in certain direction, if you make a referenece to a technological item it becomes twice as hard for a person to imagine playing your game without that item of technology in play. I like what guys around here are doing with games like Sorceror or Dogs in the Vineyard, where the original authors are happy to see their works modified to encompass new genres.

Current generations of D&D (v3 onwards) don't have much in the way of flavour text in the core rule-books, they try to leave that for settings but it still takes a real break in the flow of consciousness to say "We're playing a modern day D&D tonight"...instead new names are developed like d20 modern.

This can be a good thing or a bad thing. You might like your game percieved and played in a certain way, because you see your game as providing a specific experience. Or, you might want a wider audience for your product. Based on experience, most people are inherently lazy and won't modify a system beyond what the author says is permissible. If another game seems closer to the type of setting they are after, they'll just play that other product even if it has inferior rules (or at least rules less suited to their play style).

I've had plenty of people amazed at my games where I've said something like, "OK, we're playing in the L5R world of Rokugan, but we're using a modified version of the BESM system because I don't want to focus to heavily on rules. Here are the modifications...X, Y,Z." The first response is typically shock: "You can't do that!", followed quickly by "Can you do that?", this usually ends up with "We usually get good gaming experiences from you, and you don't usually lead us astray, so we'll give it a try."

Sometimes it works straight off, and sometimes it takes a bit of refinement. But most people just wouldn't have thought to play this way without the drive of someone who was willing to take a chance.

The advice I'd give a game designer is that if you want a certain tone for your game go for it. But remember, even if you are planning an elaboate conspiracy game full of secrets and intrigue, you'll want to keep these aspects of the setting seaparate from the rules explanations, because secretive rules would be really frustrating.

V 

Hi-

I agree with David. For me at least, the tone for Ten-Cent Heroes is half my very stiff default setting and half fun and sensationalist. Since TCH is a golden age super game, I wanted my text to have some energy, so I laced it with period examples and a lot of dynamic terms. The game terms are also meant to be fun-loving and anachronistic; I think this has made the game more approachable to readers, not just fans of super games or golden age comics. Most of my playtesters have enjoyed the dynamic tone of the writing, and none have complained about it; so I guess it was a success.

While I shy away from games that have characters explaining the rules to you, I personally enjoy the less than academic approach. I like it when the text  is casual and not stuffy. Unless the game is humorous in nature, I  don't like jokes, but funny once in a while is OK.  It makes the whole game more accessible to me; it says "Hey man, get your things together and lets play a game.", not " You can not play this game unless you do A, B, and C."

Now I do think there is pitfall here, too. Using too much genre language when explaining rules can be a turn off, as well. If you're writing a Victorian adventure game, the background section could certain be written in lofty language-heavy manner, but extending that to the rules section could make mechanics a chore to comprehend. The flip side is that fans of a genre may enjoy, or at the very least be prepared for, that. Its a tough call.

Ken

About the best advice I can give for setting the tone of your text, is to playtest the game ALOT.  When you playtest a game you're teaching the rules.  When you write the game text, you're teaching the rules.

Write the text they way you taught the game live.  Edit out the ums, and pauses, and "wait a minute I forgot this part"s, but basically allow the text to be informed, both in presentation order and verbiage by they way you actually teach the game.  If you always teach the game by starting with X, but item X is buried somewhere in Chapter 4, that's probably a good sign that X needs to be in Chapter 1.

This will help your game sound "conversational" which usually makes for a nicer read than "text bookish" without being "forced chatty" which is usually just irritating.

Vulpinoid wrote:
Most of them enjoy reading the fluff/flavour text to get a feel for the kind of world they are playing in

From a slightly different perspective, tone is also implied from the illustrations of a work (or lack thereof).

It's a commonly quoted truism that "the first book is sold on the quality of the layout and visual appeal, while the second book is sold on the quality of the writing."

It's probably the fact that I spent far too many years studying design at uni, but I've seen this in many other fields as well (Comics with great graphical work but no story, which get rave reviews but barely last more than half a dozen issues, spectacular websites with little in the way of content, or appliance manufacturers who produce great looking devices that don't work too well then end up going bankrupt).

I guess the forefront of tone from my perspective is the design and layout of the work, slightly behind this is the nature of the writing and then you have the solid grounding of the rules and mechanics (which should elegantly dovetail into the fluff/flavour text in a well designed game). If either the images, background or mechanics seem out of place then the whole game falls down (in my opinion).

I'm one of those guys who won't go into gaming stores where they shrinkwrap their merchandise. I'm also one of those annoying guys who'll flick through a book to get a gist of the game, and see how much care and attention to aesthetic detail the authors have in the game. Then look at key sections like character generation and basic conflict resolution (which are the two of the make or break points in most games in my mind). Before I make the final decision whether or not to purchase, I'll solidly read the first two or three pages to see if I like the style of writing, or the way the game environment is described.

Whether from illustrations or text, I far prefer games where interesting concepts are presented in an interesting manner. Even if I think the system leaves a lot to be desired, I'll buy a game for these ideas if I think I can integrate them into an existing campaign, or fuse them into something truly memorable.

Of course, I may be in the minority.

V