Topic: Organization & Layout
Started by: greyorm
Started on: 2/27/2003
Board: Adept Press
On 2/27/2003 at 2:12am, greyorm wrote:
Organization & Layout
Over in Blood Relics, Nev said:
and partly that it's not as well organized (sorry Ron) as some of the more codified games
Nev, I'm sure Ron might be interested in specifics as well, but I know I am! What parts of the rules did you find disorganized and how did it/does affect your understanding of the game? What sorts of stumbling blocks came up because of the organization? How would YOU have organized it for your optimum understanding?
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 5360
On 2/27/2003 at 3:36pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Organization & Layout
Hello,
Raven posted just as I was looking up this thread: Layout question.
Best,
Ron
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 605
On 2/27/2003 at 3:43pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Organization & Layout
I don't know that the layout is really a problem. More that Ron's very succinct style (and stated willingness to expect players to have to work to understand the text) makes the game VERY difficult to pick up from reading. Everything you could possibly want to know about the game (with the exception of a few errata) is in there...there just isn't a whole lot of handholding done to explain it...the reader is certainly not coddled by the text.
If Ron had written Universalis he'd probably have fit it into 15 pages instead of 86, and if I'd written Sorcerer it would probably have been a standard size RPG book :-)
On 2/27/2003 at 6:03pm, Jake Norwood wrote:
RE: Organization & Layout
I'll agree. I probably wouldn't have figured out how to play Sorcerer w/o seeing Ron demo it. I'm not saying that that I couldn't have, but that the investment to do so would have been rather great. Rules for specific things (especially humanity and ritual crossovers) are spread out over the whole book, and not much is consolidated into one place.
Come to think of it, Humanity is really the only mechanic that does that. Everything else is easy to find, but Humanity is broken up all over the place.
Jake
On 2/27/2003 at 8:43pm, Bankuei wrote:
RE: Organization & Layout
More that Ron's very succinct style (and stated willingness to expect players to have to work to understand the text) makes the game VERY difficult to pick up from reading.
Likewise, I think really the big problem is the assumptions or the preconceived ideas that folks carry over from previous gaming that they try to "apply" to Sorcerer prevents them from seeing the rules as they are. I constantly find myself learning new things about Sorcerer, and the implications behind the rules through discussion.
I was pleased by the fact that there is no "death" mechanic in Sorcerer, a fact that seems to pass up most players. I just recently(as of my last re-reading of the rules) picked up on all the fun that could be had by the GM changing the stats of the demon during summoning. And a fun one that Ron has in his book, there's no, "If you don't like the rules, change 'em" stuff. The rules are intended to play as written, and few people give it the chance to show what it can do as written.
Chris
On 2/27/2003 at 9:44pm, Blake Hutchins wrote:
RE: Organization & Layout
Hmm. I had some similar issues in finding rolls - they appear all over the book. Perhaps an expanded summary collecting the various to-do-this rolls in one easy access place would improve the search time issue for novice players.
Best,
Blake
On 2/27/2003 at 10:06pm, Nev the Deranged wrote:
Sorcerer
Really, the chapter layout wasn't a problem for me. Although Ron does touch on the obvious point that Sorcerer was written with different goals in mind than most RPGs and therefore was written differently, and I'm sure some of the confusion is based on that transition.
But there are some good reasons why things are laid out the way they are in many RPG books, namely clarity and ease of reference.
If you asked me what Sorcerer is about, I could tell you. If you asked me how to play.... well, I'd be able to mention a few key points but that's it.
The mechanics are spread out in such a fashion that makes looking things up less straightforward than it could be, especially when trying to relate one bit of mechanics to another. Some more in depth examples of play would have been nice.
Overall, I like the book, and I like everything in the book... it's just not always clear how each bit relates to all the other bits.
It's a small gripe, and one I would expect from a PDF-to-textbook conversion. I'm sure when (if?) 2nd Edition comes out it will be cleaned up and tightened a bit.
Really all I think I need is to get down and dirty and play a few times, to get a feel for things. Several people have said that they had a hard time understanding Sorcerer until they played it, and then it all made sense, I'm sure the same will hold true for me.
On 2/28/2003 at 9:37pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Organization & Layout
Hi there,
The only trouble is, everyone has a different notion of the "part that needs fixing."
One guy flips out about how to make up setting. Another flips out about Humanity's relation to everyone else. Another flips about the combat, another about character creation relative to play in general ... anyway, the deal is, each guy thinks the other parts of the book are just right.
So Sorcerer, as a text, seems to have become this interesting Rorschach test for what element of Narrativist/Character play is troublesome for that particular person who reads it.
I kind of like it that way, and I'm keepin' it.
As for substantive stuff that I really think could be better explained, the supplements, support material on the site, and some planned supplemental material for the site do a nice job of filling in the necessary corners.
Best,
Ron
On 2/28/2003 at 11:13pm, Nev the Deranged wrote:
...
Well, for what it's worth, I don't have a problem with any of those things.
It was simply a matter of finding the information I wanted where I expected it to be. And since you've already made it clear why you put the information in the order you did, there's not much else to say about it =>