How much redundancy is necessary in writing game text?

Could you clarify what, specifically, you are talking about in regards to redundancy? That is, what elements do you see needing to be repeated?

Pending Mark's answer to Raven's question, I will state, personally, that any key point should be stated at least twice in the text and rephrased to make sure it is understood.

The problem lies in defining a key point.

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate

Does a game need to spell out many possible uses of a vanilla basic core mechanic or simply allow the players to deduce it on their own?

Should there be game play examples and visual representation if there are already concise and clear rules?

Should game text be tutorial or reference?

Personally, I like to read examples of play, just to get an idea how the designer pictures the flow of the game, especially for games that differ greatly from my mental picture of how a game is played.

The first time I read Sorcerer (with apologies to Mr. Edwards), I was scratching around everywhere I could look for examples of play, simply because I didn't really grasp quite how the game played. Same for Trollbabe. Both games were really different from the stuff I'd played before, and just didn't work within the paradigm I'd set up for myself.

The groups I've played with would have suffered greatly without examples and more precise rules, simply because I grew up as a gamer with games that took care of the crunchies for you.

On the other hand, if the system is simple and well-explained enough (everything is a permutation of one simple dice system, and it's clear the system isn't made to cover all little details like length of rope, etc.), I'd think it's fine to let the rules speak for themselves.

I think I would write just as much as I need to to get across the flow I'd like my game to take. If you think your game is fun the way you play it, then put in enough detail and reinforcement to help other players play it that way if they want.

In a way, I see game rulebooks as recipes that show me how to reproduce the game experience the way the designer intended, with notes on how I can customize it to suit my own tastes.

Jay

Thanks for the clarification, Mark!

Mark Johnson wrote: Does a game need to spell out many possible uses of a vanilla basic core mechanic or simply allow the players to deduce it on their own?

Should there be game play examples and visual representation if there are already concise and clear rules?

Should game text be tutorial or reference?

greyorm wrote: However, this is difficult to answer precisely without actual examples of what you refer to as a "vanilla basic core mechanic." Would you refer to a situation you've encountered to which this problem applies?

Tar Markvar wrote: The first time I read Sorcerer (with apologies to Mr. Edwards), I was scratching around everywhere I could look for examples of play, simply because I didn't really grasp quite how the game played. Same for Trollbabe. Both games were really different from the stuff I'd played before, and just didn't work within the paradigm I'd set up for myself.

The groups I've played with would have suffered greatly without examples and more precise rules, simply because I grew up as a gamer with games that took care of the crunchies for you.

Despite any personal opinion on the game, look at D&D 3rd edition from this angle. It makes excellent use of repetition, particulary with the multiple different ordered lists of the spells: alphabetically, by cleric domain, by level, etc. Whenever you've got a chunk of info that the players may need to access in different ways at different times repetition can really slim in-game book searching time.

I'm of the opinion that manuscripts should be "playtested" along with the game itself. In other words, show the manuscript to people you trust to give an honest evaluation, and respond to the criticisms you get - it will have a definite positive impact on issues such as redundancy, grammatical errors, overall clarity of the rules, and more.

Another thing to do would be to look at other games and what they do, as Cruciel suggests. I personally feel that PHB3E isn't the best example of good organization, but it obviously works for some people. Compare a few game texts from your collection, indie and otherwise, and base your own work on what you feel is good use/non-use of redundancy.

Hey Mark,

<mode="soapbox">You've got some good points, but your making some arcane assumptions. See the problem is that you are naming 'redundancies' that are actually traditions. Furthermore, I have to say they are traditions so far out on the edge of what gaming could be that hewing to them hides a lot of fertile ground.

Let's take it by the points:

Mark Johnson wrote: Regardless, I imagine the following are redundant in most indie RPGs:

What Is An RPG? ("its like cowboys and indians with dice")
The History of RPGs ("Gary Gygax.."),
Good Gamemastering ("all stories have a begining, middle and an end")
Basic Terminology ("the plural of die is dice and they come in many shapes and sizes")
Equipment ("you can get a D37 at any well stocked game store")
Sample Solo Adventure ("turn to entry 10 to attack Bargle, entry 22 to run away.")

Or are they?

Hi there,

Much as I liked Fang's point, appreciated its reference to me, and most especially enjoyed the Face of the New Fang, whose passions are right out in front, I think the point of the thread is wandering a little. Mark, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your examples of redundancy fall into two categories, one of which is so broken in itself that it prompts (e.g.) responses like Fang's.

Category #1: actual redundancy, stating Point A over and over. I think the text of Alternity is my best pick for this. "SKILLS. A skill is a learned or trained ability or area of expertise, reflecting how well a character performs when attempting tasks of the given type. The better the skill rating, the better the character's chance to perform, within the definitions of the skill being employed. The following list of skills represents the training and learned activities that are available to characters." Then add to it whole paragraphs per skill to explain what (e.g.) Climbing is. This is all paraphrase, but I'm not kidding. The whole book is like this. Guaranteed to elicit instant confessions from war prisoners.

Category #2: simply wrong and misleading text that's included out of habit and imitation. Most of your categories, Mark, fall into this one, I think, which is why Fang felt the need to beat one of them with a baseball bat. (Forge motto: when well-established fallacy emerges, give it extra whackety-whacks. Then wait, then hit it again to be sure.)

So, I'm thinkin', maybe we aren't talking about redundancy at all. Maybe we're talking about things like utterly nonsensical "what is role-playing" sections, in which case, I think the consensus is, "Lose it," without much need for debate, or, "Replace it with novel and relevant text which unfortunately seems to have no pre-existing model in games so far."

On the other hand, if we're talking about redundancy, then it's a really interesting issue. Redundancy plays a very important role in teaching, and RPG texts are teaching texts whether we like it or not. But effective, pedagogic redundancy is different from mere repetition (as in the Alternity text), and nailing just what can work best (as I imagine there's a range) would be a worthwhile topic. I hope that this thread can do that, but your examples so far seem more oriented toward the second category.

Best,
Ron

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Pending Mark's answer to Raven's question, I will state, personally, that any key point should be stated at least twice in the text and rephrased to make sure it is understood.

The problem lies in defining a key point.

cruciel wrote: Despite any personal opinion on the game, look at D&D 3rd edition from this angle. It makes excellent use of repetition, particulary with the multiple different ordered lists of the spells: alphabetically, by cleric domain, by level, etc. Whenever you've got a chunk of info that the players may need to access in different ways at different times repetition can really slim in-game book searching time.

ethan_greer wrote: I'm of the opinion that manuscripts should be "playtested" along with the game itself. In other words, show the manuscript to people you trust to give an honest evaluation, and respond to the criticisms you get - it will have a definite positive impact on issues such as redundancy, grammatical errors, overall clarity of the rules, and more.

Le Joueur wrote: You've got some good points, but your making some arcane assumptions. See the problem is that you are naming 'redundancies' that are actually traditions. Furthermore, I have to say they are traditions so far out on the edge of what gaming could be that hewing to them hides a lot of fertile ground.

Ron Edwards wrote:
On the other hand, if we're talking about redundancy, then it's a really interesting issue. Redundancy plays a very important role in teaching, and RPG texts are teaching texts whether we like it or not. But effective, pedagogic redundancy is different from mere repetition (as in the Alternity text), and nailing just what can work best (as I imagine there's a range) would be a worthwhile topic. I hope that this thread can do that, but your examples so far seem more oriented toward the second category.

Mark Johnson wrote:
One area ripe with redundancy is repeating definitions within the text. Do players find that a glossary in the back (or in the front) necessary or sufficient? How about defining important terms in sidebars?

Stuart,

Is a glossary necessary if the index notes the page on which the definition occurs?


Ex.

Skills 3, 17-18, 42-46

On page 17 there is either a sidebar or some other sort of formatting that offsets the definition clearly.



At what length of document does an index become necessary?

Mark Johnson wrote: Stuart,

Is a glossary necessary if the index notes the page on which the definition occurs?


Ex.

Skills 3, 17-18, 42-46

On page 17 there is either a sidebar or some other sort of formatting that offsets the definition clearly.

At what length of document does an index become necessary?

I'm always saying that a game text needs to be exactly as long as it needs to be, and no longer; and must include what is necessary and not more. But this question is very telling: how do you know what is enough and not too much?

Most of the important aspects of play should be presented at least twice, in two different ways. Those could be by description and by example, but there are other possibilities. If an aspect of play could be easily confused with something else, present it thrice. Be certain that whatever is essential to play is going to be understood by whoever reads it.

For example, Multiverser uses what we call "relative success" to create a single-roll hit and damage system: whatever you roll on your attempt to hit is the number on which your damage is based. Although not unique in gaming (I first saw something like it in Zebulon's Guide to the Galaxy, a supplement for Star Frontiers, in the mid 80's) it's unusual enough that players often are looking for what die to roll for their damage. When we explain relative success (which applies to all skill use, not just combat) we mention that it applies to damage as well; when we explain attack rolls, we again explain in brief that the number rolled is the basis for the damage; and we have a section on damage where we go into detail on how to find the damage from the attack roll. In this way, we assure that anyone looking for how damage is determined will understand that there is not a second roll, despite the ingrained assumption from so many other games that such a second roll is necessary.

That's a case of redundancy used to overcome presuppositions, and that's an important category.

Another area for its use would be in the relationship between general principles and specific applications. We have a section in which we explain how resistances reduce damage in general; we also have sections in which specific skills are presented that reduce damage, and we reference the section in which the general explanation appears as well as illustrating it in the particular case. The redundancy works because when the reader reaches the specific cases they've already been given a preliminary understanding of the general rule, yet there is enough explanation of the general rule at this point to call it back to memory.

You provided one excellent example of part of your concern, though,

when you wrote: My current game uses a basic conflict resolution mechanic to resolve the conflicts as delineated in seventh grade English class: man vs man, man vs nature and man vs self. The game revolves largely around the last conflict. To what level of detail do I need to show how the system applies to examples of the first two conflicts: surviving an avalanche, seducing a rival's wife or engaging in combat given that these events can occur, but are not the focus of the game?

Sometimes the conflict will be against another man, and sometimes it will be against the environment. In the case of man against man conflicts, resolution is determined the same way but that in place of the Internal Resistance attribute the other character's Will Power is used. If the conflict is man against the environment, such as a survival situation, Internal Resistance is replaced by a value determined by the referee, representing the difficulty of overcoming this obstacle, where simple tasks range from five to ten, mediate tasks from ten to twenty, and difficult tasks from twenty to forty.

You also wrote: Is a glossary necessary if the index notes the page on which the definition occurs?

You've got enough repetition when a few more people tell you "this seems redundant" than "I wish there'd been more examples and explanations". You probably can't get a perfect balance, so you want to err on the side of a bit more exposition than is strictly necessary than a bit less. Statisticians refer to type I and type II errors - finding something there when it actually isn't and missing it when it actually is there, or "false positives" and "false negatives". In gaming writing, type II errors are the ones that lead folks to give up on your game; type I errors generate brief annoyance, usually followed by comforting thoughts like "...but less enlightened souls than myself might find that handy." :)

In some cases - a lot of them, actually - you can reduce the need for repetition by choices of grammar and style. Simple present tense and active voice seem to help a lot of gamers pick up on stuff, simple present because it helps with the sense of "you are here and now", active voice because the variety of verbs and emphasis on identifiable entities doing he actions break up monotony and connect the reader to the sort of people and events you're describing in your text. (There are, of course, exceptions. There are always exceptions. I'll defend these as valid generalizations without trying to say that they are always and everywhere appropriate.)

I strongly agree that we should think of manuscripts as getting playtested just like rules. Until such time as we beam pre-verbal concepts directly into the brains of players, the text (like the layout and art) is as much part of the game as the intellectual content of the rules.