This was brought up in the Sorcerer forum but it lit a spark in my mind. Ron's point (I believe) was that the order of the chapters-by-subject could effect a particular bent toward a mode of play.

This ocurred to me a few months ago when proof reading my own projects. But since reading the latest Sorcerer posts (regarding layout) the thoughts I had seem to have become forged into something more true.

I am used to this layout for rpgs:
-Introduction to (e.g., world, galaxy, etc.)
-Create character stats
-Choose class, skills, etc.
-Buy gear
-Learn rules of play, combat, and so on

I think that most games follow this order. What I want to know is, do you think that by having your game's book laid out in a different order that you can effect the mood and/or expectations of the players and gm in the direction that you want? Have any of you tried this, or feel that it can be a positive influence for promoting a style of play?

Obviously, the system will have the greatest influence with regard to G/N/S, -but how about the layout?

Or am I nuts.
Jeff

Well... I'm not big on rules. I don't particularly like rules (at least, not a shload o' rules) and I usually don't think about rules. So the first thing I want to throw at a person is the idea/setting/premise. Tell them all about this new place they're walking into. Then, tell them who they can be and what they can do. After I have that laid out, I put in the rules. But I want to make sure the reader is comfortable knowing what's going on before I get too deep. In meo cerebra, I need a point of reference for anything rules-related. And idea/setting/premise provides that.

That's really why I can't get into generic systems. But that's a totally different topic.

JSDiamond wrote:

This was brought up in the Sorcerer forum but it lit a spark in my mind. Ron's point (I believe) was that the order of the chapters-by-subject could affect a particular bent toward a mode of play.

This occurred to me a few months ago when proofreading my own projects. But since reading the latest Sorcerer posts (regarding layout) the thoughts I had seem to have become forged into something more true.

I am used to this layout for rpgs:
-Introduction to (e.g., world, galaxy, etc.)
-Create character stats
-Choose class, skills, etc.
-Buy gear
-Learn rules of play, combat, and so on

I think that most games follow this order.

Back in the cited thread jburneko wrote of Sorcerer:

So chapters 1, 2 and 3 introduce the core mechanics, how to create a sorcerer and how to create a demon.

Then all of a sudden we have chapter 4 that is an explanation about how to play the game complete with GM and Player tips.

And then it's back to chapters 5 and 6 that explain the actual mechanics of Sorcery, Combat and Every Thing Else.

And we finish up with chapter 7 as an example setting.

Ron added, referring to ‘what we expect:’

1. Character creation, combat system, magic system, other dangerous stuff mechanics, bestiary, and setting/play.

2. Setting, character creation, general system, combat system, magic system, play stuff, and more setting.

[Liberally coat either of the former with color text, e.g. fiction snippets, especially #2]

JSDiamond again:

What I want to know is, do you think that by having your game's book laid out in a different order that you can affect the mood and/or expectations of the players and gamemaster in the direction that you want?

Have any of you tried this, or feel that it can be a positive influence for promoting a style of play?

Let me clarify my own view on this.

Ron:
"Players are responsible only for the intended, attempted actions of the characters; all perception, choreography, world/time/space, and ultimately all interpretation of outcomes, belong to the GM alone."

That's what I mean by "traditional". When the player does not take a MoV, the game reverts to traditional play. The GM describes what happens, the player responds.

Paul:
"It may not have been clear, but the original question wasn't at all about the GM getting an MoV. It was whether the GM, in those situations when the player turns down the MoV, should be trying to narrate something as dramatic and protagonizing as an MoV on behalf of the character as the player would have done if he hadn't turned it down."

Again, this is group style. For me, if the player turns down an MoV then I play it by ear, most often giving them a standar, basic success. Nothing too fancy. The rules don't dictate how to do this, and I don't want them to.

Ron:
"I'll defer to James V., of course, but my understanding of the textual, canonical Pool is that success at the dice roll results in success at the activity. The MoV is an add-on."

Exactly. I'm starting to think of the MoV as a "critical hit" without the need to roll a 20. I mean, if you roll a success, you succeed. If you take a MoV instead of a die, you succeed *and* you get to describe it...but more than that, as Moose says:

"Sure, Grazel killed Korg. His stated action was succssful. That's not a MoV, though. Had I actually taken the MoV, I would have pushed my directorial power much further than just rendering Korg's death scene in colorful detail, as I believe I am entitled to when playing The Pool."

The MoV lets you actually alter the game with the coveted directorial control if offers. This is the concept that I have a hard time getting some people to understand (not on The Forge, of course--I think everyone here is well-versed in the concept of director stance). "You mean I get to describe how I cut off his head?" "Yeah, but you can *push*
it..." "Um...I cut off his head...and..spit on it?". "Well, sure, but try this: I cut off his head and it rolls down the stairs onto the inn floor. This attracts the attention of a certain patron--a local fighting school instructor. He's going to keep his eye on me from now on because he sees my potential."

Mike:
"Instead I'd suggest to James that he clarify this in a different light, and say that the GM's responsibility in this case is to specifically create a sort of interim success from the roll that builds suspense or drama, and that then allows for the player to either fail (in which case this is the danger of the trade-off) or to get his MoV. In this way, the trade becomes a further gamble which is more in line with the game goal as I see it."

I still see this as a matter of style. The fact is, a successful roll means the character was successful in what he was rolling for. Period. What that action was, and the extent of it, is really up to the GM. Moose says "I kill Korg". Paul goes with it. If He had wanted something more specific, he would have asked Moose exactly what he was trying to do. "I aim for his neck". In that case, a successful roll could have meant he *hit* Korg's neck, but, since there was no MoV, Paul decides it only wounded him. Korg is angry and bleeding. The action continues.

Matters of taste and style.

Mike:
"however, you thrust your legs forward and propel him back across the pool."

Talk about taking the name of the game literally! :wink:

I hope I didn't miss any of the major points. Thank you all so much for playing (or at least reading) the game. It means everything to have this kind of critical feedback. I take every suggestion, every idea, and every gripe to heart.

James V. West
http://www.geocities.com/randomordercreations/thepoolrpg.html

P.S. In the new revision of The Pool, was naming the die rolls (Action and Trait rolls) a good move, or just added baggage? I felt I needed to clarify things a bit. I already see where I may have confused things more.

Somebody just shoot me now. I can't believe I posted a reply to the wrong damn discussion.

Ok, Ok, on the subject at hand: I've never really completed a game and I'm curious about this too. When I pick up a game what I look at first, aside from the artwork, is the system. I like setting, but I'm so into making my own I tend to unintentionally ignore settings in games. I want to see how the game is played and if I can't find that information, I usually put it back down.

Sorry about the mis-post, folks.

James V. West

Le Joueur: Editorial voice in the introduction is something I'm going to insert into my own game, in keeping with your analogy of letting the players get their 'sea legs' prior to wading through the system and setting itself.

That's a splendid idea that will allow me to insert a bit of pseudo-fiction containing a kind of 'mission statement' of player-characters. I believe this will provide on some level (emotional/mental), motivation and anticipation for striking outward into the galaxy. It's almost a premise because it puts players in the frame of mind of someone living in the game setting.

Jeff

Solid, Fang. I am so looking forward to Scattershot.

Best,
Ron

On 2001-09-21 09:23, Ron Edwards wrote:
Solid, Fang. I am so looking forward to Scattershot.

The game that Ralph Mazza and I have been working on has been really difficult to organize chapter wise. Firstly, we've had to chuck the old chapter divsions entirely. For example, our game's mechanics don't actually have different rules for character creation, per se, so do you have a chapter on that? Those few who have played it (GenCon, Origins) know exactly what I'm talking about; I have a hard time even describing it verbally to new players. Not only have we gone over several ideas for what order the chapters should be in, we've had to decide what goes into each chapter, taking into consideration how to overcome a potential learning curve that the game has (you have to throw out a lot of preconceptions all at once). Yikes!

To Ralph's credit, he's rewritten it several times in part, and twice in its entirety. And I think that, like it's unusual design, the order of presentation will be somewhat of a departure as well. We're doing playtesting right now, and poor Ralph is probably going to have to do more writing when the results are in. Argh. Who knew it would take this long. :wink: We are very happy with how it's turning out, however.

I think its obvious that as some ogf the basics of game design change that presentation will have to change to match. I think that Scott Knipe has had some real challenges organizing the presentation of many of his new games, for example. Mike Sullivan's Framework can't possibly be presented in the average fashion. And Ron's departure from the "norm" of presentation in Sorcerer is just a precursor of what is to come.

Just my $.02,

Mike Holmes

thoughts on layout:

- I think its important to have setting info, if relevant, up front. Otherwise you risk introducing sample characters and the like without a context.

- I hate 1-st person reports on the game world. Everyone has to treat this as opinion rather than fact; the gamebook proper should contain only Truth.

- Combat should NOT in my opinion have a chapter to itself. This I think is a habit from when it was the core of the system; these days we think of resolution systems for which combat is one type of conflict to be resolved. Abolish the combat chapter, say I.

- Books are actually random access media - you can turn to any page you like. Don't be a slave to a linear reading, as long as you keep your page references in good order. In the life of the book it will only likely be read cover to cover once, perhaps a few more times.

- That old saw about a picture speaking a thousand words is true. We are very visual critters.

0.02p

On 2001-09-24 11:56, contracycle wrote:
thoughts on layout:

- I hate 1-st person reports on the game world. Everyone has to treat this as opinion rather than fact; the gamebook proper should contain only Truth.

- Combat should NOT in my opinion have a chapter to itself. This I think is a habit from when it was the core of the system; these days we think of resolution systems for which combat is one type of conflict to be resolved. Abolish the combat chapter, say I.

I do believe that order and layout can affect the style of gaming(I'm a graphic designer, could I believe otherwise?), but I think also something that should be looked at is combining subjects within chapters.

A perfect example of setting married with rules is the wargame Battletech(old school 1st edition). The game is a wargame, and gave you a 20 page booklet with the rules, but had sidebars with little bits of background and story that completely fleshed out the gameworld(enough for why you're fighting anyway), but didn't divorce settings from rules.

Even Rifts made a point of using its character classes to outline parts of the game world and background simply by describing their role(can't have a cyber physician without cybernetics, now can we?).

I actually prefer to have character creation near the beginning of the book, preferably with some sort of outline of the roles/classes/archtypes to play. It allows players(the majority of the readers) a chance to define how they themselves relate to the game world.

Also, define style in all parts of the rules. Deadlands has done a great job with this, and the new Adventure! game from Whitewolf does a great job with the vignettes. Unknown Armies started with a couple of pages of design goals and a general "mission statement" of the attitude to the game. Depending on how you want to focus it, make sure it gets to the players and the GM.

On the subject of seperate combat chapters I'd have to say if the game is supposed to have combat in it as a frequent story driver it should have its own chapter. If combat is largely something to be avoided or simply worked into the background it should not.

Quite simply the fighting is a far more involved process than picking a lock in terms of what is interesting to portray. I firmly believe in keeping the same basic system mechanics intact for both combat and non combat (unlike AD&D), but what is the point of NOT expanding on combat expect in games where combat is not a feature at all.

To say that combat should be run with the exact same rules as everything else with no special differentiator makes not sense whatsoever. Turn it around. Would you want to pick every lock, negotiate every deal, or jump every chasm with intricate rules for initiative and actions and movement rates? Obviously not (though on occassion such framing a more mundane challenge this way is pretty interesting). Why then the belief that the reverse is true.

If there is any minute simulationist element in the game at all it MUST be treated differently. Period. If there is no simulationist element at all such that everything is abstracted out to the most general conflict level than there does not.