Quote from: ForgottenF on April 30, 2023, 12:12:49 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 29, 2023, 10:22:19 PM
OTOH, core rulebooks are apparently extremely popular - which makes little sense, as you'd only need one to play for years, but you could go through dozens of adventures, and a single system could have dozens of different settings (especially D&D).

It's possible that I'm misunderstanding this comment. Why wouldn't core rulebooks be popular? If you mean in terms of units sold, that's because it's usually the only book purchased by non-GMs. I'm guessing you don't mean that, though. Do you mean people will buy core rulebooks for multiple games rather than more supplements for a game they already have? I think that's largely curiosity, and a case of chasing the dragon. Chronic core-rulebook buyers (of which I absolutely am one) tend, I think, to be people who have not yet found a game they're totally satisfied with. We don't have the time or inclination to write our own game from scratch, so we buy any game that looks like it might be the one we're looking for.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 29, 2023, 10:22:19 PM
"Why would you want us to do imagining for you", as gygax said?

As others have said, the obvious response to that is "What am I paying you for, then?".

As soon as you're publishing something for a price, there's a question of value-for-money. This is a real case of mileage varying from person to person. I think it's largely a question of what each individual finds to be easy or difficult.

For example, random tables like the one you posted above are almost completely useless to me. The problem is that most random tables are there to provide the flavor (descriptions, personalities, backstories, quest hooks etc.). I find that sort of thing very easy to make up, even on the fly, and I'm also very particular about how my game world is flavored. So flavor tables are doing a task I could easily do myself, and would probably have to redo anyway after using them.

On the other hand, the more mechanical side of adventure design: making maps, building stat blocks, setting check difficulties, etc. That stuff is more time-consuming and to me at least, a bigger pain in the ass.

I don't often purchase modules myself, but I do see a value in them. What I am very likely to purchase are things like bestiaries, expanded spell lists, or optional rules. When I do purchase a module, it's going to be something that has a lot of mechanical content. If I purchase a module and just get a text description of the adventure, I'm pretty pissed off. I would not buy a random monster generator, but I might buy a more procedural one.

Let me trade in the toy-based analogy for a food-based one: I don't always feel like cooking my own dinner, but I also don't want to go to the fancy restaurant and get the chef's special. I'll go to the buffet and load my plate up, but I still expect the food to already be cooked.

About the core rules books, my question is exactly what you mentioned: "people will buy core rulebooks for multiple games rather than more supplements for a game they already have". And yes, might be curiosity, I'm guilty of that myself.

The buffet analogy sounds fitting. Might be a matter of preference. Would a Monster Manual be a buffet? Or a big menu? If you can combine your own food, you can pretty much have thousands of lunch combinations, but maybe you only need a dozen good options instead.

I'm particularly curious about your comments on monsters, what do you mean by "a more procedural one"? I ask because I was obsessed with MMs and now I almost see no use for them, since I use published modules and will sometimes create my own monsters rather than looking for one.

Quote from: Fheredin on April 30, 2023, 12:40:33 PM
With tabletop games, there's a great deal of paradoxical value. By this I mean that players and GMs intuitively equate volume and book size with value, but more often than not the highest value RPGs are the ones with the lowest page counts...or at least, relatively low page counts. In general, it takes a more experienced game designer putting more effort into a game to reduce the amount of stuff in it without harming the game experience, and any old intern can add a few dozen feats for a game already at 100+ pages of content.

For me, the question isn't really about how much work you have to put in, but if the process itself is fun, or at least painless relative to what it does. I personally don't care for bestiaries or encyclopedias of equipment because I find them a chore to sift through. I also don't particularly like random tables; I view them as a lazy game design habit from 30+ years ago which occasionally has value, but usually for every ounce of effort a random table saves the GM, it introduces RNG disruption.

"Paradoxical value" indeed, completely agree. I prefer terseness and I hate padding, but there are shades of gray there, I think, and I might be exaggerating the need for objectivity.

One a D&Dish game of mine got criticized because it said something like "roll 1d20 plus stat plus skill", and the reviewer complained it didn't explain what to do if you didn't have the proper skill. Sounds obvious to me, but maybe being explicit beats being terse.

What do you mean by "RNG disruption"?

about  random tables being "a lazy game design habit", I'm not sure. See Carcosa, for example. I find the "worked" examples (this is a village of 157 green men...") almost useless, wile the random tables make the game more interesting. If we had a few "village random tables" would be even better IMO (I eventually wrote a PDF to address that, BTW, since it bothered me a bit).

I can see how the book could be improved WITHOUT random tables too, just by adding cool details to each and every village, but that would add maybe 20 pages to the book, instead of a couple.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 30, 2023, 01:48:09 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on April 30, 2023, 12:40:33 PM
With tabletop games, there's a great deal of paradoxical value. By this I mean that players and GMs intuitively equate volume and book size with value, but more often than not the highest value RPGs are the ones with the lowest page counts...or at least, relatively low page counts. In general, it takes a more experienced game designer putting more effort into a game to reduce the amount of stuff in it without harming the game experience, and any old intern can add a few dozen feats for a game already at 100+ pages of content.

For me, the question isn't really about how much work you have to put in, but if the process itself is fun, or at least painless relative to what it does. I personally don't care for bestiaries or encyclopedias of equipment because I find them a chore to sift through. I also don't particularly like random tables; I view them as a lazy game design habit from 30+ years ago which occasionally has value, but usually for every ounce of effort a random table saves the GM, it introduces RNG disruption.

"Paradoxical value" indeed, completely agree. I prefer terseness and I hate padding, but there are shades of gray there, I think, and I might be exaggerating the need for objectivity.

One a D&Dish game of mine got criticized because it said something like "roll 1d20 plus stat plus skill", and the reviewer complained it didn't explain what to do if you didn't have the proper skill. Sounds obvious to me, but maybe being explicit beats being terse.

What do you mean by "RNG disruption"?

Greetings!

I can understand your distaste for "padding"--but as I explained to a friend of mine talking about some stuff I was writing up, it is one thing to be concise--as many gamers are veterans and understand the lingo, the buzzwords, and even much of the authorial intent, creatively speaking.

However, there are many entirely new gamers, that need every step, every decision or thing explained in great detail.

THEN, you have even many experienced gamers that will whine and bitch about you not explaining enough examples, and not providing enough guidance and detail.

Hence, I often tend towards being often verbose--though I strive for conciseness. The fact is, much of a given audience Doesn't WANT conciseness, and will chew on you if you are not verbose sufficiently.

*Sigh* Right, my friend?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Some told me that there is not much reason for conciseness in a PDF... while I disagree (time is still limtied), I understand their point.

Maybe I could make a 50-page book and THEN add a 100-page appendix spelling out everything for people who prefer worked examples over terseness.

And sell both versions. 

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 30, 2023, 02:05:26 PM
Some told me that there is not much reason for conciseness in a PDF... while I disagree (time is still limtied), I understand their point.

Maybe I could make a 50-page book and THEN add a 100-page appendix spelling out everything for people who prefer worked examples over terseness.

And sell both versions. 

Greetings!

*HOWLING!* Oh yeah. Giggling like crazy. So true! Brilliant, Eric Diaz!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 30, 2023, 01:48:09 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on April 30, 2023, 12:40:33 PM
With tabletop games, there's a great deal of paradoxical value. By this I mean that players and GMs intuitively equate volume and book size with value, but more often than not the highest value RPGs are the ones with the lowest page counts...or at least, relatively low page counts. In general, it takes a more experienced game designer putting more effort into a game to reduce the amount of stuff in it without harming the game experience, and any old intern can add a few dozen feats for a game already at 100+ pages of content.

For me, the question isn't really about how much work you have to put in, but if the process itself is fun, or at least painless relative to what it does. I personally don't care for bestiaries or encyclopedias of equipment because I find them a chore to sift through. I also don't particularly like random tables; I view them as a lazy game design habit from 30+ years ago which occasionally has value, but usually for every ounce of effort a random table saves the GM, it introduces RNG disruption.

"Paradoxical value" indeed, completely agree. I prefer terseness and I hate padding, but there are shades of gray there, I think, and I might be exaggerating the need for objectivity.

One a D&Dish game of mine got criticized because it said something like "roll 1d20 plus stat plus skill", and the reviewer complained it didn't explain what to do if you didn't have the proper skill. Sounds obvious to me, but maybe being explicit beats being terse.

What do you mean by "RNG disruption"?

about  random tables being "a lazy game design habit", I'm not sure. See Carcosa, for example. I find the "worked" examples (this is a village of 157 green men...") almost useless, wile the random tables make the game more interesting. If we had a few "village random tables" would be even better IMO (I eventually wrote a PDF to address that, BTW, since it bothered me a bit).

I can see how the book could be improved WITHOUT random tables too, just by adding cool details to each and every village, but that would add maybe 20 pages to the book, instead of a couple.

RNG disruption is what I call it when you  wind up with several rolls in a row (or in close enough succession) to disrupt the game's flow state. The most common way this works is with enemies in an encounter rolling very well and PCs rolling poorly until an encounter which shouldn't have been an issue becomes a lethal threat. However, it can also disrupt the game's tone; RNG is almost always a comedy device which can disrupt a horror game's feel (or even a more seriously immersive game.)

My point is not that RNG is never useful, but that you have to play around its shortcomings, which is not ideal.

Personally, I try to take inspiration from the Apocalypse World approach where the GM can prompt players to worldbuild. This takes more time, but emphasizes staying in a creative flow-state more.

When I'm GMing, I view myself more as a managing editor than as a creative lead, so I will pick a player with appropriate talents and interests and ask them to provide worldbuilding, and then I prompt them to build something I need. Then if I can't work with it, I veto it or send it back for revision. Need a radio news bulletin? Give a couple players a card with the information you need to give the players on it and tell the player to roleplay the news anchor and field reporter for a moment. This approach is more about emphasizing the corroboration and staying in the creative flow-state rather than simply trying to bash out content as fast as possible.

Quote from: SHARK on April 30, 2023, 02:00:08 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 30, 2023, 01:48:09 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on April 30, 2023, 12:40:33 PM
With tabletop games, there's a great deal of paradoxical value. By this I mean that players and GMs intuitively equate volume and book size with value, but more often than not the highest value RPGs are the ones with the lowest page counts...or at least, relatively low page counts. In general, it takes a more experienced game designer putting more effort into a game to reduce the amount of stuff in it without harming the game experience, and any old intern can add a few dozen feats for a game already at 100+ pages of content.

For me, the question isn't really about how much work you have to put in, but if the process itself is fun, or at least painless relative to what it does. I personally don't care for bestiaries or encyclopedias of equipment because I find them a chore to sift through. I also don't particularly like random tables; I view them as a lazy game design habit from 30+ years ago which occasionally has value, but usually for every ounce of effort a random table saves the GM, it introduces RNG disruption.

"Paradoxical value" indeed, completely agree. I prefer terseness and I hate padding, but there are shades of gray there, I think, and I might be exaggerating the need for objectivity.

One a D&Dish game of mine got criticized because it said something like "roll 1d20 plus stat plus skill", and the reviewer complained it didn't explain what to do if you didn't have the proper skill. Sounds obvious to me, but maybe being explicit beats being terse.

What do you mean by "RNG disruption"?

Greetings!

I can understand your distaste for "padding"--but as I explained to a friend of mine talking about some stuff I was writing up, it is one thing to be concise--as many gamers are veterans and understand the lingo, the buzzwords, and even much of the authorial intent, creatively speaking.

However, there are many entirely new gamers, that need every step, every decision or thing explained in great detail.

THEN, you have even many experienced gamers that will whine and bitch about you not explaining enough examples, and not providing enough guidance and detail.

Hence, I often tend towards being often verbose--though I strive for conciseness. The fact is, much of a given audience Doesn't WANT conciseness, and will chew on you if you are not verbose sufficiently.

*Sigh* Right, my friend?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Well, it's more that the more things the writer tries to do, the harder it becomes. I think it's generally possible to write concisely enough that all these objectives remain completed even when the word count is reduced by 30-40%. In fact, "dead wood" words usually account for about 20% of the word count, so that's definitely possible in most instances. The problem is that the further you go in this direction, the more effort and labor it takes to refine things more, and to a less extent, players find the rulebooks more exhausting to read.

But my basic point is that ultra-condensed RPGs are much higher design skill than larger ones. I have absolutely no idea about John Harper's politics (probably ungood), but Lady Blackbird probably should warrant a higher MSRP than D&D because that ultra-condensed presentation required a whole lot of game design experience. The entirety of the last few D&D expansions required less raw talent and experience.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 30, 2023, 09:43:54 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 30, 2023, 02:05:13 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 29, 2023, 10:22:19 PM
"Why would you want us to do imagining for you", as gygax said?

Hate this take. May as well ask why read a book or watch a movie when you can imagine something in your head for yourself.

QuoteDo you prefer toys that are already assembled, or tools to build your own? LEGO or playmobil? Many completely miniatures or a 3d printer? Or do you buy anything as long as the quality is good?

Minis are a great comparison. I have minis I've painted myself, and prepaints that I've bought because painting a mini takes a fair bit of time and effort.
Same thing with RPGs. I sometimes buy stuff just to part it out for other adventures, and sometimes I run it complete.

I kinda agree about the Gygax quote. Of course a book should give you solutions to the problems it causes. I just think - and maybe that was the point of the quote - that a minimum of imagination is required to play RPGs, and blind adherence to RAW is not expected.

Oh yeah. I agree with that. I wish Old Gary was more clear on expressing his thoughts. So much of his work on D&D was either unstated or buried in "Gygaxian prose".

To give him some slack, he was working at the beginning of the hobby, and likely figuring this stuff out as he went along.

QuoteYeah, I mentioned minis because I'm in the same situation: loved to paint them, then switched to pre-painted, and now I barely even use them.

I posted in the Other Games forum, I've been playing a lot of Five Parsecs From Home. A solo rpg-lite wargame. It's been firing me up to do more painting. Lots of proxying and using my collection in imaginative ways.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 30, 2023, 01:43:05 PM
About the core rules books, my question is exactly what you mentioned: "people will buy core rulebooks for multiple games rather than more supplements for a game they already have". And yes, might be curiosity, I'm guilty of that myself.

I would add to it that the more ardent homebrewers also buy rulebooks to see if there are individual rules or systems they want to poach for their own homebrewed or frankenstein-ed games. For example, I have recently bought the corebooks for several different rules-light systems with the intention of stitching them together into something a little more robust.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 30, 2023, 01:43:05 PM
The buffet analogy sounds fitting. Might be a matter of preference. Would a Monster Manual be a buffet? Or a big menu? If you can combine your own food, you can pretty much have thousands of lunch combinations, but maybe you only need a dozen good options instead.

It's not a perfect analogy but let me try to expound. The way I was using it, the adventure is your meal. A Pathfinder or 5e-style adventure path would be the equivalent of one of those super-fancy restaurants where you sit down and the chef decides what to serve you. Most modules would be the equivalent of a standard restaurant: You can make some changes and substitutions, but mostly you're picking an item off of the menu. Monster manuals, spell/item lists and other compendium-type supplements are either the buffet or maybe the "build your own sandwich" option. The major work is done for you, but you're making the important decisions. Random tables might be the equivalent of those pre-portioned ingredient box subscriptions? I.e, here's a bunch of parts, but you're still going to have to do most of the work. Then of course pure Homebrew would then be the equivalent of cooking from scratch.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 30, 2023, 01:43:05 PM
I'm particularly curious about your comments on monsters, what do you mean by "a more procedural one"? I ask because I was obsessed with MMs and now I almost see no use for them, since I use published modules and will sometimes create my own monsters rather than looking for one.

The kind of thing I'm thinking of might not exist. What I had in mind would be a book that gives you a formula for monster design. So maybe if you want a level 5-equivalent monster, you spread this many points around its attributes, give it this many "rank 2" abilities, etc. If it has X AC, then it should have Y hit points. That sort of thing. Optimally, such a book would have a simple step-by-step procedure for generating stat blocks, a series of guidelines on how to balance out the stat blocks into recognizable power tiers, and then a large catalogue of abilities and special rules to be slotted in.

Personally, I tend to want more unique and mechanically interesting monsters than what a lot of rules-light or OSR games offer. I can come up with the concepts, but stat-ing them is more labor-intensive, and re-skinning existing monsters isn't always enough. So a book that expedites that process would be worth something to me.

A good analogy at just how all over the place people can get is to consider Lego kits.  When I was young, I used them almost exclusively as tool kits.  I built things with them, and then played for hours with the "toys" that I built.  I seldom built anything by the plan, and even when I did it was just to get some ideas for what to build later.  Most of the pieces were pretty abstract.  I supplemented them with bits of string, paper, etc. in order to make bigger things.

Soon, I ran into people that didn't do that.  At first, it blew my mind.  Some of the things that people did:

- Made the kits and played with the kits.  Stop.
- Used the pieces to make pictures.  One talented artist relative even did an impressive mosaic that you had to get back the right distance to see.
- Did minor variations on the kits, but never imagined anything new.
- Used the bricks as the basis for something else--walls for toy soldiers, for example.

RPGs, being more in the head than blocks, I suspect have an even wider scope for use.  Furthermore, I bet it varies a lot from game to game.  Certainly, the way I approach the games is seldom the way I approached the blocks.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 30, 2023, 04:42:26 PM
The kind of thing I'm thinking of might not exist. What I had in mind would be a book that gives you a formula for monster design. So maybe if you want a level 5-equivalent monster, you spread this many points around its attributes, give it this many "rank 2" abilities, etc. If it has X AC, then it should have Y hit points. That sort of thing. Optimally, such a book would have a simple step-by-step procedure for generating stat blocks, a series of guidelines on how to balance out the stat blocks into recognizable power tiers, and then a large catalogue of abilities and special rules to be slotted in.

Personally, I tend to want more unique and mechanically interesting monsters than what a lot of rules-light or OSR games offer. I can come up with the concepts, but stat-ing them is more labor-intensive, and re-skinning existing monsters isn't always enough. So a book that expedites that process would be worth something to me.

Curiously enough, my friend Jens from the Disoriented Ranger is working on that!

My own monster book has monster creation guidelines but they are more about appearance and demeanor than powers. It does have a few guidelines on statistics, but they are very lean.

Greetings!

I am also in favour of giant font sizes and *lots* of white-space. Big, bold titles for tables, large, bold numbering. It is nt because I cannot read--but rather, I want the tables involved to be easy to look at and use--not held up to my chest like I am reading a textbook--but like I am looking at the book while it is laying flat on the table, next to my bottle of Coke and a smoking cigar, rolling dice and making stuff up right then and there, in the middle of action.

Does that make sense?

I've read some books for the game that also include some neat tables for this or that--but the way they have it structured in 10-point font and shoved into tight paragraphs, denser reading--it makes the work useless at the game table, in my view.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Makes perfect sense, especially for physical books. I have one OSR monster book that I'm unable to read due to the small font. However, since I mostly use PDFs, doesn't make much difference for me.

Quote from: SHARK on April 30, 2023, 06:38:39 PM
Greetings!

I am also in favour of giant font sizes and *lots* of white-space. Big, bold titles for tables, large, bold numbering. It is nt because I cannot read--but rather, I want the tables involved to be easy to look at and use--not held up to my chest like I am reading a textbook--but like I am looking at the book while it is laying flat on the table, next to my bottle of Coke and a smoking cigar, rolling dice and making stuff up right then and there, in the middle of action.

Does that make sense?

I've read some books for the game that also include some neat tables for this or that--but the way they have it structured in 10-point font and shoved into tight paragraphs, denser reading--it makes the work useless at the game table, in my view.


SHARK

For me, it depends on the use.  There are some things that I will largely internalize and use without much reference.  For those, I don't mind relatively small print (even with my failing eyes) as long as the thing is well-organized.  It's good use of white space instead of lots of white space.  That's because if I'm going to read it again, it's more important to have my eye drawn to it quickly, then reading it I'll manage even if the exact text is small.

If it is something I need to scan the whole column or page quickly, then I'm right there with you.

It makes layout for my own material tricky.  Not infrequently, I've got a dense, crammed into the page version for reference, and then an at-play summary that tries to minimize total text in favor of layout.

I do see the appeal of both. If you have ever seen a Moo journal, it is a high quality notebook with a few colored pages in the center. You end up with a notebook that you can prep in the first half and then record the campaign in the back half. I use the middle pages for charts or things I might need on the fly.

At any rate, there could be a nice opportunity for someone to release a full setting tool kit in the first half of a book, show a few pages of a setting being generated with the engine in the middle, and use a detailed write-up of the setting in the back half.