I get it. Some writers think more is better.
However, I have a life outside gaming. If a game rulebook is too wordy or a page count is too high, I'll pass.
The two that come to mind are Pathfinder and Zweihander. Hell, at this point any game better be 150 pages or less.
So, who overwrote their game?
I think this applies to most rpgs, honestly. In general, rpgs have long and complicated rules that routinely run for a hundred pages or more. Learning a typical rpg is very intensive and time-consuming. This is a key reason why most players stick with the first rpg they encounter for the rest of their life in the hobby, in contrast to other kinds of games like board games and crpgs.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 15, 2022, 08:50:25 AM
I think this applies to most rpgs, honestly. In general, rpgs have long and complicated rules that routinely run for a hundred pages or more. Learning a typical rpg is very intensive and time-consuming. This is a key reason why most players stick with the first rpg they encounter for the rest of their life in the hobby, in contrast to other kinds of games like board games and crpgs.
Pretty much, though, some books are worse than others, and extend well beyond the minimal word count needed to get their point across, or may focus on packing a ton of content into a single manual, rather than splitting it up into multiple books.
PF1 & 2 are examples of this. I tried to read PF1 a bunch of times and my eyes always ended up glazing over from how heavy the text was, and I always ended up putting the pdf away, since I was only mildly interested in seeing what they did differently and farming it for ideas. With PF2 I managed to get farther ahead, cuz it covered material that more significantly diverged from standard D&D and had some interesting concepts, so it held my attention longer. But even then I didn't read the whole thing, and finding stuff in the manual is a mess.
HERO System 5e was another book I had this problem with. The book was simply too big, with a hardcover large enough to kill someone with a well placed blow to the head. And it included way too many acronyms to keep track of, making it even harder to read. Only reason I even tried was cuz I was researching effect based systems, farming them for ideas, and HERO was one of the most extensive systems there is. Even then I ultimately didn't get that much out of it, cuz I had already figured out most game effects I should include in a game before I got the book, and had handled most of them more simply than HERO did.
I think there are several categories, including:
- The core system rules.
- Elaborations on the system rules--examples, options, etc.
- Content that sits on the mechanical boundary--monsters, spells, etc.
- Pure content--setting, most adventures, etc.
- For lack of a better term, "design notes"--the why of the system, only useful to some readers, but highly useful to them.
- Boilerplate, fan fiction, and other "filler".
I'm leaving out art and layout, because while certainly important, those operate somewhat orthogonal to all of the above. (You can have great art and layout with great content. You can also have great art and layout with fan fiction. One of these things is much less valuable than the other.)
Then there are the purposes of the various documents associated with the game: Reference material, teaching the game, inspiration, provide content, etc.
My preference is that the core system be as concise and clear as possible so that the elaborations on it can fit in a reasonable profile and provide plenty of examples for clarity. Most games don't give enough good examples in the rules. More often than not, when someone tries to rectify this, they try the "IBM Technical Manual" approach like Hero System 5E does, where they go all in on tedious examples as a reference, not as inspiration. And of course, examples can clarify a well-written rule that isn't quite perfect, but they can't fix bad rules or even sometimes decent rules poorly written.
Content, whether mechanical or not, should be as long as it needs to be to get the content across. If it isn't mechanical, it can be a little more expressive and artistic, within reason. I prefer that the content not be included in the same document as the rules, for both reference and teaching reasons.
Finally, given my druthers, all first editions of games would be in multiple, soft-bound booklets. Even with PDFs its easier to have multiple docs open. If a "playtested in the wild" 2nd edition wants to be in a well-organized single volume with better binding, I can buy that.
Almost every game...
In the last couple of years, D&D 5e eventually became unwieldy.
Nowadays I like to play something closer to B/X with added options. My own clone has about 50 pages (for player options; in theory, you can never have too many monsters and dungeons, but in practice I use only a few. In addition to adventurers that include weird monsters, which I love).
Everything else is just too crunchy for me. And I used to play GURPS, etc.
Pathfinder has a huge problem with all the situational bullshit that may or may not get added in. Ironically, it makes the game much easier to run if you use basic character management programs -- even an autofilling PDF sheet works wonders.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on November 15, 2022, 08:24:15 AM
Games which are written too long, you won't play them.
Traveller 5.10
Tunnels & Trolls was always a cheap small book. Grab a bucket o D6s and start Delving. Even up to version 7.5 it was pretty tiny. 7 came in a metal tin. Don't remember page count but 5/5.5 wasn't more than about 100 pages? Would have to check.
Deluxe T&T is 386 pages so quite the jump. Does it do anything better than previous versions? Some bits but mostly it seems to be a 'chuck everything and the kitchen sink in' with a fair amount of stuff I won't ever use. That's why I self printed/bound the PDF into smaller books (four of 'em) and only really use books 1+2 for the most part which cover combat, characters, equipment and magic. They could trim it down and put out a Corgi sized edition and it would be just fine.
As mentioned above Hero 5e. Have a couple of copies and had intended to make use of them but its so dry it's like reading a manual on how to operate your car. You kind of know the basics (because you played previous versions/drove a car before) but it does the same job just more complicated (car) or harder to dig through (book). Hero 3e (Champions) was the sweet spot for me.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on November 15, 2022, 10:27:45 AM
I think there are several categories, including:
- The core system rules.
- Elaborations on the system rules--examples, options, etc.
- Content that sits on the mechanical boundary--monsters, spells, etc.
- Pure content--setting, most adventures, etc.
- For lack of a better term, "design notes"--the why of the system, only useful to some readers, but highly useful to them.
- Boilerplate, fan fiction, and other "filler".
I will admit that an enormous volume of a game book discourage me from looking into it. But if I take the time to actually crack it open, only too much volume in the core rules will make me veer off from a game, and that's because it's a good indication of how complex the game is, and hence how difficult it is to run. More examples is always good - I can skip the ones I don't need. Same for spells, powers, skills, monsters, etc. I only need to read the ones I'm going to use. Same for all the rest too, now that I think of it, settings, adventures, design notes etc are all optional or only read it when needed.
Traveller 5. I had the three book set and it was like reading home appliance instructions.
Universalis spends well over a hundred pages to essentially say "Tell a story, spend vote points to allow or deny others additions to."
5e D&D spends lot of time saying very little.
This seems like a case of books being written for different audiences. Most players want the book to be a part of the experience. Other players want the rules minutiae to be part of the experience. Very few people want the stripped down math & architecture of the game with no frills.
The latter should be provided in some form as quickstart rules.
I'm with the OP. I want everything for 150 pages or less. I don't want more rules than necessary in my games. Whatever might be missing is usually easy to add with a couple pages of house rules. It's tougher to deal with content I want to remove.
What would be nice if a rules book is very comprehensive is having a short chapter of "core rules" and then the rest adding optional rules, setting material, a starter adventure, maybe some extra rules for special situations or higher power lvl play etc.
I'm usually the GM of my games. Having an actual working life means my time is not to be wasted.
World building is one thing, but if a game has an insane page count because of the rules on top rules, well it's time to get ready for slow gameplay and endless rules lawyering.
I'll add one caveat. I don't think "one page rpg" games work either.
So... I'm curious.
Does this mantra hold to games like Palladium Fantasy or Rifts?
I'm not convinced smaller is necessarily better. I'm not against mega-books, though reading them can be tedious if you like to hold them and read for long periods. To me, Good is Good. If the book is 4-inches thick but it's damn good, well... it's damn good. I don't expect my players to own anything other than dice. The onus is on me as the GM to run the games I want to run, and thus, I resort back to my rule: good is good.
Another consideration is that many of these heavyweight monstrosities are PHB's/DMG's/MM's all rolled into one. So you're probably getting bang for the buck. If that's not a consideration then are we just talking about fatshaming (LOL) the girth of our dead-tree slabs?
Big Thick Books of Glorious Power I Own - FantasyCraft, Talislanta 4e (The Big Blue is literally what everyone calls it and is by fair margin the favorite edition), Palladium *anything* (on the plus side they're paperback, on the minus they're paperback). Most of the Wod20th anniversary books are necessarily massive. FFG Star Wars core books (and they have a lot of overlap in rules - so that takes a hit in value).
I'm not going to dismiss a game simply for the presentation. I'm the type of consumer that walks around a product a *lot* before I purchase. I kick the tires and check the oil, and measure and poke and prod before I hand over gold. Size is a secondary concern to me.
Conversely - I'm a Savage Worlds fan. Their books are very very slim. Take Savage Worlds Rifts, while they do a great job of giving you high-level details of the Rifts setting, because of space reasons, they miss a lot of the juicy juicy details in the Palladium sourcebooks they draw from. The tone feels "lighter" in touch because of it. While that might be a good thing for some, I think in a setting-by-setting case those details can matter for a GM.
From a player perspective? I don't care - because even the best written setting books will only get presented to the best ability of their GM. For me, generally, less is more. BUT... having the full-assault of a verbose writer, while tedious at times, can give you deeper insight as a GM into intent of setting conceits - which you're free to discard - in terms of how you want to present it to your players.
TL/DR Fatshaming your fatass books shouldn't be the issue. The content is king.
I like a gaming environment where both exist. Sometimes I prefer brevity, sometimes I want something that takes more time but helps evoke my enthusiasm to play. Generally though I think shorter is an easier sell for most groups.
Worlds Without Number. The text ditters on like an aged grandpa trying to tell kids a story. It often uses long-winded abstract examples that don't really get the job done. What's worse is that these "examples" are often just dropped in the middle of a paragraph and consist of multiple paragraphs themselves. This means if you just want to find the important bits of info, you need to dig through a wall of text. The cynic in me wants to say that it's nothing more than a reason for Kevin to show off his extensive vernacular and penchant for flowery prose... because that's all it really is. The examples are almost never helpful in explaining things any better, they're just words or words sake.
I like the system well enough, but it's a goddamn chore to find what you're looking for sometimes.
The Pathfinder Core Rulebook, for either edition; could cause bludgeoning damage. And the thing doesn't even include a Bestiary, at its massive size; so it's still maybe 300 pages short of being a complete, runnable game. That's maybe 850 to 950 pages dense, combined; for just the basic rules of a game in 2 volumes.
And then there are tons of books available, past those first two volumes.... Pathfinder requires a commitment of time and resources, beyond what many are willing to give.
After 150 or 200 pages the game better be done. These long games bore me to tears unless I already know the game. I don't want to spend my time on long gaming books for games I'll never play.
Quote from: tenbones on November 17, 2022, 12:23:11 PM
So... I'm curious.
Does this mantra hold to games like Palladium Fantasy or Rifts?
I'm not convinced smaller is necessarily better. I'm not against mega-books, though reading them can be tedious if you like to hold them and read for long periods. To me, Good is Good. If the book is 4-inches thick but it's damn good, well... it's damn good. I don't expect my players to own anything other than dice. The onus is on me as the GM to run the games I want to run, and thus, I resort back to my rule: good is good.
Another consideration is that many of these heavyweight monstrosities are PHB's/DMG's/MM's all rolled into one. So you're probably getting bang for the buck. If that's not a consideration then are we just talking about fatshaming (LOL) the girth of our dead-tree slabs?
Big Thick Books of Glorious Power I Own - FantasyCraft, Talislanta 4e (The Big Blue is literally what everyone calls it and is by fair margin the favorite edition), Palladium *anything* (on the plus side they're paperback, on the minus they're paperback). Most of the Wod20th anniversary books are necessarily massive. FFG Star Wars core books (and they have a lot of overlap in rules - so that takes a hit in value).
I'm not going to dismiss a game simply for the presentation. I'm the type of consumer that walks around a product a *lot* before I purchase. I kick the tires and check the oil, and measure and poke and prod before I hand over gold. Size is a secondary concern to me.
Conversely - I'm a Savage Worlds fan. Their books are very very slim. Take Savage Worlds Rifts, while they do a great job of giving you high-level details of the Rifts setting, because of space reasons, they miss a lot of the juicy juicy details in the Palladium sourcebooks they draw from. The tone feels "lighter" in touch because of it. While that might be a good thing for some, I think in a setting-by-setting case those details can matter for a GM.
From a player perspective? I don't care - because even the best written setting books will only get presented to the best ability of their GM. For me, generally, less is more. BUT... having the full-assault of a verbose writer, while tedious at times, can give you deeper insight as a GM into intent of setting conceits - which you're free to discard - in terms of how you want to present it to your players.
TL/DR Fatshaming your fatass books shouldn't be the issue. The content is king.
Those games are fine. I'm just not a fan of crunchy game rulebooks. Even GURPS turns me off.
I am also biased as I know how to play the Palladium games well enough to have my own house rules.
Make no mistake. Rifts is complex.
I've been writing about this, I think there is a "minimum viable D&D" that I like to play, as for me this is B/X (with added stuff) - more or less.
One page RPGs do not work for me either, but I think I could make a 30-page PHB with everything I need. Or Knave with 10 extra pages for house rules.
I can take crunchier stuff but not as crunchy as 5e - or AD&D and the RC that are even more complex in some aspects.
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/11/the-bx-paradox-also-ad-paradox-minimum.html
On the other hand DCC and MCC have fairly beefy rulebooks, especially the former, but they read much shorter, since the bulk of the page count consists of spells/wetware descriptions. The actual rules are pretty short and DCC offers a handy book with all the charts and tables if you don't want to pour through the core book at the table.
48 pages should be enough for any game system tied to a setting, though the setting information might be longer. If the system is generic then you might need 96 pages.
Larger pagecounts should only be tolerated if the writing is interesting, like AD&D1e. This is only possible with a single primary authour, once you get more then the original writer's "voice" is lost as it falls into committee-speak. Hemingway, Tolkien and Chandler were all great writers, but had they tried to write a novel together it would have been awful.
I find page count utterly irrelevant and an almost meaningless statistic. 150 pages means nothing without page size and font size and some idea of art content.
150 pages at 8.5x11" two column, 1/4" margins, 9pt font and roughly 12.5% art content is one thing.
150 pages at 6x9" single column, 1/2" to 3/4" margins, 11pt font and roughly 25% art content is quite another.
And whether or not its in a bookmarked and searchable PDF or dead tree format is also extremely relevant to evaluation of its "length."
Gimme a word count and that's something much closer to a useful measure of length.
Agreed but... word counts are hard to find, and there is also presentation, redundancy, etc.
And there are also some intangibles to be discussed, certainly.
Word counts are a better metric if you can find them, but if page counts are all you have, it is decent enough to compare editions of D&D.