A gamer buddy commented to me recently that it seems like games written in the 1970s and 1980s "put more information in a paragraph" than games in the 1990s and 2000s. There's a better content to fluff ratio.

I just bought Advanced Runequest (3rd ed, Games Workshop, 1987), and I'm inclined to think this is true.

The GM advice is good, and there's a play example in the back, like a transcript of what the players say. The group isn't perfect. It deals with everyday gamer problems. A player says something, the GM says, "does your character say it?" and when the player says no, "then don't you say it." It talks about a GM's style as being "competitive" (emphasising fights and challenges) or "dramatic" (emphasising "storytelling"), and says that best is a balance between the two.

Says, "After the game session, find out what the players liked and didn't like so you can improve your performance and scenario design next session."

Talks about limiting game sessions, better too short than too long, advises that if interest is still high after a few hours, take a break.

Lots of good stuff there.

It also has several pages at the back which are printed on cardstock, and serrated for easy removal, GM reference pages, character sheets, etc.

I think they really did put more in one paragraph in those days. Maybe that's why their corebooks had less pages (or so it seems). Also seems they weren't afraid to express an opinion, and tell you how to game. A lot of modern books won't express any opinion at all.

What do you guys reckon?

Quote from: JimBobOzAlso seems they weren't afraid to express an opinion, and tell you how to game. A lot of modern books won't express any opinion at all.

What do you guys reckon?

I don't know JimBob. There was a thread that caused much blood to be spilt over at tBP some time back, because of the opinion of the designers of Unknown Armies with regards to violence which they stated in the core rule book.

Midnight isn't afraid, to tell the GM the best methods to get the most out of the setting....where they constantly remind the reader that this ain't the shining fantasy type setting.

There was a thread right here, about whether games should encourage a certain playstyle. This seems to me, that there is a lot of opinions in most games these days.

I do, think however the games from the era in your post had a lot less artifice in them whether in terms of presentation or design.

Regards,
David R

The way I figure it, if you honestly tell people your opinions then they'll be more likely to either passionately like your product or passionately hate your product.  Since both of those is head-and-shoulders better than them having a tepid disinterest, it seems like a win-win to me.  There's no great point in producing pablum:  tell it like you see it.

Quote from: David RI don't know JimBob. There was a thread that caused much blood to be spilt over at tBP some time back, because of the opinion of the designers of Unknown Armies with regards to violence which they stated in the core rule book.

Well, there's different kinds of advice.

Whether or not killing is good and proper for heroes is setting advice.

Stuff like, "if you want to keep up the momentum and keep people involved, then tell them that if the player says it, the character says it, too," that's play style advice.

Then there's the rules. Setting advice can tie into the rules, if the rules are designed to promote the setting (as in Unknown Armies, as I understand it). But the rules don't really ever tie into the play style advice.

So the setting advice, tied into the rules, it seems like you're trying to force groups to play the game a certain way, and people feel somewhat compelled because it's not always easy to see how to change the rules to split them from the setting stuff, it's much harder to just take or leave the advice.

But when it's play advice, it's just advice, people can take it or leave it. The game mechanics of Unknown Armies promote a certain view of violence; the game mechanics of Runequest have nothing to do with "if you say it, your character says it."

Seems to me like the games of the 1970s and 1980s, the game designers' ideas of setting weren't tied as intimately into the rules, you could take 'em or leave 'em. And there was more play advice. Thoughts?

Also, on the other aspect of it - do you think that a paragraph then said more than a paragraph now?

Quote from: JimBobOzWell, there's different kinds of advice.

After I post then he goes defining the different kinds of advice/opinions... :muttering:

QuoteSeems to me like the games of the 1970s and 1980s, the game designers' ideas of setting weren't tied as intimately into the rules, you could take 'em or leave 'em. And there was more play advice. Thoughts?

Maybe, although you have to name specific games. I can't recall anything at the moment. Roleplaying was fairly new then, so, designers were damn interested in giving play advise. And I suppose the setting was the icing, not the cake...

QuoteAlso, on the other aspect of it - do you think that a paragraph then said more than a paragraph now?

Not really. But like I mentioned before, perhaps the lack of brevity in some games today could be because of a reliance on artifice...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RAfter I post then he goes defining the different kinds of advice/opinions... :muttering:

Sometimes people seem to believe that others have got this whole set-out manifesto in their heads, this whole developed philosophy of stuff, and they're out to promote it, and will never alter it, no matter what. Maybe there are people like that, but I'm not one of them. Often I don't know I think something until I say it; discussion is a kind of thought. And then I'll say it, and someone'll say something else, and I'll... change my mind!

So that's why I didn't define anything, I didn't think of it until I said it Thanks for helping me think of it!

Quote from: David R.Maybe, although you have to name specific games. I can't recall anything at the moment. Roleplaying was fairly new then, so, designers were damn interested in giving play advise. And I suppose the setting was the icing, not the cake...

Well... all of them. D&D, AD&D, Call of Cthulhu, Star Frontiers, Timelords, Pendragon, all sorts of games.

Quote from: David RNot really. But like I mentioned before, perhaps the lack of brevity in some games today could be because of a reliance on artifice...

What do you mean by "artifice"? Fancy-talk, trying to make dull stuff look shiny?

Because back then there was ground to cover and only 64-128 pages or so to do it in.  When pressed for space, you buckle down and use what you have to the utmost.  

Nowadays a common RPG book is 3 times that size or larger and has got to leave any important bits out for supplements.  So, the writers pad it out.  Just like when we were in school and we had a huge term paper to write.  They string out the material, put in some filler, go off on unimportant tangents, etc.

Quote from: JimBobOz

Quote from: David R.Maybe, although you have to name specific games. I can't recall anything at the moment. Roleplaying was fairly new then, so, designers were damn interested in giving play advise. And I suppose the setting was the icing, not the cake...

Well... all of them. D&D, AD&D, Call of Cthulhu, Star Frontiers, Timelords, Pendragon, all sorts of games.

Compared to what though specifically?  Maybe we are seeing more setting heavy or setting only books than in the past, and that is what you are comparing rules heavy texts to?

P.S.  Like DavidR, I too recall some people here spitting vemon about some so-and-so game writer or another voicing their opinion about aspects of play within the rule book. Of course some of those same people then turn around and talk out the other side of their mouth and praise the same sort of thing in another game. So I don't know, maybe they are just looking for an excuse and any difference one way or the other is only noticed in the moment?

Yes, I do think the games of the 70's and 80's said more in a paragraph, often more than games do in a page today. I don't  know when exactly this change happened, but I feel that the older games have a very solid idea of the relative importance of "hard rules" and "playing advice & color text" (the latter are important, but they've grown out of control), and also that the older games separated the two more cleanly, making it easier both to reference the rules and to tinker with them in a modular fashion.

Personally I blame it on the divergence between RPG and board wargame communities.

Quote from: JimBobOzWell... all of them. D&D, AD&D, Call of Cthulhu, Star Frontiers, Timelords, Pendragon, all sorts of games.

You know, I think Star Frontiers is a pretty good example, of the rules not being too tied to the setting. Even back then, I remember folks making up their own races, star systems etc and using just the basic rules plus the NightHawks (?) starship boxed set.

There was a lot of good easily digestible advise in there....maybe I'm not being too provocative if I say the setting was simple and so were the rules.

But now we have stuff like Transhuman Space. The rules and the setting (IMO) are pretty tied together. You can't give short snappy descriptions when trying to explain some of the concepts in the game. Maybe because of the sophistication of the settings/rules these days, a lot more has to be said.

Although, I have to mention Coldspace, which effectively communicates everything it wants to in a very concise manner. :shrug: I don't really have a clear answer for this.

QuoteWhat do you mean by "artifice"? Fancy-talk, trying to make dull stuff look shiny?

Well the dictionary def of artifice is pretty harsh. But I think your trying to make dull stuff look shining pretty much sums the softer intent of my use of the word.

I mean White Wolf games - and you are talking to a fan here - suffers from this sometimes.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RYou know, I think Star Frontiers is a pretty good example, of the rules not being too tied to the setting. Even back then, I remember folks making up their own races, star systems etc and using just the basic rules plus the NightHawks (?) starship boxed set.

There was a lot of good easily digestible advise in there....maybe I'm not being too provocative if I say the setting was simple and so were the rules.

But now we have stuff like Transhuman Space. The rules and the setting (IMO) are pretty tied together. You can't give short snappy descriptions when trying to explain some of the concepts in the game.

Hm.  The seventies had the prose of the 1st edition Dungeon Master's Guide and the eighties brought stuff like Rolemaster with its endless lists and tables, or Aftermath and Space Opera.  

And as pointed out, there are a number of simpler and more generic games these days (like Savage Worlds, the cinematic Unisystem games, and others).  

So I'm not sure that things have changed all that much.  There was less variation in the nineties, when everything seemed to standardize on a largish, rules-medium rulebook similar to Vampire.  Champions was pared down to Fuzion, and so forth.  But we have that diversity again with small press and indie products as well as some offshoot imprints of the larger companies.

There's too many wannabe novelists in the world of RPG writing.

Thing is, I see the same phenomenon in many "short" games as in big games. Rules procedures which could be expressed in a few paragraphs are padded into pages of text interleaving actual rules, designer's notes, and play advice, making it very hard to discern one from another. It's real impediment to clarity, IMO--not only because one might at times want to just pay attention to the "hard skeleton" of the actual rules and the heck with how the designer hopes we'll use them, but also because it makes it harder to appreciate the advice qua advice.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThing is, I see the same phenomenon in many "short" games as in big games. Rules procedures which could be expressed in a few paragraphs are padded into pages of text interleaving actual rules, designer's notes, and play advice, making it very hard to discern one from another. It's real impediment to clarity, IMO--not only because one might at times want to just pay attention to the "hard skeleton" of the actual rules and the heck with how the designer hopes we'll use them, but also because it makes it harder to appreciate the advice qua advice.

I've seen those very things put into sidebars or otherwise denoted as such. Which I approve of. It is really nice and handy to have the advice where it is relavent instead of buried off in some other chapter. But then it's clearly marked as such and tucked out of the way.

Not that a little blending and blurring between hurts all that much. But it's nice to keep it clean.

P.S. This just occured to me, comparing the rules text in SR3 (1998) with those in SR4 (2005) there has been a lot of fat trimmed off. Literally pages converted into paragraphs.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThing is, I see the same phenomenon in many "short" games as in big games. Rules procedures which could be expressed in a few paragraphs are padded into pages of text interleaving actual rules, designer's notes, and play advice, making it very hard to discern one from another. It's real impediment to clarity, IMO--not only because one might at times want to just pay attention to the "hard skeleton" of the actual rules and the heck with how the designer hopes we'll use them, but also because it makes it harder to appreciate the advice qua advice.

It had always been my intention with my own book, to keep the setting and system sections quite distinct from each other.  

Part of it evolved from some of the plans I had towards developing it into a full on IP.  I wanted the setting, system, and fiction parts to be distinct wholes in and of themselves, so they could in theory be seperated from each other and sold individually as books in their own right.

But frankly, I lack the verbosity in my writing for that to be viable.

But then it evolved into me wanting to take my system and make it into an open licensed house system, which meant I wanted the system itself to be divorced enough from setting that it would be more easily applied to other things.

I definitely like there being a concrete division of those sorts of things.  Its a frustration I have sometimes with D&D, in that I don't find it to be all that generic in the end, because there's too much of it's own setting embedded in the rules, so every setting you run in it ust winds up feeling the damn same in the end.