So I was just looking at the Dresden Files RPG - [I thought "at last a WWII RPG" but alas it is just another setting based on a series of cheap novels] - and I noticed that the page count is 670 pages spread between two books. Phew, quite some hefty tomes.

Pathfinder is 576 pages in one book, D&D 4e is 832 pages over three books, and Dark Heresy is 400 pages.

Is the trend for thicker books and bigger page counts?

For some crowds, sure. The most popular games seem to confirm it. Maybe a sign the hobby is closing its doors on new blood and feeding off the gamers who want ever more rules and codification?

There are exceptions, though.

Look at Mongoose's Traveller - 190 pages. Swords & Wizardry - 112 pages. So there is a crowd interested in light page counts out there too. Probably people who like variation and swing between games with heavy and light page counts as well.

Savage Worlds clocks in at 160 digestish size pages. True20 (first print came out at 120 pages of rules (the rest was substandard setting stuff that nobody used)- the newer edition is cheaper, and replaces all the dross with stuff from the companion and clocks in at 264 pgs, but it is extremely versatile (YMMV).
Lately I've been looking at HEX again (I just bought the Mysteries of the Hollow Earth suppliment) and from what I can tell you really need all three currently available books to have a complete game- that's like 600 pages, and its got all kinds of icky thespy stuff that i don't like... And yet I am drawn to it...
Feel the power of my on topic post!

Quote from: Aos;364186Feel the power of my on topic post!

Now, that said... nice, bringing up Savage Worlds and True20!

Depends.  Most of the thicker rulebooks I see are either d20 variants, or aimed at a niche within our niche -- fans of specific IPs who are already familiar with RPGs.

If you look at "newbie" RPGs out there (Doctor Who boxed set, Dragon Age, etc.), they're fairly light.  D&D 4e can be intimidating with all of the stat blocks, but they do offer a primer and the required reading for players is quite a bit less (with the boxed "essentials" sets also on the horizon).

If anything, I'd say shorter, more complete rulebooks are making a comeback (compared to the supplement treadmills during White-Wolf's reign and D&D 3.x).

There's something to be said for getting the rules across succinctly. In GAMERS, I tried to do all skill and attribute descriptions in 25 words or less, it took some effort but was doable. Others would cut the word count by not having descriptions of the skills at all, or even not having a skill list. "It's a freeform system!" Well, thanks for nothing, mate.

A lot of the shorter rulebooks are shorter because there's something missing. For example, Unknown Armies gave us few skills, saying we should make up our own - but at the same time gave us 87 different types of ammunition, even though virtually all of them had the same in-game effects.

I think part of it is the novelty of having an audience. I remember a wedding I went to, a town with a very small Jewish community - the rabbi went on for ages and ages. He wasn't used to having more than a dozen or so people listening to him, so it went to his head and he spoke for hours. Game designers can be like that, too. "Wow, people are actually interested in what I write... I better write a lot!"

There's also a recent tendency to write reams of philosophy of game design and mix them up with the actual game mechanics. Mate, either your philosophy comes across in your rules, or it doesn't; so your explanation is either redundant or contradictory. Stop wanking and get on with it.

If there's a high page count, there better be a lot of setting description.

Quote from: Darran;364179So I was just looking at the Dresden Files RPG - [I thought "at last a WWII RPG" but alas it is just another setting based on a series of cheap novels] - and I noticed that the page count is 670 pages spread between two books. Phew, quite some hefty tomes.

FWIW, a goodly chunk of book 2 is stats and descriptions of nearly all of the characters mentioned by name in the first 10 books of the series.

Also see this:

http://www.dresdenfilesrpg.com/2010/02/09/physical-facts-about-the-books/

for more info, and a by chapter page count breakdown.

I tend to prefer shorter, more concise rule books. If only because I no longer have the time to read a giant tome and prepare for a game. I agree with what Kyle Aaron said. We tried to limit our skill descriptions in the Network games as well. My favorite games get a lot of information across with just a few lines of text. On the other hand, if most of the text is non-essential to play, but helpful as reference material down the road, I don't mind a high page count.

I think it also depends on how much world content exists in the core book as well.  Savage worlds is pretty much rules + a little gm advice + monsters with almost no fluff.  But you then go and pick up the Deadlands Reloaded book, which requires Savage Worlds and you are hitting your 400+ page count.   Dark Heresy on the other hand not only contains the rules but also full equipment lists, the world, monsters, fluff and a scenario as well.   Also if you compare the amount of art work in Savage Worlds to Dark Heresy, there is a significant difference.

Plus there is a lot to be said about the appreciated value of a big well produced book.  However despite all that  I'd rather have a smaller book that contains the rules.  Then a larger book that contains the other.  I'm perfectly fine if they are bundled together.  But when it comes to using them it's a lot easier to find something in a smaller book that just contains crunch.

So that means I prefer the Savage Worlds idea of smaller rule book larger set book over one big tome.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;364211There's also a recent tendency to write reams of philosophy of game design and mix them up with the actual game mechanics. Mate, either your philosophy comes across in your rules, or it doesn't; so your explanation is either redundant or contradictory. Stop wanking and get on with it.

This is true.  One small tendency that I've seen is bloated products where the writer is intending for it to be pdf so they think it can be as long as they want and more is better.  This causes a lack of editing and tossing in tons of stuff not really needed.  Editing for length often makes things much better as it forces clarity and conciseness.
 
Savage Worlds Explorer's edition feels about the right length to me.  Lots of options for multiple genres.  but it doesn't take forever to digest.  Actually, the free lite version has most of the rules that a player needs.

Just looking that's $90 for about 700 pages of book, with nothing else.  That puts it to a comparable price point with D&D (PHG+DMG+MMG) or WFRP 3.  While hardcore fans will likely buy into it assuming they've setup their distribution plans right.  I think they are pricing themselves out of the casual market.  Though I don't know if this kind of game would ever really be something for the casual market anyway.

Quote from: chadu;364271FWIW, a goodly chunk of book 2 is stats and descriptions of nearly all of the characters mentioned by name in the first 10 books of the series.

Wow - that's actually incredibly useful. I wished more licensed RPGs would do that.

Quote from: Nicephorus;364278This is true.  One small tendency that I've seen is bloated products where the writer is intending for it to be pdf so they think it can be as long as they want and more is better.  This causes a lack of editing and tossing in tons of stuff not really needed.  Editing for length often makes things much better as it forces clarity and conciseness.
 
Savage Worlds Explorer's edition feels about the right length to me.  Lots of options for multiple genres.  but it doesn't take forever to digest.  Actually, the free lite version has most of the rules that a player needs.

I am not big on pages and pages of gaming philosophy. But a brief discussion on why the rules were designed the way they were, and how people might use them can be handy. It really depends. With rules light systems I think this can be important sometimes, because people are more accustomed now to a rule covering every situation. So just as a matter of form, explaining the concept of rules light for novices is cool. Just like you would explain what an RPG is, and what your basic terms mean.

I don't mind a game designer telling me how the game was designed to be played. I do get a little irked when they tell me the right way to play their game or rpgs in general.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;364211There's something to be said for getting the rules across succinctly. In GAMERS, I tried to do all skill and attribute descriptions in 25 words or less, it took some effort but was doable. Others would cut the word count by not having descriptions of the skills at all, or even not having a skill list. "It's a freeform system!" Well, thanks for nothing, mate.

I agree with your point.

It's just that the example bothers me. Some game systems won't have skills on purpose. Swords & Wizardry for instance. It doesn't mean that the designers are necessarily lazy or didn't do their job properly - though that very well may be the case. If the game is designed to be open-ended and subject to interpretations, and you're looking for something more fleshed-out, including a list of skills for instance, maybe the game isn't designed for your particular tastes, rather than faulty in its design.

I can imagine a guy looking through GAMERS and saying "the guy didn't even bother to add a full list of available feats in his game" or "there aren't even power cards in there". Doesn't mean GAMERS' design is faulty now, does it?

See what I'm trying to get at?

Quote from: Benoist;364309I agree with your point.

It's just that the example bothers me. Some game systems won't have skills on purpose. Swords & Wizardry for instance. It doesn't mean that the designers are necessarily lazy or didn't do their job properly - though that very well may be the case. If the game is designed to be open-ended and subject to interpretations, and you're looking for something more fleshed-out, including a list of skills for instance, maybe the game isn't designed for your particular tastes, rather than faulty in its design.

I can imagine a guy looking through GAMERS and saying "the guy didn't even bother to add a full list of available feats in his game" or "there aren't even power cards in there". Doesn't mean GAMERS' design is faulty now, does it?

See what I'm trying to get at?

I do agree with this. The design goal is important to me when I measure a system. After playing 4E I decided it just wasn't for me. But they really did appear to meet their design goals, and did a good job given those goals. If something appears to be missing from the game, it doesn't always mean the game is bad. With savage worlds, I was very pleased with the system, even though the skill list and system was a little lean (or at least very, very succinct). To me, it looks like their goal was a fast paced system that didn't interfere with game flow, and that was one way they achieved it. When I play savage worlds, I don't really think much about the rules. I focus on the action.