TheRPGSite

Your sense of aesthetics.  There's a reason books are laid out the way they are.  Designing an A4 sized book that inexplicably has the text laid out like it's a Chinese manuscript or horizontally instead of vertically or whatever isn't appealing and quirky, it's stupid.

Your advertisements.  If you're pitching a game to me, don't tell me that "Cuttlefish will be detailed in SuperSquids Supplement XIV".  If you spent the ink to say that, then say something I can use.  Yeah yeah capitalism, etc. Put ads in the back, not in the text.

Rules that are mashed up in huge walls of text.  White Wolf, I'm looking at you.  Put the RULES in the RULES.  Don't bury it in 30 pages of self-fellating fanfic, leaving your rulebook bent in a circle all Ouroboros-like, blowing itself at how clever it is.

I don't want your social/gender/political/religious issues.  Ever.  If your game is called "LOL @ XIANS"  I can simply not pick it up but if I'm 30 pages in to your love letter to AD&D and suddenly you've introduced an example PC named Karg Kierkkens who gets an extra 100000 XP because he burns christian churches down 'cause according to you it's a Lawful Good act...fuck off.  Along the same lines, smugly stamping HER (or SHE or HERS etc.) after each and every mention of what a character might do - that doesn't raise my conscience, it makes me want to throw your book in the trash.  I can recall off the top of my head more "him or her" or "his or hers" or the (gasp) acceptably neutral THEIR/THEIRS in the DMG than there are in the entirety of White Wolf's print run.  Finally, along this line, don't republish Rand or Marx or whomever as some thinly veiled attempt to drive home your (likely stupid and ill informed) point of view as an RPG.

I don't want horribly egregious rules problems that you "fix" with an included sheet or a URL where I can go download a PDF of the page that fixes the page that says "At 10th level, the GM can kill the people who come to the game" to read "At 10th level, everyone gets a bonus skill point".  Who am I to know how well your website will be maintained?  What if some fatbeard gets to be your sysadmin and decides that everything that ends with .HTML will be /?PHP from now on?  Whoops, guess that rule fix is gone!  THIS WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM IF YOU'D JUST KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR BASIC GAMEPLAY BUGS.

Did I mention not to put your weird sexual hangups in the middle of the rules?  'cause yeah.

A little bit of expanding my vocabulary is OK!  D&D taught me some cool words.  However I'm not a philologist and I have no interest in learning the made-up language in your damn game and I mean especially if it refers to things that RPGs already have a word for.  As much as I love the Elder Scrolls games...come on, dammit.  Altmer.  Dunmer.  Bosmer.  The list goes on.  Elves, Dark Elves, halflings.  This may seem to run contrary to what I said about a game being self contained and not generic but it's really not.  AD&D elves (or OD&D elves or dwarves, etc. etc.) are unique to that game, I just don't have to play word games with you, designer, to figure them out.

Enough. With.  The.  Deluxe.  Editions. Stop telling me that I'd have gotten XYZ extra things if I'd bought the tin-boxed slipcase one of 5000 stamped and serial numbered copies.  That's nothing but resentment to the larger gaming base.

No sops to computer gaming.  None.  I don't want to hear about what a money making hobby you think it is, either.  Guess what!  Cocaine is a multi-billion dollar a year addictive hobby, too!  Am I gonna get a free envelope of booger sugar with my copy of Corridors and Creatures?  I bought your game to play a pen and paper RPG.  Not get a lecture on how you're just as cool as Lord of the Rings online or World of Warcraft.

On that, and referring back to the whole "go to our website" - it's fine to have a website.  It's fine to refer to it.  What it is not fine is to turn out a mediocre or just plain bad RPG and have an obviously expensive, flash-enabled multi-media soaked website to support that core book.  Because at that point what you've told me is "I wanted to be a video game designer but I can't program beyond scripts and using flash templates."

...

Anyone else?

Anything more than about 128 pages. 192 maybe if you're including a bunch of setting stuff and adventures.

Massive 600 page rules books are my current pet peeve. Or rulebooks split into multiple 300 page books.  I get it that there are people who like a little meat on their system and that's okay but me personally I just want a simple, consistent way to resolve actions in an rpg, I can't believe it takes 60 pages to do that.

Quote from: Grymbok;412153Anything more than about 128 pages. 192 maybe if you're including a bunch of setting stuff and adventures.

Hehe, you beat me too it. But yes, 128 pages is idea, but basically under 200 is in my comfort zone.

Yeah. Huge rulebooks are becoming a bummer for me too.

Some pet peeves:

Irrelevant art - I've ranted about this one often enough, but it's appropriate here too. Most art in RPGs is bad. Not because it's poorly done, but because it's irrelevant. It shows us little to nothing about the material culture, landscape or denizens of the world. It tends to be far too eclectic and generic, so that you come out of it having no idea what kinds of clothes people wear or what buildings look like, or what any given ethnic group looks like.

Dark Heresy is one of the few games contrary to this trend. AD&D 2e campaign settings were also exceptions, but the genericisation of the art in 3e and 4e has led to overly-stylised drawings that have moved away from that.

In character fiction - Rarely written well-enough to be evocative of a particular mood and style, which is its supposed purpose. I stopped buying Mage products when I bought a supplement and the first twelve pages of the 128pg book were fiction before you even got to the table of contents! This is especially problematic when every book has tons and tons of these pieces (as WoD books do). They become indistinct, repetitive, and cliched.

Generic fantasy settings - If your game is meant to be used with generic fantasy settings, do us a favour and don't include one in the corebook. Unless your game is Dungeons and Dragons, the chances of a novice gamer playing it are next to zero, so you are essentially wasting the time of all the experienced gamers who form your actual audience by giving them content that they could generate in a post-lunch-buffet torpor, let alone during the enthusiasm of reading a new game.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;412150Am I gonna get a free envelope of booger sugar with my copy of Corridors and Creatures?

Yes.

Excessive autobiographical/biographical detail.  I don't care if you are a five time world MMA cruiserweight champion  and based the combat system on that experience.  Nor how your vision of this game saved you from crystal meth.  Or how your six years living on the streets of Albuquerqe has made your setting realistically gritty.  Or how the entire game came to you one night while using psilocybin mushrooms.  Your game is either interesting on its own or not, you can sell as much Dos Equis as you want it won't make me like the game more.

Quote from: Soylent Green;412155Hehe, you beat me too it. But yes, 128 pages is idea, but basically under 200 is in my comfort zone.

I think massive books can work (hell, I bought Ptolus and ran it) but I'd be very wary of ever buying an actual core book which was more than 200 pages, on the assumption that too much of it is going to be rules. There's no way in hell I'd ever buy Starblazer Adventures, to pick one example.

Ideally your core book should be short and simple enough that I can take it to a session without having read it yet and get people at least creating characters, if not all the way in to actual play in one evening.

What about the Traveller model?  One essentially complete and moderately thin corebook, then supplements for various topics (careers, ship combat, planet building, etc)?

I'm fine with a massive core book if the rules are all contained in one area say a 200 page section in the front, middle, back.   What I don't want is a 600 page rule book where the rules exist spread out every 3 pages or so that's just horrendously annoying to try and sort through when you are a) learning the game and b) playing the game - stop it.

I don't mind the big corebooks if the rules themselves are still a relatively small amount, and the rest is setting/adversaries/GM advice/etc.

I'll read 200 pages of setting/monsters/campaign set-ups/etc, but I'll gouge my eyeballs out over 200 pages of combat rules/skill checks and exceptions and so on.

Quote from: StormBringer;412168What about the Traveller model?  One essentially complete and moderately thin corebook, then supplements for various topics (careers, ship combat, planet building, etc)?

Suits me.

In fact, to be honest, the "expansion on topics/areas" model is pretty much the only one that interests me for supplements (including parts of the campaign world as an "area" for covering in a supplement). Well other than scenarios, but they're kind of a special case.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;412157Some pet peeves:

Irrelevant art - I've ranted about this one often enough, but it's appropriate here too. Most art in RPGs is bad. Not because it's poorly done, but because it's irrelevant. It shows us little to nothing about the material culture, landscape or denizens of the world. It tends to be far too eclectic and generic, so that you come out of it having no idea what kinds of clothes people wear or what buildings look like, or what any given ethnic group looks like.

Maybe you bring up this point a lot, but it's a good one. I think a good rule of thumb for the value of an illustration is "will a situation ever come up in play where it would be useful to show this picture to one of the players?" The answer is "no" with a disappointing frequency.

 The overwhelming majority of RPG illiustrations come down to jerkoffs fighting or a single jerkoff standing there glowing. It is infuriatingly often that you have an important organization in a game and they don't illustrate the uniforms; on the same page they will show you a PC-type douchebag floating in the air. If a picture says a thousand words, please do not use it to say "this is why I'm hot" two  hundred times. One cliche that I really dislike is when a game has a chapter on equipment or things to buy and so on, and instead of showing illustrations of what there is to buy, they have a half page illustration of a quizzical looking hero haggling with a merchant.

  I often like monster books for the reason that the art is more often useful than average - what do I need? A picture of the monster. If the players meet the monster, I can show them the picture, or describe the monster based on the clear illustration. Where there is a massive failure is if you show a hint of the monster lurking in a shadow grinning, ready to face off with a jerkoff in a bandanna (who is fully rendered, and well lit if not glowing.)

Extra demerits if on top of the monster lurking beyond the confines of the illustration is accompanied by an abstract or metaphorical description. "Like a thing from a nightmare, a beast of teeth and shadows in the shape of a child's malice." That is bullshit. Many descriptions say a monster is "scary" using 30 words, often in systems where monster has a numerical value for its scariness, making even one word devoted to its monstrousness redundant. It might as well take two words and say "fuck you."

This is not really relevant to core books, but it always annoys me when published adventures involve a lot of NPCs then show you pictures of everything BUT the NPCs. Chaosium used to be good about giving you a little headshot of the NPC next to his stats. I wish more companies did this. Apparently the art departments just love to commision pictures of guys just standing there - this is the time to do it.

Let me sign up to the "No Irrelevant Art pieces" newsletter too.

Quote from: Benoist;412181Let me sign up to the "No Irrelevant Art pieces" newsletter too.

(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg18/Thebrowncoatguy/ScruffySecond.jpg)

Secon... er, fourthed, I mean. Especially since Cole's explanation, really showed up the issues.

Quote from: StormBringer;412168What about the Traveller model?  One essentially complete and moderately thin corebook, then supplements for various topics (careers, ship combat, planet building, etc)?

The Traveller model seemed to have worked ok for Traveller.

I don't know how well this model would work for generic fantasy type rpg games like D&D.  For example, the Mongoose series of "Slayers Guides", "Quintessential", etc ... d20 books, produced tons of crap.  Same story with other d20 companies producing similar titles, like Fast Forward, Fantasy Flight, Alderac, etc ...

Going back further in time, 2E AD&D did something similar which eventually led to TSR's demise.

Paizo seems to be doing something similar for Pathfinder, though not to the excesses of the d20 glut era (ie. Mongoose, etc ...).  There's only so much stuff which can be produced with a small development team at Paizo.

I don't want the binding to fall apart. Yes, Unearthed Arcana, I'm still holding that grudge after twenty years.

QuoteLOL @ XIANS

I so want to write this game now. Only not really. But that's pretty funny.

I'll plead guilty on writing a 400-page rulebook.  :\

I'd like the setting to be easy to pitch to players. I'd like the rules to be well organized. I love Starcluster 3, but the organization makes me weep.

Quote from: P&P;412207I'll plead guilty on writing a 400-page rulebook.  :\

Well you get props because the system was already known to me, though. OSRIC is more of a clarification/compilation with different layout and organization rather than an entirely new work. That makes a big difference, to me.

Quote from: P&P;412207I'll plead guilty on writing a 400-page rulebook.  :\

400 page RULEbook or 400 page COREbook. I may be silly, but for me, there's a distinction.

Quote from: Cole;412180Maybe you bring up this point a lot, but it's a good one. I think a good rule of thumb for the value of an illustration is "will a situation ever come up in play where it would be useful to show this picture to one of the players?" The answer is "no" with a disappointing frequency.

 The overwhelming majority of RPG illiustrations come down to jerkoffs fighting or a single jerkoff standing there glowing. It is infuriatingly often that you have an important organization in a game and they don't illustrate the uniforms; on the same page they will show you a PC-type douchebag floating in the air. If a picture says a thousand words, please do not use it to say "this is why I'm hot" two  hundred times. One cliche that I really dislike is when a game has a chapter on equipment or things to buy and so on, and instead of showing illustrations of what there is to buy, they have a half page illustration of a quizzical looking hero haggling with a merchant.

  I often like monster books for the reason that the art is more often useful than average - what do I need? A picture of the monster. If the players meet the monster, I can show them the picture, or describe the monster based on the clear illustration. Where there is a massive failure is if you show a hint of the monster lurking in a shadow grinning, ready to face off with a jerkoff in a bandanna (who is fully rendered, and well lit if not glowing.)

Extra demerits if on top of the monster lurking beyond the confines of the illustration is accompanied by an abstract or metaphorical description. "Like a thing from a nightmare, a beast of teeth and shadows in the shape of a child's malice." That is bullshit. Many descriptions say a monster is "scary" using 30 words, often in systems where monster has a numerical value for its scariness, making even one word devoted to its monstrousness redundant. It might as well take two words and say "fuck you."

This is not really relevant to core books, but it always annoys me when published adventures involve a lot of NPCs then show you pictures of everything BUT the NPCs. Chaosium used to be good about giving you a little headshot of the NPC next to his stats. I wish more companies did this. Apparently the art departments just love to commision pictures of guys just standing there - this is the time to do it.

I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at here.  :)

Quote from: Insufficient Metal;412192I don't want the binding to fall apart. Yes, Unearthed Arcana, I'm still holding that grudge after twenty years.

You and me both.  Did Uncle Gary intentionally find the shittiest bookbinder out there for this?

All of the above...:D

IMO "Jorune" exemplifies most of the points given in this thread though I did not own it or use the book enough to have the binding fall apart...sad that.

Both my latest games, StarCluster 3 and In Harm's Way: StarCluster, weigh in at over 400 pages. I am unrepentant. Any less would not have done the subjects justice. People want everything in the core book, with examples, and they want it under 200 pages. One of these things has to give! So here's fair warning to those with a hard page limit!

-clash

Quote from: StormBringer;412212You and me both.  Did Uncle Gary intentionally find the shittiest bookbinder out there for this?

Time to take Stormbringer to school.

Sherman, set the Wayback machine to 1985.

TSR was in the throes of a power struggle; the hated Blume Brothers, whom Gary had ousted, had backdoored their way in under the cloak of fatLorraine fatWilliamsfat.  Those cheap bastards were determined to save $.02 per book if it killed them.

Over Gary's objections, the Easley cover books (including Unearthed Arcana) were cheaply bound, as opposed to the school textbook bindings that the original core AD&D books had.  So if Gary had his way, our UAs would be as bulletproof as the DMG, etc.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;412210400 page RULEbook or 400 page COREbook. I may be silly, but for me, there's a distinction.

400-page EVERYTHINGbook.

~32 pages of character creation, ~70 pages of spells, ~40 pages of player rules, ~38 pages of GM rules, ~120 pages of monsters and ~50 pages of magic items, plus illustrations, contents, index and appendices (character sheet and combined tables).

Too much for some, and I'm fine with that.  The "simple retro-clone" crowd are playing LL or S&W.

I know I'll get gigged for this but I prefer seeing the male pronoun used. He, him, his. I wont pass on a good game because of this of course, but anything else is jarring enough to take me out of the read. It's just what I'm used to after almost forty years of reading.

Pete

Quote from: thedungeondelver;412227Over Gary's objections, the Easley cover books (including Unearthed Arcana) were cheaply bound, as opposed to the school textbook bindings that the original core AD&D books had.  So if Gary had his way, our UAs would be as bulletproof as the DMG, etc.

There was an issue with 3rd edition as well. I picked up the PHB when it was initially released at GenCon or was it Origins... that was almost a decade ago now so I don't remember it all too well. I do remember shipping back the core books to WOTC for replacements less than two weeks after the show, on account the bindings came apart and pages were falling out.

While we are on the subject Core rulebooks over 32 pages should always contain a detailed Table of Contents as well as a detailed Index covering all the crunchy stuff in the back of the book so's I can quickly lookup specific rules, or equipment or setting detail to keep the game moving at the table.

Anything more than 2 pages of fluff text at the beginning of the book. Yes, this puts me and most White Wolf products forever at odds. But seriously, if I wanted a novel, I'd read a novel.

Gratuitous T&A.

In-world slang in game text.

Quote from: P&P;412232400-page EVERYTHINGbook.

~32 pages of character creation, ~70 pages of spells, ~40 pages of player rules, ~38 pages of GM rules, ~120 pages of monsters and ~50 pages of magic items, plus illustrations, contents, index and appendices (character sheet and combined tables).

Too much for some, and I'm fine with that.

My point exactly, though details differ. :D

-clash

I don't want...

High cost glossy full color pages.

An over designed, "fuck you printer" character sheet.  At least put a stripped down B&W version online somewhere.

Expensive ($40+) rulebook with multiple, near essential supplements that are similarly priced.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;412150Your sense of aesthetics.  There's a reason books are laid out the way they are.  Designing an A4 sized book that inexplicably has the text laid out like it's a Chinese manuscript or horizontally instead of vertically or whatever isn't appealing and quirky, it's stupid.

The otherwise mostly solid Call of Cthulhu d20 had zig-zag columns because, you know, it's craaaazy. I had preordered the book, and was very displeased to see that nonsense when it came in the mail. Layout needs to be CLEAR, not cool. Make your CONTENT cool. But I guess that's harder than putting a bunch of greyscale HR giger knockoff bullshit under the text rendering it illegible. Someone above said "white or light grey." I'm with you on white pages. Those are nice and readable. Light grey is worse than anything except  DARK grey. Do people wish they had full color, but figure "we're on a budget, let's halfass it?" Is compromising readability considered an acceptable sacrifice in a war against scanning? (If that's the case, losing customers is an acceptable sacrifice too, i guess.)

QuoteYour advertisements.  If you're pitching a game to me, don't tell me that "Cuttlefish will be detailed in SuperSquids Supplement XIV".  If you spent the ink to say that, then say something I can use.  Yeah yeah capitalism, etc. Put ads in the back, not in the text.

One of my least favorite, nasty little memes is "but they need to fuck you over a little to make more money! you can't blame 'em, what are you, a commie?" Not buying shit because it being lousy with ads that reduce its value is capitalism. Buying shit to "take one for the team" for someone else's for-profit company is dumbassed fantasy.

QuoteRules that are mashed up in huge walls of text.  White Wolf, I'm looking at you.  Put the RULES in the RULES.  Don't bury it in 30 pages of self-fellating fanfic, leaving your rulebook bent in a circle all Ouroboros-like, blowing itself at how clever it is.

Putting a little box around RULES to make them jump out is a good thing. Not needing to is even better.

QuoteA little bit of expanding my vocabulary is OK!  D&D taught me some cool words.  However I'm not a philologist and I have no interest in learning the made-up language in your damn game and I mean especially if it refers to things that RPGs already have a word for.

This is also very irritating. But worse yet is when it spills over to the rules too. Burning Wheel and its "Burning a character," "Artha," etc, is what I immediately thought of but the worst offender was probably white wolf in its heyday, a noxious brew of dumb made-up words, uncommon english words 'repurposed' so that they're ruined for other gamers, and ignorantly appropriated non-english words. Were it not for Mage my ears might never have had to endure "arete," pronounced "Ah-reet."

Quote from: P&P;412232*snip*  70 pages of spells, *snip*   50 pages of magic items. *snip*

NOOOOO>>>> (echoing)
:p

I'm fine with a lot of this stuff... I don't care if the book is thick if it's well-organized and the binding is sturdy... I'm not sure I understand the 'irrelevant art' bit, would that be like pictures of Musketeers in a game about space vampires? Images that promote the mood/themes are good for me... they don't need to portray specific items/characters/places.

Too much in-character text does irritate me though... the Tribe 8 books were bad bad bad that way... whole setting books that were almost entirely done that way.

Funny thing about 50 pages of spells, is that you only use about 10 of them at most, ever.

I can't think of the last time I wrote a character that could cast higher than 5th level spells, but ymmv.

Still, almost every 1st level Pathfinder wizard has:

Sleep, Color Spray, Grease, Mage Armor, Expeditious Retreat, and Enlarge

or

Sleep, Minor Image, Alter Self, Charm Person, Protection from Evil, Mage Armor

That's about it. Almost all of the other spells are just window dressing. Who takes Mount? Ventriloquism? Animate Rope? Endure Elements?

Over half the spells for every spell level are things no one would ever pick, and only get used when you want an NPC with an odd spell list.

Ridiculous levels of typos.  If you can't bother to at least run a spell checker, you have no business writing anything.

Bad art.  No art is better than bad art.

Quote from: pspahn;412237I know I'll get gigged for this but I prefer seeing the male pronoun used. He, him, his. I wont pass on a good game because of this of course, but anything else is jarring enough to take me out of the read. It's just what I'm used to after almost forty years of reading.

Pete

I know what you mean. You just know that anything else stands out as a conscious choice of the author - which invariably means they are trying to be all fake-PC.

Quote from: One Horse Town;412264I know what you mean. You just know that anything else stands out as a conscious choice of the author - which invariably means they are trying to be all fake-PC.

(: In the game I have, I used the male pronoun almost the entire time, except i the magic section. If I put it out for sale, I wonder how much that would irritate people.

Quote from: Cranewings;412266(: In the game I have, I used the male pronoun almost the entire time, except i the magic section. If I put it out for sale, I wonder how much that would irritate people.

Well, you'd fail mhensley's typo check, at any rate...:p

Quote from: Cranewings;412260That's about it. Almost all of the other spells are just window dressing. Who takes Mount? Ventriloquism? Animate Rope? Endure Elements?

Doesn't that depend on the play style of any particular group?
If every session is going to be combat heavy then I can see players loading up on the useful fight spells... but the spell list also allows for a play style where 'Ventriloquism' ends up being a lot more useful than 'Mage Armor'.
In our Earthdawn games the spell that seems to get cast most often has to do with creating food.

Quote from: mhensleyBad art. No art is better than bad art.

Bad art is in the eye of the beholder, I'd take the illustrations from the original D&D books over Larry Elmore's crap every time.

Vehicle rules that won't let me make the vehicles listed in the book.

Text on backgrounds so that it's very hard to read.

Sections of the book that contridict each other.

A rulebook with rules I can come up with myself, and without any real difficulty. "Rules Light", to me, is often just another way of saying "Details Missing".

Quote from: Cranewings;412260That's about it. Almost all of the other spells are just window dressing. Who takes Mount? Ventriloquism? Animate Rope? Endure Elements?

Over half the spells for every spell level are things no one would ever pick, and only get used when you want an NPC with an odd spell list.

Back in my 1e days, I remember the other players in my group and me using pretty much every one of those spells. I especially loved Mount, and later Phantom Steed. I recall finding a use for all of those spells "no one" would ever use, and I know I wasn't the only one. Sure, a low-level caster who goes spelunking might load up on the more "useful" spells, but increased levels and adventuring outside dungeons made stuff like Ventriloquism and Endure Elements pretty useful...for us, at least.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;412275Ventriloquism.

That's an awesome spell.

I respect your opinions and see what you mean, but I've just not seen a lot of people take most of the spells in the game, and I don't use them myself.

With a limited size spell book and a lot of uncertainty, I think it is important to get the most bang for your buck. I haven't seen to many people pick Mount over Sleep, and I've only ever used it for high level wizards I wanted to look "magical."

I prefer magic systems with a more limited number of really good spells than D&D's huge list of suspect spells.

Admittedly sleep is a more useful spell than jump, but in a game where player characters need to find spell scrolls as treasure before they can use them, the fact that some spells are more popular than others is a feature rather than a bug.

Quote from: Cranewings;412260That's about it. Almost all of the other spells are just window dressing. Who takes Mount? Ventriloquism? Animate Rope? Endure Elements?

Over half the spells for every spell level are things no one would ever pick, and only get used when you want an NPC with an odd spell list.

Hhhheeeeeyyyyyy! That's just about all the time.I like mahz spellcaster! I never did prefer playing a war mage over any other kind of wizard. I liked my spellcasters to have a surprising, nay, even eye-popping selection of wizardry, becuase you know, there's always that Wow! factor I enjoyed laying at the feet of the GM and the other players.

As a GM, I wanted my NPC wizards to be mysterious, evocative, and  enigmatic. Knowing what the wizard likes to cast means the others at the table can devise or develop strategies to minimize the impact of wizards in a campaign or session, and I often sought to derail that.

Some of my favorite spells include researched homebrew spells, Evard's Black Tentacles, Massmorph, Mount... Yeah that was a good one. I never summoned horses, just outlandish beasts to serve as mounts. Silence is an awesome spell, darkness as well. Slow, Shield Other, Goodberry, all phenom!enal! Don't even get me started on Glyph of Warding, that had to be one of my favorite spells of all time.

Let your enemies come to you, and watch them die or suffer for their combat vanity.  

Alarm. Worth more than it's weight in gold...

Dispel Magic. The various protection spells...

Dismissal. Raise Dead.

Animate Objects.

Create Undead.

Fly.

Wind Walking.

Magic Circle.

Elemental Swarm.

Summon Monster.

Wall of Fire.

Ice Storm.

Create Undead...

Sanctuary...

Repel Wood.

Wall of Stone.

Animal Shape

Shapechange.

Teleport.

Sunburst...

Arcane mark...

and you know... Even for being nerfed, there is a great selection of impressive new spells in Spell Compendium and Unearthed Arcana.

Playing just a combat mage really just nerfs Wizards and Sorcerors in a manner the GM would never even dream of doing, lest he be accused of
railroading, why do it to yourself as a player?

Another pair I really liked! Divination... and Legend Lore.

Ooooh. Ooooh! Hold Portal! Quite useful when the party has extended it's stay a bit too long in the dungeon...

Flame STrike!

Know Direction....

Invisibility...

Light...

Lightning Bolt...

...Permanency. Frigging SWEEEEEET!

There was that time the whole party got trapped in a volcanic subterranean cenote, and the mage simply used animate rope to have the rope pull him up and out of the cavern where he then secured the rope and rescued the entire party from certain doom.

Systems that show a player how to create spells of thier own and list a few examples/"common" spells are gold IMO.

'Riddle of Steel' (I heard that line in the 1st. Conan movie the other day!),'Lands of Adventure' and 'Fantasy Wargaming' are some of the games that take this approach. Lots of folk don't like this style of magic system as it requires a bit of "work" from the player and GM.

I have no problem with a supplement having an exhaustive listing spells so those who want the paint by number style of game can do so.

I also like the short spell list in T&T.
:)

A rulebook with 4 or 5 base classes, followed immediately by the "player's companion" with 20 or so cool classes.

Text over art or over grey background.

Over-complicated "innovative" rules. (Use Tarot cards/poker hands/weird formulas to run combat instead of just rolling dice.)

Quote from: danbuter;412302Over-complicated "innovative" rules. (Use Tarot cards/poker hands/weird formulas to run combat instead of just rolling dice.)

This this sweet mother magee THIS.

Shove your poker chips, playing cards, little glass doodads and everything else you dug off of the craft store shelf where the sun shines NOT.  I no more wanna clutter up the table with yet more stuff to keep track of than I want to dump all the bags of chips out on the table during the game.

I agree with the 200 page max.

Look, if you fall in love with a particular topic, like spells, that's fine.  Make a supplement out of it.  But, you don't NEED 70 pages of spells in a core book.  Similarly, you don't need 50 pages of magic items in a core book either.  

If you have trouble making the cuts, go through each individual spell and magic item, and rank each one with a percentage chance that a play group will use that thing often, and put it in order from most used to least.  When you're done, cut the bottom half of that list.  It will hurt, there will be things you personally love in there or think of as iconic, but just be brutal and make the cut anyway.  

You'll end up with a better, more usable product in the end if you do this.  Which means your sales are more likely to justify a supplement book, which can be used for all those things you really wanted to put in the first book and just couldn't find the room for it.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;412303This this sweet mother magee THIS.

Shove your poker chips, playing cards, little glass doodads and everything else you dug off of the craft store shelf where the sun shines NOT.  I no more wanna clutter up the table with yet more stuff to keep track of than I want to dump all the bags of chips out on the table during the game.

:rant:  :rotfl:

I concur...after years of fruitless doodading I conclude that d. pretty much rock as far as random generators are concerned (though reg. cards #1-10 can be used for simple % # too)! :)

Quote from: thedungeondelver;412227Time to take Stormbringer to school.

Sherman, set the Wayback machine to 1985.

TSR was in the throes of a power struggle; the hated Blume Brothers, whom Gary had ousted, had backdoored their way in under the cloak of fatLorraine fatWilliamsfat.  Those cheap bastards were determined to save $.02 per book if it killed them.

Over Gary's objections, the Easley cover books (including Unearthed Arcana) were cheaply bound, as opposed to the school textbook bindings that the original core AD&D books had.  So if Gary had his way, our UAs would be as bulletproof as the DMG, etc.

:D  Ok, I know it was the Blume Bastards.  Doesn't have the same ring to it, though.  

I still think it had to actually cost them extra to get that level of shoddy out of the binding; even laziness can't explain the sheer magnitude of fail.  You really have to put effort into making something that shitty.

Quote from: pspahn;412237I know I'll get gigged for this but I prefer seeing the male pronoun used. He, him, his. I wont pass on a good game because of this of course, but anything else is jarring enough to take me out of the read. It's just what I'm used to after almost forty years of reading.

Oh, man, do I ever agree with this.  I still see he/him/his as being either masculine or gender neutral/unspecified.  Readers aren't idiots; they can tell if "his" is being used in its masculine sense or its gender-neutral sense from context.

Quote from: pspahn;412237I know I'll get gigged for this but I prefer seeing the male pronoun used. He, him, his. I wont pass on a good game because of this of course, but anything else is jarring enough to take me out of the read. It's just what I'm used to after almost forty years of reading.

Pete

Ah Pete you seem to be yet another victim of our joke of an education system.  There has never been any reason at all for the whole he/she pronoun argument.  "They" is, and always has been, the proper gender neutral singular pronoun to use.  Example: If someone wants to write a rulebook, I think THEY should keep it to 150 pages or less."

Quote from: Aldarron;412349Ah Pete you seem to be yet another victim of our joke of an education system.  There has never been any reason at all for the whole he/she pronoun argument.  "They" is, and always has been, the proper gender neutral singular pronoun to use.  Example: If someone wants to write a rulebook, I think THEY should keep it to 150 pages or less."

You win.  I always use 'they' as the gender neutral pronoun.

While I generally use he/him/his, they use of they as a singular pronoun usually doesn't jar me.  I'd rather see that than most of the other options.

Quote from: Aldarron;412349Ah Pete you seem to be yet another victim of our joke of an education system.  There has never been any reason at all for the whole he/she pronoun argument.  "They" is, and always has been, the proper gender neutral singular pronoun to use.  Example: If someone wants to write a rulebook, I think THEY should keep it to 150 pages or less."

It's not proper.  That's casual cultural acceptance -- education systems still don't recognize the use of the 'singular they' because it's improper.  Professional writing/academic papers still require proper use of pronouns.

So it's not our education system, English is just a fucked up language, and doesn't get revised the same way other languages do every so many years (I believe Spanish goes through grammatical revisions once in a while, but I could be wrong).

Quote from: Peregrin;412413It's not proper.  That's casual cultural acceptance -- education systems still don't recognize the use of the 'singular they' because it's improper.  Professional writing/academic papers still require proper use of pronouns.

So it's not our education system, English is just a fucked up language, and doesn't get revised the same way other languages do every so many years (I believe Spanish goes through grammatical revisions once in a while, but I could be wrong).

Thanks for this.  The use of "they" in that context makes my ears/eyes bleed, even thought it's the most commonly used solution, at least in an informal context.  Most people are going to understand what you're getting at.

I personally find the use of the female singular pronoun far less jarring (as it isn't grammatically incorrect).  Obviously that's just personal preference, but some of you railing against "she" might want to consider that that is all your dislike amounts to.

Quote from: Bobloblah;412419Obviously that's just personal preference, but some of you railing against "she" might want to consider that that is all your dislike amounts to.

Which Pete did. I just alternate between "he' and "she", unless I'm talking about a specific person or character.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;412429Which Pete did. I just alternate between "he' and "she", unless I'm talking about a specific person or character.

-clash

Sorry, but I'm not sure who "Pete" refers to...?

Quote from: Peregrin;412413It's not proper.  That's casual cultural acceptance -- education systems still don't recognize the use of the 'singular they' because it's improper.  Professional writing/academic papers still require proper use of pronouns.

If you think there is a distinction between "casual cultural acceptance" and "proper", you need to read more on linguistics, mate. The idea that "they" is "improper" is some garbage you were told in primary school (maybe secondary school) by someone who didn't know any better.

Any reasoning that can be given for "they" being "improper" for singular use can also be used to argue against "you" being used in the singular.

QuoteSo it's not our education system, English is just a fucked up language, and doesn't get revised the same way other languages do every so many years (I believe Spanish goes through grammatical revisions once in a while, but I could be wrong).

The lack of an Academie Francaise is a strength of our language, and is one of many reasons that there is no such thing as "proper" in English except within the context of particular styles.

Quote from: Peregrin;412413It's not proper.  That's casual cultural acceptance -- education systems still don't recognize the use of the 'singular they' because it's improper.  Professional writing/academic papers still require proper use of pronouns.

So it's not our education system, English is just a fucked up language, and doesn't get revised the same way other languages do every so many years (I believe Spanish goes through grammatical revisions once in a while, but I could be wrong).

If it is casual, it is a pretty long standing casual relationship.  'They' has been in use since about the 1300s.  And at least one usage manual, the 2004 Cambridge Guide to English Usage, recommends 'they' as one of several acceptable forms.

To be fair, the primary recommended usage is for an indeterminate number rather than gender, but the epicine form is also acceptable.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;412437The lack of an Academie Francaise is a strength of our language, and is one of many reasons that there is no such thing as "proper" in English except within the context of particular styles.

Academie Française doesn't have much authority... especially outside of France. It's supposed to arbitrate matters of grammar and vocabulary and it might have an impact on administrative paperworks, but for regular peepz they're just a bunch of old geezers who live in the past.

Debates about the evolution of grammar aren't specific to English, every live language has them.

Academie Jive.

Quote from: ggroy;412449Academie Jive.

Oh, stewardess!  I speak 'jive'... (http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?aid=&itemnum=1392)

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;412437If you think there is a distinction between "casual cultural acceptance" and "proper", you need to read more on linguistics, mate. The idea that "they" is "improper" is some garbage you were told in primary school (maybe secondary school) by someone who didn't know any better.

The lack of an Academie Francaise is a strength of our language, and is one of many reasons that there is no such thing as "proper" in English except within the context of particular styles.

I think the condecension is unnecessary...but then, it is the RPGsite.

In any case, I think you hit the nail on the head with the comment about particular styles.  I don't know of any style guides for formal writing that accept the use of they in that fashion.  Having said that, my wife's the editor, not me.  Is there a major guide that swings that way?

Quote from: Bobloblah;412451I think the condecension is unnecessary...but then, it is the RPGsite.

If someone came on here claiming that the earth was flat because they'd learnt it in school, I'd be similarly condescending because it's a similarly ridiculous position.

QuoteIn any case, I think you hit the nail on the head with the comment about particular styles.  I don't know of any style guides for formal writing that accept the use of they in that fashion.  Having said that, my wife's the editor, not me.  Is there a major guide that swings that way?

There's a couple. It's very much in flux - Chicago printed a version that advocated it, then printed another that didn't afterwards. I'm very critical of most style guides, for the record (prescriptivism is a dead, dumb, academically discredited attitude towards language in its strong form).

Singular, gender-neutral "they" is as acceptable as singular, gender-neutral "you". They appear to be contemporaneous developments, and are about as widely used in ordinary speech as one another except by a small pedantic corps peddling the discredited ideas of 18th century ignoramuses.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;412454Singular, gender-neutral "they" is as acceptable as singular, gender-neutral "you". They appear to be contemporaneous developments, and are about as widely used in ordinary speech as one another except by a small pedantic corps peddling the discredited ideas of 18th century ignoramuses.

Oh, oka - wait! I think I need to get someone to break that sentence down into one-syllable words for me so I can decide whether or not I've been insulted.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;412150but if I'm 30 pages in to your love letter to AD&D and suddenly you've introduced an example PC named Karg Kierkkens who gets an extra 100000 XP because he burns christian churches down 'cause according to you it's a Lawful Good act...fuck off.

Sorry, is this in reference to something that really happened in some book somewhere?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;412437If you think there is a distinction between "casual cultural acceptance" and "proper", you need to read more on linguistics, mate. The idea that "they" is "improper" is some garbage you were told in primary school (maybe secondary school) by someone who didn't know any better.

I used it all the way through high-school just fine.  However, I would routinely receive slightly lower grades on research papers and exams for college if I happened to use they/theirs/them in place of he/his/him or she/hers/her, even in "writing intensive" classes that were supposed to challenge and improve your writing.

If it were up to me, the use of the singular they would be acceptable in all writing.  But there's still a back-and-forth going on in academia and among some writers -- enough to pose a problem for those of us who rely on the "acceptable" style for credibility or grades.

Quote from: BobloblahI think the condecension is unnecessary...but then, it is the RPGsite.

Maybe I've been posting here too long, but I didn't even notice.

Useful thread. The majority of people even vaguely interested in buying non-mainstream games just seem to be relentless about wanting short rulebooks. Funny in a way cos the major commercial games AFAIAA all tend towards the very long or multiple supplements end of the spectrum. It's frustrating because I would like to give people vast menus of materials to use but the people who are interested in playing non-mainstream stuff are simply not interested in even contemplating the amount of material required.

Why is this? Is it because the people who want non-mainstream games consume so many games that they cannot spare much time for any single one? Is it because people won't commit that amount of time to a game until it's taken wider hold? I can't believe that most of the people who insist on 128 page rulebooks would have turned their noses up at playing AD&D, D&D 3rd ed., WHFB 1st ed, Vampire, Mage, Exalted etc.

IMHO if you stick to 128 pages you end up with something either very narrow or very bland. Well, I will see if I can stay under 200 pages (core) with my next one...

PS trying to regulate how people write is nearly as pointless as trying to regulate how they speak. It's like peeing against the wind. Thank God we do not have an Academie Francaise for the English language.

Quote from: Bobloblah;412458Oh, oka - wait! I think I need to get someone to break that sentence down into one-syllable words for me so I can decide whether or not I've been insulted.

Not directly, he's insulting the people who create style guides, which might insult you a little bit by extension.  :D

Not that it matters, but I can't think of something I would physically write that would use they as singular, except dialogue.

Quote from: Peregrin;412538I used it all the way through high-school just fine.  However, I would routinely receive slightly lower grades on research papers and exams for college if I happened to use they/theirs/them in place of he/his/him or she/hers/her, even in "writing intensive" classes that were supposed to challenge and improve your writing.

If it were up to me, the use of the singular they would be acceptable in all writing.  But there's still a back-and-forth going on in academia and among some writers -- enough to pose a problem for those of us who rely on the "acceptable" style for credibility or grades.

Like I said, I understand if you've got an authority to answer to who uses it or demands you do, and I don't blame you for writing to that standard under those conditions. I worked briefly in consulting and had to do things like use the word "append" as a noun, and spell everything like a Yank because many of our clients were. It drove me nuts, but I did it because that was what the job required me to do (I do a lot of direct response copywriting work and thus labour under the cruel tyranny of style guides and direct response "best practices" quite frequently).

In the context of RPGs, which are small-press publishing, I think it's a great idea to completely throw out the style guides and write in a natural, sensible way. Splitting infinitives, singular "they", using dashes in lists - anything's fine so long as it improves clarity and brevity.

Quote from: Omnifray;412552Useful thread. The majority of people even vaguely interested in buying non-mainstream games just seem to be relentless about wanting short rulebooks. Funny in a way cos the major commercial games AFAIAA all tend towards the very long or multiple supplements end of the spectrum.

...

IMHO if you stick to 128 pages you end up with something either very narrow or very bland. Well, I will see if I can stay under 200 pages (core) with my next one...

I'm a voice to the contrary here. I like long rulebooks. I've reading Burning Empires, the great brick itself, cover to cover three or four times now. I'm a fast reader though, and I try to never play a system without having at least read the rules once.

Quote from: Omnifray;412552Useful thread. The majority of people even vaguely interested in buying non-mainstream games just seem to be relentless about wanting short rulebooks. Funny in a way cos the major commercial games AFAIAA all tend towards the very long or multiple supplements end of the spectrum. It's frustrating because I would like to give people vast menus of materials to use but the people who are interested in playing non-mainstream stuff are simply not interested in even contemplating the amount of material required.

Why is this? Is it because the people who want non-mainstream games consume so many games that they cannot spare much time for any single one? Is it because people won't commit that amount of time to a game until it's taken wider hold? I can't believe that most of the people who insist on 128 page rulebooks would have turned their noses up at playing AD&D, D&D 3rd ed., WHFB 1st ed, Vampire, Mage, Exalted etc.

Hehe, I don't claim we are represent the majority of player, just a noisy minority of malcontents.

I'm not quite sure where you draw the line between mainsteream and non-mainstream. Among my favourites games to run are Star Wars D6, TSR's Gamma World  and Marvel Super Heroes, all of which are pretty compact systems and were pretty mainstream at the time. Sure they had tons of supplements and I might have even bought some of these extras, but to be honest I'm not sure I've ever got much use from these.

Currently I am running Icons (128 pages exactly!) and playing Savage Worlds. We can argue the Savage World  + setting book (in this case Slipstream) is a lot more than 128 pages, but it still feels pretty rules light and we don't all need to buy our own copies of the books.

But anyway my point is a simple, well written system like D6 or Savage World can provide you all you need to adjudicate a game without minimum fuss. If the mechanics turn out to be bland that's not a bad thing because it's the characters themselves and their choices should be interesting, not the method of acton resolution.

Quote from: Omnifray;412552Useful thread. The majority of people even vaguely interested in buying non-mainstream games just seem to be relentless about wanting short rulebooks. Funny in a way cos the major commercial games AFAIAA all tend towards the very long or multiple supplements end of the spectrum. It's frustrating because I would like to give people vast menus of materials to use but the people who are interested in playing non-mainstream stuff are simply not interested in even contemplating the amount of material required.

Why is this? Is it because the people who want non-mainstream games consume so many games that they cannot spare much time for any single one? Is it because people won't commit that amount of time to a game until it's taken wider hold? I can't believe that most of the people who insist on 128 page rulebooks would have turned their noses up at playing AD&D, D&D 3rd ed., WHFB 1st ed, Vampire, Mage, Exalted etc.

IMHO if you stick to 128 pages you end up with something either very narrow or very bland. Well, I will see if I can stay under 200 pages (core) with my next one...

For me it's simply a case of looking back and seeing firstly how games which were complete and enjoyable in play back when I first started gaming were almost universally shorter, and secondly thinking about what I've actually got use out of among the dozens/hundreds of RPG books in my collection (past and present).

I was having a look down the shelves just now, and out of the games I've got (or have ever owned) with a core book <200 pages, I've played at least one session of all but two of them. However, looking at the games with a larger core book, I've played maybe one in three of them.

Let me be clear as well here that I'm just talking about the core. If you want to include 600 pages of details about shoes in your game, that's fine by me, just put it in a supplement. I'll buy it if I care about shoes that much. But if you put it in the core book I'm unlikely to even look at your game for fear of what the hell you've put in that monstrous tome of a core.

A core book should be enabling people to know how to play your game, and quickly start doing so. If your game is set in fantasy Wisconsin by default, then you probably don't need to include details on all 50 US states in the core book, and you certainly don't need more about fantasy Australia than a passing mention it exists.

Oh, and the only games I've played in your list of big games are the two D&D versions, as it happens :)

Quote from: Soylent Green;412597Currently I am running Icons (128 pages exactly!) and playing Savage Worlds. We can argue the Savage World  + setting book (in this case Slipstream) is a lot more than 128 pages, but it still feels pretty rules light and we don't all need to buy our own copies of the books.

Don't forget that the Savage Worlds core book is printed on half-size pages, so arguably you can halve the page count on that. ;)

I like SW setting books though because they include a campaign too within the page count.

Quote from: Soylent Green;412597I'm not quite sure where you draw the line between mainsteream and non-mainstream. Among my favourites games to run are Star Wars D6, TSR's Gamma World  and Marvel Super Heroes, all of which are pretty compact systems and were pretty mainstream at the time. Sure they had tons of supplements and I might have even bought some of these extras, but to be honest I'm not sure I've ever got much use from these.

I was thinking the same thing.

While I think that 128 pages might be a bit of the small side, there were certainly a metric ton of smaller book games produced throughout the 80s and 90s that used that size.  Only recently has the massive tomes o' hardbacks design craze dominated the industry.

Quote from: Bobloblah;412419Obviously that's just personal preference, but some of you railing against "she" might want to consider that that is all your dislike amounts to.

It laughably reeks of politically correct geeks begging to get laid.  Somehow if they put enough she-power in their RPGs then one magical day something slightly female will suck them off.

They is fine.  In a hobby 99% male, he/him/his is also fine.  

All the she-she-she hasn't expanded the hobby to women because the themes of RPGs don't generally appeal to women.  Like FPS games, football, etc.   Some women like them, but not many, let alone most.  WoD drew more women because goth-culture, vamp-lit is very female friendly.

Quote from: Grymbok;412602I was having a look down the shelves just now, and out of the games I've got (or have ever owned) with a core book <200 pages, I've played at least one session of all but two of them. However, looking at the games with a larger core book, I've played maybe one in three of them.

Let me be clear as well here that I'm just talking about the core. I ...

A core book should be enabling people to know how to play your game, and quickly start doing so. ...

That's very interesting.

I'm on page 132 of my current project at the moment, in 11 point font, including 18 pages set aside for art and blank character sheets of various descriptions. I've covered basic character generation (basic-level humans), basic equipment, combat, the core mechanics and fate, with a minimalist intro to the game.  Left to go:- stealth, social mechanics, a taster of magic, realms of existence, courage, sanity, health, advancement, a taster bestiary and some kind of general tips. A lot of bulk in what I've done so far is down to trying to walk people through CharGen in a way which makes it easy, so they can literally pick up the book, open it at chapter 1, work their way through chapter 1 and end that chapter with a fully written up character even if they had no idea of the system beforehand.

I might be able to squeeze what's left to do into 200 pages but I think I'd feel more comfortable with 256 pages. Is that a big sin?

Quote from: Spinachcat;412702In a hobby 99% male, ...

... the themes of RPGs don't generally appeal to women.  

... WoD drew more women because goth-culture, vamp-lit is very female friendly.

It's got very little to do with the goth culture and vamp-lit - it's far more to do with running your games with an emphasis on story, plot, interaction, roleplaying and drama, and not on competitive dice-grinding, my-stat-is-better-than-yours immature bullcrap or full-on smack-you-in-the-face boffer LARPing (the last of which I personally adore). I've played fantasy games with good female attendance and male-dominated vampire games; I've played vampire games with good female attendance and male-dominated fantasy games. Plenty of girls like Harry Potter. A friend of mine's girlfriend (aged 30ish) never roleplays but loves the Dragonlance books. Sure, a certain type of roleplaying game can build up a reputation for story, and then that has a knock-on effect, but you can fix it by running the right type of game.

IMHO the clincher for the WoD games is the prevalence of what I think of as semi-LARPing using dice or cards or scissors-paper-stone to resolve combat (not boffer combat). I've seen a student society run a fantasy boffer LARP with regular "interactives" where combat was scarcely in evidence and that draws a huge female crowd, maybe 30% or 40%, including some of the most persistent participants. LARP encourages social interaction and that draws girls. I've also been involved in plenty of tabletop fantasy games with two, even three females in attendance, in groups of maybe four to seven players. There's no mystique to it. As long as you don't go running full-on gridded dungeon-crawls with room after room of obscene beasties and expect the women to turn up in droves haggling for better rings of protection while the storyline, plot and character interaction whither away like some kind of embarrassing underwear which you daren't show in public.

I think overall, including LARP, the hobby is about 70% to 75% male. No way is it 95% male, let alone 99%, if you look beyond the narrow confines of hack and slash tabletopping.

Now, I too favor the use of the gender neutral "he" in role-playing games. To make that clear. But this:

Quote from: Spinachcat;412702In a hobby 99% male, (...) the themes of RPGs don't generally appeal to women.  (...)  WoD drew more women because goth-culture, vamp-lit is very female friendly.

I basically know for a fact that this is bullshit. I've had mostly women at my game table for the past five years. Not women taking steroids and doing push-ups, no: real women who like to talk shopping, like socializing, etc. I swear to God: I have NEVER seen players who loved to KICK ASS that much. They LOVED D&D because of it.

(http://www.enrill.net/images/photos/7S-Spellwardens.jpg)

Oh yes sure: they liked the drama, the role playing going on with their characters' families and whatnot, but man, they loved the dungeon crawling too. They loved the exploration. They loved the fights. They rocked.

So no. I really think that this whole thing about "the themes of RPGs don't appeal to women" is just plain old bullshit. It's crap. It's just not the case.

If anything, maybe GAMERS are obnoxious to women showing any interest for their hobby. Maybe GAMERS just can't speak about RPGs without going on and on and on about inane details turning away any normal person who might show the slightest interest for it. Maybe GAMERS just can't stop looking at the girl's boobs when she's sitting across the table.

Whatever the case may be, I can assure you 100% that women can love D&D, or any standard thematic in RPGs. What they don't like is not being able to relax when they play, being on their guard because of that one creep that is just socially impaired. It's not a question of numbers really. All it takes is one creep, one asshole, one awkward guy who just doesn't know how to interact with double-X human beings.

My advice is to introduce women to RPGs with their friends, people they know and trust. You know: people they'd like to play games with. Then, you'll be very surprised indeed.

Quote from: Benoist;412761Now, I too favor the use of the gender neutral "he" in role-playing games. To make that clear. But this:


I basically know for a fact that this is bullshit. I've had mostly women at my game table for the past five years. Not women taking steroids and doing push-ups, no: real women who like to talk shopping, like socializing, etc. I swear to God: I have NEVER seen players who loved to KICK ASS that much. They LOVED D&D because of it.

(http://www.enrill.net/images/photos/7S-Spellwardens.jpg)

Oh yes sure: they liked the drama, the role playing going on with their characters' families and whatnot, but man, they loved the dungeon crawling too. They loved the exploration. They loved the fights. They rocked.

So no. I really think that this whole thing about "the themes of RPGs don't appeal to women" is just plain old bullshit. It's crap. It's just not the case.

If anything, maybe GAMERS are obnoxious to women showing any interest for their hobby. Maybe GAMERS just can't speak about RPGs without going on and on and on about inane details turning away any normal person who might show the slightest interest for it. Maybe GAMERS just can't stop looking at the girl's boobs when she's sitting across the table.

Whatever the case may be, I can assure you 100% that women can love D&D, or any standard thematic in RPGs. What they don't like is not being able to relax when they play, being on their guard because of that one creep that is just socially impaired. It's not a question of numbers really. All it takes is one creep, one asshole, one awkward guy who just doesn't know how to interact with double-X human beings.

My advice is to introduce women to RPGs with their friends, people they know and trust. You know: people they'd like to play games with. Then, you'll be very surprised indeed.

Since my D&D game for 2 decades had at least as many women as men, I have to agree with you, Benoist - 100%.

-clash

Yes. If there's a problem its with the absurd idea that showing off PC-feminism or fundamentally changing the hobby is somehow what has to be done to attract women gamers. Or minority gamers, or whatever.  
The way to attract more gamers is just to focus on the fundamentals of gaming; recognizing, yes, that in part it may be the case that white men will be the ones most drawn to its themes, but that as long as you don't go out of your way to EXCLUDE other groups, there's nothing in particular that you "have" to change in order to get people from other groups involved.

RPGPundit

Many women that have been interested to play in my games first got hooked up via the "game" aspect of it. Many seem to like the miniatures. That gets them intrigued, and think that maybe this hobby is just a game after all, not some weird dress-up-in-the-basement kind of activity.

So they ask questions about the minis, or the dice. Wonder how they're used. I point out that people playing RPGs make up their own characters however they want them. That they can choose whatever their characters do. That the mini can look however they like. That gets the creative juices running.

After, it's all a question of talking about like, -really-, a normal, casual person talking about a hobby. If you get into a monologue that lasts more than a minute, then you know you're doing it wrong. Talk about the hobby casually, like in any conversation, and then you might see some interest. Don't push, don't try to "convince" or "convert".

It's all for fun. It's to have a good time amongst friends.
And that's about it really.

Yeah, I've pretty much always had an even split in my gaming group between men and women.

Where I live there's another GM who runs a female-only Earthdawn campaign. I first ran into her at the local convention in 2003. The GM said that her group got together for some great hack and slash/swashbuckling adventures with out having to deal with the usual 'guy-gamer bullshit they experience at a mixed table.' I nearly choked on my soda when she said that because it was just too funny.

Quote from: Omnifray;412758That's very interesting.

I'm on page 132 of my current project at the moment, in 11 point font, including 18 pages set aside for art and blank character sheets of various descriptions. I've covered basic character generation (basic-level humans), basic equipment, combat, the core mechanics and fate, with a minimalist intro to the game.  Left to go:- stealth, social mechanics, a taster of magic, realms of existence, courage, sanity, health, advancement, a taster bestiary and some kind of general tips. A lot of bulk in what I've done so far is down to trying to walk people through CharGen in a way which makes it easy, so they can literally pick up the book, open it at chapter 1, work their way through chapter 1 and end that chapter with a fully written up character even if they had no idea of the system beforehand.

I might be able to squeeze what's left to do into 200 pages but I think I'd feel more comfortable with 256 pages. Is that a big sin?

Who knows without looking at it - your game might be rules-heavy enough that in needs that level of detail (and so I likely wouldn't be a customer of yours anyway). My gut reaction from what you've written above is that if you need to spend a large chunk of that page count walking peolle through chargen, then you've made chargen too complex.

Quote from: Omnifray;412758*snip*
I might be able to squeeze what's left to do into 200 pages but I think I'd feel more comfortable with 256 pages. Is that a big sin?

Not if it sells...;)
I would hesitate to buy (new at least) a system that voluminous but there are plenty on the shelves so have a ball !

I concur with Grymboks post.
:)

Quote from: RPGPundit;412770Yes. If there's a problem its with the absurd idea that showing off PC-feminism or fundamentally changing the hobby is somehow what has to be done to attract women gamers. Or minority gamers, or whatever.  
The way to attract more gamers is just to focus on the fundamentals of gaming; recognizing, yes, that in part it may be the case that white men will be the ones most drawn to its themes, but that as long as you don't go out of your way to EXCLUDE other groups, there's nothing in particular that you "have" to change in order to get people from other groups involved.

RPGPundit

In other words, treat someone like a person and things will go better. Amazing. Pundit, your logic surpasses faar too many people, in this area.

Quote from: Grymbok;412785Who knows without looking at it - your game might be rules-heavy enough that in needs that level of detail (and so I likely wouldn't be a customer of yours anyway). My gut reaction from what you've written above is that if you need to spend a large chunk of that page count walking peolle through chargen, then you've made chargen too complex.

The actual rules for the main elements of CharGen done via points-buy can be stated fairly shortly. It's more a question of... doing the work for the reader. Wrapping things up in packages for them so they don't have to work them out for themselves.

I would anticipate a newbie group could get through CharGen on their own in an hour. To some people that sounds like forever, but I think for a long-running campaign it's worth it.

Quote from: Benoist;412761but man, they loved the dungeon crawling too. They loved the exploration. They loved the fights. They rocked.

Either those were very singular women, or you were running the fights with less than a full-on dose of the terrible anorakory which often plagues hack-n-slash games and puts off people of both genders, girls more so than guys. I've met one or two girls who were really into the statting side of things, maybe even three I suppose, but I think the majority, if they do like combat, prefer the general feel of the excitement of battle, maybe with some tactics thrown in, rather than ratcheting up stat bonuses from magic items, squeezing the maximum oomph out of spells and weaponry etc and salivating over one's spangly Armour Class for hours on end. I have seen people do it. None of them female, although one or two I know give the impression that they have got up to that sort of thing in the past - I haven't seen it. Actually I have heard one girl talk about it at length but she has a clinical condition...

Do you have a clinical condition yourself? :)

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;412241Anything more than 2 pages of fluff text at the beginning of the book. Yes, this puts me and most White Wolf products forever at odds. But seriously, if I wanted a novel, I'd read a novel.

Gratuitous T&A.

In-world slang in game text.

I don't object to this because it's fluff text, I object to it because of it's placement. I want to get to MY game, not have to wade through someone else's, even if it's thumbing through just to get to the contents page. Otherwise I have no objection to fiction parts (the stuff in the LUGTrek TOS edition was quite fun - whereas the anime crap in the exalted supplements is painful and ugly).

Quote from: Benoist;412832Do you have a clinical condition yourself? :)

Not a mental one, or at least not one which has been diagnosed so far... frankly it just goes to show the limitations of modern science, don't you think???

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;412878I don't object to this because it's fluff text, I object to it because of it's placement. I want to get to MY game, not have to wade through someone else's, even if it's thumbing through just to get to the contents page. Otherwise I have no objection to fiction parts (the stuff in the LUGTrek TOS edition was quite fun - whereas the anime crap in the exalted supplements is painful and ugly).

I am more and more of the view that where game-balance matters, fluff and crunch are inseparable.

Where game-balance doesn't matter, they can be totally separate, but I like game-balance *** ducks for cover *** because I feel people generally like to think they're being treated fairly and because it lets everyone have an equal chance at grabbing the limelight. Of course, I don't mean that the game has to be balanced around combat - it has to be balanced around whatever the party are going to be getting up to. No good being the whirling claymore machine of death in a game of high politics where every other PC at the table is a noble with contacts, allies, retainers and huge resources of wealth and you're basically some two-bit mercenary new to the court with limited social graces and an aura of creepiness.

Quote from: Omnifray;413002Not a mental one, or at least not one which has been diagnosed so far... frankly it just goes to show the limitations of modern science, don't you think???

You said it my friend, not me! :D

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;412157In character fiction - Rarely written well-enough to be evocative of a particular mood and style, which is its supposed purpose. I stopped buying Mage products when I bought a supplement and the first twelve pages of the 128pg book were fiction before you even got to the table of contents! This is especially problematic when every book has tons and tons of these pieces (as WoD books do). They become indistinct, repetitive, and cliched.

I agree with this in the fact that I don't need short fiction in my RPG rulebooks that subtley hint on how I should be running games. 'Hey! Here's a 1000 word short story that illustrates how the game I've designed should be played!' No, thanks.

Quote from: Bobloblah;412436Sorry, but I'm not sure who "Pete" refers to...?

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=412237&postcount=28

Bobloblah: Pete = Pete Spahn.

-clash