I'm writing the rule book to my home brew. I find that I often have trouble phrasing things properly, or knowing what sequence to introduce ideas.
Knowing what content to write is easy. I have my own stuff, and I can consult other games for what order to put chapters in, and see what I might be leaving out.
The question, I suppose, is technical writing. Suggestions? Where to read about technical writing for RPG's? Rules of thumb, etc?
Everyone has their own style of ordering things.
For mine I start off with a quick one page or so explanation of the setting and basic mechanics. Example: "This game uses percentile dice. You toll 2 ten sided dice and read them as a number 01-00, 00 being 100." After that chargen. Then explain skills, then equipment, then magic/powers, and then combat. After that its environment. I usually include a walkthrough of chargen and some common knowledge info every PC is likely to know and then some regional ones as needed. Example: "There are two types of skeletons. Automata animated by magic, and spectrals animated by spirits. You can tell them apart as spectral skeletons have glowing motes in their sockets like eyes."
I suggest thinking of how you would walk through a friend if you were teaching them how to play the game at your table, and then organize it like that.
Take the table of contents from a RPG book that you consider to be an outstanding rulebook. Modify it then add notes for subsections and focus on writing a few to get a feel for how you want your voice to be. Then tackle the whole book. The idea is that you start off write about say the human race, equipment, and physical actions. Short sections that can be done quickly and re-written quickly until you are happy with the result. Then you start writing the whole book.
As far as style, if you can give the book to someone else and they can create a character and play the rules, and the creation process and rules are understood the way you intended them, then they're good. That may sound circular, but having play testers play and run the game is important to see that. I think it also helps if they aren't familiar with the system, if your game is based on another system.
For books with specific grammar rules and making your sentences mean what you want to say, any of the popular style books should be fine: Elements of Style (Strunk and White), Chicago Manual of Style, or Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. The latter is also good if you plan to go into scientific writing.
As far as order, whatever order you give, someone will want something different. In the one I'm writing, I try to have a one-page summary of the game that introduces all the concepts and terminology, so at least you don't have to worry about catch-22 things like "I can't explain immanentize without explaining the eschaton, and vice versa". I also try to use existing terminology. After that, just make sure you have a really good way to find references either through a really good table of contents or a really good index or both. Basic advice, explain your concepts at least a little before referring to the concepts.
For books on organization and order, I can't recommend anything--not that they aren't good but because I haven't read them. I learned organization and order in high school where we had a really good English program and then in college where I worked as a software developer at a company that specialized in information definition languages, which meant I had to learn how to organize what I was thinking about.
A couple examples of things that unmanaged-by-the-author play testing helps with...
In the Cepheus Engine discussion, people intimately familiar with Traveller don't detect problems with the CE SRD because they fill in the blanks consciously or unconsciously. I gave the rules to someone who had never even heard of Traveller and they got stuck within the first few minutes.
Another time, none of my players had ever played a system with anything like Fate points or Hero points or whatever they are called in your favorite system. But the whole idea of points you could spend to avoid death or guarantee success in a limited manner, even when the rules had an explicit list of "here's what you can do with these" just refused to be processed by their brains. Even after the explanation, we all forgot about the Hero points during the game and they never got used.
Finally, while doing character generation for another game, my players were creating characters and wanted to make sure they were good at certain things. The Players Book did not give the players enough information to know which options to pick to make sure they were good at medicine or whatever other skill they were interested in. This was by design for various reasons but evoked a lot of discussion about whether or not it was a good idea.
San dimas football rules!
If you're having trouble expressing yourself in words, read a lot. Not RPGs, not posts on the internet. But well-composed and challenging texts of all kinds, from literary to technical. This isn't an easy solution or fix, it's a lifetime's obsession. But it's the only real answer.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;950264I suggest thinking of how you would walk through a friend if you were teaching them how to play the game at your table, and then organize it like that.
I disagree. Tutorials and reference works place very different and often conflicting demands on the structure of a book. And in almost every case, choose reference work. Because unless you're targeting completely new gamers (and that's only really feasible for industry leaders, or for something really avante garde that breaks down the boundary between an RPG and something else), your readers already know to how to play RPGs. Don't get lost in "What's an RPG" or dice notation. Completely new concepts or innovative ideas may lend themselves to a tutorial format, but those tend to be rare and far between.
That said, examples of play can be very useful. If you're unsure if you conveyed a concept clearly, it's a way to restate the rules in a different, more immediate, way.
This is why I love these forums. I ask a question and get a spectrum of good answers in what... Two hours?
I'll be taking everyone's advice.
Quote from: Omega;950263After that its environment. I usually include a walkthrough of chargen and some common knowledge info every PC is likely to know and then some regional ones as needed. Example: "There are two types of skeletons. Automata animated by magic, and spectrals animated by spirits. You can tell them apart as spectral skeletons have glowing motes in their sockets like eyes."
This.common knowledge is a good idea and solves a lot of problems.for me.
Quote from: estar;950275Take the table of contents from a RPG book that you consider to be an outstanding rulebook. Modify it then add notes for subsections and focus on writing a few to get a feel for how you want your voice to be. Then tackle the whole book. The idea is that you start off write about say the human race, equipment, and physical actions. Short sections that can be done quickly and re-written quickly until you are happy with the result. Then you start writing the whole book.
This is basically what I'm doing. Not stuck exactly, but certainly slowed down by choosing the language within those sections.
There are two simple guidelines I abide by:
Expression of mechanics needs to be consistent throughout the book.
As an example, these are the two most consistent expressions of flip mechanics in ZWEIHANDER. I use this method of expression consistently throughout the work Bold face indicates where Action or Skill is inserted:
Correct Expression #1:You may flip the results to succeed at Alchemy Tests. When you succeed, it is always considered a Critical Success.
Correct Expression #2: Whenever you attempt to tame and train Animals and Beasts, you may flip the results to succeed at Handle Animal Tests.
These are incorrect expressions. These are drawn from an earlier version where the expressions weren't consistent:
Inconsistent Expression: You flip the results to succeed Survival Tests, which are Critical Successes when you succeed.
Inconsistent Expression: When flipping the results to succeed Athletics Tests, they're Critical Successes
Inconsistent Expression: You always flip the results to succeed at Alchemy when making elixirs.
Inconsistent Expression: While Parrying flip the results to succeed Combat-based Skills.
Inconsistent Expression: Flip all results to succeed Folklore Skill Tests.
Separate fluff text from mechanical effects.
Correct Expression:
BOOKWORM
The Antiquarian has spent many years in the dark, cold recesses of libraries reading histories and treatises of far-flung lands and their inhabitants. Although your skin may be pale as parchment from all those years spent scouring bookshelves, your mental acuity is virtually unparalleled.
Effect: Multiply your [IB] by three to determine how many Focuses you may possess.
Incorrect Expression:
BOOKWORM
The Antiquarian has spent many years in the dark, cold recesses of libraries reading histories and treatises of far-flung lands and their inhabitants. Although your skin may be pale as parchment from all those years spent scouring bookshelves, your mental acuity is virtually unparalleled. Because of this, multiply your [IB] by three to determine how many Focuses you may possess.
"Basic advice, explain your concepts at least a little before referring to the concepts."
I've been doing this, but not consciously. So this is really.basic and really helpful.
I think it depends a great deal on your intended audience and what stage of development you are in. Do you intend to publish the game, or do you just want to play it? Are your rules finalized and ready for a final draft that requires all of the technical aspects of clarity and organization, or are they still in flux or some stage of playtesting?
I heavily re-write (hack) almost every game I play and have written half a dozen games "from scratch" (borrowing heavily from multiple systems). I always write my rules before play begins (and adjust them as play continues). I used to slave over organization, clarity, and accuracy in my rules writing, imagining it as finished game, until I realized, "who am I kidding? These aren't ready for publication, and my intent isn't really to start a business venture. I just want to codify my ideas for system, setting and mechanics, and use them." These days, I just put my ideas down in a manner that is clear enough that I can understand, and that is useful to players or interested parties - a rough draft with all of the necessary data and explanation, and nothing more. It cuts my work load from a 100 page rough draft to a 20 page reference document. I can always expand if the ideas stick.
I guess what I am saying, is before you start stressing about the technical issues of rules writing, be sure you are not putting the cart before the horse.
If you are really ready for writing a finished game, my best advice is a) study different approaches to rules writing and pick an overall style, and then b) get help. Quality writing needs multiple sets of eyes.
Quote from: Ashakyre;950290"Basic advice, explain your concepts at least a little before referring to the concepts."
I've been doing this, but not consciously. So this is really.basic and really helpful.
Thanks. Along the same lines, define your acronyms before using them. (Style books should help with that kind of advice too.)
Quote from: Madprofessor;950292I think it depends a great deal on your intended audience and what stage of development you are in. Do you intend to publish the game, or do you just want to play it? Are your rules finalized and ready for a final draft that requires all of the technical aspects of clarity and organization, or are they still in flux or some stage of playtesting?
I heavily re-write (hack) almost every game I play and have written half a dozen games "from scratch" (borrowing heavily from multiple systems). I always write my rules before play begins (and adjust them as play continues). I used to slave over organization, clarity, and accuracy in my rules writing, imagining it as finished game, until I realized, "who am I kidding? These aren't ready for publication, and my intent isn't really to start a business venture. I just want to codify my ideas for system, setting and mechanics, and use them." These days, I just put my ideas down in a manner that is clear enough that I can understand, and that is useful to players or interested parties - a rough draft with all of the necessary data and explanation, and nothing more. It cuts my work load from a 100 page rough draft to a 20 page reference document. I can always expand if the ideas stick.
I guess what I am saying, is before you start stressing about the technical issues of rules writing, be sure you are not putting the cart before the horse.
If you are really ready for writing a finished game, my best advice is a) study different approaches to rules writing and pick an overall style, and then b) get help. Quality writing needs multiple sets of eyes.
First draft. Perfectly happy to iterate, but while I'm actually sitting down writing, I struggle sometimes. I know what I'm writing is not understandable and want make sure it is. There's something to be said for having a clue what you're doing.
I'm not talking about perfection here, just improvement.
Quote from: Tod13;950277Finally, while doing character generation for another game, my players were creating characters and wanted to make sure they were good at certain things. The Players Book did not give the players enough information to know which options to pick to make sure they were good at medicine or whatever other skill they were interested in. This was by design for various reasons but evoked a lot of discussion about whether or not it was a good idea.
Out of curiosity - what was the logic behind that design decision?
The only thing I can think of is so that the players step into the unknown and go into it somewhat unprepared - but that only works for your first session or three when such is the least welcome anyway.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;950298Out of curiosity - what was the logic behind that design decision?
The only thing I can think of is so that the players step into the unknown and go into it somewhat unprepared - but that only works for your first session or three when such is the least welcome anyway.
(Remember, I'm explaining, not defending. I also may be inadvertently skewing the explanation since I really disagree with the author. :p )
The intent was to prevent players from gaming the system and give the GM flexibility in determining which what bonuses apply under what conditions.
The idea on gaming the system is that if people know that a dancer background gives a bonus to avoid falling or falling damage, all of a sudden you'll have a bunch of dancing adventurers. (Kind of how dumping into swimming in Rolemaster gave all sorts of ridiculous bonuses to other areas--so everyone had swimming whether it made sense for a character or not.)
The idea on GM flexibility is to prevent player complaints when the GM says "OK. Normally, your chances at picking pockets is based on your thief skill and your manual dexterity but since you are doing it during an earthquake I'm saying it is thief skill and your sense of balance." (Totally made up, fake example. LOL)
Quote from: Tod13;950310The intent was to prevent players from gaming the system and give the GM flexibility in determining which what bonuses apply under what conditions.
The idea on gaming the system is that if people know that a dancer background gives a bonus to avoid falling or falling damage, all of a sudden you'll have a bunch of dancing adventurers. (Kind of how dumping into swimming in Rolemaster gave all sorts of ridiculous bonuses to other areas--so everyone had swimming whether it made sense for a character or not.)
The idea on GM flexibility is to prevent player complaints when the GM says "OK. Normally, your chances at picking pockets is based on your thief skill and your manual dexterity but since you are doing it during an earthquake I'm saying it is thief skill and your sense of balance." (Totally made up, fake example. LOL)
So - basically rather than making an internally consistent system, he made an incomprehensible system, and he gave GM flexibility through vagueness rather that either simply not having rules or just having rules to allow said flexibility.
Gotcha. *facepalm*
Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;950287There are two simple guidelines I abide by:
Expression of mechanics needs to be consistent throughout the book.
As an example, these are the two most consistent expressions of flip mechanics in ZWEIHANDER. I use this method of expression consistently throughout the work Bold face indicates where Action or Skill is inserted:
Correct Expression #1:You may flip the results to succeed at Alchemy Tests. When you succeed, it is always considered a Critical Success.
Correct Expression #2: Whenever you attempt to tame and train Animals and Beasts, you may flip the results to succeed at Handle Animal Tests.
These are incorrect expressions. These are drawn from an earlier version where the expressions weren't consistent:
Inconsistent Expression: You flip the results to succeed Survival Tests, which are Critical Successes when you succeed.
Inconsistent Expression: When flipping the results to succeed Athletics Tests, they're Critical Successes
Inconsistent Expression: You always flip the results to succeed at Alchemy when making elixirs.
Inconsistent Expression: While Parrying flip the results to succeed Combat-based Skills.
Inconsistent Expression: Flip all results to succeed Folklore Skill Tests.
These are good examples. You need a pretty strong mastery of the logic in grammar to really see how each of these "inconsistent expressions" could cause confusion or misinterpretations. For example:
QuoteInconsistent Expression: You flip the results to succeed Survival Tests, which are Critical Successes when you succeed.
Grammatically this says: A) you always flip results (instead of giving you the option) B) "flipping" survival tests (which you must do from A) causes you to succeed automatically (rather than increasing you chances by giving you an option), and C) when you succeed (which is always, because you succeed when you flip (B), and you must flip(A)) your success is a critical.
Or, in simpler terms: "when you attempt a survival test, you always achieve a critical success" - which is clearly not the intent of the rule, even though it is what the rule says.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;950328So - basically rather than making an internally consistent system, he made an incomprehensible system, and he gave GM flexibility through vagueness rather that either simply not having rules or just having rules to allow said flexibility.
Gotcha. *facepalm*
No. It really isn't like that. The system is actually consistent and elegant. It makes sense.
Your skill is modified by your inherent characteristics appropriate to the moment.
I think it is more related to how some people come here and ask "how do I deal with a player doing
" for various values of .
And some of us here answer "don't play with jerks".
I think the game is attempting to answer that question.
I think the author is trying to munchkin-proof the system and these are aimed at handling that.
I also think they expect the GM to be on-the-ball enough to share their interpretations of the skill setup with players--I think.
Quote from: Ashakyre;950286This is basically what I'm doing. Not stuck exactly, but certainly slowed down by choosing the language within those sections.
The way it worked for me I just wrote and re-wrote over and over again. There no short cut other than to write and review often.
Blogging helped me, so perhaps try starting a blog and posting to it everyday. It could help with specific issues if you start getting comments and other feed back.
Quote from: Tod13;950332I think the author is trying to munchkin-proof the system and these are aimed at handling that.
I also think they expect the GM to be on-the-ball enough to share their interpretations of the skill setup with players--I think.
No - I got that. It's a laudable goal to have. I just think that it's a ham-handed way to attempt it.
The better way to do it is with proper game balance, so a munchkin can't utterly dominate the table and only be somewhat more potent than the rest of the table. (A bit of reward for system mastery should be had.)
His method is basically blindfolding the players and having them pick skills from a hat because they can't be trusted.
As someone who enjoys playing with systems and combo-ing etc. - I'd probably find it unplayable. (Though of note: I intentionally choose sub-par concepts to power-game and/or play support roles because I don't want to be THAT GUY.)
The good news is since these are your home rules and the author will be there at the table you can be brief and see what questions are asked when they are used. I find it easier to start writing assuming a familiarity with RPG concepts.
Quote from: Xanther;950356The good news is since these are your home rules and the author will be there at the table you can be brief and see what questions are asked when they are used. I find it easier to start writing assuming a familiarity with RPG concepts.
True. Except, sadly, over the years I've never even managed to get my own friends to read the entirely of my rule materials. So, trying to be better.
Another thing... it seems so obvious but I didn't do this years ago, and this is why it's good to imitate: it's so much easier to write rules when you split the book into "for players" and "for the gm" or whatever. So much easier.
A guide to writing technical style material can be found at: Eduscapes.com (https://eduscapes.com/tap/topic50.htm) which m,ight help you with identifying how to improve your writing style for technical documents.
Quote from: Ashakyre;950460Another thing... it seems so obvious but I didn't do this years ago, and this is why it's good to imitate: it's so much easier to write rules when you split the book into "for players" and "for the gm" or whatever. So much easier.
Depends on the rule set. My players and I tend to like rules lite games, which few sections that might be "GM only", so breaking it up that way doesn't really matter. As always, YMMV :D
Quote from: Hermes Serpent;950467A guide to writing technical style material can be found at: Eduscapes.com (https://eduscapes.com/tap/topic50.htm) which m,ight help you with identifying how to improve your writing style for technical documents.
Thank you!
Exactly! I have one player who does but the others just have me explain it and the rules they need to reference (for character advancement or such) they like in tables/bullet pointed. I write out rules that are mostly for me to help me be consistent. What I do write up are spells and magic items just so I have the stats handy. I've been 100% homebrew since at least 1994 :)
I've a very old school approach to rules, i.e., not every situation is mapped out with a modifier, no complex movement or other rules. (I did go through the complex rule phase as many of us did in the late 80s) Basically you figure out what you want to try we figure out a difficulty and a roll is made using the mechanics; whatever they may be. A goodly amount of common sense, fairplay, life experience, and advanced scientific education allows us to fill in gaps.
Quote from: estar;950275Take the table of contents from a RPG book that you consider to be an outstanding rulebook. Modify it then add notes for subsections and focus on writing a few to get a feel for how you want your voice to be. Then tackle the whole book. The idea is that you start off write about say the human race, equipment, and physical actions. Short sections that can be done quickly and re-written quickly until you are happy with the result. Then you start writing the whole book.
This is very close to what I would have said.