The Best and Worst of Rule-Books

[Jay R]

I should amend, or actually withdraw my statement. What I meant was I can't imagine ever again playing a game with 3d6-keep-em stats, then pick your class (and maybe race?) based on what you get. Ha ha your guy sucks herp derp.

It's worth noting that in original D&D, the stats had far less effect on the character. Until the first supplement came out, Strength only meant a +5% xp bonus for fighters at 13+. or +10% xp at 16+. It didn't affect the chance to hit or damage. CON of 15+ gave +1 hp per die, and DEX above 12 gave +1 to hit (not damage) for a missile weapon. They had no effect on saving throws.

And even in the first rules, there was some swapping allowed. Fighters and clerics could trade away intelligence for wisdom on a 2 for 1 basis, for instance. And since there was no real drawback to a deep dump stat (other than CHA or CON), we used it. Of my first nine characters, all nine had at least a +5% xp bonus.

A character with dead average stats was quite playable. A character with all 18s would have an advantage, but not a huge one. We each had a stable of six or more characters, and we all had one who was our favorite. But they all got used, and your character with the lowest rolls was not appreciably worse off than your character with the highest rolls.

I never heard anybody ever say, "Ha ha your guy sucks herp derp," or any equivalent phrase. The assumption was that clever play would do well, and poor play would not. And it was clearly and observably true - all of Richard's characters did extremely well, all of Pat's did moderately well, and all of Eric's died quickly - because of how well or poorly the player played them.

Good tactics was far more important than good stats.

[johnbragg]

I agree, and I want to say that I'm glad those days are (mostly) gone. Wargames with disposable pawns never held much attraction for me, personally.

That I can live with, when everyone is starting with the SAME or comparable pawns. Paranoia, Goblin Quest, Tomb of Horrors one-shots can all be fun. But 3d6-keep-em plus Darwinian selection, plus differing levels of system mastery (not everyone owned the books, and PDFs and the internet were not a thing) were a toxic brew.

[johnbragg]

Good tactics was far more important than good stats.

Good people were even more important, and the structure of the early game encouraged lousy table play, in my experience.

There's no amount of good tactics that's going to help your weak 1st level Magic-User when the strong (2nd or 3rd level) Cavalier--who's immune to your Sleep spell-- makes him drink the mystery potion.

[2D8HP]

...were a toxic brew.

Oh I remember having lots of fun playing in the (very late) 1970's and '80's, and I don't remember anything being particularly toxic, but I also don't remember feeling much attachment to most characters either, and did play most of them as disposable.

After not playing for decades it was a bit of a shock to find that unlike in "Ye Auld days", I"'ve now become the most cautious player, while the youngsters write long back-stories for their PC"s and then they walk/run into melee range of the foes (but somehow their PC's still survive).

[Arbane]

On the subject of glossaries: I remember being a bit stumped the first time I tried to read through the old TORG rulebooks - "What's a gospog? Stelae? Okay, I KIND of get what a 'cosm' is..." I've seen at least one book with a single game-term at the bottom of each page, that might help...

I was chatting with one of my students, and it took several walkthroughs of the concept before he grasped why you couldn't kill the DM in-game.

Challenge Accepted.

A lot of role-playing games, with D&D at the top of the list, need a rule saying you can't act in contravention of common sense.

The problem is the collision of that with all the things in RPGs that are already in contravention of common sense...

(A lot of D&D5 talk)

Looking back at D&D3.X, I'm not convinced that 'design monsters like PCs' was a good plan - a lot of monsters have abilities that would be utterly game-breaking if PCs had them. (One party I was in in a PF game had a medusa in it - fun character, but her powers were either insta-kill or completely useless.) Also, this results in a lot of straightjacketing on things like feat selection, gives us ultra-accurate bruiser enemies, and really, who CARES how many ranks in Craft: Bones of Its Victims Grogrgalthar The Devourer of Souls has?

On CRs and 'Bounded Accuracy':
ARGH, FLASHBACKS to the Dragon Queen's Horde (I think it was? One of the early D&D5 adventures) where the level 1 PCs have to 'discourage' a blue dragon from attacking a castle. Our wizard got its attention, and was immediately lightning-bolted into a cloud of charged particles. FUN TIMES.
Massed archery is great, but a lot of fights in Dungeons and Dragons take place underground. (And it suddenly makes sense - the monsters are all hiding down there from the archer hordes! )

Frankly, I'd consider random PC creation a relic of a time long past... but it keeps popping up.

I've seen one version of it I kind of like: REIGN's random rolls are a lifepath sort of thing, but the total results should be worth about the same number of character-points no matter what you get - no "player A gets their own duchy and small army, player B gets one limb of their choice severed."

GoO was the company who created the Big Eyes, Small Mouth system: the weeaboo animu TTRPG. (SNIP)
In the end, their fall from grace was like watching Yamcha try anything in DBZ.

I just wanted to tell you that this simile made me chortle in its sheer appropriateness.
(GoO did an assortment of RPG sourcebooks for different anime that were also intended to be useful to non-gamer fans of the shows.)

After not playing for decades it was a bit of a shock to find that unlike in "Ye Auld days", I"'ve now become the most cautious player, while the youngsters write long back-stories for their PC"s and then they walk/run into melee range of the foes (but somehow their PC's still survive).

I consider the change from "desperate treasure-hunting lowlifes" to "heroes" to be one of the good things that's happened to D&D over the years. If only D&D's rules supported it a little better at low levels....

[Anonymouswizard]

First off, indexes! Even a short index can be better than no index. The advantage of an index is that it means that those who aren't used to your system or don't play it regularly can still find the rules. Don't assume that I'm using your book after I've learnt the system, assuming I'm using it before. Plus even afterwards a good index makes looking things up easier (for a bad one see 5e D&D, half the entries send me to another entry when they could just print the page numbers instead, I don't want to check every page under 'movement' to find 'jumping').

I also recommend setting out rules in the order you expect people to need them. In theory core mechanics first or character creation first doesn't matter, in practice more people care about generating their characters and will let the GM remember all the rules (we've been playing for half a year now, can you please remember that 'skill check' means roll a d20 and add your skill total, and there's a space on the sheet for your total).

So the best order is probably character generation -> character options -> basic rules -> core subsystems -> advanced subsystems -> GM rules. Split into as many chapters as you like, and be aware that I'm defining a core subsystem as something that everybody has to use, whether that's combat, spellcasting, or reputation. Nothing's worse than a core element of every character being 200 pages away behind the psionics and show cooking subsystems used by one class or archetype. Bare in mind that you can get away with using a suboptimal order if your writing and layout make up for it (Legend of the Five Rings has character creation nearly a third of the way in after the core rules, and it doesn't suffer for it), but the order should be logical.

Also, any lists you have should be in a logical order, alphabetical is good but it's also fine to separate into sublists if there's no overlap.

For a rulebook that follows the order described above but is horrible is Anima: Beyond Fantasy. A one-two punch of lists not being in any form of order (apparently they were alphabetical before translastion), except in cases such as spells (lower level in the path come first, free access spells are alphabetical by level range) or ki powers (where an ability's prerequisites are always before it in the list, generally directly before it). Plus no index, so you have to navigate it via memory and ToC. It's a system that appeals to me enough that I can do that, but that pales to the games where I can easily find rules in sections I haven't read.

To give a game I think does a core rulebook relatively well, Victoriana is good in all bar tone (which can be a bit too dry and academic). The layout's great, and it's good as a reference due to the decent index (which includes headings I didn't remember were in the book). Plus it does the nice character generation trick of introducing a step and then listing the core options for that step, although by the final mechanical step you have to remember that your choice from 3/4 steps ago will limit your choices (and in some cases might require you to take a specific Privilege just to be rules-legal). Plus to me having a black and white interior is much better than a full colour one, not too much clashing for my attention and if you rarely are rules and art so alike as to be mistakable.

[2D8HP]

First off, indexes! Even a short index can be better than no index...

I know I ranted about this upthread, but I hate the 5e W(otC)D&D (the '91 rules were once know as the T(SR)D&D "fifth edition" see here) indices so very much! Not because there badly edited, but because the type is so damn small!

*rant, rave, mumble, fume*

..To give a game I think does a core rulebook relatively well, Victoriana is good in all bar tone (which can be a bit too dry and academic). The layout's great, and it's good as a reference due to the decent index (which includes headings I didn't remember were in the book). Plus....

Oh! I think I have a copy of Victoriana in my locker at work!

I'll have to check it out.

---

Since I'm in a ranty mood, I have a real problem with a recent purchase of mine, The Pathfinder Corebook.

Sweet Lolth this book is heavy! I thought the WotC and 2e 7th Sea books were heavy, but I have to take out two to six of my other books out of my backpack to stand carrying this thing!

To there credit, Paizo made a small type paperback version a few years back, but I needed glasses to read it so I put it aside, and misplaced it years ago.

---

"Indie" game rulebook often do something thst really irks me: "Bonus: PDF content".

Don't make me print out the rest of the book myself, put it between the covers dagnabit!

[Floret]

I also recommend setting out rules in the order you expect people to need them. In theory core mechanics first or character creation first doesn't matter, in practice more people care about generating their characters and will let the GM remember all the rules (we've been playing for half a year now, can you please remember that 'skill check' means roll a d20 and add your skill total, and there's a space on the sheet for your total).

So the best order is probably character generation -> character options -> basic rules -> core subsystems -> advanced subsystems -> GM rules.

While I agree with the principle behind it, I have to disagree with the exact order. Give me core rules first, chargen second any time - because if I am supposed to build a character, and make choices, they will be at least partially based on mechanics. And I'd like to have a goddamned clue about what my selections mean (roughly, at least) before being thrown into a bunch of rules for choosing them.

Which is why I agree on L5R 4e, btw. It doesn't suffer for character creation to be that late, I'd say it actively profits.

Most rulebooks I know actually put core mechanics first, though. I only know this - Rules are needed first - because I very much understand the impulse to want to go to chargen first, and tend to skip ahead, only to skip back when I am at a total loss for what the hell is going on.

[Anonymouswizard]

Oh! I think I have a copy of Victoriana in my locker at work!

I'll have to check it out.

Bare in mind that it's not a simple game, and that the fiddly bits mean the system probably isn't entirely suited to your tastes. But the rulebooks are nice, the system is one where modifiers only grow your dice pool, and several areas have been simplified with optional 'Queensberry rules' on the forum (because while the combat rules are great they have this entire 'enemy is attacking you, do you want a chance to harm them this turn'). Still, once you wrap your head around the system it's nice.

Since I'm in a ranty mood, I have a real problem with a recent purchase of mine, The Pathfinder Corebook.

Sweet Lolth this book is heavy! I thought the WotC and 2e 7th Sea books were heavy, but I have to take out two to six of my other books out of my backpack to stand carrying this thing!

To there credit, Paizo made a small type paperback version a few years back, but I needed glasses to read it so I put it aside, and misplaced it years ago.

It's really overlong. I own several books about as thick, but they tend to have significantly fewer pages.

"Indie" game rulebook often do something thst really irks me: "Bonus: PDF content".

Don't make me print out the rest of the book myself, put it between the covers dagnabit!

You know, I've not seen that unless it's a free pdf version of the book you're holding (always nice), or 'we haven't included the character sheet to save space'.

While I agree with the principle behind it, I have to disagree with the exact order. Give me core rules first, chargen second any time - because if I am supposed to build a character, and make choices, they will be at least partially based on mechanics. And I'd like to have a goddamned clue about what my selections mean (roughly, at least) before being thrown into a bunch of rules for choosing them.

Which is why I agree on L5R 4e, btw. It doesn't suffer for character creation to be that late, I'd say it actively profits.

Most rulebooks I know actually put core mechanics first, though. I only know this - Rules are needed first - because I very much understand the impulse to want to go to chargen first, and tend to skip ahead, only to skip back when I am at a total loss for what the hell is going on.

As I said, in theory it doesn't really matter. I personally always familiarise myself with the rules before creating a character, but I know many people who would rather not read a single page of rules if the GM can just remember it.

I actually know some which do both, and while I prefer basic rules before character creation, subsystems afterward putting all rules before or after character creation doesn't make any difference to me. I very rarely read rulebooks front to back, skipping around as I see fit.

[Cluedrew]

To Floret & Anonymouswizard: Yeah, I went "preamble -> basic rules -> character creation/advancement -> core subsystems -> ..." that's as far as I have gotten so far. GM stuff and example content will probably follow. I guess my only real addition is I consider the preamble part of the flow, it is supposed to touch on a bit of everything to frame the rest of the book. Probably not something that you will have to re-read that often, but it is there for your first reading.

You don't have to read the everything in order, but up until character creation your probably should. After that you can really jump around. Actually after that things become more introduction order to reference order (things become alphabetic a lot more often) because after you know what you are doing, how to do it and what you are doing it with, I think that is enough ground work.

[johnbragg]

---

Since I'm in a ranty mood, I have a real problem with a recent purchase of mine, The Pathfinder Corebook.

Sweet Lolth this book is heavy!

Well, they made a decision to combine the PHB and DMG, for a 20-level game (theoretically).

It could easily be four books if they wanted to do that route--PHB, DMG, split into high and low level sections.

---

"Indie" game rulebook often do something thst really irks me: "Bonus: PDF content".

Don't make me print out the rest of the book myself, put it between the covers dagnabit!

I get what they're doing there, though. This is the main stuff in the main book, the important stuff. For the same price, we're also including more bonus content, but not putting it in the main book you have to lug around.

You realize you're complaining about both approaches to "what to do with secondary material"

[Talakeal]

In my system I have the setting and core rules before character creation, and one of the most common complaints I get is that character creation needs to be as early as possible.

One other piece of feedback I have heard is that setting first books, like White Wolf games, only work if you have a lot of fiction segments. Something about it allowing people to feel like the fluff is theirs rather than the authors.

I considered putting in fiction, but to me it always seemed to be sort of indulgent and wasteful, people are here for the game, not to read my ameteur short fiction. What do you guys think about fiction segments in rulebooks?

[2D8HP]

.....What do you guys think about fiction segments in rulebooks?

Since I usually prefer reading the "fluff" instead of the "crunch" I would've predicted that I'd like it more, but the narrative fiction that I've seen in rulebooks (in Castle Falkenstein, 7th Sea, and, Vampire) is just too damn long for my taste.

I think that may be because I read game books to find "fiction that reads like non-fiction" (history, travel guides, et cetera), and I just don't have enough patience for the narratives, and want to get back to setting details without the over long short stories.

[Max_Killjoy]

Too many books that put "core rules" first, then do some other stuff, then come back to more rules, end up scattering rules all over the place to the point that things get missed or misunderstood.

Don't hide the rules for two-weapon fighting in the middle of the "talents" or "skills" just because that's where the mechanical thing you "buy" to get the ability to fight with two weapons is located -- put those rules with the rest of the combat rules.

Don't scatter the rules for healing in five different places, with no cross-reference or mention, just because you have healing spells, healing in herbalism, healing in "physician", natural healing, and a special "feat" or "gift" for regeneration (that's maybe only available to monsters in most occasions, but there's this option, but...)

[PhoenixPhyre]

What do you guys think about fiction segments in rulebooks?

Those work better if the mechanics are strongly tied to a single setting. So for something like WoD, it can work (if written right). For something more like D&D, it has issues beyond about a paragraph in length.

One exception is for thematics--one thing I like about 5e's class entries is that they start with a selection of brief views of the class in action. They show hooks to make someone excited to play the class, giving things that the mechanics will try to allow.

Spoiler: An example from a class I'm writing

Show

This is one of mine in that vein (as the originals aren't SRD material). The class is about mutations--reshaping the character's physical body to meet various needs.

A gang of ruffians chase a heavy-set man down an alleyway. As they turn a corner, he disappears into the shadows. They pile on past; once they've passed he pours himself from a crack between buildings much too small to fit his frame. Grinning, he reshapes his legs and jumps to the top of the 30-foot-tall building and vanishes into the night.

A slender woman and her team fight a group of ogres that tower over them. Suddenly, her frame expands to twice its prior size and she grabs one of the ogres in a massive fist. With a grunt and a swing, she sends it flying dozens of feet into another ogre threatening her comrade, knocking them both off their feet.

A wood elf fights on a ship’s deck, bare-handed except for gleaming claws that jut from his fists. When allies are dragged under the waves by sahuagin warriors, he dives under the waves, growing fins and gills to come to the rescue.

[Cluedrew]

To Talakeal: I know my first attempt at reading Heart of Darkness, I didn't even get to core rules. The opening bit of lore was interesting, but had no particular hook, then the setting information continued until I got board. Maybe I should of just skipped ahead the first time. Which is what I did next time I read it. (If I didn't say in my review... I never did read all the lore.)

So although maybe that sort of description (as in an atlas) is better at getting information across than a short story. On the other hand the my favourite post in the most recent Let's Build a Setting thread is:

"I don't think I will ever forget my first taste of fresh vegetables. The cabbage cost my parents a months wages, five times as expensive as Dwarfcabbage (saurkraut), and preserved in a box of ice. The texture was so strange as to be almost abhorrent, what kind of food feels crispy?? Yet when it was gone all we could talk about was the cabbage. I didn't eat another for eight years."

It makes it feel so much more alive that simply getting facts across. Or it did for me.

So I think it has a place, I'm not sure exactly what it is. How often and how big those bits should be. Should they be connected to try and build a coherent whole or independent to highlight interesting tidbits? Not sure.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To Talakeal: I know my first attempt at reading Heart of Darkness, I didn't even get to core rules. The opening bit of lore was interesting, but had no particular hook, then the setting information continued until I got board. Maybe I should of just skipped ahead the first time. Which is what I did next time I read it. (If I didn't say in my review... I never did read all the lore.)

So although maybe that sort of description (as in an atlas) is better at getting information across than a short story. On the other hand the my favourite post in the most recent Let's Build a Setting thread is:It makes it feel so much more alive that simply getting facts across. Or it did for me.

So I think it has a place, I'm not sure exactly what it is. How often and how big those bits should be. Should they be connected to try and build a coherent whole or independent to highlight interesting tidbits? Not sure.

I like those things as tidbits in sidebars or scattered throughout, not in longer-form (short-story or even multi-paragraph length).

[2D8HP]

I like those things as tidbits in sidebars or scattered throughout, not in longer-form (short-story or even multi-paragraph length).

So very much this.

No pages (or even whole page) of story, instead have it interposed throughout the rules.

[Knaight]

I like those things as tidbits in sidebars or scattered throughout, not in longer-form (short-story or even multi-paragraph length).

I'm with you there - something like REIGN's tiny, tiny narratives that pop up from time to time are fine by me. Starting every chapter with five pages of fiction, not so much.

It also helps that the author of REIGN also writes actual short stories, which is clearly not the case with a lot of these writers.

[Florian]

So very much this.

No pages (or even whole page) of story, instead have it interposed throughout the rules.

Hm. BattleTech (and by expansion, A Time of War) can be a very dry and mechanical affair. Both, ATOW and the ATOW Companion stand out because of the fiction of how it is tied in to what actual characters in that game do.

[Grod_The_Giant]

To Floret & Anonymouswizard: Yeah, I went "preamble -> basic rules -> character creation/advancement -> core subsystems -> ..." that's as far as I have gotten so far. GM stuff and example content will probably follow. I guess my only real addition is I consider the preamble part of the flow, it is supposed to touch on a bit of everything to frame the rest of the book. Probably not something that you will have to re-read that often, but it is there for your first reading.

In my homebrew system, I wound up going intro/core rules/conflict rules/character creation, with optional modules at the back behind the GM and advice stuff. I also included a suggested reading order, because, well...

I think my worst-rulebook-I-actually-use example would be the Mutants and Masterminds 3e Hero's Handbook. It's almost elegant once it clicks, but getting to that point... shudder. Key concepts are scattered all over the place, and some of them (PL caps, Alternate Effects) are given almost casual mentions when they should be key ideas. I at one point was working on a quick-start guide, and my recommended reading order was painful just to look at.

Spoiler

Show

1. Chapter One: The Basics-- Read at least the first eight pages, though all of it would be ideal. You can skim if you’re used to d20 systems, but take special note of the Ranks and Measures chart on page 11,
2. Chapter Eight: Action and Adventure-- Skip ahead to Conflicts on page 188 and read from there up until Actions on 194. Again, you can skim if you’re used to d20 systems, but pay close attention to how damage works on page 189.
3. Chapter Four: Skills. Read the first two pages.
4. Chapter Six: Powers-- Read the sections on Acquiring Powers, Effect Types, and How Powers Work. Don’t worry about the table there. Flip ahead to Descriptors on 152 and read that
5. Chapter Two: Secret Origins. Read the sections on Hero Design and Power Points. Especially read the section on Power Points.
6. Flip back to Modifiers on page 135 and read that.
7. Read the Alternate Effect modifier on page 136-138, along with the Under the Hood sidebar
8. Chapter Seven: Gadgets and Gear. Read the big sections on Devices (157), Equipment (161), and the Under the Hood sidebar on 157
9. Go back to page 50-53 and read the full-page write ups of The Rook and Princess on pages 50-53 are as an example of character creation
10. Flip through the rest of Chapter 6: Powers and check out any Effects that look like they might be useful for your character concept.
11. Do the same for Chapter 5 (Advantages) and Chapter 4 (Skills).

[Cluedrew]

So it is laid out for reference, but with a suggested reading order for your first time though? It is almost the opposite of having a quick reference section.

My layout is still evolving. I've started trying to cram a bit of everything into chapter 1. Touch on all the important concepts right off the bat and hopefully between that the mechanical rules in chapter 2 you should be able jump around after that. In theory, I mean I haven't even written all the concepts that chapter 1 would touch on yet.

Still I am aiming at a roughly front to back reading order. Possibly skipping over the subsystems your character doesn't use. Which is probably inevitable but hopefully I can have it so you only skip forward. Because yes that reading order in M&M is almost nightmarish.

[Grod_The_Giant]

So it is laid out for reference, but with a suggested reading order for your first time though? It is almost the opposite of having a quick reference section.

My layout is still evolving. I've started trying to cram a bit of everything into chapter 1. Touch on all the important concepts right off the bat and hopefully between that the mechanical rules in chapter 2 you should be able jump around after that. In theory, I mean I haven't even written all the concepts that chapter 1 would touch on yet.

Still I am aiming at a roughly front to back reading order. Possibly skipping over the subsystems your character doesn't use. Which is probably inevitable but hopefully I can have it so you only skip forward. Because yes that reading order in M&M is almost nightmarish.

I mean, the book is front-to-back, and the first thing after the generic intro is a three-page quick summary (one page on general rules, one on conflict, one on character creation). I dunno. I probably wrote the reading order at the same time I was working on the M&M one. I guess I was thinking that rulebooks can be intimidating, and I was aiming at new/casual gamers, so a quick rundown on what's most important to read and what can be skipped for the moment seemed like a good idea? Looking back, it's probably scrap-able.