The Best and Worst of Rule-Books

[Cluedrew]

A rulebook actually has several goals:

1) Being a rules reference
2) Teaching people how to play.

(there's probably others)

Depending on the system and book I can rattle off a few more:

3) Hook for you to try/buy the system.
4) Telling you setting information.
5) General player/GM advice and tools.
6) System modification advice.

The better ones do, but the problem is that you end up polluting your testers with each iteration. So each rev of the rulebook needs to find a new group of testers. This is not a trivial problem to solve.

Which is why very few people, and visiting people if I can help it, get to look directly at my work in progress rule-book. Also it is still a mess and only reaching the point that I don't have to be their two interpret sections for you. Finding play testers is so hard, but so worth it.

Something that showed up last night in my group's starfinder game: page references (or any references) to other important section of the rules. [...] So the big monster's scary power was completely negated by a note in the armor section that wasn't referenced anywhere else. The DM was annoyed.

In Ninjas and Superspies the rules for one of your two defence options against ranged attacks can only be found under the rules for a grab attack. In more reasonable cases: I have seen conflicting information in a document because only part of it was updated, I understand the desire to avoid repeating thing for that and other reasons. Still, I think maybe giving off a rule in the two or places it is relevant is a better way to handle it, especially if it is something short.

[kyoryu]

Interesting. I always found it annoying when rulebooks tried to teach me how to play. The basic function of most games seems pretty self apparent and the only point of query was a rules reference.

I guess I assumed that most groups already know how a ttrpg works and only needed a rulebook to reference the mechanic's specific quirks and nuances.

This often works, since many if not most RPGs work off of similar base processes and assumptions. In many cases you can take the same stuff you've been doing, and put the new game's math on top of it, and you're A-OK.

This is both really bad for new players, and fails horribly for games that *don't* use the same base processes. Like Fate Core.

[Pleh]

This often works, since many if not most RPGs work off of similar base processes and assumptions. In many cases you can take the same stuff you've been doing, and put the new game's math on top of it, and you're A-OK.

This is both really bad for new players, and fails horribly for games that *don't* use the same base processes. Like Fate Core.

See, are there really any "new players" if role playing is an intuitive game we play instinctively from a young age? Playing "house" and pretending sticks are guns or swords isn't something people need to be taught to do.

Maybe it's my limited experience with various systems, but it seems more like all of them are just iterations of the basic concept we all are born with.

[Florian]

Maybe it's my limited experience with various systems, but it seems more like all of them are just iterations of the basic concept we all are born with.

Nope. I´d call that the main difference between "low" and "high" concept games.

[johnbragg]

See, are there really any "new players" if role playing is an intuitive game we play instinctively from a young age? Playing "house" and pretending sticks are guns or swords isn't something people need to be taught to do.

Maybe it's my limited experience with various systems, but it seems more like all of them are just iterations of the basic concept we all are born with.

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.

[Jay R]

One of my favorite rules, in the SPI game Conquistador!, is this:

Expeditions may not move through partial sea hexes or hexsides in contravention of common sense, ....

The specific example given was sailing up to Panama in the Atlantic, and then sailing into the Pacific.

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.

[Cluedrew]

See, are there really any "new players" if role playing is an intuitive game we play instinctively from a young age?

Oddly enough I feel it is the systems closer to this intuitive style that needs explaining more often than not. At least, if for those coming from the more board game/war-game like systems. Maybe the "uncorrupted" would actually pick it up easier?

One thing I have found that it is actually easier to jump between different mechanics than different logic. A lot of systems use the same sort of paradigm to govern how the game works, switching to a system that use a different paradigm can be quite jarring. I've some people not get it so bad it is painful to watch.

To Jay R: Now that you say that... yeah that probably should be in just about every system.

[Florian]

As a side note: I'm bored to tears by "humanocentric" rules in "anything goes" systems and the whole rules glut that happens because of it. (i.e. what good is a monk class in D&D, when it really can´t handle multi-armed creatures, what's not so uncommon in D&D, so on)

[1337 b4k4]

Some highlights that I like in my RPG rulebooks:

1) Play examples. But please even though the examples are meant to highlight specific things (and thus must be contrived a bit) don't make all the examples full of great rolls that inflates expectations. For example, as good of an example of the character creation process as Traveller's Captain Jamison is, he's also frankly incredibly lucky with ending stats almost universally better than he started, a bunch of money, a pension and a ship. Most players aren't going to roll up a Jamison on their first run.

2) Charts. Give me tables and charts with good summaries of just about everything. Feel free to make a fully fleshed out set of descriptions for every piece of equipment, but then give me a full chart and price list at the end, don't make me flip around to find the full description to find out how much something costs or the base damage values. In fact, to bring up another Traveller example, Starter Traveller comes with 3 books, and the 2nd of the 3 is just a book of all the charts and tables. It very neatly goes a long way towards solving the conflict between a game introduction book and a reference book. Eclipse Phase did a similar thing with a chapter of tables at the end. A full book of tables and charts with page references back to the main book for details for every game would make me a happy GM.

3) A conversational tone. I don't want my rules book to read like a text book, I want it to read like a friend telling me how to play their cool new game.


And some things I don't like:

1) Art behind my text. Look, I'm a huge fan of gorgeous full color artwork (and a huge fan of simple sketches too), but PLEASE but the artwork on its own, either as a block that text is formatted around, or on its own page. We know that humans read (at least english) in part by looking at the shapes of the words, not just the text. Your art behind the text is messing that up and making it harder to scan efficiently.

2) Serif Fonts. I know that serifs are supposed to make text more readable, but at the density of text in a typical TTRPG page it usually just makes it more cluttered to my eyes. The classic D&D/Traveller style with sans-serif fonts is much cleaner to me.

3) Non-fully justified columns of text. If you're going to give me text in columns, I want it justified. I don't know why, but the modern D&D style of just using word wrapped columns without justifying the text bothers me. It's fine if there's only a single column of text, but when you put multiple columns I like them to be justified. And speaking of columns...

4) More than 2 columns of text in the main body. As much as I love the Rules Cyclopedia as a D&D version and as a presentation of the rules, the 3 column format is just too much. If you need 3 columns of text to keep your page count reasonable, you just need more than one book.

[RazorChain]

Good rulebook: good index
Bad rulebook: no index

It's important to me to find what I need

[Max_Killjoy]

Four cardinal sins for RPG rules:

* Scattering information about the same thing across multiple locations -- I shouldn't have to look in the character creation section to determine a character's attack bonus (or whatever for that system), and in the combat section to determine how to roll to attack, and in the skills section under the skill for a specific weapon to find the rules for wielding two weapons. I'd rather see a book waste a few pages on repeating itself, then have related rules and information isolated in scattered locations across the book.

* Scattering core information across half a dozen books -- if a system has magic, the rules for defending against magic shouldn't be in a book published 2 years later focusing on magic, it should be in the damn core rulebook.

* Treating the book as a work of art first, and as a medium for conveying information at best a distant second. Low-contrast text, ridiculous fonts, borders that take up 1/4 of every page, lack of functional borders or markers inside the text, text that meanders around artwork that's just plopped randomly into the page, etc...

* No index/TOC or a terrible index/TOC, unclear section, chapter, etc headers, and otherwise impossible to navigate


I'm sure there are more but these spring to mind immediately.

[2D8HP]

....Low-contrast text, ridiculous fonts, borders that take up 1/4 of every page, lack of functional borders or markers inside the text, text that meanders around artwork that's just plopped randomly into the page, etc...

So much this.

Increasingly, I can only read rules with difficulty, and I need very stronglight and a magnifying glass to even attempt it.

A lot of what Fantasy Games Unlimited published (Aftermath!, Bushido, Flashing Blades, Other Suns, Villains & Vigilantes, et cetera), small type and fading ink makes it a struggle for me to read, and the Wizard of the Coast 5e D&D indices small type and lack of contrast (also true of most of the text of The Sword Coast Adventurers Guide) small type and low contrast makes it difficult to read.

Also, a lot of rulebooks just bury the rules after pages of short stories (l think Vampire started the trend).

Wargame rules (Chainmail, Invasion Earth, Ogre etc.) often seem to assume a background of playing similar games that makes following them difficult for me.

The 1974 to 1979 Dungeons & Dragons, and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons rules needed better editing to be understandable (I still don't understand % Lair, Grappling, and Psionics) with the exception of the 48 pages of the 1977 "bluebook" Basic D&D rules, which I still had to read three times over before I even thought that I had some understanding of the rules (I was ten years old though).

The 1991 "black box"/1994 Classic Dungeons & Dragons rules seem like some of the easiest to learn from, as do the 48 pages of the FATE Accelarated rules.

[Rhedyn]

I submit Savage Worlds core rules and companions as both the best and worse rulebooks.

I think they are the best for the amount of depth and breadth they cover in a small amount of pages. My summaries of rules are generally longer than the actual rules themselves.

On the other hand they are terrible references for rules and the indexes are formatted terribly. The way the rules are built off each other it behooves you to just learn the rules rather than looking them up as needed

[ImNotTrevor]

Shoutout to Apocalypse World. Well laid out, evocative of the mood of the game, and comes with tons of resources both for players and GMs. There is a reason it's my favorite system and rulebook.

For worst? Shadowrun, I think 4e. Nothing happens in order. Hardly a paragraph goes by that doesn't tell you to go 30 pages ahead to refer to another rule. It's like they explain it out of order

[kyoryu]

Shoutout to Apocalypse World. Well laid out, evocative of the mood of the game, and comes with tons of resources both for players and GMs. There is a reason it's my favorite system and rulebook.

It's also worth noting that it does a good job of having "how to play the game" sections and then (sometimes by repeating information) "rules reference" sections. It doesn't hurt that the majority of the hard rules of the game are in the moves, and so are easily put in playbooks (including the MC playbook).

[Velaryon]

A lot of this has probably been said already, but here are the top five things I want in an RPG rule-book:

1. Information should be clearly organized, so that it's easy to see what you need to know and where to find it. There needs to be a useful table of contents and especially an index to help me find specific rules and sections.

2. The book should be sturdy and well enough bound that it can hold up to being carried in backpacks, left sitting open for a few hours, having other books piled on top, or having a pencil used as a bookmark without covers getting torn, pages falling out, or binding cracking. The book doesn't need to be able to survive an earthquake, but it needs to hold up to everyday use.

3. It needs to be functional and readable more than it needs to be pretty. Cool art is a nice bonus, but not if it results in text being difficult to read or charts ending up several pages away from the text that references them.

4. The book needs to be reasonably priced. This is an issue that goes back decades, as I remember complaints about RPG book prices in InQuest magazine back in the 90's. However, D&D core books have at least doubled in price since I started playing (the 3.0 core books were $20 each in the early 2000's), and the supplemental books are insanely expensive. Xanathar's Guide to Everything has an MSRP of $49.95. That's ridiculous. Sure, you can get it a lot cheaper on Amazon, but if you want to support your FLGS, that's a BIG chunk of change for a book that's not even a core component of the game.

5. Most of all, the book needs to clearly tell me how to play the game (if it's a core book), how to use the new rules and options (if it's a supplement), or how to run the adventure (if it's a module). Whatever the most relevant information is, it should be up front and easy to find. In core rulebooks, that usually means a brief explanation of the setting (if needed), followed immediately by character creation rules. Things I do not need in a rulebook include an in-depth explanation of what RPGs are, a history of role-playing games (yes, I've seen this), a lengthy summary of the entire book/TV show/whatever that the game is based on, and lots of full-page illustrations that contribute little more than padding the length of the book to increase the price.

A worst for me is A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying Game by Green Ronin. The rules are kind of spread out all over the place, and there's a good chunk of contradicting rules. The chapter on items and gear start with descriptions on miscellanous items while the table with their cost and weight are several pages further back, but another table is on the page with the misc item descriptions... *sigh*

Was that the ASOIAF game using the d20 system? Because I tried that one once, and it was BAD.

Spoiler: Why is it bad, you ask?

Show

The book was 500+ pages, and the character creation rules didn't even start until around page 90. The book was bloated by, among other things, an extensive summary of A Game of Thrones, an in-depth explanation of what RPG's are, an excessive amount of full-page illustrations, and a whole lot of information about Westeros that should have come later in the book. If memory serves, there might even have been a lengthy list of suggested reading, a.k.a. "every fantasy author ever that might have had an influence on George R.R. Martin and/or Dungeons & Dragons."

There were rules for social standing (ranging from rank 1 for peasants to rank I think 6 for members of House Baratheon), but not a lot of clarification on what exactly that means.

There were poorly-defined rules for building influence with specific NPCs. You got X number of influence points at level up (which might have varied by class, social standing, what feats you took, etc.), but not really a clear indication of what having +15 influence with Hoster Tully or Petyr Baelish actually means.

Then the rest is a typical low-magic d20 that makes rule changes to reflect the setting without really considering how it impacts the actual gameplay.

I really hope that's the system you're talking about, because if it's not, that would mean there are TWO absolutely terrible RPG systems released under the ASOIAF license.

[Pelle]

Things I do not need in a rulebook include an in-depth explanation of what RPGs are

I realize this is what you personally don't need, but it's not strange that publishers include a section on that if the target audience is people who are new to rpgs. I would assume a GoT rpg will see many new players that are fans of the books/show.

[Cluedrew]

Shoutout to Apocalypse World. Well laid out, evocative of the mood of the game, and comes with tons of resources both for players and GMs. There is a reason it's my favorite system and rulebook.

My personal favourite system is a Powered by the Apocalypse system. I have never read the rule-book, someone just explained to me how Apocalypse World worked (months earlier and not in reference to this system) and then handed me my playbook and the general reference sheets. About 3 double side pages all told. If what Rhedyn said is true and the book itself is a terrible reference, it might be because you are supposed to use the playbooks. No comment on my favourite system's rule-book because of that.

A question I would like to through out: What about glossaries? They were mentioned previously paired with indexes, but a lot of people have just mentioned indexes as well. (If you are like me and the difference has you confused: An index seems to just point you to where you want to go, a glossary is more like a dictionary in that it actually has information about the thing. I had to double-check.) Does anyone know of rule-books that make a good use of a glossary of rules or keywords or something?

For comments: I like rule-books that are meant to be read front-to-back. I have read/seen a few that seem to assume you will jump around. Some times using information that hasn't come up in the book yet. Other times I just sort of feel like there is something more important we should be covering first. And of course you can't know that until you read the out of order section.

Actually making sure to give the context needed is something that a lot of systems seem to mess up. I had a bit of this problem when reading FUDGE, even having read FATE previously I kind of felt like I didn't have a good feel of the baseline before they started rushing off and describing all the ways to modify this part of the system. That might come with the "system-tool-kit" system a bit naturally, but I definitely felt a few examples on one version would of helped with things like "How powerful is a character who has X points to spend over Y skills?" I left X and Y in there because I have absolutely no idea what reasonable values are. On the other hand I'm pretty sure FATE uses the +4 (I forget the word) pyramid over 15 skills as a default. That might not be quite right but I bet it is close because it lines up with everything I can remember they said about the ramifications of that choice. FUDGE said something about dividing skills up more makes characters weaker, which I already know from the SUE Files (its very broad).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Glossaries are risky--they often don't have the exact wording so it ends up being deceptive. They also miss context, which often makes all the difference. They can be a good reference, but it's a short cut and has to be noted as such.

It's also a problem when the terms aren't supposed to be treated as formal definitions (so the same words get used in different ways in different contexts). It leads people to think of them as formal definitions. Same problem with keyword systems--4e D&D's keyword system led to things like being able to prone an ooze (because prone just meant "this package of status effects, flavored however you wish").

[ImNotTrevor]

My personal favourite system is a Powered by the Apocalypse system. I have never read the rule-book, someone just explained to me how Apocalypse World worked (months earlier and not in reference to this system) and then handed me my playbook and the general reference sheets. About 3 double side pages all told. If what Rhedyn said is true and the book itself is a terrible reference, it might be because you are supposed to use the playbooks. No comment on my favourite system's rule-book because of that.

It seems he was referencing Savage Worlds, which as far as I am aware is not a PbtA system.

The book for AW is great. It spends 90% of the time on GM stuff since the players only really need their playbooks.

[Faily]

Was that the ASOIAF game using the d20 system? Because I tried that one once, and it was BAD.

Spoiler: Why is it bad, you ask?

Show

The book was 500+ pages, and the character creation rules didn't even start until around page 90. The book was bloated by, among other things, an extensive summary of A Game of Thrones, an in-depth explanation of what RPG's are, an excessive amount of full-page illustrations, and a whole lot of information about Westeros that should have come later in the book. If memory serves, there might even have been a lengthy list of suggested reading, a.k.a. "every fantasy author ever that might have had an influence on George R.R. Martin and/or Dungeons & Dragons."

There were rules for social standing (ranging from rank 1 for peasants to rank I think 6 for members of House Baratheon), but not a lot of clarification on what exactly that means.

There were poorly-defined rules for building influence with specific NPCs. You got X number of influence points at level up (which might have varied by class, social standing, what feats you took, etc.), but not really a clear indication of what having +15 influence with Hoster Tully or Petyr Baelish actually means.

Then the rest is a typical low-magic d20 that makes rule changes to reflect the setting without really considering how it impacts the actual gameplay.

I really hope that's the system you're talking about, because if it's not, that would mean there are TWO absolutely terrible RPG systems released under the ASOIAF license.

Well, I didn't even know there was a d20 version. The one I'm talking about uses a roll-and-keep system of d6s.

A real shame that two bad rulebooks have been made for ASOIAF then. In two different systems, no less.

[Cluedrew]

ToImNotTrevor (And sort of Rhedyn): Yup, that definitely says Savage Worlds. The 's' at the end gives away that it is not a Apocalypse World hack... I'm being slightly silly. I did try reading the Savage Worlds ... quick-start guide I think, but that is it.

[Pleh]

Glossaries are risky--they often don't have the exact wording so it ends up being deceptive. They also miss context, which often makes all the difference. They can be a good reference, but it's a short cut and has to be noted as such.

It's also a problem when the terms aren't supposed to be treated as formal definitions (so the same words get used in different ways in different contexts). It leads people to think of them as formal definitions. Same problem with keyword systems--4e D&D's keyword system led to things like being able to prone an ooze (because prone just meant "this package of status effects, flavored however you wish").

Yes, when a term has a hard, mechanical function, glossaries can be nice. I've always appreciated the 3.5 PHB's glossary for terms like Prone, Flat-Footed, and other terms that have very specific meaning and effect that I might occasionally forget the exact phrasing for.

[Knaight]

Glossaries are risky--they often don't have the exact wording so it ends up being deceptive. They also miss context, which often makes all the difference. They can be a good reference, but it's a short cut and has to be noted as such.

It's also a problem when the terms aren't supposed to be treated as formal definitions (so the same words get used in different ways in different contexts). It leads people to think of them as formal definitions. Same problem with keyword systems--4e D&D's keyword system led to things like being able to prone an ooze (because prone just meant "this package of status effects, flavored however you wish").

It depends on the term though. Something like "occupational character class" or "dice pool" or "class level" is safe, as is similar distinct game jargon. Something like "prone" is a bit riskier.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It depends on the term though. Something like "occupational character class" or "dice pool" or "class level" is safe, as is similar distinct game jargon. Something like "prone" is a bit riskier.

Definitely. Terms of art that don't mean much outside the game should be clearly and centrally defined if they're important.

I much prefer rules written in plain language (as opposed to legalistic verbiage). Let words generally have their natural meaning, and define specific exceptions as they arise, in the context of the rule. Unlike some, I'm comfortable with polysemy--the same word can mean different things in different contests and we should cleave to that, not let it cleave us apart.

[Cluedrew]

On Cleave: I did not even know about the second meaning, but yes that sentence makes sense.

On Terms: ... Now I might do something like have a glossary that starts with a line like: All words and terms continue to mean what they do in general use, however in addition there are the following meanings. Or not. It might be better to just aim for terms that don't really have a general use. At this point I think I am just filling space so my post is more than "Wow I didn't know cleave could be used that way."

[Max_Killjoy]

Perhaps if game-specific terms that have technical, in-rules definitions get a special font or formatting when used in that sense within the work?

[PhoenixPhyre]

On Cleave: I did not even know about the second meaning, but yes that sentence makes sense.

On Terms: ... Now I might do something like have a glossary that starts with a line like: All words and terms continue to mean what they do in general use, however in addition there are the following meanings. Or not. It might be better to just aim for terms that don't really have a general use. At this point I think I am just filling space so my post is more than "Wow I didn't know cleave could be used that way."

It's one of the fun auto-antonyms that make the point (about polysemy) quite effectively. Wikipedia has a whole list.

Every attempt to make a context-free, ambiguity-free language that's actually usable as a natural language (compared to a computer language) has, so far, fallen quite short. Context matters. It's why glossaries tend to color things, even when they don't intend to. They impose a particular reading on rules text that, shorn of context, causes a lot of problems. Even very formal things (like contracts or laws) that have explicit definitions at the start can be misread or can cause absurdities. And once you start having many intersecting contexts, the number of definitions you need per word explodes tremendously. Not to mention when you have splat writers that don't really pay attention to established definitions...

[Velaryon]

I realize this is what you personally don't need, but it's not strange that publishers include a section on that if the target audience is people who are new to rpgs. I would assume a GoT rpg will see many new players that are fans of the books/show.

Call me selfish, but I don't care. Devote half a page to it if you must, but anything that isn't how to play this specific game needs to be minimized, IMO.

A question I would like to through out: What about glossaries? They were mentioned previously paired with indexes, but a lot of people have just mentioned indexes as well. (If you are like me and the difference has you confused: An index seems to just point you to where you want to go, a glossary is more like a dictionary in that it actually has information about the thing. I had to double-check.) Does anyone know of rule-books that make a good use of a glossary of rules or keywords or something?

Glossaries are a plus for me. I tend to prefer a bit more rules-heavy games, where I can have a strong sense of what my character can and can't do, and not too much is left up to the whim of the GM. That's exactly the sort of game that benefits most from having a glossary. I didn't think of it, otherwise I would have included a glossary in my point about having information clearly organized.

Well, I didn't even know there was a d20 version. The one I'm talking about uses a roll-and-keep system of d6s.

A real shame that two bad rulebooks have been made for ASOIAF then. In two different systems, no less.

Oh jeez, it's not the same system? That's even worse.

Now that I'm home, I was able to take a look at the rulebook. The game I'm familiar with was apparently published by a group called Guardians of Order, Inc., whom I've otherwise never heard of.

To clarify a couple of the statements I made about the system earlier:

Technically the character creation rules start at about page 40. However, that's the area about backgrounds and house affiliations and such. The actual character classes begin on page 93, followed by sections on prestige classes, skills, feats, reputation/influence system, flaws, and equipment, all of which lasts until about page 225 or so.

After that there's the combat rules, a section on GMing, tons of information about Westeros, and a small bestiary section. There's an exhaustive list of characters that populate the world, many of them with partial stat writeups (and a lot of those make no sense - like why should Renly be level 9 when one of his defining character attributes is that he's never done anything significant in his life?)

After all that, which takes the better part of 80 pages, there's an interview with GRRM (why?) and then an 80 page appendix which contains a completely separate rules system, to run the game in Tri-stat instead of d20. What is the point of this? Were they planning to include a Tri-stat appendix in every book, if they had made any more? I guess I'll never know.

Overall, for the 2 or 3 sessions we played it before moving on to a different game, the system seemed... almost playable. D20 is not a good fit for ASOIAF since it's a combat-focused system, but ASOIAF is a setting where combat takes a backseat to character drama... which d20 is poorly equipped to handle, even with the badly-grafted-on Influence system.

[Florian]

A question I would like to through out: What about glossaries? They were mentioned previously paired with indexes, but a lot of people have just mentioned indexes as well.

A glossary should include all words that are keyed to hard mechanical effect. If done right, it makes handling complex rules easier, as you just need to insert the key words and be done with it, instead of having to detail the effect over and over again.

An example would be the "Conditions List" as used in the Pathfinder CRB: here you have the key words listed (Prone, Stunned, Dazed, Entangled...) followed by the exact mechanical effect, so it´s enough to just mention the conditions name when using it in a spell, feat or class feature.