I thought i'd throw this one out there - it might be a tad contentious.

I must admit the thoughts i'm putting down here have been formed from endless threads on that other place.

You know the ones, "Explain this rule to me." "How does this resolution mechanic work?"

Are you serious? How many times has this cropped up when folk are trying a game from a certain type of place and author for the very first time (or still don't get it weeks later). Sure, we all have a question or two at times about a system, but the central resolution system?

I've seen it time and again and it's always from the same stable of authors. You know, the shit ones. I don't put blame on the players for not understanding, i put the blame on authors too lazy to finish products properly or explain their mechanics in a clear way.

Is it shit writing, or shit game design that causes this? Is it both?

When you have to visit the authors own fucking website to get a clue how things work, when you've paid for a game, pretty much tells you what you need to know about these people.

I had this kind of problem with Vampire. This is a game I had to read through three times and still I screwed things up. For instance, for the longest time, I thought you got a Dodge Pool AND an Attack Pool. I mean, why the hell else would you have a Dodge Pool. No, it turns out (after I read the game a fourth time after playing it for 6 days a week for a whole year) that when you are attacking you split your attack pool. WOD is a PRIME EXAMPLE of poorly written rules. They are very easy to read but nigh impossible to reference. Easy on the eyes (nice art) but hard to understand. I really do not get the organization nor the actual prose of the rules. It is like a poetry student (or maybe a literature student) wrote what he thought would be an epic vampire story.

That said, I like the way I run the game. My players like it. But it makes it even more "Super heroes with fangs".

I have a few theories on this:

1. It's hard to do. It is difficult to explain pen & paper game mechanics to a person through the written word only. Video games enjoy visual examples to explain how things work. Pen & paper games must rely on written examples (when written examples are provided).

2. Self-fulfillment. As role-players quest for new ground, the rules-sets become more complex to cater to gamer demand. Many hardcore gamers, particularly those who populate internet fora, have a lot of demands. Their list of musts has grown considerably.  

3. Interpretation. What is clear and concise to one person is nonsense to another.
 
Note: the misinterpretation of rules is not a new phenomenon. For example, when my old gaming group switched from AD&D to Warhammer it took the group several months to implement the rules properly. It did not impede on the fun that we had while playing the game.
A basic understanding is all that is necessary to begin with. You can fine tune game play later.

Quote from: One Horse Town;283211I thought i'd throw this one out there - it might be a tad contentious.

I must admit the thoughts i'm putting down here have been formed from endless threads on that other place.

You know the ones, "Explain this rule to me." "How does this resolution mechanic work?"

Are you serious? How many times has this cropped up when folk are trying a game from a certain type of place and author for the very first time (or still don't get it weeks later). Sure, we all have a question or two at times about a system, but the central resolution system?

I've seen it time and again and it's always from the same stable of authors. You know, the shit ones. I don't put blame on the players for not understanding, i put the blame on authors too lazy to finish products properly or explain their mechanics in a clear way.

Is it shit writing, or shit game design that causes this? Is it both?

When you have to visit the authors own fucking website to get a clue how things work, when you've paid for a game, pretty much tells you what you need to know about these people.

I've gotta be fair, Dan - I see just as much unclear writing on the trad side of the barbed wire fence. It's just that we trad designers tend to evolve our systems from the sacred What Has Gone Before, while non-trad designers must - simply MUST! - recreate the wheel every time they want to drive to the corner store. This means it's easier to understand the turgid ramblings of trad designers because you already know 95% of what they are rambling about. With the non-trad guys, you have to fumble in the dark like a twelve year old boy unhooking his girlfriend's bra one-handed, because you haven't a CLUE WTF the guy who designed it was THINKING! All you know is he wasn't thinking of your ease of access when he did it.

-clash

It's both... and the reader. The most conscise, beautiful writing won't be able to explain a system that sucks man-chutney through an industrial hose. A beautiful system won't be very clear if the author can't write for toffee. I've read a fair few impenetrable nightmares in the past few months where the author has tried to brain dump into a PDF and sadly 'followed through'.

It's worth noting that the reader can be a lazy sod (as we all are) and can't be bothered to think while reading; or are too entrenched in their previous systems that they are unable to understand anything new; or they just like reading their own words on a forum so they can have a bit fat whinge about something. It's worth noting alongside the other two points.

[edit]I fucking blink and Clash has got there before me![/edit]

I wonder if it would be feasible to market a game with a DVD acting like a demo exploring different aspects of the game. It could match the usefulness of the video games tutorials... Who reads video game manual these gays ?

For instance when I read Exalted combat systems and charms and well most of the crunch, I feel like I wouldn't be able to run this game without tutoring. The game could use a "Exalted for dummies" video presentation.

Quote from: Rob Lang;283222It's both... and the reader. The most conscise, beautiful writing won't be able to explain a system that sucks man-chutney through an industrial hose. A beautiful system won't be very clear if the author can't write for toffee. I've read a fair few impenetrable nightmares in the past few months where the author has tried to brain dump into a PDF and sadly 'followed through'.

It's worth noting that the reader can be a lazy sod (as we all are) and can't be bothered to think while reading; or are too entrenched in their previous systems that they are unable to understand anything new; or they just like reading their own words on a forum so they can have a bit fat whinge about something. It's worth noting alongside the other two points.

[edit]I fucking blink and Clash has got there before me![/edit]

I am too fast for the mortal eye. It's all that caffeine I mainline. Didn't you see that episode of Futurama where Frye drinks 100 cups of coffee? That's me!

-clash

If a Dice mechanic or a gaming rule is essential to understanding how the game works, then the author really needs to put maximum effort in insuring that the concept and rule is understood. If you have a potential player or GM get the wrong end of the stick, even by a brief glance at the rules, then you have an uphill struggle to re-educate him on his misunderstandings.

And if you take that misinterpreted rule to the table, you then have to re-educate the entire group.

Quote from: flyingmice;283221I've gotta be fair, Dan - I see just as much unclear writing on the trad side of the barbed wire fence. It's just that we trad designers tend to evolve our systems from the sacred What Has Gone Before, while non-trad designers must - simply MUST! - recreate the wheel every time they want to drive to the corner store. This means it's easier to understand the turgid ramblings of trad designers because you already know 95% of what they are rambling about. With the non-trad guys, you have to fumble in the dark like a twelve year old boy unhooking his girlfriend's bra one-handed, because you haven't a CLUE WTF the guy who designed it was THINKING! All you know is he wasn't thinking of your ease of access when he did it.

-clash

Yeah, there could very well be something to this. Damn your reasonable eyes!

Quote from: One Horse Town;283234Yeah, there could very well be something to this. Damn your reasonable eyes!

I've heard that one before!

-clash

Well, I'm inclined to think that some people are raised on bad rules (think of all the people who came into the hobby with WoD) and then assumed that was par for the course.

BUT, Clash may be more right than he thinks (if you can make sense of that), in that different schools of design may just carry different assumptions forward. So the WoD-kids can't understand designers raised on D&D, GURPS, and BRP, et vice-versa mutatis mutandis.

Just to avoid accidentally joining the "Cult of Clash was Right" I'm going to disagree with him.

Not catagorically (its principle, after all...).

No, I think that its entirely the fault of the self selection process of the Internet. You only read the Idiots and Morans (not Morons, as you might normally expect...) who post loudest for rules clarification and assume its the fault of the authors.  Most of these people may not even really have questions about the rules, they are also attention whores and want to have people talk to them.  Kill them and take their stuff, as they obviously aren't using it.

There. Now that I've staked out my place as the Anti-Clash, I can rest peacefully on my laurels.  I drink 100 cups of coffee to slow down, motherfucker!

I believe Clash touched on it but it runs deeper than that. It is an approach to writing. If you approach a game book as though it were an art book you will have a different result than if you approach it as a technical manual. Add to this what Clash pointed out, that the ideas of trad designers (I was just told again how not indie I am) are familiar and thus easily extensible. Go the opposite way and you get unfamiliar concepts presented as a romantic prose or in a format not oriented at teaching the system but at displaying the beautiful art or the uniqueness of the mechanism. It leads to confusion. Not always but often enough to instigate threads on the subject.

Quote from: HinterWelt;283263I believe Clash touched on it but it runs deeper than that. It is an approach to writing. If you approach a game book as though it were an art book you will have a different result than if you approach it as a technical manual. Add to this what Clash pointed out, that the ideas of trad designers (I was just told again how not indie I am) are familiar and thus easily extensible. Go the opposite way and you get unfamiliar concepts presented as a romantic prose or in a format not oriented at teaching the system but at displaying the beautiful art or the uniqueness of the mechanism. It leads to confusion. Not always but often enough to instigate threads on the subject.

I have to agree. I am, by profession, a technical writer. When I read oWoD stuff, it just set off headaches. They would present rules in game fiction, for example, which... let's just say I had great difficulty in understanding that mindset. A reciprocal divide must exist for the people who could write that way, and thus by extension those who have no problem understanding those people.

-clash

The problem is thus:

Good fiction raises questions, while good technical writing eliminates them. Good fiction makes people think about what might happen, while good technical writing tells people what has/will happen.

Put them together, and you can generate enough cognitive dissonance to power a Logitech Mouse, and one of the luxury models that uses a lot of power at that.

It's the difference between a portrait and a blueprint. To be honest, mixing the two is almost it's own art form or engineering discipline.