Quote from: The Traveller;595492This really is the next stage in RPG development I think. Having everything easily cross referenceable straight from the sheet is the bridge between the pen and paper world and the world of computers. It needs a crapton of prep work but the first publisher to pull it off will be onto a winner.

Actually, the first company that has their gameplay documentation referencing a database will be.  You can make the rulset as complicated and as deeply drilled as you want, if all the calculations are taken care of.

Quote from: LordVreeg;595604Actually, the first company that has their gameplay documentation referencing a database will be.  You can make the rulset as complicated and as deeply drilled as you want, if all the calculations are taken care of.

But isn't that what WotC tried to do with 4e and DDI? And didn't it fail spectacularly?

Quote from: The Butcher;595605But isn't that what WotC tried to do with 4e and DDI? And didn't it fail spectacularly?

How would I know?  I play roleplaying games....that's what I was talking about....

Heh.  I probably shouldn't even confess to what my "workflow" is like.  I'm sure the kinds of people who actually go through the effort of setting up source repositories for their version control will think me terribly unprofessional or something.  I'm sure someone is going to post somewhere in a month after I launch my next IGG campaign, linking this post as "proof" I'm a horrible game designer and how you should never buy things from me.

But the truth is, whatever brain wiring I'm supposed to have for all the shit people have told me in the 20+ years since I first started writing with children's books in the 4th grade to actually work, basically doesn't for me.  It often winds up sabotaging my efforts.  

Outlines were the first to go, some time back in the 6th or 7th grade, IIRC.  The problem with an outline when you have issues with motivation is it's a great way to make a project's scope look bigger than it already is.  Truth is, if you've read an RPG book before, you already have a good idea of what's going to be in it, just steal their chapter order and start writing.

Notes took a much longer time to get over as a habit.  The trouble with notes is that they're easier to write than the actual thing you're supposed to be writing, and your brain doesn't like to repeat ideas, so it becomes an easy way out of actually writing anything.  When I was a younger man, I had whole game systems that consisted entirely of incomplete notes as a result.  Nowadays I try to save notes for stuff that can't go in the current project, but might be able to go in its follow up.  If I have something to write for the current project, I just bloody write it.

Specialized software is a bust as well.  The only specialized writing software I use is Celtx for screenwriting, because unlike prose writing, it's very specific about formatting and Celtx is designed to make that formatting easier so that you can get back to writing the actual words.  Most of the software I've tried over the years that people have recommended, like Scrivener, TiddlyWiki, etc., all just left me spending more time fiddlefucking with the software than actually producing anything.  They also tend to be built around assumptions that you'll write the way your writing instructors told you to, with lots of outlines and notes, which makes them fucking useless for someone like me.  

My actual process starts in my head.

I get an idea.  Usually these days this is for some kind of setting or direction of play.  Maybe, I write out that idea in logline form, and test the waters by posting it in IRC and seeing how people react to the idea.  RPG concepts fit nicely in logline form, you just have to make sure the person of action in them is a general concept for what the PCs will be, instead of a specific character.  

Once I have a logline that I like, I build on that in two directions, often still in my head.  For the setting development, I might sit down and start writing out an actual pitch, often in character somehow so that it can then be adapted into an intro for the actual book if I don't hate it.

I also start thinking about system ideas.  What kind of flavor do I want to model, how traditional is the design gonna be, and what are some novel mechanics.  Once I have the die mechanics I mind I'll start playing with Anydice or other probability tools to see how the numbers and ranges look and if they'll support the kind of play and power structure I want.

By this point, this is pretty much all still in my head.  At most I might have a pitch paragraph somewhere on Google+, a general idea of system mechanics, and that's it.  If the mental puzzle has resolved itself to my satisfaction, next comes writing.  If not, I see something shiny or a new idea springs to mind, and the process starts all over again.

Once the actual writing process starts, it's more or less just a matter of sitting down and writing away in Word, starting from Introductions, through Character Creation, then Basic Rules, Combat, Setting, Content Tools, then Monsters.  I write my books in order, basically, because the crudely object oriented way I think about game design works well with this particular book structure for building on itself.  It's all semi-stream of consciousness; I have general ideas of what I want, and the more of it I write, the more concrete those ideas get, and by following the technique I use they build on one another until I have a complete game at the end.

Introduction lets you get the setting idea in more concrete, but not overbearing, detail right away, and establish some general mood and direction for the rest of the game.

Chargen is all about defining the variables, the interactions of which the latter system sections will resolve.  Traditional simulatory RPG design is all about deciding what you want to model and how, and a lot of the design steps and the main lens through which most of your players are going to handle the system starts with deciding what characters look like, what numbers you're using to define them, and so forth.  

Once you have that, rules are just about making the pieces fit.  Resolving the interaction between the variables through whatever novel or non-novel means you've come up with.  By now I'll have had the die mechanic straightened out and probability tested weeks ago anyway, so this is generally the easiest part to write, because it's just about covering the kinds of actions the characters are going to be doing most, something we've also already described in the Intro and Chargen.

Once combat is out of the way, your core is done, and it's time to make the DM's tools.  This starts with establishing the Setting in more detail, if you're writing a setting-based game, though by now you've already done a good chunk of defining what's going to be here already.  Your Intro and Chargen sections and the little blurbs you've been dropping throughout the book have handled a lot of the basics already, what the basic idea is, the general backstory, what PCs are generally like, what the action is like.  Now you just need to sit down and write things out a bit more long hand, elucidating on any details that are most relevant to a GMs ability to make adventures and scenarios for the group.  

From there we get into content generation tools if desired: our idea of setting having been well established by now, it's simply a matter of building the tools needed to generate setting-matching examples.  Dungeons, world maps, treasure finds, whatever.  Focus on the kinds of tools that are most important to your expected style of adventure, and on making the results generated with those tools fit the style and theme you want for the game.  Once you keep that in mind, the rest is mostly just writing a lot of numbered lists.

My last content tool is also almost always a tool for making NPCs/monsters, followed by a bestiary of some sort.  Now that we have our system fully established, and enough of an idea of the mode of play, we know how survivable they need to be, what shortcuts we can take with monster stats to make them easier to run, and how to quickly generate workable stats for those monsters.  The key here, for me, is entirely a personal preference in design principle form: enemies should not use full PC stats unless they're as important as PCs, and RPGs need bestiaries because DMs are as lazy as players (or at least I am as a DM, and I want to run this game.)  

By now we're done.  We have a playable game.  We'll need to do some wrap up stuff here maybe, like an experience system if we didn't cover that already in chargen (I'm 50/50 on organization there), and if desired, the obligatory "how to DM" chapter that almost no one will read unless it actually contains genuinely novel advice for the genre itself.  Mostly I hate writing that last part myself, because I don't feel qualified or possessed of the authority to tell anyone how they should run their games.

As this process is continuing to an end, I will jump back regularly, revising earlier sections as new sections call for adjustments to compensate for new ideas and changes and the needs the later sections impose on the system.

For software, I currently use good old Microsoft Word 2013 for fucking everything, from the writing to the layout.  I'm transitioning to a more eBook friendly, "novella format" for the current project, so other than the cover which will probably be put together in a photo editor or drawing program, everything is written on the fly in WYSIWYG form using that awesome Styles system (which also helps generate my table of contents automatically). Before I finally figured out how to use those properly I tended to format by hand, doing headings and so forth manually, but my last layout editor and the cumbersome nature of the Hulks and Horrors first draft finally broke me of that.  

And that's just how it goes.  Using some version of this method is how I wrote the first draft of Drums of War in 6 days, and the lion's share of Hulks and Horrors over a period of two weeks on a school break (the monsters took longer because I listed them out before hand, which broke my "no outlines" policy).  I generally can average between 1200-2500 words per day, so long as I'm taking adequate short breaks and not being seriously interrupted or distracted.  

After that comes playtesting time, and in truth I am not all that qualified to comment on that because I seem to have a terrible time encouraging my playtesters to actually do anything independent of myself, so mostly it just comes of writing stuff down as I run the game that I think needs changing, building an errata list that I can then use to go back over and edit the book into the next draft.  This keeps happening until either I'm tired of it, or I start realizing the changes I'm receiving from my playtesters are no longer actual mechanical issues so much as personal taste ones, and then it's time to release.

Quote from: The Traveller;595492This really is the next stage in RPG development I think. Having everything easily cross referenceable straight from the sheet is the bridge between the pen and paper world and the world of computers. It needs a crapton of prep work but the first publisher to pull it off will be onto a winner.

Already in this thread, I'm pretty well convinced of this.

Quote from: LordVreeg;595604Actually, the first company that has their gameplay documentation referencing a database will be.  You can make the rulset as complicated and as deeply drilled as you want, if all the calculations are taken care of.

I don't know about "as complicated and deeply drilled as you want", since your players (not to mention your GM!) still need to understand what the heck is going on. However, that will quickly drift off-topic and into design theory, which I believe is banned in this sub-forum.

Suffice it to say that, with the proper tools, I have no doubt that higher complexity designs will be easier to develop and play. I'm reminded of my first (and only) time playing in a D20 campaign. The GM was new to the system too. If the other players hadn't had the page numbers memorized and the system largely internalized, I expect we would have been lost. I spent much of that campaign wishing for a hypertext edition of the player's handbook.

Quote from: The Butcher;595605But isn't that what WotC tried to do with 4e and DDI? And didn't it fail spectacularly?

If anyone has any historical links regarding that, I'd be grateful (I'll google it, too).

Quote from: J Arcane;595610If I have something to write for the current project, I just bloody write it.

I have quite a lot of sympathy with you. I'm generally allergic to outlines the various correct ways of structured writing. My mind just doesn't work that way. I believe your solution is more general though: actually getting anything done is always a matter of self-discipline and good old-fashioned BIC (butt-in-chair) time.

Quote from: J Arcane;595610Specialized software is a bust as well.  The only specialized writing software I use is Celtx for screenwriting, because unlike prose writing, it's very specific about formatting and Celtx is designed to make that formatting easier so that you can get back to writing the actual words.  Most of the software I've tried over the years that people have recommended, like Scrivener, TiddlyWiki, etc., all just left me spending more time fiddlefucking with the software than actually producing anything.  They also tend to be built around assumptions that you'll write the way your writing instructors told you to, with lots of outlines and notes, which makes them fucking useless for someone like me.  

Again, this gets nothing but sympathy from me--I don't know how many productive hours I've wasted fiddling with software. (So many hours that I eventually decided to just start writing my own software, instead.) However, I suspect that the usual recommendations are perhaps too generic and malleable (TiddlyWiki, I'm looking at you).

I'm glad that some folk seem to get good use out of these things, at least. For me, though, the siren's call of software that can do ANYTHING inevitably results in a Saturday afternoon spent doing nothing. I like your CeltX example, which seems to be well-targeted, focused software. We need more of that.

Quote from: eykd;595678I'm glad that some folk seem to get good use out of these things, at least. For me, though, the siren's call of software that can do ANYTHING inevitably results in a Saturday afternoon spent doing nothing.

It's definitely about getting things done.

http://technitai.wordpress.com/tag/kanban/

Quote from: LordVreeg;595604You can make the rulset as complicated and as deeply drilled as you want, if all the calculations are taken care of.

Those are called computer games. The trick is to tie in the advantages of tabletop roleplaying with the advantages of instantly referrable data, that's the sweet spot nobody has hit yet, or even come close to my knowledge.

Quote from: The Traveller;595701Those are called computer games. The trick is to tie in the advantages of tabletop roleplaying with the advantages of instantly referrable data, that's the sweet spot nobody has hit yet, or even come close to my knowledge.

Yes.
Exactly my point, and yours as well.  Also, can put this online and play over distance as well, though nothing will ever take the place of my game table.

Quote from: eykd;595670Already in this thread, I'm pretty well convinced of this.



I don't know about "as complicated and deeply drilled as you want", since your players (not to mention your GM!) still need to understand what the heck is going on. However, that will quickly drift off-topic and into design theory, which I believe is banned in this sub-forum.

Suffice it to say that, with the proper tools, I have no doubt that higher complexity designs will be easier to develop and play. I'm reminded of my first (and only) time playing in a D20 campaign. The GM was new to the system too. If the other players hadn't had the page numbers memorized and the system largely internalized, I expect we would have been lost. I spent much of that campaign wishing for a hypertext edition of the player's handbook.

Seems to be the way it works.  We use a total homebrew skill based system, and so system mastery, especially since the game is not a simple one, would be harder if everything was not always easy for everyone to find.  And Easy to reference and even use the search function of the wiki.
and then you can each skill, each spell, etc, and have Index pages...

and collaboration is easier.  I see one of my PCs right now has been cleaning up my formatting last night...

Actually, in all aspects of a game designer, writer, editor, storyteller and player, I couldn't care less about integrating P&P games with computers. The only point to me is a versioning system that works for everyone involved, and content that people can understand.

I don't believe a gigantic database, wiki, or other portal should be required either to construct or to play a game, and in fact, one of my 'house rules' for in-person play is 'no computers at the game table'. I'm married to enough technology without it detracting from the P&P concept; in all-reality, they both slow down the game (note-taking other than by hand) and licit distraction and interruption via the glorious, fat, bloated infestation of media on the Internet.

While it is fine to make an OOC 'Ghosbusters' reference, we don't need to see a video clip to back it up. The only use I have is to play sound-effects, or to display complex graphics to illustrate something seen by the characters. Otherwise, my system sits on the sidelines and I have a journal on hand for shorthand note-taking.

As long as you, and whoever you work alongside can all understand a versioning system, sharing content doesn't require any special, magical repositories.

Now, I write in a non-linear manner, working on either many sections or products at one time, and keeping separate notes on sections that I am not actively developing so that I don't forget what i want to do there, before I write, or continue writing, that section.

This is why I use cascading versioning. One version for a master document, and a sub-version for extractions that I am expanding. When people send me something to overview or edit, I only want or need the master document versioning information. When we collaborate, we need to work on segments, and outline the changes in some way.

What we often do is outline new text in a non-black colour (e.g.in blue, red, green, etc.) so that it is easy to compare different documents that multiple people have altered, in case versioning is ever corrupted, and then combine them into a master-sub-document, and then integrate those into a new master document, with a version increase. Then the process restarts.

This way, we maintain organization without needing a fancy database, and nobody overwrites anyone else's work. If three people are working on a chapter, and make changes in the same place, each has their own colour and it is easy to spot who changed what, and to combine the efforts.

We also denote sections under development or as placeholders by colour. The Zoria book uses blue and red for this, and other colours for working documents. As there are two other contributing writers, we don't need a rainbow of text.

You really only need advanced versioning when you have dozens of people writing a system, and in this case, workshopping works best: Sitting down at a conference table (real, or virtual) and working on a single section as a group. Parts of the expansion of the classes section for Zoria are workshopped in exactly this way:

One person kept a master document, and the rest pitched ideas, which are noted as idea outlined, then incorporated as into a working document, and finally reduced into a sub-document of the book that we can pass around for mark-up with unique versioning. (X|S)

Quote from: MagesGuild;596906I don't believe a gigantic database, wiki, or other portal should be required either to construct or to play a game

It shouldn't be required, but it can sure be useful. Take for example a popular RPG that lots of people want to contribute their ideas towards, whether in setting or in system. The power of the internet as regards gaming lies in its ability to let all these people store their ideas in a readily accessable repository for easy public access. They can even categorise it themselves as they enter it.

It would be missing a trick to ignore the possibilities here.

For my campaigns, I use notebooks and fountain pens. I like my tools to be nice to use and see, so I favor expensive pens and notebooks. Also, writing in longhand, doodling relationship-maps, making portraits and sketchs of NPCs and places is easier for me on paper.

When I compile a master document for rules (something I always do, specially with games with many splatbooks), I'll use Google Drive to share documents and the like.

I have a fool proof system that involves scattering posts across half a dozen forums, a blog and about 30 .docs on my laptop. I'm never really sure where anything is and I'm certain I've lost stuff that I've forgotten about. However the latter fact is not as distressing to me as it should be. i can always make some new shit up.

Seeing as most of my writing is either for my own games or, more often, my own edification and my publishing credits are rather limited, I tend to write down my ideas in Word (whether just as notes or as manuscripts).

I've started using OneNote at work and am thinking about using it at home to help me keep better track of my campaigns, while still keeping them separate from the core setting writing.

When I'm ready to share with others, I've taken to using Wikispaces to organize my writing by major topics and get the ideas out there.