^That could be useful for printing out notes to pass around during character creation.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;862367Wouldn't making it shorter force the games to be simpler or leave out important stuff? Where are you going to put all that lost info?

Indeed it would.  There are a lot of folks who'd consider that a feature, not a bug.  Certainly a great many people thought that D&D was playable at 108 digest-sized pages, and probably would've blinked HARD at the concept that the core ruleset would increase fifteen-fold.  I managed just fine with The Fantasy Trip at less than 150 pages, and had no notion that I'd be working with two GURPS corebooks totaling just under 600.

The upshot is that there are plenty of gamers who think that All That Info isn't as important as all of that.  Beyond that, I'd love to get back to the premise that splatbooks are really, most sincerely optional: if you don't want to layer on all that extra stuff, the game still works perfectly well.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;862507^That could be useful for printing out notes to pass around during character creation.

I have for each player an index card with the level notes on it. prof bonus, spells, EXP to level 10. One they pass level 10 I'll do the same for 11-20. Then one for their class, what they get at each level. The refference card proved pretty useful til everyone had the quirks of 5e down.

Yes to shorter, focused rulebooks. I'm another person who increasingly prefers lighter systems*, both as a player and as a GM.

As an aside, I thought that I was in the minority with the group in which I play (who have recently switched from Edge of the Empire to Pathfinder), but I GM'd a light one shot recently and it went down well. So while the GM has a stated preference for crunch heavy systems, most of the players just seem to want to play something fun, with people they like, and don't really mind how that happens. That's probably the healthiest position!

(*I don't necessarily mean that I need systems to be microlite or whatever, just I like a system to get to the fucking point and do what it's designed to do as cleanly as possible.

Quote from: Omega;862560I have for each player an index card with the level notes on it. prof bonus, spells, EXP to level 10. One they pass level 10 I'll do the same for 11-20. Then one for their class, what they get at each level. The refference card proved pretty useful til everyone had the quirks of 5e down.

I've always respected people who do this kind of prep. It's smart and I'm sure that it makes table interactions more effective, but I never seem to find the time (or inclination!).

I thinks there  needs to be a distinction drawn between the rules and the lists of stuff. The rules are like combat, how magic is performed, skills, character creation, etc. The list of stuff are like monsters, treasure, spells, etc.

Consider a 64 page book of which 48 pages are rules and 16 pages are list of stuff. Versus a 96 page rulebook with the same 48 pages of rules but now with 48 pages of stuff.

Which game is more complex? Is that even a valid point in this comparison? Which game is like to be the more useful?

What if the both books are the same amount of stuff and rules but the 96 page book just has more art and a layout that expands the page count?

Look the monster lists from OD&D to B/X to AD&D 1st to AD&D 2e. OD&D was pretty barebones while AD&D 2e had a page or more devoted to more monster although in terms of actual mechanics AD&D 2e didn't have that much more. B/X and AD&D 1st was in between those two extremes.

My feeling that the only way to cram the same SCOPE of rules and stuff into a 64 page rulebooks is too lose details. If your core rules mechanics are already compact then the loss will come off solely on the stuff end. D&D 5e Basic versus the three core book is a good example of that.

If your game involves picking options among lists of stuff (like GURPS or HERO system) then cramming it into 64 pages could mean you cut out important bits of the core system. See GURPS Lite 3e/4e versus Core system.

In the end there is no right answer to this. There are only consequences. Which set of consequences that is right depends on your audience.

I'm totally with the OP on this point; core books for table top rpg's have gotten completely out of control. I recently got the new Star Wars game, and the core book for each third of the system is about the size of a car battery. And that isn't so unusual.

You can't blame the artwork, or layout either. And font sizes are quite small in many of these books. It is just obscene rules bloat, and (even worse) a kind if diarrhea of the mouth when it comes to writing style.

You can absolute do a kick-ass core book, complete with monsters and magic, in about 100 pages of open-layout, large font material. There are just so many examples to choose from: Basic D&D; Runequest; Flashing Blades; Stormbringer; Gamma World; Boot Hill; Gangbusters; Top Secret; Bushido; Villains and Vigilantes; Prince Valiant; The core of classic traveller would have been about this long in a saddle-stitch, 8.5x11 format. I could go on. A couple of these are, strictly speaking, over the 100 page, 1 volume bench mark, but not by much, and they certainly meet the spirit of the idea.

I'm not sure why this model hasn't returned as part of the OSR community. Most of the systems people use that actually consist of new material (i.e., as opposed to obviously reproduced/repackaged old games) are much longer. There is definitely a niche here that should be filled.

Quote from: Larsdangly;862858I'm not sure why this model hasn't returned as part of the OSR community. Most of the systems people use that actually consist of new material (i.e., as opposed to obviously reproduced/repackaged old games) are much longer. There is definitely a niche here that should be filled.

Well lets take the example of the DCC RPG or ACKS. What would it take to cut it down either to 64 pages?

It not that I don't get the point. I feel that some of these games could trim a lot from the page count and still be what they are. However I am skeptical that they could remain the same game if either were designed to fit 64 pages.

Quote from: estar;862860Well lets take the example of the DCC RPG or ACKS. What would it take to cut it down either to 64 pages?

It not that I don't get the point. I feel that some of these games could trim a lot from the page count and still be what they are. However I am skeptical that they could remain the same game if either were designed to fit 64 pages.

I think DCC is a good example here. It could absolutely be presented as a fun, visually appealing ~100 page saddle stitched book. The major thing you would have to condense is the use of tables for spells and crits. And you might remove or condense one or two of the sub-systems (luck, patrons, etc.). I'm sure it sounds implausible given that we are talking about a 5-fold reduction. But I'm convinced it could be done well. Ask yourself how many of those 500 pages you really use during a gaming session.

OSRIC's a 400-page RPG, because I wanted to offer value for money, and one 400-page book is cheaper for the customer than two 128-pagers and a 144-pager.  My perspective is that game designers should offer complete games in one book and they aim for all killer, no filler (Scot Hoover's words).  If they achieve this the page count is unimportant.

Quote from: estar;862846Consider a 64 page book of which 48 pages are rules and 16 pages are list of stuff. Versus a 96 page rulebook with the same 48 pages of rules but now with 48 pages of stuff.

Which game is more complex?

If the 48 of stuff includes ad-hoc rules for spells and monsters then it does add to the complex, or at the very least the memory load.

If the 48 pages of stuff consists basically the same thing reskinned in slightly different ways then it's padding.

Much of the problem is the current customer base. Big Thick Book = Value, even if they can't get anyone to play it with them because nobody else wants to read the damn thing or drop $40-60 on a book for a game they may not play more than a dozen times.

For retailers, shelf space = dollars so they have to profit from whatever space is allotted to RPGs and most RPGs aren't selling well enough to justify the space - of course, this is a chicken and egg thing too.

Quote from: Larsdangly;862862Ask yourself how many of those 500 pages you really use during a gaming session.

I only use a subset however the problem is that subset varies from campaign to campaign, whether I am a player or a referee as well as varying over time.

Personally I think ACKS could be written more tersely. Not there anything particularly wrong with the writing just that what it was going for could be in a more compact form that assume more gaming experience from the reader. However the way it is now means that a novice  could get going quickly with ACKS. So there is a consequence to writing it more tersely.

The DCC RPG on the other hand is pretty tight in regards to the actual text. The problem is the design and the layout inflated the page count.  And both are integral to its appeal.

Quote from: Soylent Green;862883If the 48 of stuff includes ad-hoc rules for spells and monsters then it does add to the complex, or at the very least the memory load.

What do you mean by ad-hoc rules? I am not following you on that point.

Quote from: Soylent Green;862883If the 48 pages of stuff consists basically the same thing reskinned in slightly different ways then it's padding.

No disagreement there.

Quote from: P&P;862868OSRIC's a 400-page RPG, because I wanted to offer value for money, and one 400-page book is cheaper for the customer than two 128-pagers and a 144-pager.  My perspective is that game designers should offer complete games in one book and they aim for all killer, no filler (Scot Hoover's words).  If they achieve this the page count is unimportant.

Yes, at least for me (and I'm guessing maybe for the OP) the issue with many big handbooks is that for my purposes so much of the material is 'filler'. There's a big difference between whether the essential rules are compact and simple or complex and sizable.

Something like BX D&D falls in the former category. It's not necessary to digest the pages of spells and monsters and magic items to start running the game. Something like C&S, or WotC-D&D, is more demanding; just sorting through the material to pass up minutia adds labor.