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.

This is my feeling although I would state it as "Take whatever amount of words to get the point of design across to the reader but no more.".

Quote from: estar;862916What do you mean by ad-hoc rules? I am not following you on that point.

My guess is that what's meant are guidelines that obviate encyclopedic listings, as with spells in Maelstrom or monsters in Tunnels & Trolls.

Those are intentionally very simple examples, but at the opposite extreme if you've got Champions then you've got a system for writing up anything (and giving it a point value as well).

Quote from: Phillip;862918Yes, 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.

My group has been playing Fantasy Age by Green Ronin. When I read the rulebook, I started rolling my eyes at all the filler. To be honest it not bad but I read so many rulebooks I just want to deal with the important points.

So after the first read. I took my Fantasy Age PDF and cut and pasted everything into bullet lists so I don't have to deal with the filler fluff.

Quote from: estar;862919This is my feeling although I would state it as "Take whatever amount of words to get the point of design across to the reader but no more.".

I've read some of your stuff Estar, and you have a knack for keeping things short and to the point.  It'd be nice if more rpg writers could work on doing the same.

Organization definitely makes a difference. Chaosium's Elric! book did a very good job with sections such as the two-page spread for the character generation sequence and the Spot Rules for Combat. Monsters and characters from the saga got large write-ups, while stats for mundane beasts were consolidated on a single page. It was really convenient all around, but seemed chock full for such a slender volume (the page count of which I forget).

The 1st ed. Harnmaster I have is a bit more densely packed than is probably ideal (though much better than 1st ed. C&S). The scope and complexity of the game systems is another matter; if those are not what one wants, then layout probably won't change that view.

It is easy to argue for a big game and against a small equivalent because there is so much more 'stuff' in the former (spells, monsters, gear, classes, items, etc.), and people like stuff. But I think there is a trade off here - when you go from a list of 10 first level spells to 100 you haven't really made your game 10 times better. It is even possible you have made it worse when it comes to real play, because everyone at the table understands the 10 spells and knows how they should be used in the game, whereas no one understands the 100 spells. I think the examples of Runequest, Tunnels and Trolls and a few other games bear this out: the original games were tight little things with short, punchy lists of all the basic 'stuff'. Those volumes remain arguably the best articulation of their respective systems, and never felt small or limited when they were the in-print editions.

Quote from: estar;862846I 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.

Correct. But some players seem to throw everything in together. On other fora theres been touted more than once as how "broken" D&D is by solemnly citing that the chargen rules are half the book. Because they are including ALL the spells and ALL the equipment. Yeah riiiiight.

BX has about 70 pages of actual rules. (Some of that is more like advice. But will count it too) The rest is spells, monsters, examples. That out of about 120 odd pages. 5e Basic is around 80 pages of rules out of about 170. Though trimming some of the padding could get it down to 70 maybee.

Quote from: Spinachcat;862891Much 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.

Yep.  I've turned down a couple campaigns in recent years on this alone: that if you can't guarantee to me that you're going to run a long-term campaign, and you can't guarantee to me that I'm going to like the system and the result, I'm not inclined to master the damn multi-hundred page core rules.

Someone plopping a 50-page corebook in front of me doesn't have nearly as much of a hard sell.

Quote from: Ravenswing;862978Yep.  I've turned down a couple campaigns in recent years on this alone: that if you can't guarantee to me that you're going to run a long-term campaign, and you can't guarantee to me that I'm going to like the system and the result, I'm not inclined to master the damn multi-hundred page core rules.

In your view, is system mastery necessary to play a game?

Quote from: Bren;863026In your view, is system mastery necessary to play a game?

For myself, understanding the system is necessary, which is probably "mastery" of some sort. The other issue is paying $20+ (I used a lower amount than the $40-50 previously mentioned, since I only buy PDFs) for something new that may not last past one session and that I may not even like.

Quote from: Tod13;863036For myself, understanding the system is necessary, which is probably "mastery" of some sort. The other issue is paying $20+ (I used a lower amount than the $40-50 previously mentioned, since I only buy PDFs) for something new that may not last past one session and that I may not even like.

If initial mastery is as much a non-issue as it was in my 1970s-80s experience, then price of book is irrelevant because one isn't buying the book just to play (as opposed to set up and referee a game).

The flip side for me is that any sense of needing to know (or look up) those gory details just to be a player raises the bar, making it less likely that I'll be interested. The more I've got to digest, the bigger the hurdle.

This is not necessarily a direct correlation with page count. The rule book for Squad Leader or Rise and Decline of the Third Reich is compact because it's densely packed. In the case of SL, the "programmed instruction" presentation is in there because trying to play with all the rules the first time might be too much -- and we're talking about a target audience mainly of already experienced hobby gamers.

I recently bought into the Kickstarter The Others: 7 Sins. It looks like its gonna be an awesome game and I love the minis. The late pledge is still open if you are interested.

It has a 24 page rulebook. For a boardgame, that's HUGE.

I was slogging through it when I realized that is this was a RPG, it would be TEN TIMES as large at minimum, probably closer to TWENTY TIMES bigger.

Even as RPGer, I can't honestly say that x10 or x20 bigger is going to create x2 more fun for players.

WTF, I'm gonna put my dick on the line. I am going to cut down my game and try to keep it under 100 pages. WTF, let's see if there is any interest in smaller, tighter RPGs.

I've been smelling fluff in my draft, so I'm gonna get medieval on its ass and see how much I can really chop and keep it equally interesting. Boil it down to a thick sauce instead of a soup.

And keep it a very readable font. No micro text bullshit.

Wish me vodka.

Quote from: Bren;863026In your view, is system mastery necessary to play a game?

Depends on the game. Some games have higher player expectations for complex  input, whereas others rely on finesse of simpler controls. The former require system mastery to even function, IME, whereas the latter requires game mastery to reach higher states of play.

One of my favorite examples is the general button inflation for video games over the decades. Many companies coming from an arcade background retained the art of finessing smaller pool of controls. Whereas many console or pc only companies bloated controller input for baseline functioning. Or worse, "simplified it" into a longer input chain, but making it formulaic than modular.

I miss old SEGA games now... I miss when timing of basic moves into greater play mastery was a thing. It's like the RPG good ol' days when an adventurer was still dangerous with a sack of flour and an imagination versus charm/feat/PrC chain combos.

Magic Realm clocked in at 80 odd pages for a board game. Got a couple clocking in around 25. Depends on the board game. MR was pretty robust for a board game. Few board games have the scope of an RPG. Even the ones that have RPG-like elements tend to distill it down to one focus. As with any game. The more you want to do with the game. The more rules may end up needed. Or not.

TSR seemed to have a good system down of introducing more and more complex rules in stages with each expansion.