Quote from: Tod13;950277Finally, while doing character generation for another game, my players were creating characters and wanted to make sure they were good at certain things. The Players Book did not give the players enough information to know which options to pick to make sure they were good at medicine or whatever other skill they were interested in. This was by design for various reasons but evoked a lot of discussion about whether or not it was a good idea.

Out of curiosity - what was the logic behind that design decision?

The only thing I can think of is so that the players step into the unknown and go into it somewhat unprepared - but that only works for your first session or three when such is the least welcome anyway.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;950298Out of curiosity - what was the logic behind that design decision?

The only thing I can think of is so that the players step into the unknown and go into it somewhat unprepared - but that only works for your first session or three when such is the least welcome anyway.

(Remember, I'm explaining, not defending. I also may be inadvertently skewing the explanation since I really disagree with the author. )

The intent was to prevent players from gaming the system and give the GM flexibility in determining which what bonuses apply under what conditions.

The idea on gaming the system is that if people know that a dancer background gives a bonus to avoid falling or falling damage, all of a sudden you'll have a bunch of dancing adventurers. (Kind of how dumping into swimming in Rolemaster gave all sorts of ridiculous bonuses to other areas--so everyone had swimming whether it made sense for a character or not.)

The idea on GM flexibility is to prevent player complaints when the GM says "OK. Normally, your chances at picking pockets is based on your thief skill and your manual dexterity but since you are doing it during an earthquake I'm saying it is thief skill and your sense of balance." (Totally made up, fake example. LOL)

Quote from: Tod13;950310The intent was to prevent players from gaming the system and give the GM flexibility in determining which what bonuses apply under what conditions.

The idea on gaming the system is that if people know that a dancer background gives a bonus to avoid falling or falling damage, all of a sudden you'll have a bunch of dancing adventurers. (Kind of how dumping into swimming in Rolemaster gave all sorts of ridiculous bonuses to other areas--so everyone had swimming whether it made sense for a character or not.)

The idea on GM flexibility is to prevent player complaints when the GM says "OK. Normally, your chances at picking pockets is based on your thief skill and your manual dexterity but since you are doing it during an earthquake I'm saying it is thief skill and your sense of balance." (Totally made up, fake example. LOL)

So - basically rather than making an internally consistent system, he made an incomprehensible system, and he gave GM flexibility through vagueness rather that either simply not having rules or just having rules to allow said flexibility.

Gotcha.  *facepalm*

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;950287There are two simple guidelines I abide by:


Expression of mechanics needs to be consistent throughout the book.

As an example, these are the two most consistent expressions of flip mechanics in ZWEIHANDER. I use this method of expression consistently throughout the work Bold face indicates where Action or Skill is inserted:

Correct Expression #1:You may flip the results to succeed at Alchemy Tests. When you succeed, it is always considered a Critical Success.
Correct Expression #2: Whenever you attempt to tame and train Animals and Beasts, you may flip the results to succeed at Handle Animal Tests.

These are incorrect expressions. These are drawn from an earlier version where the expressions weren't consistent:

Inconsistent Expression: You flip the results to succeed Survival Tests, which are Critical Successes when you succeed.
Inconsistent Expression: When flipping the results to succeed Athletics Tests, they're Critical Successes
Inconsistent Expression: You always flip the results to succeed at Alchemy when making elixirs.
Inconsistent Expression: While Parrying flip the results to succeed Combat-based Skills.
Inconsistent Expression: Flip all results to succeed Folklore Skill Tests.

These are good examples.  You need a pretty strong mastery of the logic in grammar to really see how each of these "inconsistent expressions" could cause confusion or misinterpretations.  For example:

QuoteInconsistent Expression: You flip the results to succeed Survival Tests, which are Critical Successes when you succeed.

 
Grammatically this says: A) you always flip results (instead of giving you the option) B) "flipping" survival tests (which you must do from A) causes you to succeed automatically (rather than increasing you chances by giving you an option), and C) when you succeed (which is always, because you succeed when you flip (B), and you must flip(A)) your success is a critical.

Or, in simpler terms: "when you attempt a survival test, you always achieve a critical success" - which is clearly not the intent of the rule, even though it is what the rule says.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;950328So - basically rather than making an internally consistent system, he made an incomprehensible system, and he gave GM flexibility through vagueness rather that either simply not having rules or just having rules to allow said flexibility.

Gotcha.  *facepalm*

No. It really isn't like that. The system is actually consistent and elegant. It makes sense.
Your skill is modified by your inherent characteristics appropriate to the moment.

I think it is more related to how some people come here and ask "how do I deal with a player doing " for various values of .
And some of us here answer "don't play with jerks".

I think the game is attempting to answer that question.

I think the author is trying to munchkin-proof the system and these are aimed at handling that.
I also think they expect the GM to be on-the-ball enough to share their interpretations of the skill setup with players--I think.

Quote from: Ashakyre;950286This is basically what I'm doing. Not stuck exactly, but certainly slowed down by choosing the language within those sections.

The way it worked for me I just wrote and re-wrote over and over again. There no short cut other than to write and review often.

Blogging helped me, so perhaps try starting a blog and posting to it everyday. It could help with specific issues if you start getting comments and other feed back.

Quote from: Tod13;950332I think the author is trying to munchkin-proof the system and these are aimed at handling that.
I also think they expect the GM to be on-the-ball enough to share their interpretations of the skill setup with players--I think.

No - I got that.  It's a laudable goal to have.  I just think that it's a ham-handed way to attempt it.

The better way to do it is with proper game balance, so a munchkin can't utterly dominate the table and only be somewhat more potent than the rest of the table.  (A bit of reward for system mastery should be had.)

His method is basically blindfolding the players and having them pick skills from a hat because they can't be trusted.

As someone who enjoys playing with systems and combo-ing etc. - I'd probably find it unplayable.  (Though of note: I intentionally choose sub-par concepts to power-game and/or play support roles because I don't want to be THAT GUY.)

The good news is since these are your home rules and the author will be there at the table you can be brief and see what questions are asked when they are used.  I find it easier to start writing assuming a familiarity with RPG concepts.

Quote from: Xanther;950356The good news is since these are your home rules and the author will be there at the table you can be brief and see what questions are asked when they are used.  I find it easier to start writing assuming a familiarity with RPG concepts.

True. Except, sadly, over the years I've never even managed to get my own friends to read the entirely of my rule materials. So, trying to be better.

Another thing... it seems so obvious but I didn't do this years ago, and this is why it's good to imitate: it's so much easier to write rules when you split the book into "for players" and "for the gm" or whatever. So much easier.

A guide to writing technical style material can be found at: Eduscapes.com which m,ight help you with identifying how to improve your writing style for technical documents.

Quote from: Ashakyre;950460Another thing... it seems so obvious but I didn't do this years ago, and this is why it's good to imitate: it's so much easier to write rules when you split the book into "for players" and "for the gm" or whatever. So much easier.

Depends on the rule set. My players and I tend to like rules lite games, which few sections that might be "GM only", so breaking it up that way doesn't really matter. As always, YMMV

Quote from: Hermes Serpent;950467A guide to writing technical style material can be found at: Eduscapes.com which m,ight help you with identifying how to improve your writing style for technical documents.

Thank you!

Exactly!  I have one player who does but the others just have me explain it and the rules they need to reference (for character advancement or such) they like in tables/bullet pointed.  I write out rules that are mostly for me to help me be consistent.  What I do write up are spells and magic items just so I have the stats handy.  I've been 100% homebrew since at least 1994

I've a very old school approach to rules, i.e., not every situation is mapped out with a modifier, no complex movement or other rules.   (I did go through the complex rule phase as many of us did in the late 80s) Basically you figure out what you want to try we figure out a difficulty and a roll is made using the mechanics; whatever they may be.   A goodly amount of common sense, fairplay, life experience, and advanced scientific education allows us to fill in gaps.

Quote from: estar;950275Take the table of contents from a RPG book that you consider to be an outstanding rulebook. Modify it then add notes for subsections and focus on writing a few to get a feel for how you want your voice to be. Then tackle the whole book. The idea is that you start off write about say the human race, equipment, and physical actions. Short sections that can be done quickly and re-written quickly until you are happy with the result. Then you start writing the whole book.

This is very close to what I would have said.