Assuming we even have a particular writing style, most of us are probably stuck with what we've got. Writers write a certain way because that's just how they write. Of course, self-conscious changes in one's writing style could be made. I, for one, am pretty happy with what I'm stuck with, but am still curious about what my fellow gamers prefer.
So, which of the three do you fancy and why? To put it another way, what does your favorite RPG author sound like?
1) Dry, to the point, matter of fact.
2) Casual, informal, like a conversation.
3) Lyrical prose, whimsical, literary avant-garde
Aside from confused and grammatically terrible writing, can you guys think of a 4th or even 5th category?
VS
p.s. Bonus preference question - terse or verbose?
I prefer rules to be to the point and easy to reference. So, there's another category you could put down- ease of reference.
There's tons of wargames that are written well, cover more ground than rpg's, are easy to reference and are low on page count.
Terse, really terse.
I''ve been on a terse is beautiful kick for a while. When I set out to write Cyberblues City one of priorites was to aim for a sort laconic with just a touch of dry humour style of writing. Short sentences, imperative tone (implied "you" when providing instructions), no justification or apology for the rules presented sprinkled here with a funny or plain strange detail to catch the reader off guard.
In practice it isn't really a one size fits all sort of proposition. Terse worded well for Cyberblues City as the tone complements the game. It also conditioned me to keep the rules simple; forcing me to think on the line of if I found it took a lot of words to descibe a mechanic then maybe is wasn't the right mechanic for this game. That isn't going to be the case for all games.
But in short, terse is beautiful.
I can tell you what I DON'T like.
I hate it when the rules are presented by a character or characters "explaining the world." West End Games Star Wars 2nd Edition did this, as did High Medieval.
Don't do that.
Clear, and direct (active voice as much as possible), with fluffy parts out of the way (in sidebars).
These days, I like well-organized point form for anything game-related that I may want to look at before play to remind me of some rule, or that I will reference during play. There can be a paragraph or two afterwards to explain the points that I won't have read more than once. Examples are nice too, but separated out in a side-bar or something.
For example, in an adventure module I'd like to see points that:
* outline what is in the room/scene
* how it relates to neighbouring rooms/scenes
* any stats.
* Then a paragraph of text that shouldn't contain anything I'll need immediately at the table.
Quick and to the point. The idea behind rules is that they are an information dump which is a requirement to play the game. They should be designed so you spend minimal time reading, leaving more time for play.
No wisecracks (like you see in "For DUMMIES" books).
No sidebars (like you see in GURPS books).
No Mojo Jojo.
No text walls
No cartoon art.
No placeholder art.
No SJW verbiage.
Proper use of page margins/indenting/justifying/layout/font for text.
If it takes more than a paragraph to explain a rule, lose the rule.
There needs to be example GM/players/characters using the rules, showing some quick role-play examples as well (just a couple sentences needed for each example, not walls of text).
The Serenity RPG is a good example.
Rules/instructions fall into the technical writing genre. Be clear and concise. Be well organized. Have a robust layout. Since 95% of your audience are likely already gamers, you can cut out a lot of cruft
Modules/adventures do benefit from strong presentations of atmosphere so there is room in those for more literary/artistic experimentation. However, when it comes to running said module/scenario you'll still have to fall back on your tech writing chops to increase playability and tabletop enjoyment.
It's like a good cook book. It tells you how to make the food, and doesn't waste time telling you about the pleasures of the meal you haven't eaten yet.
Oh and Designer's Notes as an appendix. I love those. Not instruction, exegesis. Let me into your head. I actually don't think enough game writers do this anymore.
Depends on the game. The tone should suit the setting or genre. I really enjoyed having Spider-Man and the Thing explain the rules in the old TSR Marvel Super Heroes game.
Terse vs. verbose: use only as many words as needed to clearly convey information.
Also please use examples to illustrate rules and if you're using art have the pictures match what is being discussed on that page. Too many books have art that makes no sense for the pages the images are on.
And study Strunk & White before writing.
I also think a casual voice is ok if the text theatens to get too dry. But not so casual as to interfere with instruction. Light touches of humour are welcome, especially in descriptions/examples of play. That can be gold.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;960389No wisecracks.
No sidebars.
No Mojo Jojo.
No text walls
No cartoon art.
No placeholder art.
No SJW verbiage.
Proper use of page margins/indenting/justifying/layout/font for text.
If it takes more than a paragraph to explain a rule, lose the rule.
There needs to be example GM/players/characters using the rules, showing some quick role-play examples as well (just a couple sentences needed for each example, not walls of text).
So much this.
As long as the writer engages my interest and I feel like I want to keep reading, they can use whatever style they want. I think most designers would be better served ignoring the social media hive mind on matters of style and just find a voice that fits their personality.
Quote from: VengerSatanis;960376Assuming we even have a particular writing style, most of us are probably stuck with what we've got. Writers write a certain way because that's just how they write. Of course, self-conscious changes in one's writing style could be made. I, for one, am pretty happy with what I'm stuck with, but am still curious about what my fellow gamers prefer.
So, which of the three do you fancy and why? To put it another way, what does your favorite RPG author sound like?
1) Dry, to the point, matter of fact.
2) Casual, informal, like a conversation.
3) Lyrical prose, whimsical, literary avant-garde
I'd say #2 - and your style is definitely a favourite of mine, off-hand I'd say Gygax's writing is the only one I definitely like better. Like Aaron Allston (very different) and Mike Pondsmith BitD, you have one of those styles that is a big factor in me buying your stuff.
I generally like a concise style for rules reference, eg Moldvay Basic is a deserved classic. Paizo verbosity is generally offputting but can work in eg campaign setting guides meant to be read more for inspiration than reference - it works in their Inner Sea World Guide, but not in the individual city guides when I am using them during a session to look stuff up.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;960402As long as the writer engages my interest and I feel like I want to keep reading, they can use whatever style they want. I think most designers would be better served ignoring the social media hive mind on matters of style and just find a voice that fits their personality.
This and I would add, if you're going to use art to give a feel for what you're trying to explain whether it be concept or setting, be consistent.
To the point. But make it clear what you mean. Dont use jargon, trendy buzzwords or especially MMO terms.
For rules clarity and brevity are ideal but a conversational tone can easily accomodate those virtues.
OK, my answer predicates on the fact that clarity of expression is considered a no-brainer. I thought that was implied in the OP's question.
Fruity writing in a book designed to teach a set of rules is objectively bad, because you're running the risk of confusing the reader. Even with the clearest and cleanest writing, you run that risk. Lord knows I've misread way too much in my life, and a lot of the time it's mine own fault, but the book had better not be contributing to that.
For the rules themselves, they should be reasonably succinct but still cover examples and fill in blatant loopholes.
For setting stuff more flowerly writing can work fine.
Unlike some here - I like sidebars sometimes if they're used for fluff relevant to the rules and/or designer notes etc. That way they get to add to the vibe of the book without cluttering up the rules themselves too much.
Honestly? They all have their advantages.
Whimsical writing works better for making me want to play the game.
Matter-of-factly writing works better for telling me how to play the game.
Casual writing works better for providing an overall idea of what the game is supposed to be all about, both in concept and execution, but also tends to be fuzzy on the details for both.
So I guess my ideal game would come in three different versions, with easy cross-referencing between them. :p
Quote from: Baeraad;960472Whimsical writing works better for making me want to play the game.
Matter-of-factly writing works better for telling me how to play the game.
And RPGs texts are unique in that they need to be
both, but what works for one often gets in the way of the other.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;960447For the rules themselves, they should be reasonably succinct but still cover examples and fill in blatant loopholes.
For setting stuff more flowerly writing can work fine.
Unlike some here - I like sidebars sometimes if they're used for fluff relevant to the rules and/or designer notes etc. That way they get to add to the vibe of the book without cluttering up the rules themselves too much.
Quote from: Baeraad;960472Honestly? They all have their advantages.
Whimsical writing works better for making me want to play the game.
Matter-of-factly writing works better for telling me how to play the game.
Casual writing works better for providing an overall idea of what the game is supposed to be all about, both in concept and execution, but also tends to be fuzzy on the details for both.
So I guess my ideal game would come in three different versions, with easy cross-referencing between them. :p
I like these. The main body of rules should be simply and straight forwardly written. But I have no objection to short, well delineated, prose or sidebars that use a different tone, as long as skipping those sections doesn't make you lose information. (It is "well delineated" so I know I can skip it.) In other words, use sidebars to elaborate on the rules or give examples, so it can be referenced for explanations of the rules. But the main rules body should stand alone.
I'm going to defend the sidebar (or at least the topical subsection, regardless of form). Some things really should be in a 'see here if you need to understand _____' section. That annoying 'what is an RPG' section that the 95% of purchasers don't need, but honestly serves an important purpose? Put it in a little half page subsection with a nice little title and border around it that identifies it to the 95% is imminently ignorable. Need a section on subdual-type damage in your sword and sorcery game where 99% of the fights use lethal damage? Nice little side bar titled 'bar brawls and fistfights.'
When I first sit down to read some new rulebook I want something closer to the conversational tone... with a touch of whimsy. This isn't a science textbook (though maybe some science textbooks could benefit from a bit of fun).
Once I've read the rulebook, though, I don't want the entertaining read anymore... I want a quick reference doled out in terse bits of clear information. No whit, no fluff or philosophy of gaming.
If I have to pick, I'll opt for the terser - more matter of fact tone.
Also, agreed on books that present their information 'in character'. One of the few things I did NOT like about the Tribe 8 books.
For me it depends on the type of information being conveyed. If it's procedural stuff, manipulating quantities and the order of operations, I want clear, cut & dried.
If the content is about conveying a decision-making lens (like how to adjudicate combat in Amber) or the desired tone of play, I prefer conversational.
I agree with the comment that rules are technical writing, and should be very succinct. The more prosaic the style, the more ambiguous the rules.
For examples text, a more conversational tone is fine, as it mimics the manner in which one might verbally explain to your group how things play out.
Quote from: Krimson;960385Quick and to the point. The idea behind rules is that they are an information dump which is a requirement to play the game. They should be designed so you spend minimal time reading, leaving more time for play.
What if you weren't reading RPG rules, but something else... like an adventure?
Quote from: S'mon;960407I'd say #2 - and your style is definitely a favourite of mine, off-hand I'd say Gygax's writing is the only one I definitely like better. Like Aaron Allston (very different) and Mike Pondsmith BitD, you have one of those styles that is a big factor in me buying your stuff.
I generally like a concise style for rules reference, eg Moldvay Basic is a deserved classic. Paizo verbosity is generally offputting but can work in eg campaign setting guides meant to be read more for inspiration than reference - it works in their Inner Sea World Guide, but not in the individual city guides when I am using them during a session to look stuff up.
Thanks, hoss! My tentacles are blushing a very special shade of green. ;)
Thanks for all your responses! I enjoyed reading them and, hopefully, learned a thing or two about your preferences.
VS
Quote from: VengerSatanis;960605What if you weren't reading RPG rules, but something else... like an adventure?
Then you'd want to be informative, but I would still prefer concise. The little narration boxes that are intended to be read to the players are something different, as by their nature they are narrative. With an adventure, it is a tool which a DM/GM uses to provide entertainment to the Players and by proxy and schadenfreude the DM. Descriptions of the adventure setting and encounters do not need to have colorful narration. They should be easy to find and clear to read. In my opinion, if you want to be narrative, then those sections should be bounded in boxes in sidebars (for fluff) or in the case of adventure description intended to be in character knowledge right in with the main text. You can even have an entire page in a fancy bounding box of narrative material. Personally, I am not a big fan of too much narration, as any adventure rarely stays on the rails for long so NPCs might change plans or strategies or even loyalties depending on what happens.
The idea of keeping narrative and in character material in boxes is mostly for convenience. When running an adventure, sometimes you have to flip through pages quickly especially if things go sideways, which they do. Also, those neat little boxes work as subconscious reference points, "The section I need is on the page with the little box on the lower left" sort of thing. This is just an aesthetic preference though. I don't like too much clutter in the game and pages of narrative elements often get ignored unless I am paying particular attention to the lore of the setting. Mostly I want to be able to quickly pick out important information.
One place where a more narrative tone may work is in actual descriptions of people, places and things. You can still have in character descriptive bounded boxes as well as other crucial information for the DM. Including small samples of dialogue could work with NPCs, especially important ones like Nobles and Royalty who may have certain mannerisms that make them memorable. Enough information should be there so the DM can represent them appropriately. Not all NPCs need to be fleshed out, there's no reason to have minimal descriptions on minor ones. They'll get fleshed out if they need to be.
Really though, to me a game product is primarily an information dump and framework on which to hang your games. A module/adventure is something that you plug into it, which is what they have always been. First and foremost the information the DM/GM needs to run that setting and/or adventure should be easy to navigate. As for writing style, I think the best thing to do is to write how you speak, as if you were trying to explain it to someone in as few words possible because you want to start playing soon. :D
If it was me, I'd just write everything that comes to mind, often in bullet points. The creative process is meant to be creative, so just write what you want. It's the editing part that's brutal. I dunno. That's just my opinion. I buy storygames too so your mileage may vary. :D
No votes for comic book rules? Was it the He-Man game that did that?
High pitched and nasal, copiously pedantic, and a souçon of preachy moralism. :p
Quote from: Opaopajr;960626High pitched and nasal, copiously pedantic, and a souçon of preachy moralism. :p
I'd love a Black Adder RPG.
Rules I would suggest as models:
- Moldvay/Cook/Metnzer
- Greg Costikyan
- Greg Stafford
- Sandy Petersen
- Steve Perrin
Very different in style but a very good example of the conversational style: Ken St. Andre
Setting information should be in a tone that suits the intended feel of the setting; many different sorts of writing can be appropriate here, so long as the writing is comprehensible. A perfect example of the failure of this is Graceful Wicked Masks, from Exalted. I have a reading level rated "beyond doctoral," and read antiquated works like The Sceptical Chymyst or high-flown works such as The Books of the New Sun simply for enjoyment or interest. I found the book all but incomprehensible; getting any sense out of it required a good dozen reading, and that is simply absurd. Rules information should be clear and concise. Technical writing is appropriate here, a lesson Exalted could stand to learn.
I'm not exactly sure what my tone is (I hope maybe something along the lines of 'interesting History book'). I know I really dislike text that tries very hard to be cool or hip or edgy.
Crisp is preferred, but pseudo-historical writing is boring unless you're using common parlance and colloquialism to bring it back to earth. That's how you connect to readers.
Quote from: RPGPundit;961555I'm not exactly sure what my tone is (I hope maybe something along the lines of 'interesting History book'). I know I really dislike text that tries very hard to be cool or hip or edgy.
From the Arrows of Indra preview I'd say "interesting History book" or even "interesting anthropology book" is a good description.
Quote from: Tod13;961695From the Arrows of Indra preview I'd say "interesting History book" or even "interesting anthropology book" is a good description.
Good! Mission accomplished, then.