Sett and Elliott were talking about mixing of designers' notes and actual rules in rulebooks, which got me thinking along a tangent: which games are written in a prose style which set your teeth on edge?

For me, it's Dogs In the Vineyard. Not because of the fat dollops of RPG theory, but because Vincent Baker writes like he's trying to be my friend or something. He'll be explaining some rule, and then say at the end "Cool, huh?"

Sorry, Vincent, but that kind of writing stinks of insincerity to me. You're not my pal sitting next to me reading the rules out loud, and no amount of asides will convince me that you are. (What's more, it's up to me, the reader, to decide whether your rule is cool or not in my view. You can't make me like a crappy rule just because you're enthusiastic about it.)

That's actually how it's written? :eek:

I've seen this come up before, on other boards, but it doesn't really bother me. Like, I'm not the one to become enthused because someone else is, but Vincent is obviously pumped about his own game and I'm glad to see that.

The only writing that really kills me is technically bad writing. Like, when I can't figure out what the rules mean because they're so obscure. All the rest, I can keep or leave as I want.

I think the best example of this is Luke Crane's Burning Wheel. I like the prose in there, but it really pisses other people off. I just don't mind when the author puts themselves in the game book. I mean, Gygax did, so there's really some long standing precident.

Quote from: Thanatos02I think the best example of this is Luke Crane's Burning Wheel. I like the prose in there, but it really pisses other people off. I just don't mind when the author puts themselves in the game book. I mean, Gygax did, so there's really some long standing precident.

I have absolutely no problem with Burning Wheel, actually, mainly because Luke does a very good job of flagging when he's expressing his personal opinions. Similarly, Gygax's famous rants never cropped up smack in the middle of explaining a rule.

Baker, meanwhile, seems to make no distinction between his "rules voice" and his "discussion voice". He'll explain a rule and then get hot and bothered about how awesome it is in the same sentence.

I despise the prose in Savage Worlds, with billy-the-skull or whatever the fuck his name is.  Frankly, that's a huge part of why I dislike the game so much (otherwise I'd just find it mediocre).

RPGPundit

In general, constant authorial commentary is almost always a sign that the author feels something's missing.

The problem with the Are We Having Fun Yet approach is that ostentatious fun is a fun killer. I was just about to think, gee this is a cool rule, but then the author asked me, look here Pierce now isn't this cool? Well no, now that you ask it isn't, though sadly enough it might have been had you STFU.

Designer's notes are good, though.

One thing i hate, and Fading Suns was awful here, is the infodump bakground that reads like a linear crawl: "then this happened, then that happened, then this happened, then that happened, repeat until drained of life". Ugh.

Quote from: RPGPunditI despise the prose in Savage Worlds, with billy-the-skull or whatever the fuck his name is.  Frankly, that's a huge part of why I dislike the game so much (otherwise I'd just find it mediocre).

RPGPundit

What, Smiling Jack?  Yeah.  Hate that guy.

Quote from: Thanatos02The only writing that really kills me is technically bad writing. Like, when I can't figure out what the rules mean because they're so obscure. All the rest, I can keep or leave as I want.

I think the best example of this is Luke Crane's Burning Wheel. I like the prose in there, but it really pisses other people off. I just don't mind when the author puts themselves in the game book. I mean, Gygax did, so there's really some long standing precident.

My problem with Burning Wheel is different. Luke Crane's prose doesn't piss me off, at all. I didn't find anything offensive there. My gripe is that I found the rules hard to understand. After struggling with some of the rules and finally understanding them, I realized they're not so complex as they seemed to be. I can't accuse Luke of bad writing, but I feel there's something there that made my understanding of the rules slow down.

Generally, if I know what the hell the guy is trying to say, I don't give a rat's arse about the prose. I'm not buying a pulitzer prize winning piece of literature, I'm buying a game manual.

Quote from: RPGPunditI despise the prose in Savage Worlds, with billy-the-skull or whatever the fuck his name is.

Signed. There are some nice ideas in SW, but the pseudo-jovial sidebar comments from the lich-clown are the worst  game prose I've ever read.

Reminds me always of a cheap imitation of the tone of the CP2020 playing advice.

Quote from: JohnnyWannabeI'm not buying a pulitzer prize winning piece of literature, I'm buying a game manual.

This thread over at Story Games is discussing that topic right now, by the way.

Quote from: GrimGentThis thread over at Story Games is discussing that topic right now, by the way.

I can appreciate an interesting read, just like the OP in that thread can. What I don't want, however, is a bunch of confusing, flowery prose, passed off as good literature. I want mechanics (and a setting) that I can understand, not a compilation of sonnets or an epic.

Quote from: JohnnyWannabeI can appreciate an interesting read, just like the OP in that thread can. What I don't want, however, is a bunch of confusing, flowery prose, passed off as good literature. I want mechanics (and a setting) that I can understand, not a compilation of sonnets or an epic.

Now there's a thought... I've sometimes toyed with the notion of writing a simple but complete RPG into a short story, but a sonnet would be a bit more of a challenge.

I've blocked the name of the game, but there's at least one game out there sprinkled with phrases like "it's really rather simple" or "this elegant solution." The first is either a blatant lie told to try to convince the reader that something complex isn't really all that complicated, or it's synonymous with "now that I've dumbed it down for you, it should be easy to understand." The second is self-serving backpatting that may ot may not be true, but should be left for the reader to judge.