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. :D
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. :D
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. :D
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 (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=3210&page=1#Item_0) is discussing that topic right now, by the way.
Quote from: GrimGentThis thread over at Story Games (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=3210&page=1#Item_0) 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.
I found the prose in Nobilis to be distracting. I guess that for some people it help set the mood, but not for me. On the flip side, some of the best flavor text I remember reading comes from the Shadowrun 2E supplements, where the book would list a description (of an organization, weapons, vehicle, etc.) and then other shadowrunners would chime in with their own thoughts and experiences. I thought that was an awesome way to convey information.
Pete
Quote from: ClaudiusAfter 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,
Well, you
can accuse him of bad writing.
See, there's "knowing how to do something" and then there's "knowing how to teach it someone else." Roleplaying game books are texbooks for that roleplaying game. They're written to teach you how to do it. Some people do that well, some badly.
So that's a prose style that annoys me - muddled and vague. I got the same with
HeroQuest - they were so busy babbling on about how awesome the game was and telling us exactly how we should play it, that a lot of how to play it was pretty fucking vague.
But what
really annoys me are self-contradictory things. Like in
Unknown Armies, the first part of the combat chapter is, "try not to kill people because it's nasty." Okay, fair enough - they're telling us that real people are reluctant to kill for good reasons, so if you want to roleplay a real person, you should keep that in mind. Works for me.
But then they give us 72 different firearms and 25 different types of ammunition. So it's "guns and killing are bad, but here are 97 different ways of doing it!" Contrast this with their giving us only 25 defined example skills - they say they don't want to restrict our imaginations by just giving us a strict list of skills.
"Killing is wrong and you should focus on character not on killing stuff, but we'll give you more example guns than skills." Yeah, okay. I guess this is another kind of vagueness - how do they
really think we should play the game - with lots of skill use, or lots of roleplaying, or lots of killing? They ought to make up their mind.
Absolutely: Game writers that start preaching to you are bad. Games that do so and then turn around and massively emphasize the very things they were preaching against are a thousand times worse.
RPGPundit
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).
Amen. It was annoying, juvenile and very, very unconvincing.
I hate it that practically every White Wolf books has a short story-length section of flavor text before they actually get to any game mechanics in their books.
Whats worse is when they print it on an artsy-fartsy overly cute moody angsty background in such a way that its impossible to read the text .
Almost as bad : text fonts that try so hard to loook OOH COOL!! - that they are impossible to read.
- Ed C.
i've long given up reading all that. Exalted was far too full of it.
Blue Rose
I read it thinking that I'd write a review that never happened. The introductory story is what caught my attention as it had a white stag (IIRC?) step out of a stained glass window to pick the next Queen. Now, if this had happened with just about any fantasy group I've gamed with, the white stag would have been shot through the head with an arrow while Igor the Longbowman shouts, "Magic venison for everyone!"
Quote from: KoltarI hate it that practically every White Wolf books has a short story-length section of flavor text before they actually get to any game mechanics in their books.
Whats worse is when they print it on an artsy-fartsy overly cute moody angsty background in such a way that its impossible to read the text .
Almost as bad : text fonts that try so hard to loook OOH COOL!! - that they are impossible to read.
- Ed C.
Speaking as a born-again White Wolf fan, this still bugs me and I can't agree more. At least Exalted 2nd had the decency to make the fiction into comics. Really very bad comics, but easier to read.
Quote from: KoltarI hate it that practically every White Wolf books has a short story-length section of flavor text before they actually get to any game mechanics in their books.
In my case, it's quite the opposite: if I were to crack open an RPG and see nothing but flowcharts or lists of detailed rules for every possible occasion, I'd be likely to put the book back on the shelf without spending another thought on it. That flavour text gives me a feel for the setting that the system alone naturally enough couldn't, and I value inspiration more than mechanics. (The quality of prose in the WW games varies, of course.
Mage 2e had a nice intro, I always thought.)
There's this section in Heroes Unlimited 2nd edition that always bugged me where Kevin Siembieda goes off on a rant about how he didn't want to include the "Mega Hero" rules in the game. It comes off like he's trying to scold you or something. After saying that he didn't personally want them in the game, he goes on to imply that only knuckle dragging mouth breathers would want to use a Mega Hero, but he's going to go ahead and provide the rules here because enough people whined about it for him to include it.
Since already I'm on the topic of Siembieda, another thing he does that annoys me is all of the shameless plugs for other Palladium products he manages to work into each and every book. I don't mind a little promotion, but over the course of reading an average Palladium book, I think they try to point you towards an unusually high amount of supplemental material.
Quote from: GrimGentNow 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.
14 lines only! Iambic pentameters, if you follow the traditional English model! A challenge, indeed! That gaunlet is thrown. Get to work!:)
I think at the core of it, is that different gamers get fired up differently. Some people really love the 'atmosphere first' rule that WW games tend to have, some want them to read like instruction manuals (which is a point of view I've heard on RPG.net, not here). Some want no authorial intrusion, and some get fired up by it. Some want a middle ground, some have specific likes and dislikes on the layout. (Story second, after character creation rules, but before setting flowcharts.)
It's enough to make my head spin - really, I'm trying to finish up my role-playing setting, and I don't have a clue how to lay it out, and how much flavor text to add. I've been trained as a writer, so I know what I write isn't really awful, but I don't want to put people off, either.
I know what does get on my nerves isn't the prose of WW but their awful layout. It is not easy for a beginner who doesn't know the character generation process to make one in those games. This is a layout issue, but I have a might bone to pick with the people who did it for Exalted. I love the game, but making a character is made harder - not easier - by the book.
So, whatever books prose makes it harder to play, I don't like. I haven't seen many, but I'll think on it.