Can we go back to smaller books?

[Umbran]

There's a lot of over explanantion, white space, repetition and just plain bloat.

I think you are undervaluing white space. The human system of perception does not at all deal well with huge, dense blocks of text. White space can be crucial to making a book usable.

As for the explanation and repetition - while you are correct that it could be removed, removing it may not exactly help the users - sure, it's complete and short, but some folks may be left not understanding what they're supposed to be doing.

"Just plain bloat" is not well-defined, so we can't really address it.

Overall, there remains a major question (that should often be asked of mad scientists) - whether or not you can do it, should you do it? It makes the book smaller, sure. And maybe you personally don't need the extra stuff that would need to be expunged. But maybe they are good for the broader market.

And, really, what is gained by making the book smaller, other than less back strain from lugging them around?

 

[Celebrim]

"Rules light" has nothing to do with it. Reducing the page count of 3E to 200 pages would not necessitate the reduction of its complexity in the slightest -- it would merely require the streamlining of the presentation of the rules and the reduction of the number of examples of certain features (10 pages of traps can be reduced to 1 page quite easily -- it's basically what 4E's Page 42 does).

If you think you can do it, then you are welcome to try.

I should note that I've been trying to do something similar for 2 years now, but perhaps you'll find it easier than I have.

 

[Reynard]

And as for my example, that's exactly why I rejected the D&D basic rules as incomplete at the time. Now you seem to be arguing against my experience and trying to suggest to me it didn't happen.

Not at all my intent.

D&D set arbitrary restrictions on what was possible that did not seem to conform to the game world they described (or at least, which I wanted to describe, though at the time I probably wouldn't have seen these as separate ideas). A game which couldn't describe the world I was trying to describe was incomplete. This was assumed, and was the driving force behind the creation of systems which would be capable of describing every possible world (or so it was hoped). D&D did not seem to me capable of describing a generic fantasy world (no elvish clerics among other things). Hense, the near immediate adoption of AD&D which seemed (at the time and for alot of reasons) to be 'a more complete rules set'.

Perhaps the issue is conflating "complete" with "broad". D&D has always taken work on the part of the DM and players to make it anything broader than a dungeon adventure game -- even during the 2E days when adventures and supplments extolled intrigue and romance, the rules still supported dungeon delves the most (except the distinct lack of a dungeon section in the DMG -- which was odd). D&D, any edition, isn't "incomplete" because it has a particular focus, any more than Monopoly is incomplete because there are no rules for character advancement.

Again the issue isn't how big D&D can get. We know it can get big -- really, really big if we start adding up all the supplementary rules that are "missing" from the core. The issue is that it doesn't need to be big to be either D&D or a complete game, and we know this because it has been in the past.

I argue that given sufficient editorial care, 3.x, 4E, pathfinder or even HackMaster 4E could be produced "complete" in 200 pages or less.

 

[coyote6]

I think the D&D rules could be shorter -- but to be significantly shorter, they would have to be either of a sort that I think would feel incomplete or lacking to me, or not much like D&D as it is or has been (e.g., you could cut out spells and powers and replace them with some sort of effects-based power system -- but the sacred cows would be stacked so high, the Internet might explode ).

 

[Reynard]

And, really, what is gained by making the book smaller, other than less back strain from lugging them around?

Again, this thread stemmed from me looking at the Pathfinder Core book and being filled with dispair. It's just too damn big. Finding anything in there is going to be a pain. lugging it to the game is going to be a pain. Passing it around the table is going to be a pain. Comparatively, my AD&D PHB is light as a feather.

But this has bugged me for some time. Why, I ask, is the 3E PHB so much bigger? So I look. Sure, there's feats and skills and more spells, but those shouldn't account for the massive size difference. To be certain of this fact, i grab my 2E PHB (about the same size as the 3E one and significantly larger than the 1E PHB). There's NWPs in there, but otherwise it is much the same content. Where is all the extra size coming from?

It seems -- and I haven't combed through, section by section, word by word -- to come not from an growing complexity of the rules, but rather a bloating of the text itself, an expansion of the language used to convey the rules and the layout of the book. Can it be nicer to read on the can, or easier on the eyes? Sure, but its utility as a rule book is lessened and its inconvenience in play is increased.

 

[Ourph]

"Rules light" has nothing to do with it. Reducing the page count of 3E to 200 pages would not necessitate the reduction of its complexity in the slightest -- it would merely require the streamlining of the presentation of the rules and the reduction of the number of examples of certain features (10 pages of traps can be reduced to 1 page quite easily -- it's basically what 4E's Page 42 does).

Oh, then I've been misunderstanding you. You don't want less rules, you just want them crammed into less pages. I'm still not sure I understand why it's such a big deal. Are the books too heavy? Is it too hard to find what you are looking for? If it's the latter, I found that bookmarking the PHB with those little colored sticky tabs helped me when I was running 3e.

 

[Crothian]

Again, this thread stemmed from me looking at the Pathfinder Core book and being filled with dispair. It's just too damn big. Finding anything in there is going to be a pain. lugging it to the game is going to be a pain. Passing it around the table is going to be a pain. Comparatively, my AD&D PHB is light as a feather.

Finding things in it is actually easier then 1e PHB., It is much better organized and has a great index. Pathfinder is a well put together book. Carrying it around is pretty easy but the key it to have a good enough character sheet and notes so you don't have to. We rarely have need to look in the books. But even if you have to carry it around and pass it around it will make your muscles bigger and help with your physical health!

 

[Celebrim]

Again, this thread stemmed from me looking at the Pathfinder Core book and being filled with dispair. It's just too damn big. Finding anything in there is going to be a pain. lugging it to the game is going to be a pain. Passing it around the table is going to be a pain.

Ok, I sort of sympathize with you.

Comparatively, my AD&D PHB is light as a feather.

Yes, but the 1e AD&D PHB achieves that lightness at the cost of being incomplete. Not only does it not contain the rules for play, but it has tables in it that reference rules which aren't found in the book and which are completely inexplicable to someone just reading the PHB. What are you to make of weapon quickness factors, for example, reading only the PHB. Morever, not even the rules provided for spells, which are largely laid out in the PHB are actually complete, as a quick perusal of the DMG proves. The DMG spends about 40 pages actually telling the DM how the spells work behind the scenes.

Moreover, the 1e AD&D PHB is incomplete in other ways that a modern player would deem significant. For example, by default, D&D players have come to associate 'Barbarians' with part of the D&D experience. So now you have something else part of the D&D experience you have to stuff into the core rules.

But this has bugged me for some time. Why, I ask, is the 3E PHB so much bigger?

Because it contains a whole lot more stuff. It contains both the 1e PHB and the Unearthed Arcana and material from Dragon that migrated into the core rules (like critical hits) and about 100 pages worth of rules material that had been in the 1e DMG (diseases, combat rules, etc.)

It seems -- and I haven't combed through, section by section, word by word -- to come not from an growing complexity of the rules, but rather a bloating of the text itself, an expansion of the language used to convey the rules and the layout of the book. Can it be nicer to read on the can, or easier on the eyes? Sure, but its utility as a rule book is lessened and its inconvenience in play is increased.

And I read that, and my first thought is, "There speaks someone who hasn't actually tested his theory."

 

[ExploderWizard]

RE: Completeness

[Quote-David St. Hubbins]

I don’t really think that the end can be assessed...uh as of itself as being the end because what
does the end feel like, it’s like saying when you try to extrapolate the end of the universe you say the...if the
universe is indeed infinite then how what does that mean? How far is is t...is all the way and then if it stops
what’s stoppin’ it and what’s behind what’s stoppin’ it, so what’s the end, you know, is my...question to you....[End quote]

So where does it end? ​

 

[Celebrim]

Finding things in it is actually easier then 1e PHB., It is much better organized and has a great index.

Yes, and even more so it's much much easier to understand the rules or look them up compared to the 1e DMG, which is very much a nightmare of disorganization at first, second, and third glance and which actually is filled with alot of textual bloat, digressions, and so forth in a way that none of the 3e books are. Now, alot of that textual bloat and digressions is part of the unique charm of the 1e DMG, which I still consider one of the best gaming books ever published, but in no manner does it make the text tighter and cleaner than later editions.