Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5411585" data-attributes="member: 80487">Either can work well or poorly for &quot;spot&quot; printing, depending on how you organize the material. In the &quot;all in one section&quot; approach, there might be too much rarely used material cluttering what we want for ready reference.Really, the demands of an ideal reference and the demands of an ideal instructional text seem to me opposed. However hard one works for the best compromise, there is bound to be some need for duplication of material in another convenient format.As I recall, Columbia Games' Hârnmaster rules book (like the Encyclopedia Hârnica volumes) had very specific sections and, as much as possible, kept a single sheet (2 pages, front and back) a single digestible unit. Starting a new section always on a right-hand page is an obvious corollary.Literally putting all information for a type in one place sort of presumes some things not just about your division into types but about your rules for skills, combat, and so on. If you are doing something on the order of WotC-D&amp;D, then those rules sections alone are huge -- too unwieldy to duplicate a dozen times!D&amp;D 4E deals with this almost as well as could be. I have not looked at the PHB recently, but maybe some more &quot;Feats&quot; could have been included in the class sections. A good index would also be a boon -- and that probably should involve someone other than the authors.Talislanta on the other hand had much briefer rules for skills, combat and even magic. Moreover, the character types combined race and occupation. If it had included only a dozen or so types, then maybe there could have been a fairly complete &quot;player basic rules hand out&quot; specifically tailored to each. The myriad character types, though, were a key feature.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 5411585, member: 80487"] Either can work well or poorly for "spot" printing, depending on how you organize the material. In the "all in one section" approach, there might be too much rarely used material cluttering what we want for ready reference. Really, the demands of an ideal reference and the demands of an ideal instructional text seem to me opposed. However hard one works for the best compromise, there is bound to be some need for duplication of material in another convenient format. As I recall, Columbia Games' [b]Hârnmaster[/b] rules book (like the [i]Encyclopedia Hârnica[/i] volumes) had very specific sections and, as much as possible, kept a single sheet (2 pages, front and back) a single digestible unit. Starting a new section always on a right-hand page is an obvious corollary. Literally putting [u]all[/u] information for a type in one place sort of presumes some things not just about your division into types but about your rules for skills, combat, and so on. If you are doing something on the order of WotC-D&D, then those rules sections alone are huge -- too unwieldy to duplicate a dozen times! D&D 4E deals with this almost as well as could be. I have not looked at the PHB recently, but maybe some more "Feats" could have been included in the class sections. A [b]good index[/b] would also be a boon -- and that probably should involve someone other than the authors. [b]Talislanta[/b] on the other hand had much briefer rules for skills, combat and even magic. Moreover, the character types combined race and occupation. If it had included only a dozen or so types, then maybe there could have been a fairly complete "player basic rules hand out" specifically tailored to each. The myriad character types, though, were a key feature. [/QUOTE]

Verification