Presentation and Rules Are Different Things

[Laurefindel]

Im surprised nobody mentioned 4e D&D. @Celebrim did.

Many people would agree that the rules weren’t bad. If anything they were excellent. But the presentation turned many people off (including me). In presentation, I’m also including the choice of terms used to describe abilities and key concepts, even though the abilities and key concepts themselves weren’t bad.

I remain convinced that 4e’s commercial failure was one of presentation and implementation, not rule design or conceptualisation.

 

[Evaniel]

The original Vampire: The Masquerade is another example; incredible presentation, horrible rules.

100% this. V:tM (2nd ed) was such a watershed RPG for me in high school. But even my first pass at it had me house-ruling to shore up some of the obvious sticking points.

By the time we got in college and realized how many more botches were being rolled with high skill characters, we kind of heaved a collective sigh and gave up.

That said, the presentation was phenomenal for its time and coming across it when I did kept me from exiting the hobby entirely back in high school.

 

[TiQuinn]

I feel that's a separate issue from the textbook/reference book conflicts.

But, I will note that while some games have an intrinsic setting baked in, D&D doesn't. The game has always aimed to be open to each table having its own setting and playstyle, so writing that focuses on just one would be working against the game's design goals.

And, to be honest, it would be hard for me to care less about "designer's voice". Author's voice is an element that I look for in, say, novels, but don't give a whit about in rulebooks. So, I won't comment on it further.

Which is fine - it's been this way since 2nd edition, so most of the life of the entire game. I'm just saying that vis a vis other TTRPGs which I can read and derive entertainment from reading the rules as well as learning the rules, D&D falls behind on this, probably because it needs to maintain a broad, generic appeal. It just comes at a cost, so when someone says "Did you read the DMG or the PHB cover to cover?", I feel like, well...no, most people won't do that. They'll look up or refer to sections when it is necessary, and that's because of the way the book is written.

 

[Reynard]

Im surprised nobody mentioned 4e D&D. @Celebrim did.

Many people would agree that the rules weren’t bad. If anything they were excellent. But the presentation turned many people off (including me). In presentation, I’m also including the choice of terms used to describe abilities and key concepts, even though the abilities and key concepts themselves weren’t bad.

I remain convinced that 4e’s commercial failure was one of presentation and implementation, not rule design or conceptualisation.

I liked the 4e presentation. They felt much more like rulebooks. But at the time anyway the rules did not work for me.

 

[Umbran]

Which is fine - it's been this way since 2nd edition, so most of the life of the entire game.

The game was that way in 1e as well - but while Gygax was a bit of a visionary, he wasn't actually a good technical writer.

I'm just saying that vis a vis other TTRPGs which I can read and derive entertainment from reading the rules as well as learning the rules,

To, again, be honest, I find that the most flavorful presentation, while perhaps more initially readable, gets in the way of a rulebook's longer term goal of being an efficient reference work, and often distracts from what you actually need to learn from the work in that initial read.

 

[Bae'zel]

I'm fine with fancy presentation as long as it doesn't interfere with readability and practical usability. Thankfully we've moved away from the worst of that since the 90s (cough White Wolf cough cough). Although arguably some of the fluorescent yellow and pink pages in Mork Borg give me a headache.

 

[TiQuinn]

The game was that way in 1e as well - but while Gygax was a bit of a visionary, he wasn't actually a good technical writer.

No, and while I ended up really not liking his authorial voice, I can’t deny it was there. So it can also work against people’s enjoyment too.

To, again, be honest, I find that the most flavorful presentation, while perhaps more initially readable, gets in the way of a rulebook's longer term goal of being an efficient reference work, and often distracts from what you actually need to learn from the work in that initial read.

It can, and again, D&D being the big fish in the pond maybe needs to be more generic and plain in its presentation. But I think a game like Shadowdark does a good job of being readable and presents flavor, but it’s also not going to suit everyone, and is firmly planted in the “if it’s not in the rules, do what you think is best” style of play.

 

[Theory of Games]

Do folks remember Apocalypse World? The author's tone came across to me as "yeah I use the F word all the time in MY rules. Got a problem with that? This game has aTitUdE!" LOL

200% this.

AW is THE model of nightmarish presentation, from start to finish. Just as bad as everything from White Wolf.

Great presentation? A lot of superhero ttrpgs are done very well, which is why I own so many of them

 

[Malmuria]

Actually, the 2014 5e DMG is a good example of what might be ok rules buried by terrible layout. It looks like someone just copy-and-pasted the whole text into indesign and rushed it off to the printers without checking if it actually looked ok

I thought the Mork Borg consensus was "the presentation is great, the rules are a nothinburger"

I don't really have many games where I'm put off by presentation enough to drop it, but I wish TTRPGs took a hint from boardgames on how to present rules in a short and understandable format.

A lot of people hate Mork Borg's layout and presentation. It always comes up on reddit or forums when talking about the game. When actually the back of the book has a super easy to follow rules summary. Alternatively, if you don't like ultra-lite games, those rules won't be interesting to you.

What is with Burning Wheel games? Is there a minimum IQ requirement? Those games make me feel so stupid.

I think Luke Crane (and many of his fans) just thinks that verbosity+obscurantism=games that are deeply intellectual, or something. Like a higher form of role playing.

Do folks remember Apocalypse World? The author's tone came across to me as "yeah I use the F word all the time in MY rules. Got a problem with that? This game has aTitUdE!" LOL

I never cringed so hard at a book. Which is too bad because I really would love to play this game.

 

[TiQuinn]

Actually, the 2014 5e DMG is a good example of what might be ok rules buried by terrible layout. It looks like someone just copy-and-pasted the whole text into indesign and rushed it off to the printers without checking if it actually looked ok

YES. There’s a lot there but in a blink and you’ll miss it way.