Presentation and Rules Are Different Things

[Reynard]

I don't know who needs to hear this, but the way rules are presented is a different thing than those actual rules themselves. You can like a game and really dislike the way it is laid out, explained or otherwise presented. We all have preferences for what a rulebook looks and feels like, and how we like to have the rules of the game presented.

Mork Borg is a good example of a presentation that is controversial. Some think it is brilliant. Others think it is ridiculous. Another example is how the big mainstream publishers like WotC and Paizo write huge walls of prose in their rulebooks. That is a big irritant for me, while others enjoy that presentation -- but just because I dislike that writing style does not mean that I do not like the rules and play of the game.

Is there a game that you really like to play but really do not like the way it is written or presented? Or vice versa: a game that is wonderful presentation that you just really do not like the rules for?

 

[Kromanjon]

Shadow of the Weird Wizard. Now I haven’t played it yet but I do like the rules in theory. However, the books are written like he got payed by the word. Just so many words telling me things that could probably be said with half as many.

 

[rhythmsoundmotion]

I vote against terse presentations. It sounds great until lack of examples or ambiguity in the language derails your understanding.

 

[Aldarc]

I want to like Strike! but I can't even get through the book because of the layout, editing, and art.

Shadow of the Weird Wizard. Now I haven’t played it yet but I do like the rules in theory. However, the books are written like he got payed by the word. Just so many words telling me things that could probably be said with half as many.

From what I recall hearing, his long time editor died. No joke.

 

[TwoSix]

I vote against terse presentations. It sounds great until lack of examples or ambiguity in the language derails your understanding.

Terse bad, many words good.

 

[Aldarc]

Terse bad, many words good.

Just call it "natural language" and you get away with needless verbosity.

 

[TwoSix]

From what I recall hearing, his long time editor died. No joke.

I believe that is true (I've heard the same.) That being said, I didn't find SotWW to be overly wordy. It has a lot of embedded lore, true, and the way the spell system works means that there's a pretty high density of information there.

But the actual section of play rules is pretty small (maybe 20 pages?), and most of the class features are quite terse in their wording.

 

[John Dallman]

I'm not terribly demanding about presentation, provided it's readable. A few examples of failures on that front:

• D&D 3e used a graphic background for most pages of its PHB. I'm significantly red/green colourblind, and found the background made reading the rules pretty hard. That was the point where I gave up worrying about keeping up with published D&D.
• Fuzion was the unfortunate result of Mike Pondsmith getting access to a powerful DTP package for the first time. Saying it's "overdesigned" understates the problem massively: if he'd had flashing ink available, he'd have used it.
• Continuum is an interesting concept for a game, but I found every few pages I wanted to throw the book across the room because of gratuitous and obvious DTP errors.

 

[cbwjm]

I can't recall any examples off the top of my head, but there have been games that I've looked at where I was completely put off by the presentation so never took the time to look more into the system.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Gamebooks that focus heavily on art are a bit of a turn-off for me. The more art I see plastered all over the pages, the more I feel I'm being forced to pay for material I don't care about in order to play.