|
Post by kiladecus on Dec 2, 2011 10:42:40 GMT -9
Hey Everyone,
I am really getting a good feel for what I feel people are looking for, wanting to spend, and what they are thinking... and I LOVE the feedback.
Well, I have a lot of things in the works right now, and am getting ready to start tying things up in a nice little bow... which brings me to my next question.
WHEN IT COMES TO A RULEBOOK, HOW IMPORTANT IS THE LOOK/COLOR?
I know from my past, if there were big, glossy pages with rich textures and nice drawings that kept you trapped within that realm, that was AWESOME.
I have purchased MANY gaming books that had color maps and drawings, even pictures from movies in them... and there were also those that had black and white images that looked like they were taken off the comics page in the newspaper.
Images thrown around here and there are great. It helps you feel what you are reading.
Other rule books I have features a "bare bones" approach. You get a black and white copy of a rulebook, and the only images are of the figures on a game map, and close ups of the card, and how to read it.
Which do you prefer?
1) Do you like the feel of a rulebook that has beautifully drawn images that captures the world you are playing in?
2) Do you prefer ONLY the rules with some quick reference pictures because it helps to not distract from the game, AND it saves you INK!!
3) A little of both: Some pics to give the game "flavor," but not so much that it is distracting.
4) Or OTHER:________________________________ (please explain).
I used to have the thought when I look at a page, there was NO white ANYWHERE. The pages looked like they were marble, or parchment, or a computer readout...
I am changing my view on this now. Colored images here and there are great, but since I print my rulebooks out at low res (to save ink) I only care about the rules.
As far as pictures go... I would rather have a colored picture of the figures on the battle-map or game-board than a bunch of fluffy pictures that are irrelevant in the long run.
If you are going to use flavor text and histories of races and so forth, I feel a small black and white image is ample to get a feel for the race, and that is all that is needed.
I feel that the cover should grab the attention of the player/ reader... and I ALWAYS judge a book by it's cover.
Ok, thanks again in advance for any feedback you can offer.
|
|
|
Post by glennwilliams on Dec 2, 2011 11:07:13 GMT -9
Let me use an example. I love Bad Baby (now Avalon) games. I've never had a problem with their rules (and have several sets). However . . . the art is so bad I never use their pieces or maps. For skirmish gaming, I go with Skeleton Key fantasy and sci-fi maps with the addition of Ky-Ryn's (sp?) beautiful starships and get my figures from RPGNOW/Wargamesvault or here.
So, for me, rules should be text with diagrams, and no art unless it's professionally drawn (that's one reason I use cgi renders). RPGNOW has an enormous amount of stock art that can be purchased and used.
I prefer professional layout, so it doesn't look like somebody regurgitated a mass of text into MS Word, or worse yet, Notepad with good use of white space and bullets to make reading easier (no massive blocks of text). My general preference for text is black on white page, but that's because I've bought too many rules and adventures where the author thought it was really cool to have a busy background with little contrast with the text.
Format's essential to me also, perhaps because of my background as a bureaucrat and military officer: I want my rules well-organized, with a table of contents and numbered sections for easy access. If anyone has seen SPI rules, that's what I like.
|
|
|
Post by gilius on Dec 2, 2011 11:34:49 GMT -9
Currently I prefer clear layouts, well-organized sections, and rules repeated as needed. Electronic versions with bookmarks/hyperlinks are a big plus and not seen as often as I would expect. If you must have a colored background and lots of images, a "light" version for printing or reading on a tablet or ebook reader would be really great.
Alternatively, if there is a really good set of quick reference sheets, so that once you understand the rules you only have to print them, then going all crazy with the rest of the rulebook doesn't matter.
As for graphics, I agree with Glenn: "fluff" pictures are OK if professionally drawn. Diagrams explaining movement, line of sight, use of templates are very welcome as often these differ between games. More than that, however, *examples* of the rules in the text are welcome and authors are sometimes stingy with them.
|
|
|
Post by Parduz on Dec 2, 2011 13:45:36 GMT -9
I think that the right spot is, as usual, in the middle.
My recent games (mostly FFG, but not only) have all gorgeous manuals full of color, backgrounds, theme..... they are piece of art (most are downloadable, look at Starcraft by FFG, or Earth Reborn by ZMan Games), but they're a pain when you know the rules and want to flip the page to find that tiny exception,
On the other side, some manual (mostly downloadable rulesets) are just wall of text, and even with a good index, even with a glossary, you still have to cross reference the index to find what you need.
In my experience, my best rulebook ("best" meaning functional, clear, concise but still filled by the theme) are the one that comes from the 80's: Car Wars, Silent Death, Legions of Steel: they were all B/W manual with some fluff illustration and some game example scheme. After reading them, i knew that the Collision rule was in the page with the Truck firing at a Trike, or that the Torpedo rule was in the back side of that page with an exploding spaceship. I agree that BAD drawings ruins the immersion, but decent illustration are good enough to set the theme and to work as bookmark.
Also, a good layout is the one that allow you to flip the book without opening it, so page number and chapters written on the outer limit of the page are great.
|
|
|
Post by okumarts on Dec 2, 2011 14:03:34 GMT -9
I made my rulebooks with layers so you can turn off the art and heavy graphic images. I like books with pictures though. I think a "cheatsheet" would be great to print off if the book is too picture heavy.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Souza on Dec 2, 2011 15:01:46 GMT -9
If I have to print them, I prefer rule books with black and white line art.
I grew up with TSR's Marvel RPG, WhiteWolf's Vampire RPG, West End Games Star Wars RPG, and 1st Ed D&D. They produced great black and white books, that wouldn't cost you more to print than buying a hard copy.
It upsets me, these days, when I buy a PDF and know I'll never print and use it because the whole thing is in color.
Art here and there breaks up text, and makes it easier read. If your writing a rule book for a game based on your minis, you could just include the black and white fronts of your models.
|
|
|
Post by kiladecus on Dec 2, 2011 16:19:15 GMT -9
Well, let's try this again...
My laptop is getting as unpredictable as my phone. I had a HUGE reply... bumped something, and lost it all!
I will try to sum this up as best as I can.
Many of the games listed above are some of the ones I played.
Being a big Star Wars RPG (West End Games), and BattleTech (Classic), I liked how they would place a picture to fill space or place them where they could be used as a landmark for locating rules, or relevent information.
I feel that if you are explaining about a race of Troobluds, then you need to have a picture of them along with the relevent information.
If you are discussing a plasma projection cannon, then you need to have one pictures. Another example is if you are discussing a special power or ability, then by having a picture of it helps the customer understand what is supposed to happen or shows them what it looks like.
I also feel that the only other pictures are to show movement, rules and things like that.
Poorly drawn "graphics" can kill a rulebook, or even a game. Because of that, I will limit "non-relevent" images.
I have always enjoyed pencil drawings that show how an idea "evolved." I will include these as well.
Let's switch gears a little, since we all seem to be on the same page (no pun intended)...
I think it is more important to have a solid set of rules and to have things balanced out more than the aesthetics of the book itself.
I enjoy games that are so balanced that it doesn't matter what you play, you have the same chances. In my game I am working on, you can have a heavy plasma cannon or a knife, and they cost the same amount of points.
Let's discuss figures.
I was a BIG player of "LAWHAMMER 50 Million." I HATED the fact that they forced you to play their game by their rules using their figures.
If you had a choice, would you prefer having one set of figures/models that coincide with a specific game, or would you rather be able to use ANY figure and ANY model available?
I know how I feel, but I want to hear from you!
If you like a set of Sanity Studios Orcs, and Finger and Toe's vehicles, would you like to use them together if at all possible?
Or would you rather use just the ones designed for it?
|
|
|
Post by glennwilliams on Dec 2, 2011 20:34:34 GMT -9
Unless there's a need for specific figure (eg a winged amphibian succubus who preys only on newt space marines), I want to be able to use generic figures and models. I started WH40K when they actually gave you instructions on how to build a land speeder from a deodorant stick container. It was fun, then they began the figure of the week which led to fencing off the wargames table and electrifying it so no rogue traders would see gamers proxy figures. I checked out.
So, specialist figures absolutely essential for the game, yes; otherwise, let me decide on proxies. Like you, I'm kind of a WYSIWYG type. The guy with a LAW is NOT a sniper, but the guy with the assault rifle could have an M-16, AK-47, or Tavor.
Same with models, which is why I try to design to function/niche rather than recreate specific vehicles.
|
|
|
Post by gilius on Dec 3, 2011 2:55:38 GMT -9
IMO, in the case of a miniature game with a rich setting and specific army lists, having a set of paper minis to match them adds to the uniqueness of the game, as it's not such a high barrier of entry as in the case of plastics/metal. After all, much of miniature gaming is about the miniatures.
As for the question on whether people would buy the specific paper minis or go with proxies, I don't know. Some might prefer plastic proxies because they don't like paper. I also suppose that if the minis don't look really custom-made for the game perfectly matching the setting, or if the setting isn't that detailed to begin with, people might feel less compelled to buy them.
Lastly there is the question that IMO is actually more relevant: should the game focus on a very specific setting or be more generic, with a play-what-you-have attitude? I think there's space for both, with independent designers going with the generic approach more often (from what I see in WargameVault etc.) because creating your own set of miniatures (especially in plastic or metal) takes lots of time and money and adds to the risk. I think in the end this is a decision for the game's designer.
|
|
|
Post by kiladecus on Dec 3, 2011 5:07:30 GMT -9
Very good points!
Armor Grid Games does that, Gilius... they have the rules in place and they say (paraphrasing, Dagger or WaffleM can correct me if I'm wrong), "Here is the game engine. No fluff. No story. Just a fun game. We did the rules, you provide the rest."
I kinda like that because I am free to use the story I want. On the other hand, I like knowing why certain groups use this but not that, and what each race looks like.
As far as proxy figures go, I used them myself in my playtesting. I think the deodorent landspeeder rule is fun! I considered that many times.
I like games that don't have miniatures specific to them so people have to be creative. But then again, having the actual model is cool, too. So many decisions.
I think I will have the core 10 armies, and include a set of rules for "mercenary" armies. I think it is important to have people have the freedom to include their own models and proxies.
I am thinking that each army will have certain named heroes/personalities that will give each army an edge. This is fun, but it can also cause the game to lose the very concept it is built on... BALANCE.
So, are proxies enough? Or should I also include detailed information about building your own figures and models?
True, while the Xiarn may not use a Coyote Fast Attack vehicle, but the "Glennians" do. They could also use Bel's Kitties and Ebbles Attack Floaters. I guess what I am trying to say is if you want to use Dave Okum's "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and have them battle Reivaj's AT-256 robots, why not. I think it is fun. But then again, it is important that if "Jimmy" points up his Sanity Studio's Dwarves like so, then it is importanf that "Marcus" has his pointed accordingly. I think that it would be best for all players to review anything in question BEFORE the game starts.
Once again, a lot of good thoughts! I enjoy hearing what other people think so I won't build myself into a little box.
|
|
|
Post by gilius on Dec 3, 2011 5:16:51 GMT -9
... Armor Grid Games does that, Gilius... they have the rules in place and they say (paraphrasing, Dagger or WaffleM can correct me if I'm wrong), "Here is the game engine. No fluff. No story. Just a fun game. We did the rules, you provide the rest." ... Hm, you just provided a counter example to what I was thinking! I mean, Mech Attack has specific models, tied to the rules (at least if you want to go WYSIWYG) but there's no detailed setting!
|
|
|
Post by Adam Souza on Dec 3, 2011 8:57:21 GMT -9
SHOCKFORCE, now War Engine, by the defunct Demonblade Games, had an interesting setting, and factions specific to the setting, but also included the rules needed to build your own troops/vehicles/faction to add the game. It was a good approach. People who wanted to just play had the faction lists to choose from, and those who wanted to craft forces specific to their own model collections.
|
|
|
Post by kiladecus on Dec 4, 2011 11:59:02 GMT -9
Shockforce, if I am not mistaken, was a game that had a rulebook that was about 5 1/2" tall, and each page was 8 1/2" wide. It was perfect for placing on the game table during play fo easy reference. (I may have posted some thoughts about it here, and then I lost it... that happens a LOT with me). I think that is best. I have no rules for Wookies and Jawas, but if someone wants to play them, who am I to say you can't? I think Shockforce was a good game with fast play, but it lacked something. Also, unless I am mistaken, the "artwork" looked like someting a 4th grader might draw. (This is one thing I will have to watch). Ok, I have the rules for the ten races, and am working up concept art for them. This will allow people to include their own rules. I think it is important for someone to see a figure or model and be able to say that is a "..." When you see most of Jim Hartman's figures you can tell what they are... or what they represent. When I had someone ask me if one of my Shuffler-made tanks was a proxy for a 40K tank, that was a compliment to me. If you look at something I design, and it makes you think of another model... let alone a GW model... that means I am on the right path. I see the way I am tending to lean on this. To try to inspire people to use my forces, I will create special characters, conditions or things along those lines to round these armies out. Also, everytime I add one weapon, I have to add 5 races (because of how I have the engine set up). Ok... Thanks to all of your comments, I see the way I am going to proceed!
|
|