Irrational Hatreds in RPGs

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
If anyone wants the quick and dirty easy typography guide, it comes down to a few simple rules -

choose one main font and stick with it for the body of the text.
all fonts have an optimal size for visual clarity, know it and use it.
and if you mix two fonts (like a different font for headings/titles, etc.) always pair a sarif with a sans-sarif or vice versa.
 
Dumarest said:
I'm fairly certain more than a few RPGs are meant "for display only" nowadays. Glossy covers, hundreds of pages with fancy watermarks, full-color interiors, rules scattered throughout with madcap abandon. Not really meant to be played so much as admired. They're more like a concept car than a pickup truck you'd actually use to "git 'er done."
Click to expand...

*cough* Nobilis 2nd *cough*
 
CRKrueger said:
Fronts, clocks, etc... are OK for helping GM’s keep track of things.

The problem with them is that they are an overly simplistic method of gauging Consequences to PC’s actions. Formalizing into mechanics reactions to PCs responses may ensure a certain level of setting engagement, but it sacrifices the thing that a new GM needs to use most...judgement.

You never actually learn to ride the bike until the training wheels come off.

Of course there’s the other issue, namely that of player knowledge of and interaction with, the concept and actual mechanics of the Clocks, but that’s a separate issue, and for many a feature.
Click to expand...

Again, this is just what old people always say, about everything. "Those modern conveniences means that youngsters don't learn how to do the thing properly! I fear for the future when the generation in charge will be spoiled, soft and just mindlessly letting technology do everything for them!"

Here's my prediction - the young'uns will get into GMing because it's easy, master it with the training wheels on, and then a certain number of them will go, "hey, this is too easy now. How do I make it more challenging? I know, how about I take away this part and rely on my own judgment instead? And then this part, and then that part, and..."

Sure, some will never do that. But those wouldn't have gone on to be great GMs anyway. They'd have tried it and given up because it was hard. Or worse, tried it, done it wrong because they didn't have the sense to realise it was wrong, and kept doing it wrong all their lives and been the sort of nightmare GMs that people swap horror stories about.

I think the kids'll be all right, is what I'm saying.
 
A lot of document design is also in balancing. For instance, margins. Both directions are obnoxious. Too large of margins and it makes your text area look uncomfortably tiny. Too small of margins and your page looks too busy.
 
CRKrueger said:
Fronts, clocks, etc... are OK for helping GM’s keep track of things.

The problem with them is that they are an overly simplistic method of gauging Consequences to PC’s actions. Formalizing into mechanics reactions to PCs responses may ensure a certain level of setting engagement, but it sacrifices the thing that a new GM needs to use most...judgement.

You never actually learn to ride the bike until the training wheels come off.
Click to expand...
Don't know if I see that as a problem. Pbta games are usually so narrow in scope that I think providing too much stuff could feel like filler. The tools present (like fronts, clocks, playbooks, agendas, etc) are already well tailored to address the situations that are expected to emerge at the table, and that's been enough in my experience.
 
Nobby-W said:
Working in I.T. I've seen things you wouldn't believe. So many terrible documents. Actually you probably would believe them.
Click to expand...
I hate when designers do everything right but then use 8-point text because it looks stylish.

Wait, that's rational. What else? Ooh, I hate people who multiclass to three or four classes on the same character!
 
Baeraad said:
And probably also to some extent because they had to learn how to GM the hard way, sp what's wrong with these lazy, entitled youths of today that they want one-size-fits-all rules, back in our day we had have a hundred miserable play experiences to learn what not to do before we could have actually good ones, and that built us character damn it!! :tongue:
Click to expand...
The notion that fun has to be earned through some kind of trial is why I don't boardgame with my wife's group any more.

Imagine how different the hobby would be if we had a culture of passing on good GMing skills.
 
EmperorNorton said:
A lot of document design is also in balancing. For instance, margins. Both directions are obnoxious. Too large of margins and it makes your text area look uncomfortably tiny. Too small of margins and your page looks too busy.
Click to expand...

Drive Thru RPG has specific requirements for margins depending on the size you'd want for PoD copy of your game. I'd suggest anyone stick to these as a general defaultm, even if you have no intention of using Drive-Thru or PoD services, as they will basically correlate to any printing service,
 
Dumarest said:
I'm fairly certain more than a few RPGs are meant "for display only" nowadays. Glossy covers, hundreds of pages with fancy watermarks, full-color interiors, rules scattered throughout with madcap abandon. Not really meant to be played so much as admired. They're more like a concept car than a pickup truck you'd actually use to "git 'er done."
Click to expand...
I have a copy of Eoris : Essence, and it's gorgeous, but...
 
spittingimage said:
Ooh, I hate people who multiclass to three or four classes on the same character!
Click to expand...
Oh, that's the other. Multiclassing. I HATE multiclassing. Absolutely despise it. I know some people use it to accentuate a concept, but in my experience, it's ALWAYS been the power gamer who wants to do it all at the expense of the rest of the party. I HATE it.
 
spittingimage said:
I hate when designers do everything right but then use 8-point text because it looks stylish.

Wait, that's rational. What else? Ooh, I hate people who multiclass to three or four classes on the same character!
Click to expand...
So here are some starting points for setting text in various typefaces:
  • Times Roman, Palatino, Lucida Bright, Century Schoolbook, Bookman: 10pt on 12pt leading.
  • Helvetica, Univers, Frutiger, Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, Trebuchet, Candara, Calibri: 9pt on 11pt leading
  • Garamond or Goudy Old Style (also most older fonts with a lower x-height): 11-12pt on 12pt or 13pt leading.
  • Most ITC or post-ITC serif fonts (i.e. dating from the 1970s or later) with a large x-height[1]: 10pt on 12pt leading.
  • Papyrus, Comic Sans, Chloe: Just no.
Note that good quality versions of most of the fonts listed above come with Windows or MacOS out-of-the-box. Another quick way to get a bunch of good quality fonts is to find old versions of Corel Draw on Ebay. Corel Draw comes with a library of 1,000 or so typefaces, mostly from Bitstream. These are pretty good quality, although they have funny names so you may need to use the interwebs to help you relate them to the names they're most commonly known by.

If you want a starting point for title sizes and spacing, take a look at the default styles that come with LaTeX. You can find documents set with LaTeX with a bit of google-fu. It's not the be-all and end-all as it's aimed at traditional textbook styles so is uses quite a bit of whitespace, but it's a good starting point. LaTeX's margins on single-column formats are quite a bit larger than you might expect.
  • If you're using indented paragraphs, experiment with 3-6 pica (1/2"-1") indents on the first paragraph. Set up your style to use a non-indented paragraph for the first paragraph under any heading.
  • Try chapter titles at around 36pt and sub-headings at around 12-14pt. Put another 12-18pt above and 3pt below the sub-headings as a starting point. Technical documents can go 4-5 levels deep with sub-headings but you probably don't need more than two levels in a role playing game.
  • The rule of thumb about using serif-fonts for text and sans-serif for headings is a good starting point but not strictly necessary. There are many. many resources on the interwebs to help with font pairing.
  • Try a small inter-paragraph spacing of 3-6pt.
  • Ideally, text columns should average about 66 characters or something not too far off that. This means that an A4 or letter sized book should either have a large margin (typically on the outside of the page but you can centre the galley on the page) or be set in two columns.
As I mentioned in a previous post, be careful with your use of highly decorative fonts, even in things like chapter headings.[2]
Chapter.png
____________________
1 - x-height is a relative measure. It means the height of a lower-case x (as a proxy) relative to the height of the capitals. For a comparison, take a look at Garamond (low x-height) vs. Helvetica (large x-height).
2 - The kerning is a bit crap - well non-existent. I put it together on MS-Word, which doesn't actually do kerning.
 
Last edited:
Multi-classing makes sense in 3.X because it's basically a point buy system pretending to be a class system. Especially in some of the D20 variants that basically leaned into that.

In most class based systems it seems to defeat the point.
 
soltakss said:
From someone who started off playing Runequest, MultiClassing makes a lot of sense. It means that a Fighter can do Thief things, or can cast magic, just like in RuneQuest.
Click to expand...
I have a theory that I call Stealth Parties.

The essence is that if the whole party is at least somewhat stealthy and manoeuvrable then you can all sneak around with some chance of not getting detected. This means the whole party can partake in skulduggery or discreet infiltration rather than the fighters sitting on their hands while the thief does their stealth bit. You can still have super-stealthy thieves, though.

For example, create a ranger or fighter-thief instead of a fighter. Stir in a couple of stealth class levels for a wizard-thief or cleric-thief, or a bard, and so on and so forth. As the party is no longer min-maxed for pure combat, the DM can nerf monster encounters as necessary.

If you want to do a game of anything but killing things and taking their stuff then the stealth party approach means that the whole party can join in the skulduggery.
 
I've mentioned this already, but this seems like an opportune moment to go into detail...

I absolutely despise the multiclassing system in 3.PF and 5e, hate hate hate hate haaaaaaaate it, for so many different reasons-- chief amongst which is that the one thing it absolutely cannot do is portray any multiclassed archetype from AD&D as a viable, playable character.

And the fact that I am apparently the only person who has ever purchased a single fucking Paizo product who understands that this is the most important thing the multiclass system should do, why it is important for the system to do this, and that the vast majority of everything else that ill-conceived system actually does is the source of the vast majority of every other problem people have with "multiclassing".

My first AD&D character was a (highly illegal) Elf Monk. That is the only single-classed character I have played in any edition of D&D, including Classic, in the nearly thirty years I've been playing.
 
Stevethulhu said:
People who tinker with a game before they even play it annoy the shit out of me.

I mean, how do you know how it works in play before you even played it? You cant tell me that you know all possible interactions of the system before even a single dice gets chucked,.
Click to expand...

I LOLed. I'm guilty as charged.

I can't help it sometimes. I just see mechanics and I can't stop myself from messing with them.

I'll go to therapy if anyone will pay for it. :tongue:
 
FaerieGodfather said:
I've mentioned this already, but this seems like an opportune moment to go into detail...

I absolutely despise the multiclassing system in 3.PF and 5e, hate hate hate hate haaaaaaaate it, for so many different reasons-- chief amongst which is that the one thing it absolutely cannot do is portray any multiclassed archetype from AD&D as a viable, playable character.

And the fact that I am apparently the only person who has ever purchased a single fucking Paizo product who understands that this is the most important thing the multiclass system should do, why it is important for the system to do this, and that the vast majority of everything else that ill-conceived system actually does is the source of the vast majority of every other problem people have with "multiclassing".

My first AD&D character was a (highly illegal) Elf Monk. That is the only single-classed character I have played in any edition of D&D, including Classic, in the nearly thirty years I've been playing.
Click to expand...
It can't duplicate Dual-Classed characters either.
Plus it enforces and rewards Build Culture by allowing "dipping".
 
The thing is, a lot of multiclassing can be good for thematic reasons... if that would be the reason people would do it. Like I always wanted to do a Castlevania Belmont style character, and I've always felt that would be a Fighter/Rogue multiclass in 5e. Which isn't really offensive at all.

BUT there are clear problems that come from the fact that... you either have to make some classes just bad at the start OR you have to accept that dips are going to be stupidly good for some classes.

Things like the 5e Warlock. Warlock would kind of suck if you couldn't get the power it does in the first couple of levels as a single class character.... buuuuut, it is way to front loaded for someone just taking 2 levels. (Honestly I think the easiest way to fix this is to make Eldritch Blast a class ability rather than a cantrip and have it scale off Warlock level but you know).
 
Gabriel said:
I LOLed. I'm guilty as charged.

I can't help it sometimes. I just see mechanics and I can't stop myself from messing with them.

I'll go to therapy if anyone will pay for it. :tongue:
Click to expand...
Therapy for free...Aversion Therapy. :devil:

Take Risus.
Tinker until you reach Phoenix Command.
That should take care of that tendency quite nicely.
 
Stevethulhu said:
People who tinker with a game before they even play it annoy the shit out of me.

I mean, how do you know how it works in play before you even played it? You cant tell me that you know all possible interactions of the system before even a single dice gets chucked,.
Click to expand...
Yes, depending on the complexity of the system, sometimes I can. Which was confirmed by the authors of some systems :tongue:.
 
EmperorNorton said:
The thing is, a lot of multiclassing can be good for thematic reasons... if that would be the reason people would do it. Like I always wanted to do a Castlevania Belmont style character, and I've always felt that would be a Fighter/Rogue multiclass in 5e. Which isn't really offensive at all.

BUT there are clear problems that come from the fact that... you either have to make some classes just bad at the start OR you have to accept that dips are going to be stupidly good for some classes.

Things like the 5e Warlock. Warlock would kind of suck if you couldn't get the power it does in the first couple of levels as a single class character.... buuuuut, it is way to front loaded for someone just taking 2 levels. (Honestly I think the easiest way to fix this is to make Eldritch Blast a class ability rather than a cantrip and have it scale off Warlock level but you know).
Click to expand...
See, that's the thing. All of a Warlocks powers should be coming from the pact they have with their patron. Why would any other class level help in making Eldritch Blast more powerful? It makes no sense. Of course it's a class ability and only Warlock levels raise it, anyone should be able to see that. WotC doesn't even make the attempt to tie things logically to any setting. Everything is in a rules vaccum without any setting context.
 
The problem is it being categorized as a cantrip. Cantrips scale with player level and I get why they did that.

It just works bad with Eldritch Blast because with two levels of Warlock (to get agonizing blast), it is by far and away the best damage cantrip in the game. Like nothing else gets close. And they need it because they lack the versatility in their normal spellcasting.

Basically: I don't think it is a problem of letting cantrips scale with character level rather than class level, it was a problem of Eldritch Blast being too good to be a cantrip. It's basically like Fighter extra attacks, which don't scale with character level, they scale with class level.

Personally, I think there were several spells that should have been class abilities. Like Rangers and Hunter's Mark.

But honestly... eh, D&D isn't my favorite game anyway, I do like 5e more than other versions, but I'm probably never going to run it again. I still play it though.
 
Tying abilities to class level instead of character level is a common house rule which makes dipping a little less common. If eldritch blast never gets better, then the dip isn't as useful.
 
CRKrueger said:
See, that's the thing. All of a Warlocks powers should be coming from the pact they have with their patron. Why would any other class level help in making Eldritch Blast more powerful? It makes no sense. Of course it's a class ability and only Warlock levels raise it, anyone should be able to see that. WotC doesn't even make the attempt to tie things logically to any setting. Everything is in a rules vaccum without any setting context.
Click to expand...

The power to have the cantrip comes from the patron; how much the cantrip does comes from the character's level, same as if the cantrip came from the character's race. (Cantrips are probably overpowered anyway in general; I'd weaken them but let the warlock continue to get a better Eldritch Blast as a class feature.)

It might be that warlocks should be barred from multiclassing to fit the setting, but the most common multiclassing abuse I've seen is combining Paladin for the smiting and aura (so up to about 7th level) with a charisma based full caster (bard or sorcerer) to get plenty of spell slots to smite with. Multiclassing would probably be appropriately less attractive if classes had more prohibitions (multiclass as a druid and you are, depending on the interpretation, barred from using metal armor) rather than just "you won't get the highest level spells, high level/capstone features".
 
EmperorNorton said:
The problem is it being categorized as a cantrip. Cantrips scale with player level and I get why they did that.

It just works bad with Eldritch Blast because with two levels of Warlock (to get agonizing blast), it is by far and away the best damage cantrip in the game. Like nothing else gets close. And they need it because they lack the versatility in their normal spellcasting.

Basically: I don't think it is a problem of letting cantrips scale with character level rather than class level, it was a problem of Eldritch Blast being too good to be a cantrip. It's basically like Fighter extra attacks, which don't scale with character level, they scale with class level.

Personally, I think there were several spells that should have been class abilities. Like Rangers and Hunter's Mark.

But honestly... eh, D&D isn't my favorite game anyway, I do like 5e more than other versions, but I'm probably never going to run it again. I still play it though.
Click to expand...
That's my problem with WotC D&D, so many obvious fixes that wouldn't have ever been an issue if someone was looking at the game as something other than White Room design.

5e's good. Hell even 3e was ok. I just don't want to completely dismantle every race and class and rebuild to create something logical within a specific setting context. It's like making my own game with GURPS. I can take Mythras and get there in 1% of the time.
 
I'm also on the side of hating the hell out of every multiclassing system I've ever seen. But I love AS&SH's subclasses, which provide archetypes for pretty much every class combo people would want anyway. So I think that qualifies as irrational.
 
Gabriel said:
I LOLed. I'm guilty as charged.

I can't help it sometimes. I just see mechanics and I can't stop myself from messing with them.

I'll go to therapy if anyone will pay for it. :tongue:
Click to expand...
Yup. Same here
 
under_score said:
I'm also on the side of hating the hell out of every multiclassing system I've ever seen. But I love AS&SH's subclasses, which provide archetypes for pretty much every class combo people would want anyway. So I think that qualifies as irrational.
Click to expand...

While I'm not the biggest fan of the games, I think PF2e and D&D4e had the right idea for "multiclassing". Use feats to buy some abilities from other classes, but you always stay in your main class.
 
EmperorNorton said:
The problem is it being categorized as a cantrip. Cantrips scale with player level and I get why they did that.

It just works bad with Eldritch Blast because with two levels of Warlock (to get agonizing blast), it is by far and away the best damage cantrip in the game. Like nothing else gets close. And they need it because they lack the versatility in their normal spellcasting.

Basically: I don't think it is a problem of letting cantrips scale with character level rather than class level, it was a problem of Eldritch Blast being too good to be a cantrip. It's basically like Fighter extra attacks, which don't scale with character level, they scale with class level.

Personally, I think there were several spells that should have been class abilities. Like Rangers and Hunter's Mark.

But honestly... eh, D&D isn't my favorite game anyway, I do like 5e more than other versions, but I'm probably never going to run it again. I still play it though.
Click to expand...
Eldritch Blast is effectively the Warlock's basic attack, though; they're the magical equivalent of fighters, with a skill set that's simple but effective. Agonizing Blast is strong, giving you an effective +3 at least weapon pretty early on, but that's effectively the cap on your abilities.

My solution would be to provide invocations for the other damage cantrips, to bring them in line and allow Warlock players some variety.
 
Yeah, but that changes nothing about the problem we were discussing: Dipping 2 levels of Warlock is too good because Eldritch Blast is damn good for anyone with good Charisma. It's basically just too frontloaded of a class... which matters for multiclassing but works as a single class character.

(Additionally Hexblade adds to the issue of frontloading. 2 levels of warlock for Paladin is SUPER strong).
 
I hate fireballs, blasts, damage spells and magic missiles

Edit: even Creo Ignem
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top