Outlaws of the Water Margin

[ScytheSong]

Sleepyscholar of Shentian Having gotten through the Characters chapter, everything is looking good to me (I'm not detail-oriented enough to be a proofreader), with one exception. As someone who studied some Chinese history, Mandarin as a title for the Occupation feels jarringly anachronistic for a Song-era Shi DaFu -- Magistrate or Bureaucrat might be a better term.

 

[TristramEvans]

And funnily enough, when I sat down to start work on my introduction to the rules, I found myself throwing out the plan completely. There are now character templates. If you don't know how the system works, you're not going to be in a position to build a character the boring way, with points and all, but you can choose one of the templates. I do need to put in some more explicit stuff about the extra abilities you'll get if you are a hero, I guess.

Character templates are a fantastic entry point for an RPG, something I appreciate a lot looking back on many of the early RPGs I encountered -Star Wars, Shadowrun, etc.

Those who really want to know how the rules work, in my experience, will try to create a character in order to figure it out, and if I make the character generation more streamlined, as you suggest above, that should be possible, with reference to the Action chapter to fill in detail. I put character generation where it is, not so much from RPG tradition, but for this reason: for many people it's a 'route in' to the system.

I've put a lot of thought into how I learn RPGs, and I find that I do two things primarily before anything else - I take a look at the character sheet and I find the base task resolution mechanic. Then I look at combat, and from there go back and get into the nitty gritty. I couldn't in a thousand years say how universally applicable this approach is, but I do appreciate when a game puts a character sheet front and centre and it immediately gives me a visual indication of many parts of the rules.

None of this is here nor there, I'm just sort of rambling.

Whether or not to ditch the conversational approach is a dilemma. Personally, I've been virtually unable to read role-playing rules for decades, because I just find them too boring. Even in the drier bits, I want a few sparks to remind me why the game is worth playing. On the other hand, this presupposes that the conversational style succeeds at this, and isn't just waffle that is equally boring as, but longer than, the rules I've just criticised.

I think I maybe misspoke. The tone of the writing itself in the Characters chapter I think is more than fine, rather it's the organization I guess, that seems "stream of consciousness" or, at least, undilineated (I may have made that word up, according to spellcheck). To give an example, in the Methods of Character Creation section you start out by talking about, I guess what I'll call the "standard" or long method of chargen for the first paragraph, then in the second paragraph you digress into the other methods of character creation to jump straight into playing, then you are on to Limitations, and first choices are then followed by names (which easily seems like one of the last choices a person needs to make in regards to their character), and physical qualities runs the gamut from system choices to cosmetic choices (again I think things like appearance, handedness, and 'other details' seem like the last choices a player would make), etc.

What I'm proposing is more a matter of organization rather than adopting the "stereo instructions"-like tone that makes reading so many RPGs a chore.

For one, I think you're burying the lead a bit having all the methods of character creation in one go, with the easiest/most accessible variations after the paragraph describing the long style. Part of this is that we are, in this version, missing the wonderful separate sidebar/box entitled "Simple Character Creation" in the original pdf.



I really think this should be front and centre, one of the first thing a reader encounters in the chapter.

But let me back up a second. I'll note that in the original pdf, we had a full page character sheet on the page before/facing the chapter beginning/index. I did like individual indexes for each chapter by the way, but an overall index at the beginning of the book is good enough so that I didn't note the difference on first reading, only when I went back and compared it to the "original" (I'm going to stop using air quotes from now on and just assume you know when I say the original I actually mean the last almost-complete pdf that we have of the full game directly preceding this version, not whatever the earliest version of the game was; blame that on gamer pedantism...pedanticism? Spellcheck doesn't recognize either of those words either).

In the very first paragraph of the chapter we start with the statement: "Different people like to create characters in different ways." This seems like it belongs as the first sentence of the Methods section, as it doesn't have much to do with the rest of the initial paragraph and is kind of "begging the question". I'd think here in the first paragraph of the chapter the focus should be on how characters are described/defined in game terms, which is more to what the rest of the p. speaks on. Another reason having the character sheet right there is good, though instead of a blank one, a sample one with one of the Outlaws already filled in would seem better, like appears at the end of the chapter in the original (it could even be something to reference to during explanations, if you were so inclined, though I want to limit the degree of rewriting that I suggest, because again, really want to focus on getting the game completed rather than Leaf by Niggle, if you catch my meaning).

Speaking of, I thought the original chapter opening:



...was sufficient to the purpose, but I think there is, in this case, a conceptual whiplash between not explaining what an RPG is, because you assume everyone reading already knows, to speaking to someone like they've no idea what a character in a RPG is, so I understand why it was revised, but as far as an opening statement I think you could go with just an overview of what the chapter is about - a more direct "Outlaws characters are defined [thus]" and maybe a more definitive "Outlaws provides several methods of character creation for players or GM to chose from". But what I think you lost from the original paragraph is the notion that it is suggested as a collaborative effort rather than something a player turns up to the game with.

Moreover, when you get to this sentence:

"Thus the idea is, where possible, to describe only the distinctive traits of a character."

I think this is a good opportunity to elaborate on a few of the concepts that were causing a misunderstanding for burbles, namely:

> Outlaws doesn't have a traditional pre-set list of Attributes
> The system is zero-average
> characters in Outlaws are considered to be omni-competent, so only those specific Talents and Skills that a character is significantly better than average at or define them in some way get a bonus

I'd then start with "Simple Character Creation" as one section
Then "Choosing a Template" character creation as the next section
And then finally go into the third, or full method of character creation that will take up the rest of the chapter, providing an overview, then Limitations (which I kinda think "Restrictions" fits better conceptually, but that may just be me remembering hundreds of RPGs with copious lists of Limitations/ Disadvantages/Flaws that give players prize points for taking), and then explaining the core concepts of Abilities, Body, and Energy, before then walking step by step through the other parts in the order that they are necessary (again I suggest saving surface details like name, etc for last).

 

[Sleepyscholar of Shentian]

Sleepyscholar of Shentian Having gotten through the Characters chapter, everything is looking good to me (I'm not detail-oriented enough to be a proofreader), with one exception. As someone who studied some Chinese history, Mandarin as a title for the Occupation feels jarringly anachronistic for a Song-era Shi DaFu -- Magistrate or Bureaucrat might be a better term.

As I understand it, the English word mandarin has multiple meanings. On the one hand, technically it is used to refer to an office holder of one of the 9 ranks. It can also be understood simply to mean 館. 'Magistrate' is no good, because that's only used for the administrator of a prefecture. Bureaucrat is probably the best alternative. I chose mandarin because on the one hand it is an English word, while on the other it is recognisably Chinese.

Although its derivation may technically indeed point more towards the Qing, as a general English word I felt it fits. What's jarringly anachronistic?

 

[TristramEvans]

Margrave?

 

[Sleepyscholar of Shentian]

Margrave?

Yes?

Oh, you mean as a replacement for mandarin? I confess, since one of my favourite games at uni was Matt Williams' Rosekrieg (we all had custom setting/custom background games in those days), and it drew a lot of inspiration from that sort of Moorcock/Peake imagery, there's no way I could see 'margrave' working in a Chinese context.

Incidentally, pedant that I am, the word you were looking for is pedantry.

And your advice in that post was fantastic, and will, largely, be followed. You were right about the sidebars. Several of them fell by the wayside (including the character creation example) and it wasn't deliberate.

 

[Sleepyscholar of Shentian]

Sleepyscholar of Shentian Having gotten through the Characters chapter, everything is looking good to me (I'm not detail-oriented enough to be a proofreader), with one exception. As someone who studied some Chinese history, Mandarin as a title for the Occupation feels jarringly anachronistic for a Song-era Shi DaFu -- Magistrate or Bureaucrat might be a better term.

Although I had got Qing vibes, when I looked it up, it turns out that 'mandarin' dates to the Ming. Given that 水滸伝 was written in the Ming, although I concede the anachronism, I'm finding it even harder to get what's 'jarring'. To be honest, I could point out several far more jarring anachronisms in the game myself! The name 'China' is probably the one of these that looms largest. For a long time I seriously did consider excising all but an explanatory use of 'China' in the game, referring to it throughout as the 'Great Song Empire'. (Subsequent addition to post: I've just remembered that that's exactly what I did with my novel. Nowhere in the text does it say 'China').

 

[AsenRG]

And funnily enough, when I sat down to start work on my introduction to the rules, I found myself throwing out the plan completely. There are now character templates. If you don't know how the system works, you're not going to be in a position to build a character the boring way, with points and all, but you can choose one of the templates. I do need to put in some more explicit stuff about the extra abilities you'll get if you are a hero, I guess.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

Those who really want to know how the rules work, in my experience, will try to create a character in order to figure it out, and if I make the character generation more streamlined, as you suggest above, that should be possible, with reference to the Action chapter to fill in detail. I put character generation where it is, not so much from RPG tradition, but for this reason: for many people it's a 'route in' to the system.

Personally, I agree with this approach. Lots of people are using chargen to get a first taste of the system...

But I'd recommend to settle on one method of chargen, and then put the other optional ones in a separate chapter near the (or right at the...) end of the book, something like "Variant Chargen Methods"!

Whether or not to ditch the conversational approach is a dilemma. Personally, I've been virtually unable to read role-playing rules for decades, because I just find them too boring. Even in the drier bits, I want a few sparks to remind me why the game is worth playing. On the other hand, this presupposes that the conversational style succeeds at this, and isn't just waffle that is equally boring as, but longer than, the rules I've just criticised.

I like the conversational style, other people don't.
You know the quote "there's no pleasing everybody", right? And I do mean the follow-up advice "so write a book at least one person would like - you".

I've put a lot of thought into how I learn RPGs, and I find that I do two things primarily before anything else - I take a look at the character sheet and I find the base task resolution mechanic. Then I look at combat, and from there go back and get into the nitty gritty. I couldn't in a thousand years say how universally applicable this approach is, but I do appreciate when a game puts a character sheet front and centre and it immediately gives me a visual indication of many parts of the rules.

I suspect it's really popular among experienced roleplayers. That's how I learn new systems, and it's also how I explain them to people that haven't read the rules.

 

[ScytheSong]

Although I had got Qing vibes, when I looked it up, it turns out that 'mandarin' dates to the Ming. Given that 水滸伝 was written in the Ming, although I concede the anachronism, I'm finding it even harder to get what's 'jarring'. To be honest, I could point out several far more jarring anachronisms in the game myself! The name 'China' is probably the one of these that looms largest. For a long time I seriously did consider excising all but an explanatory use of 'China' in the game, referring to it throughout as the 'Great Song Empire'.

Okay, so I was confused. I was conflating Mandarin (the office/office-holder) with Manchu (the ethnicity). I'm sorry. Carry on.

 

[Panzerkraken]

I've put a lot of thought into how I learn RPGs, and I find that I do two things primarily before anything else - I take a look at the character sheet and I find the base task resolution mechanic. Then I look at combat, and from there go back and get into the nitty gritty. I couldn't in a thousand years say how universally applicable this approach is, but I do appreciate when a game puts a character sheet front and centre and it immediately gives me a visual indication of many parts of the rules.

I suspect it's really popular among experienced roleplayers. That's how I learn new systems, and it's also how I explain them to people that haven't read the rules.

I'm in the same boat with Asen on that one, you pretty much described exactly what I do with every new book/system I pick up.

Additionally, Sleepyscholar of Shentian , I have to second Tristram's comment about having the full page character sheet right there.. in fact, a few times while I was digesting the system in the original document I was holding that page while flipping back to read the combat examples, since you used the example character in those combats (which I thought was a fine touch).

 

[Sleepyscholar of Shentian]

Just spent a couple of hours doing the character sheet. I don't have CorelDraw on my machine any more, so I redrew it in Illustrator. I didn't redesign it. I just redrew it, and it felt good. Closest I got to 'redesign' was actually thinking about the role of a character sheet, yet another RPG artefact that is taken for granted. I think the C&S sheets were the worst ones ever: pages of hard to reference nonsense. One page character sheet: that's the most important thing. All the other stuff can be written on the back, or in a notebook. But that one page is your character's 'interface' with the system. KISS.

I'll have it where it always used to be: at the end of the introduction, immediately prior to the Characters chapter. And at the end of the characters chapter I'll reinstate the annotated one that shows how the example character is written on the sheet.

 

[soloman]

The chorus awaits!

 

[TristramEvans]

So according to the newest announcement for Tetsubo, it appears that it's now being released as a supplement for the Heroes & Hardships system, a universal RPG soon to be launced on Kickstarter. It saddens me that we apparently are not getting an adaption of the Outlaws system, though I hope this doesn't dissuade Mr. Mason from finalizing Outlaws for publication (though it's been a while since we heard anything on that front)

 

[TristramEvans]

A look at Kimiya Masago's 108 Outlaws
a Water Margin Art Book

 

[TristramEvans]

This is only tangentially related at best, but Folio Society just dropped a gorgeous new edition of Monkey, one of the other classics of Chinese literature (though I've always known it as Journey to the West)

 

[AsenRG]

You mean Monkey, right?

 

[Newt Newport]

Monkey is the name of the abridged translation by Arthur Whaley of the Journey to the West. It's the most commonly available version here in Britain via Penguin Classics, which is how I first encountered the novel back in the 90s.