Available at: http://masterplanpodcast.net/index.php?post_id=315878

Ryan takes another solo episode to talk about the part of game books we rarely talk about -- the text of the book separated from the game. He talked about the purposes of a game text, how a game text starts and ends a conversation with the reader, and some examples of games that do and don't do this effectively (even though as they're they aren't poor). Along with the issues, he tries to bring it home with some potential, if broad, solutions. Then Ryan talks about the show's first sponsor.

Mentions:

• Don't Rest Your Head by Evil Hat Productions
• GURPS by Steve Jackson Games
• Dungeons & Dragons by Wizards of the Coast
• Burning Empires by Luke Crane
• Ashcan Front

Running time: 24:26 / File size: 16.8 MB

I figured by talking poorly on the current story game rage, I'd get a comment like this. :)

I should note, and didn't because I didn't want to belabor the point in my show, that I have actually bought four copies of IAWA -- three for friends. We have yet to play, but I have neither taught them how to play nor do they visit internet forums. A couple that I have talked with found the text pretty lacking in the explanation department -- which it is. I mean, I don't really know what to say here -- it doesn't really sound much like the text has helped you here as but as it is likely you're a intelligent and patient person who has a group that jives well (which, regardless of how well you know the game, emergence-heavy games like IAWA require).

I didn't want to bring it up on the show, because I thought I was running low of time, but clearly I should have: text is in the eye of the beholder. It served you, and that's cool. I've also seen it fail to serve others, and in my opinion it is for lack of trying.

Remember, I said nothing about it being successful or not as a game. It is just a substandard document. Certainly not the worst game written -- if it was, it also wouldn't be fun at all.

Thanks for the compliment! I'll pass on the comment to Jeremy. :)

On the point, we may just have to agree to disagree here. You've got your empirical evident to point to one conclusion, I have another set to point to mine (in addition to spending a lot more time as a professional editor making me more acutely aware of problems within text separate from understanding them -- to be fair, perhaps a bit overly so, but then my clients seem to like that). But I'm going to address some points specifically, because I think there's some fruit here for a future Master Plan episode, and I want to note some of these thoughts down. Of course, you're welcome to continue replying. :) I just don't want to seem like I'm needlessly belaboring the point when it seems clear that we're coming from two very different positions, and will likely argue past each other if we continue.

In the sense that you talk about how a text starts a conversation with the reader, I think this one does remarkably well.

I think you're a smart guy who is able to jump into the middle of a conversation and follow along. But don't mistake your personal entrance to that conversation with that conversation's beginning. I'm not saying "hey, you should struggle with IAWA to start!" I certainly didn't. Being intelligent enough to get past poor text in order to enjoy a game is, frankly, a skill we've had to learn with all the shitty books that have been sold over the life of the hobby. A history of poor text and being in a culture of intelligent people will never in my mind excuse this sort of sloppiness and lack of effort.

I believe that the disconnect might have to about what you've come to expect in a RPG text. That is, that the fault may be with the reader.

I could not disagree more. If one reader has a problem, maybe. When multiple readers have the same problem, you have to look at the common source -- the text. There's no other way to split that. Frankly, that's my ironclad rule as a designer and editor. Unless by "what I've come to expect" is someone who will bother to put the time into introducing and explaining things. Then, sure, I expect something for my money -- not just IAWA, but with every game I buy. I want to feel comfortable in handing a game to my friends, who don't listen to podcasts or read forums, anything like that.

I do not agree that the the text is in the eye of the beholder; it is, but only to a certain extent.

If you buy into this as a writer, you'll fail as a writer -- that's hubris talking. You have to treat your text always as though it's in the eye of the beholder, because that beholder is the reader, not you. Certainly you can pick and choose your target audience and ignore those outside of it (and maybe that's what you mean by "only to a certain extent"), which is a smart way to go about things since you can't please everyone. Clearly, you're in IAWA's target audience. I almost am. But, since Vincent doesn't bother to communicate anything even implicit about who his target audience is (which many games, when they do, tend to do so implicitly), that's where that initial conversation element has failed.

Here's the real magic: you know all this text I'm talking about? If he included that in the book, it could totally be text you skipped over and you could have your personal entry point in exactly the same place as you have it now. That way, your experience is the same. But for someone who would like or need a fuller introduction, they could have that too. There's nothing to say you can't jump in the middle of the conversation that someone else is already starting with. My frustration is that is the only option presented solely with the book.

Finally, as a side note: between IAWA and Play Unsafe, I have a strong new rule on purchasing indie books -- if there's no listed editing credit, it's not worth the paper it's printed on. I absolutely now refuse to buy any games that do not have a separate editor who is backs up his contribution by being listed.

Perhaps I can boil this idea down into a sentence I just thought of 30 minutes after typing up the initial comment: The text of a book should be judged based not on those who understand it, but on those who don't. (With a caveat of target audience in mind, sure.)

Great episode, Ryan. It's probably the least talked about part of the whole design/publishing process and it is such an important part. I do agree with you, DitV = excellent text; IaWA = poor text; not bad IMO, but poor - the only reason I was able to follow was because I had already started the conversation online.

I wish you had mentioned those games that are examples of what not to do; maybe you do it here. Not to slam them, but for me, for us, to know what those bad examples are as well so as to avoid them.

And I friggin LOVED the ending. It made me laugh out loud in the bus. And all it took was $5? Hmm, I got $20 over here. Let's see what can I come up with for you to say. ;-)

Laters.

Casting thread necromancy here...

Did you ever get to discuss those games that are poor texts in your blog? I mean, I follow the feed, but I may have missed something.