Ideal Rules Organization

[Red Baron]

A lot of you may be working on writing a set of rules or a supplement right now. These are a few organizational things I believe need to be taken into consideration when putting together a set of rules:

List spells by level, rather than alphabetically. (see DD)

List monsters alphabetically. Include a very small stat block, and a description of special features with each entry: do not include fluff descriptions or include long stat blocks and do not omit important combat information or omit a stat block. (S&W:WB does this especially well. DD feels as hard to read as the 3LLBs)

Hyperlink your pdf/hypertext files (DD does an excellent job at this)

Format your tables well: make them both easy on the eyes aesthetically and easy to read. (I don't think either S&W:WB or DD does this particularly well. In DD the highlighted lines are erratic on several tables, and the spell boxes are awful on the eyes)

Don't go overboard on the art. Use just the necessities to get your vibe across. Humorous cartoons and captions are always appreciated.

[Finarvyn]

Feb 24, 2015 22:47:27 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

List spells by level, rather than alphabetically.

This may come from the fact that some spells can be used by more than one class. This leads to the question of "shall I list the spell multiple times or just one time?"

Multiple listings take up space, but allow the "by level" arrangement. This was the method selected by OD&D. The problem is that the second entry tends to be "see the other listing for details" instead of an all-out spell entry.

The one-time approach sort of "fixes" the above problem, except that a particular spell might not be the same level for all classes. (E.g., a 3rd level cleric spell might be a 2nd level MU spell.) This sort of forces an alphabetical approach instead of a level arrangement.

I think the most important advice is to follow the lead of OD&D and keep spell information short and to the point. A sentence or so is usually sufficient to explain the intent of the spell, and less detail allows for more creativity. I've run campaigns where I handed out a list of spell names only. When players ask what the spell does, I throw it back at them. "What do you think it does?" It's amazing what an inexperienced player sometimes comes up with as an answer to that simple question.

[discojer]

One of the reasons most early retro-clones did the spells by name, rather than level, is that is how the SRD does it.

To a certain extent, a lot of early games were dipping their toes in the water, to see if any sharks (aka WOTC) were biting. So they were careful about not copying the look & feel of the original games too much, because of Section 5 of the OGL, which goes into things like trade dress and design and format, which is one of those vague things that probably would be decided in a courtroom.

But beyond that, it's kinda easier. What if you know the name of the spell, but not the level? You'd have to look on the spell charts, find it, then go and look it up. As opposed to just looking it up. I agree when planning what your character will memorize, it's handy to have them all in one place, but looking it up it quicker the other way.

[coffee]

A problem I had in 3rd ed was that I knew a spell from previous editions but couldn't find it easily because they'd changed the name. So whichever way you do it could cause problems.

How about if the spells are listed alphabetically, but the spell lists are subdivided by class and level? Seems like that might be a good compromise.

[Red Baron]

What's so helpful about listing spells by level, is that it allows a magic user to quickly decide which spell(s) of that level he is going to memorize, without having to flip around the entire back half of the book.

[geoffrey]

I thoroughly HATE alphabetized spell lists. I have never encountered a situation in which I would want such a thing.

"But what if you wanted to look up a spell during a game?"

Well, whether it is a PC or an NPC, I've always written down the spell levels of spells. For example, a 5th-level magic-user's spells would be written something like this:

1st
hold portal
read magic
light
charm person

2nd
levitate
phantasmal forces

3rd
water breathing

I'd never dream of writing them down like this: hold portal, read magic, light, charm person, levitate, phantasmal forces, water breathing.

I never have to wonder, "What level is this spell?" It's written down on the paper!

[Zulgyan]

Spells by level, of course.

With regards to monsters, I like how OD&D v2 has grouped them into categories, such as humanoids, undead, faeries, mythic greece, oozes, etc.

[Stormcrow]

Feb 25, 2015 15:12:33 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

OD&D v2 

Wuzzat?

I think it's unsurprising that everyone on an OD&D forum says that OD&D has the ideal organization... 

[waysoftheearth]

Feb 25, 2015 16:18:48 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Feb 25, 2015 15:12:33 GMT -6 Zulgyan said:

OD&D v2 

Wuzzat?

OD&D Volume II.

[Zulgyan]

Yep, Monsters & Treasures.

[Mr. Darke]

I have to disagree about the monsters. I like some description and fluff as it can spark ideas for adventures or a way to use a monster differently.

[Vile Traveller]

I'd like to reiterate some of the problems Finarvyn pointed out with regards to listing spells by level. The biggest issue I have with this, especially when you get into editions that get into high levels and multiple spell caster classes (like BLUEHOLME™ Compleat Rules), is that there is a lot of repetition. For me that's not an issue of putting in text like, "this spell is the same as the magic-user version, except one level higher and the range is 60 feet" because my spell descriptions are short enough to simply repeat. But once you start repeating information, there is a likelihood that discrepancies will creep in, like one entry says 50 feet and the other 60.

I also don't really see the advantage of by-level entries - yes, certainly I have by-level lists for each class and you could even do abbreviated lists with spell details, but for flicking through the actual main entries I believe an alphabetical order is actually easier. This may also be a player-vs.-referee matter. As a referee I like alphabetical listings because it's much easier to find stuff I'm not familiar with. Players should have most of that information worked out already.

Anyway, that's my take on spells. Same goes for monsters, although the reason there is that it leads to arbitrary classification by the author which a reader might not agree with, making it difficult to know which classification you should look under when you want to find a particular creature.

[Vile Traveller]

Actually, the thread title made me think this would be about an even higher level of organisation, i.e. what chapters should you have and what information should go in each chapter. Although to be honest I haven't found anything that improves on Moldvay in that sense.

[Koren n'Rhys]

I, too, have to agree with a by-level spell organization. I will say, though, that I suspect the preference is mostly due to the system one learned to play first. To me it's so much easier to find anything. As a player, I want to know what second level spells are an option for me, and as a DM I'd be building a character and know what I need by by level, so it's the same either way. I simply find when using a retroclone that I spend far more time flipping and searching if they are alphabetized.

The solution would seem to be simply adding an alphabetized spell listing indexed to page and class/level.

[kenmeister]

There's something awesome when reading the spells in order about getting to the section on those higher level spells, reading them each grouped together, and seeing all the power you could have if you ever managed to reach that level. Alphabetized is a total buzz kill.

[geoffrey]

Feb 26, 2015 9:00:56 GMT -6 kenmeister said:

There's something awesome when reading the spells in order about getting to the section on those higher level spells, reading them each grouped together, and seeing all the power you could have if you ever managed to reach that level. Alphabetized is a total buzz kill.

I thoroughly agree.

[capvideo]

I literally just this weekend changed the organization of my spells from “by level” to alphabetically. But I did this only after putting all spells online in a searchable database, which includes being searchable by level.

The book contains a list of of names by level and by school, but the descriptions are by level; the sorceror in our game had been after me to do this for years, because it makes it easier to look up spells during the game. Names are almost always easier to remember than level, and he hated having to scan through for the name and then find the correct level and then the spell.

[Deleted]

Only slightly related but there really needs to be design notes in the back. Like those old Avalon Hill wargames. I'm not so concerned about what the rule is as I am about why the rule is. If I know what you're trying to accomplish it makes it much easier to decipher a rule that might have multiple interpretations.

[Deleted]

Feb 25, 2015 10:17:49 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

I'd never dream of writing them down like this: hold portal, read magic, light, charm person, levitate, phantasmal forces, water breathing.

Unfortunately, a straight list like this is usually how spellcasting monsters are often listed in adventures. Making it hard for the DM to find the reference if the spells aren't in alphabetical order in the rulebook.

[Deleted]

[Zulgyan]

Feb 26, 2015 10:51:09 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Feb 26, 2015 9:00:56 GMT -6 kenmeister said:

There's something awesome when reading the spells in order about getting to the section on those higher level spells, reading them each grouped together, and seeing all the power you could have if you ever managed to reach that level. Alphabetized is a total buzz kill.

I thoroughly agree.

Me too. It's cool explore one by one the tiers of spell power.

[coffee]

Okay, so how about organize the spells any way you want. Alphabetical is quite evil, apparently.

But include the spell's page number with its name. That way, I can find it when I want it.

If I have Sleep as a spell, I know it's under Magic-User, first level. (Or under S.) But if I have some other, less common, spell I may not know that right away. So something like Sleep(23) makes it real easy to find.


* Please note that this is for expanded spell tables. If there are as few spells as Men & Magic overall, the organization in that book suffices. *


Zulgyan, I have to admit that I never considered reading one level of spells to explore one tier of power. That's a cool way to look at it. Spell tables/lists have always been another long list of things. Which always causes my mind to wander. (Sometimes it sends me postcards, but I usually can't read them...)

[Scott Anderson]

I'm going to arrange spells in order of duration, in little text boxes on the bottom of each page, each one containing one spell and a half spells. That should bother everyone equally.

[capvideo]

That would be Awesome, Scott. It’s like those little texts on the bottom of neighborhood/church group cookbook pages. “For true love, add 1 tsp cyanide, 1 tsp hemlock, mix with three parts hate. For fireball mix (see next page)”.

[Vile Traveller]

But don't continue on the next page, put the actual text on a random page - possibly before the beginning of the description.

[Vile Traveller]

I think we basically have three issues on the spell front:

1) It's nice for players to have their character's spells laid out in order of level so they don't have to leaf through a big pile of stuff that doesn't relate to them.

2) People like to read spells in that order when browsing the rules for fun.

3) Alphabetic spell lists can save considerable amounts of space if there are many different types of spell casters that use many of the same spells and you want to avoid the "see Cleric spells" descriptions.

So, it seems the user preference is for level-ordered lists, but the cost would be increased page count. Is that what people want? Because That's what you'll get if you say so here.