Quote:
Originally Posted by devlin1
As an English major, I can safely say yes, I have, in spades. I can see applying that writing style to whatever game fiction is in there, but when it comes to rules, I say keep it clear and concise. Economy and precision of language are important when it comes to game mechanics, IMO. I prefer when authors keep the flowery prose confined to the fiction bits (especially since I almost always skip the fiction anyway).
I should emphasize that I don't have this book and haven't read it, so I can't speak to the specifics of it, but I mentioned it because I found WotG to be pretty overwritten as well.
|
I personally cannot read WotG because it's too cluttered word-wise. As someone with very little time to spend reading (or rereading), the breaking point on any game is how easy it is for me to read and understand the book. When judging by this manner, the games that absolutely fail for me have been WotG, Exalted: the Fair Folk, Vampire the Requiem; they are nigh unreadable, and I just don't have the time to read it several times over to get it (though in VtR's case, and much of the nWoD books, the very cramped text formatting turns the text into literal blocks of grey instead of readable type).
UnMet, on the other hand, I understood all of it on the first read. It was clear enough that I didn't have to reread the entire book aside for the fun of it. Sure, there's a few bumps here and there, but they've been minor in the entirety of the gamebook.
In the case of UnMet, the flowery prose is actually kept to a fair minimum with the rules. When it comes to describing equipment and such, it does adopt a little of the victoriana style catalogue but it really doesn't hinder the absorption of it at all.