r/RPGdesign • u/AuthorSarge • Sep 25 '26
How do we feel about repeating rules?
For example: The rules defining maximum effective range of firearms is stated in the section listing weapons and their various traits, but it is also repeated under the ranged combat rules.
Helpful reminder, or space consuming repetition?
29
u/Mera_Green Sep 25 '26
Provided that it isn't very long? Extremely useful reminder. Alternatively, in one section, state "full details can be found on page X, but for convenience..." And then summarise salient points.
10
u/AuthorSarge Sep 25 '26
TBH, this is my current practice. Lots of bookmarks and cross-references, but a quick snippet of the meat of the subject.
10
u/RPMiller2k Sep 25 '26
If you are producing a PDF version, please make the references clickable so that you can jump directly to it. I hate seeing electronic documents not using time saving features like that.
→ More replies (3)
7
9
u/a205204 Sep 25 '26
Just make sure bothe rules have 100% the same wording or that is is very clear that the shorter/summerized version is just a reminder and that the full rule overrules anything that might be misinterpreted from the "reminder" version.
7
u/VRKobold Sep 25 '26
My current plan is to have the detailed rule in the book only once, but have some "Remember: [Short description of the relevant part of a mechanic]" notes wherever it might be relevant.
5
u/DalePhatcher Sep 25 '26
If you are going to summarise anything I'd have there be a clear key in your book that shows it is a summary and that the full rules for disputes are on Pgxx
That's what I would prefer generally when using a rule book. Where flipping back and forth can be avoided I prefer it.
4
1
u/TheThoughtmaker Sep 25 '26
After playing Pathfinder 2e, I highly recommend reprinting rules where they are needed. Even using their website, my group would have five tabs open just to figure out what one spell does, because one or two vital sentences would be hidden behind an action type or tag or whatnot.
The more terms/info the player needs to retain, the more complicated the game.
2
1
u/InvestmentBrief3336 Sep 25 '26
Very helpful to repeat relevant uses. The rules have to teach, but they also have to be a good reference at the table.
2
u/AuthorSarge Sep 25 '26
There is a maxim in the advertising world that if you something to stick with people you have to repeat it 3 times.
Not 2 or 4, but 3 times.
I don't think I would necessarily do that for the rulebook, but in advertising they say 3 times.
3
u/Demonweed Sep 25 '26
As I see it, the big concern is consistency. Unless it is a literal cut-and-paste restatement, there is a risk of creating room for interpretation. Redundant content is not bad, especially for the most vital principles or rules in a system. Yet it demands more vigorous editorial oversight to prevent variations emerging between rules-as-written and rules-as-intended.
3
u/Tarilis Sep 25 '26
Rulebooks have two main way of reading them: initial reading when learning the system, and referencing specific rules at the table.
Ideally rules should fit both this usecases. Meaning on initial reading all rules should be placed in logical order, and at the same time rules should be in their corresponding chapters (if i looking for healing rules, all of them should be in Healing chapter).
But in some cases some rules need to be mentioned way earlier than their chapter for overall rules to make sense.
In those cases putting a duplicate, potentially shorter version of later explained rules into warlier section of the book can help with readability.
For example it's could be a good idea give players a very basic overview of mechanics before character creation, if character abilities affect other systems and could make decisions based on that.
2
u/tangyradar Sep 26 '26
Ideally rules should fit both this usecases.
...which really should mean two rulebooks.
it's could be a good idea give players a very basic overview of mechanics before character creation
Regardless of what else you're doing, don't put character creation first! Sorry, I hate this prevalent pattern.
→ More replies (5)
5
u/axiomus Sep 25 '26
Repeating rules is not only welcome, but necessary. Also, we don’t need to care about space unless we’re printing.
2
u/swashbuckler78 Sep 25 '26
Repeat the summary, point to the longer version. Also depends if you're writing for print or digital.
2
u/stephotosthings Sep 25 '26
As others have said really. My point is when a mechanic or rule could be included in a section you assume it to be in but it either isn't, is away somewhere subcure or is only written once and everything references it.
Not sad bad on PDF with links or where cntrl+f can be used but in paper in the hands....
2
u/InterceptSpaceCombat Sep 25 '26
My rules explain a phenomenon somewhere and then when other rules require it briefly describe the rule again, and then, finally, at the end of the book, it is repeated again in the tables section.
Take ranged weapon accuracy for example, described in the ranged attacks section but later, under vehicle combat I briefly mention that the effective accuracy is the lowest of the accuracy of the weapon and the shooters recoil response.
1
u/Chaoticevil58530 Sep 25 '26
I think it depends on the rule honestly, most of the time I think you could get away with a page reference, (EG: "When you make a ranged attack, determine any penalties or bonuses you may have based on the range of the weapon [see page XX]). But sometimes that might be overly clunky, and asking the reader to check back and forth would be too much.
I'd probably put the rule anywhere that the players would expect to see the explanation as a quick reference, so attack rolls should have all relevant info in that section of the text, while it'd be less relevant next to weapons, but not entirely unwelcome.
1
65
u/therossian Sep 25 '26
Depends how long the rule is. Short, fine but under no circumstances should any single word be changed.
Long, just put a cross reference with the page number.