Some Thoughts about Rules Lay-out - Boring

[Easy E]

Hold onto your hats folks, we are about to get into a riveting topic!  You can thank your buddy Evil Monkeigh over at the Delta Vector blog for this one!  I was sharing with him my Work-in-Progress design from Homer's Heroes.  As always, he and the Google Group gave me some good feedback.  However, in the process he also recommended that I share some thoughts on rule book lay-out and design on my blog!  That was the spark for this post.   

You may notice that in my reviews, I rarely talk about how a book is laid-out or how the ideas are organized.  For the most part, I gloss over that.  I find reviews that tell me things about font size, white space, lay-out, page count, etc. to be adding words but not a lot of value there.  Yet, here I am about to talk about it.   

At first glance, how you lay-out your rules seems like an after thought for post-production.  After all, the key ideas are your cool new activation system, fluffing out your concept, or how to resolve an action.  Those are all very important, but are completely useless if no one can understand what you are trying to tell them.

Remember, to be a game designer you need games for people to play.  In order for people to play your games, they have to be able to interpret your rules in a meaningful way. 



You can read the full story and leave additional thoughts at the blog here: http://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2022/01/wargame-design-rules-lay-outs.html

Or, you could just drop a comment right here and we can have a discussion?

[jon_1066]

I'll only comment if you base up that Ogre big guy!

Actually it sounds interesting, I'll take a look.

[Easy E]

Basing!  I would rather die!   

[fred]

Interesting article - from the title I thought it was going to be more about some of the items you cover towards the end. But the core point around how the rules are organised, and what parts are presented first is really important to the potential player trying to understand the rules from the rule book.

There are definitely horses for courses - and some popular rulesets seem to break some of the conventions of trying to make the rules easier to learn.

And know with video play throughs it can be easier to pick up some of the core concepts before reading the rules.

Finally - for some reason the link in your post isn’t clickable.

[Golgotha]

For me the most important aspect of any rule system is combat with everything else such as movement tending to be relatively similar generic and simple.

Yet some rules seem to almost gloss over combat and have it buried and or unclear with a need very often to cross reference it with reference sheets and or stats in order to make sense of it.

So putting combat first and at the for front of the system could improve things...

Similarly anything that makes a rules set different from standard rules or the norm being made clear from the onset as well.

[Easy E]

Finally - for some reason the link in your post isn’t clickable.

Thanks!  Fixed it.  Speaking of lay-out, 1 space makes a different!   

[FifteensAway]

T'ain't yet read the article but I'd say it is high time someone made the point.  Way too many rule sets out there that come across as Rube Goldberg contraptions rather than well thought out placements of what goes where and why.  I've abandoned reading a lot of rules just because of how poorly laid out they are.  And some of those abandoned rules are Really popular (one of which just gives me a headache trying to read it).  So hope your article penetrates the collective 'reasoning' and more thought is put into creating well-organized rules. 

Well, maybe. 

There are already WAY, WAY too many rule sets as far as I am concerned.  So many that I think they are actually turning some potential new entrants into the hobby of historical miniatures away.  Newbie question: "So, what rules should I buy?"  Response from every gamer within earshot gives a different ruleset for a different reason.  Would be gamer wanders away never to return - and bumps into something because his eyes were so glazed over and rolled so far back in his head.  Yeah, just my opinion but I think there is some serious truth in it. 

[fred]

interesting point about popular sets of rules being hard to read - and I have certainly found this. I do wonder how many gamers actually read the rules to understand the game? Within the group I play with 1 or 2 people will normally have read the rules (including myself) the rest seem happy to play from some broad instructions of what to do, and general understanding from other games. Which can cause a lot of confusion if a game is very different to what they are used to - eg alternating figure activation vs IGOUGO.

As to too many rules, very true. And too many scales. And too many eras. How a new person to the hobby has any idea what to choose, I have no idea. But as a group Wargamers seem to love a new set of rules - it is probably the ‘ooh shiney’ factor at work. It’s generally easier to spend a bit of money than to work at getting troops or terrain painted.

[levied troop]

So putting combat first and at the for front of the system could improve things...

I think I’d abandon any set of rules that followed that approach

Following a degree of order in the way most games proceed is more logical and helpful, so:
Movement
Shooting
Melee
Morale

And a dispassionate editor would greatly assist every rules system.

[Belligerentparrot]

And a dispassionate editor would greatly assist every rules system.

This. Very, very, much this! (Though I see it isn't always easy to get one at the cottage industry end of the hobby. The big companies, though - no excuses!)

[NotifyGrout]

The Warmahordes Mk3 starters have mission books that are gameified tutorials. They start with movement, then move to melee, then shooting, then morale, then special powers. The Malifaux Second Edition starter did the same, except for both players. I think it can be a helpful approach for those who have the time to make a quick start guide.

I find a sample turn for each player a huge help in most cases. Sometimes I will skip ahead to that if I know it's there, then go back and read the details.

With that aside, I'd probably approach it like this. This is basically my recollection of how most of the rulebooks I have found useful do it.

- What the game does (setting, models per side, typical game lengths based on the minimum and maximum recommended model counts)
- What is needed (sure it seems silly for veteran players but it's still nice to have a checklist, especially if a game requires templates)
- Set-up, including deployment zones, terrain placement, and any rules that change the defaults of those
- Turn order
- Unit stats explanation
- Activation process
- How to move (including terrain considerations)
- How to shoot (the entire process from declaring a target to settling casualties)
- How to fight/conduct melee (same, even if it means some repeating. Rulebooks that try to skimp instead of repeating the casualty determination for both melee and shooting tend to end up worse in my experience).
- Morale/resolve/nerve and what happens when things start to go wrong for a unit
- Any cleanup steps needed (removing counters and so on)
- Basic win conditions for a game with no objectives
- Sample turn
- Scenarios
- Force building, if applicable

I find that having something written out to refer to, even if it's not the way I'd do it, can be useful, so maybe it will help someone.

In addition to a dispassionate editor, I'd also consider allowing the biggest munchkin rules abusers you know to read up and give feedback, if they can't playtest.

[Easy E]

Playtesting is a whole other kettle of fish! 

I also like using an editor, but it is not always easy to find a good one. 

[Byrthnoth]

This might be drifting slightly off-topic, but I think in both the playtest/rules development process and the rules writing/layout/editing, there should be some involvement from wargaming newbies. Ideally people with no experience of miniature wargaming should be able to read the book and play the game correctly following the rules. I think that when the rules author, playtesters and editors are all experienced gamers, certain things can get taken for granted, or explained in a perfunctory way that only really makes sense if you already understand the concept. Any game could be someone’s introduction to miniature wargaming, so it’s best if it’s as friendly to beginners as possible. Fresh eyes can help identify areas that need to be refined or clarified, both in the rules themselves and how they’re presented. And by doing so effectively and explaining clearly, you’ll also help addled gamers who own too many rulesets and are trying to keep things straight in their heads.

I guess it’s a choice how much scaffolding or on-boarding needs to be included — not every rulebook needs a ‘how to paint and base your models’ section, for example — but it’s a bit like a well-written recipe. Can a reasonably intelligent person follow your instructions and make a cake that looks and tastes how it’s supposed to?

Understandably it can be tricky to find non-gamers to help in the writing process, since it can be difficult to even find interested playtesters or editors sometimes. Asking Barb from book club to look over your pike and shot skirmish rules could be a tough sell.

One more thing: I’m looking at a lot more rules on-screen these days and hyperlinks within the pdf/ebook really help, almost as much as a good table of contents and index.

[jon_1066]

Yeah I'm not seeing the whole has to be playable by your mum requirement.  99.9% of readers will be wargamers, especially of how brew rules or niche publishers.  It's not like GW releasing a new edition of WH40K that has to be playable by 12 year old kids so needs a gentle hand holding explanation.  Why fill a rulebook with un-needed fluff about miniature wargaming.  Pretty much everyone will be coming to the game from a different more popular game.

[NotifyGrout]

I apologize in advance if there's more than just a soupçon of snark- not trying to be hostile here.

Yeah I'm not seeing the whole has to be playable by your mum requirement.

There's a whole generation of kids out there whose parents (including the moms) raised them on D&D or other role-playing games, so they might be interested.

99.9% of readers will be wargamers, especially of how brew rules or niche publishers.

Space Weirdos and Song of Blades and Heroes, among others, would like a word. These games are designed for people with no wargaming experience, or perhaps coming from RPGs or board games.

There's plenty of room for both "games that I would only play at a convention with a GM" and "games that a new player can pick up in two turns". RPG and CCG players ask me all the time what I'm doing when I play Frostgrave at a store, and that's one of the reasons I play it- it's easy to teach, and it might mean a new hobbyist in the ranks.

It's not like GW releasing a new edition of WH40K that has to be playable by 12 year old kids so needs a gentle hand holding explanation.

First off, some of those kids are better gamers than you think. Teach them well and they'll be giving you a kicking before you know it.

Second, as I've said before, there's room for games of every stripe. I prefer a hand-holding explanation to the sort of ruleset that assumes you know how to do certain things because it's more of a cheat sheet for a group's homebrew rules that they know by heart (or it's just not written well). It shows me that the authors want me to learn and stay interested, even if I know how all of it works already.

Why fill a rulebook with un-needed fluff about miniature wargaming.  Pretty much everyone will be coming to the game from a different more popular game.

Um, because good fluff is fun? It also explains why one might pick Faction D over Factions A, B, and C. Some players want a unique setting, like Alkemy, Malifaux, or The Drowned Earth. Others like a basic framework that lets them branch out, like the -Grave games. Some prefer a specific historical period because it's interesting to them.

Without the fluff or background, I might as well skip the miniatures, the terrain, and everything and just break out a hex-based game, an abstract board game, or chess. Have you ever talked to people who only like abstract Euro board games? They are smart, highly tactical players, but most of them are drier than yesterday's toast, or at least their taste in games is.

It isn't too much to ask for an author to give us a paragraph or two about why the rulebook exists.

I should also note that your want is being granted more often these days: more companies with heavy fluff are releasing it separately from just the rules. Multiple companies have the rules-only version and the complete version of their books. Take the lite book or PDF to the store, leave the big one with all the background at home to read for fun (or just don't bother with the big book).

The bottom line is this- if you can't teach a new player easily, or at least easily enough to whet their appetite for more, they won't bother. This is especially true in this age of endless distractions and instant gratification. We need simple games with hand-holding in order to bring in new blood; they won't stick around for the more complex games if it's daunting from the first step. At my local con, a lot of the heavy historical game players get older and greyer with each passing year, and seem to think that forcing their kids to help will keep the hobby alive (usually, they either look bored or they are amusing themselves by picking up the miniatures and playing with them). Meanwhile, the simpler, faster playing games have vibrant tournament scenes, and the easier-to-run participation games fill up quickly.