Fun to read and/or easy to reference?

[Warren Abox]

So as not to further hijack Norm's thread (https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=137624.15)...

We've come a long way in the technical writing side of things, but we as a hobby have a long way to go.  Some scattered thoughts and observations:

Osprey's Blue Book series are really fun to read.  They are written in a linear format that carries the reader through the process of setting up a game, then the turn order, then scenarios, then campaign.  Easy to read.

But they tend toward uselessness at the table.  Important rules are buried in obscure paragraphs.  Set-up and game play are mashed together, and terrain effects are often dumped just like, wherever, man.  They rarely repeat important rules, and rarely set critical rules apart in bold or italics.  And thier QRS game is weak.  And they aren't the only ones, just the first one that springs to mind as better at the fun read than the reference work.

Which is an interesting editorial choice.  I like a good read, but as a guy whose eye is always on the game, I use game books more as a reference than a narrative.  It is probably a good business choice, as more people buy rules to read than to play.

I am not sure that fun and useful are mutually exclusive.  Wiley Games dies a good job of it, as does Ganesha Games.  Anybody else manage to hit both marks at the same time?

[Storm Wolf]

Agreed I love reading the blue books but playing? For most of them this is true with some noticeable  exceptions.

However with ALL of them and especially Black Ops which I would really love to like etc, is the woefully, pitiful cludge of the summary sheets or QRS that are proffered for these rules.

In fact this gives me a vent for major rant at the death of a decent summary sheet for most games. I tend to have to write my own, but I get fed up trying to sort through the issues you mentioned above and Stargrave is one of the worst. Again I want to love it but can't quite

Still things may improve, who knows

Glen

[Elbows]

As someone who writes rules, I struggle heavily with the "need" to write technically.  I don't enjoy it, but do find that it is very important to having crystal clear rules.

I agree with many rules having fairly significant points/rules hidden in paragraphs in a larger, more vague section of the rules.  My rules are likely not fun to read, but I try to keep them well categorized and each rule has its own bolded section.  For my next two games I'm using a rules + appendices style, where the rulebook of 30-35 pages can be disgarded once you get a few games in, while the 30-35 pages of appendices are bulleted/colour coded sections for game reference.

One of the very first things I do when designing a game now is create a style book, or vocabulary list...making sure to use those words correctly and consistently in writing.  Reading through my rules, they do sound quite technical, but...that's on purpose.  I want as little grey area as possible.

I enjoy including small stories, anecdotes or designer's notes along in my rules to break up the monotony, when possible.

There is a huge difference between:

"A Model may attack another Model when it moves base-to-base with it."

and

"An active Model which moves adjacent to one or more enemy Models may use an action to perform one melee attack with a currently equipped weapon." 

Admittedly reading the second one is laborious...but is less likely to be questioned or argued over, etc.

I admit I kinda hate writing rules...even though I enjoy making them.  I frequently stall for months at a time when it comes to putting everything down on paper.  I'm still baffled how I can teach someone a game in one turn...yet writing it for a book or PDF it becomes 30+ pages. 

PS: I agree with Quick Reference Sheets being hugely useful.

[Storm Wolf]

Elbows I feel your pain, and I do tend to find the older rules easier to understand for playability than quite a lot of the modern rules.

Maybe its because they were more rigidly laid out and indexed or that I am much more used to reading specifications, who knows I certainly don't? I somehow used to play Star Fleet Battles back in the late 80's and I can't ever imagine ever playing a game of that complexity  again, I have far too few little grey cells these days

For all those ules writers out there (not you Elbows  ) please make decent summary sheets that cover if not ALL game situations it should at least cover most of them and preferably please keep it to 2 A4 sides without a lot of filler graphics etc. It should be possible to do most blue book games and Stargrave on this with a font of 10 or possibly even 12 size so us old duffers can still read it , and more importantly save me (us) the turgid task of making a useful QRS when one should be available in the back of the book already.

Keep up the good work Elbows

Glen

[Elbows]

Oh, I didn't say any of my work was good

Just, I'm a massive proponent of game aids...and that includes well laid out quick reference sheets, etc.  I make reference sheets (hell I made a reference binder for Battlegroup...) for all the games I play.  I prefer simple lay outs, skipping heavy graphics and fonts you can't read...some games like GW's latest Necromunda efforts are printed in a thin font over a really busy background colour, etc.  It's pretty...poor choice.

Give me logical, simple, well laid out, and easy to reference any day.

[Sunjester]

I enjoy a lot (not all) of the Osprey stable, but agree on the lack of a decent QRS and sometimes hiding inportant rules in obscure places.
But I also object to 30 quid hardbacks that are essentially a blue osprey filled out with lots of fluff and pretty pictures, which seems to be the norm today!

[fred]

Some of the authors of the Osprey blue books have noted how strict the word count is - and this makes adding a QRS really hard - as they want to provide as much content as possible. Perhaps Osprey could consider dropping a couple of illustrations to add a QRS into these book?

But I also object to 30 quid hardbacks that are essentially a blue osprey filled out with lots of fluff and pretty pictures, which seems to be the norm today!

This is a good point, books like Black Powder & Pike and Shotte are probably one of the worst for percentage of rules text vs total content. I enjoy reading and looking at Pike and Shotte and it makes me want to play, but it doesn’t make me want to use the rules.

Bolt Action is another example of a very nicely laid out book, and all seems good. But trying to use it in a game to check something is very hard work.

But I know from trying to write home-brew rules, that it is very easy to go the other way, with just a few terse sentences, that then struggle to make sense when looked at months or years later.

[Mammoth miniatures]

Some of the authors of the Osprey blue books have noted how strict the word count is - and this makes adding a QRS really hard - as they want to provide as much content as possible. Perhaps Osprey could consider dropping a couple of illustrations to add a QRS into these book?

This is a good point, books like Black Powder & Pike and Shotte are probably one of the worst for percentage of rules text vs total content. I enjoy reading and looking at Pike and Shotte and it makes me want to play, but it doesn’t make me want to use the rules.

Bolt Action is another example of a very nicely laid out book, and all seems good. But trying to use it in a game to check something is very hard work.

But I know from trying to write home-brew rules, that it is very easy to go the other way, with just a few terse sentences, that then struggle to make sense when looked at months or years later.

SPQR (also from warlord) was very bad for this - It could have been a 12 page A5 zine and still had room for some historical set dressing. and it probably would have been better as a result.

[AdmiralAndy]

You can get some QRS and additional content for Osprey Games here:

https://ospreypublishing.com/gaming-resources/

Though you don't always find a QRS at least worth a look.

Osprey aren't very hot on product after care so tends to be a bit adhoc, they are after all essentially selling books which most folks know what there getting, and are developed to a budget. In there time personally I think Osprey has done as much for Wargaming spreading as GW IMsubjectiveO ofc.

[Easy E]

Back in my day, if you wanted any resources for a game like cards, QRS, charts; then you had to make it yourself by badging it together with copies made at the local library!  When did wargamers get so needy and need everything handed to them!    /S

 

In all seriousness, for most rule writers it is a side gig at best.  They are not professional editors, graphic designers, technical writers, coders, or lay-out experts.  Typically, they are mirroring a style they have found elsewhere, and for me I know that style is Rick Priestley's work. 

It is the least technical of styles, but it does give you a nice cozy feeling to the rules.  You can practically image yourself sitting down in the game room with Rick and his mates playing a game.  During the game, the individual rules don't matter as much as the experience and getting hung up on a rule would be very frowned upon.  In Rick's wargame room, you never get hung up on edge cases because you just make a ruling on the spot. 

With this as my template for writing, I can see why more formalized wargamers would really hate running one of my early games between two strangers.  In my wargame world head cannon, strangers never play games against each other; and no one would be so gauche as striving to win over the overall experience.  I mean there is too much tea to drink, idle chit-chat, and snacks to munch on to worry about such nonsense.  Just make a ruling, roll some dice, and move on with it after all.     

Once a few games hit the real world, I was quickly disabused of this notion and experience has taught me how to tighten up and write better, more direct rules.  I often use the instructions on pre-made food prep as a guide now.  There, nothing can be assumed and every step must be detailed or you end up with no food.  Hence, my expanded use of bullet points, numbered steps, and key, repeated phrases. 

That said, Osprey itself also has some editorial guidelines and limitations as well.  There will be no index, and the table of contents is 1 page.  You work with editors, which are a huge help; but it is really only a small handful of folks working on any given book.  I am also relatively sure the editors are juggling more than one book at a time.  After all, the margin on these wargame/RPG books is probably pretty tight, so they need to hit certain criteria in order to be printed profitably.  In truth, we are lucky there is an Osprey Blue Book series at all!

Overall, there is a fine line between a playable game and a fun rulebook to read.  It is not an easy job to straddle both those markets; especially when the games are mostly written by amateur enthusiasts.  That said, I own every single Osprey Blue Book, and will gladly spend my money on everyone that comes out because I want the Blue Book series to keep going forever and ever!           







 

[Storm Wolf]

Easy E,

I remember the days of doing such things and in fact still do, but my patience is stretched a bit thin by some of the poor summary sheets that are on the Osprey website. Lots of blank space with most of the important stuff left off. That said I still like to flick through them, but play them

This has now sadly become common for other wargames I note.

As a 50+ year old I often cannot now be bothered to do their work for them and so I tend to stick to rules that I already know well. This saddens me and I do find it a barrier to new rules take up and game play. Shame really.

I really like the Wiley Games stable of FFOL rules, for them I do like to make up my own summary sheets, mainly to get everything on one side of A4 in this case 

Glen

[AdmiralAndy]

@Easy E

I think that's all fair, I see Ospreys Blue Books as the spiritual successor to the 80's £2.50 B&W with a coloured cover rulebook, although most did have a QRS of another hard card colour as often as not.

These days if the rules are any good, then someone will make a QRS if needed and a lot of folk make up a fancy QRS even if one exists. If you can't be bothered to google and print then can only imagine there using unpainted minis 

The Blue Books  gave me a second wind for Wargaming just like when starting in the 80's when a wee nipper, mostly due to Daniel Mersey and latterly Michael Leck, but picking up others in the range, I tend to have outbreaks of getting a few at a timne, so probably got about a 3rd of them.

I also hope they run for a long time, there a great price point for someone to get started with, there's even Callan from the in colour series getting a rerun at the moment, just like in the 80s When I first saw it.

[Warren Abox]

Back in my day, if you wanted any resources for a game like cards, QRS, charts; then you had to make it yourself by badging it together with copies made at the local library!!           

Honestly? I rather enjoy building my own QRS. Even for games already include one, the process of editing that sheet forces me to identify which rules are most important. It also helps me sort out phases of the game, and the priorities of the game. However, it is a value added service to have one ready made. It is also nice to see how the designer organizes the bulls, or at least a short-hand version of them.