"Do U.S. players require too much precision with their rules?" Topic

But perhaps some US authors have a false perception of legalistic being required and write accordingly.

Interesting thought. But why would US authors have this false perception? Either:

A. It is not false, because the gamers they know "require" it.

B. Because, deep down, that is what they want.

Probably others.

Personally, I cannot imagine why you would want to leave certain basic game mechanics "on the table" for players do work out as they will. It essentially changes your game design.

The interesting part, if you read Neil Thomas' interviews about game design he complains about people trying to muck about with some design elements, such as changing the number of units in an army list, and strongly discourages it. On the other hand, he then publishes ambiguous rules. Hmmm … : )

Anyway, it has been interesting seeing the different viewpoints from different cultures. Between this thread and the "customer support" one, plus the brouhaha on a particular rules forum, I can see that many of the vocal members of TMP believe you need to "own the rules you buy" and the hell with the author's intent.

Works for me, as long as I don't play a tournament.

Dale

@ Terrement

So, you don't agree with my question. Fair enough.

So are you now agreeing that Dale's statement "Do U.S. players require too much precision with their rules?" is true?

If so we have agreed.

If not then you are saying that American players don't require too much precision with their rules.

If so we disagree.

What are we disagreeing on, and is this the standard argument, or the full on one (to misquote Monty Python)?

I think most gamers are incurable tinkerers with rules.

That could qualify as a quote of the day!

@ Terrement

The basis for my position is the size of the rule books, which are fat bloaters. Examples include Star Fleet Battles, Advanced Squad Leader, and Battletech off the top of my head.

Secondly, just because I want to be sure that you have not missed my point, I don't with Dale that British, or European rules are incredibly imprecise.

Insert agree between don't and with in the above sentence.

I wonder how many people posting have published rules and then tried to deal with all the questions on Forums and chat sites?

I'm an American writer and I try as hard as possible to be excruciatingly precise, but people will always find a way to read confusion into something, and those people aren't often Americans. I routinely get rules questions, and only a small portion of them come from the USA.

I had a guy who asked me whether the word "Turn" meant something different on page 66 because it was written there (accidentally) with a capital T – but with a lower-case T on other pages.

I had a guy who pointed out that I hadn't specifically stated that hills blocked line of sight, and thus wanted to know whether a unit on the opposite side of a hill was visible? (Apparently, unless told otherwise by the author, all hills are potentially transparent.)

He then wanted to know whether "Concealed" was the opposite of "Visible," since the book didn't specifically say so.

I had a guy who asked, in reference to the combat results table, whether the side that "Won" the combat meant that the other side "Lost."

I had a guy who asked – and this is in reference to a black powder/horse & musket era game – whether it was possible to shoot through one enemy unit and hit one behind it. After all, the rules didn't prohibit it…. even though they did say that the first eligible target in your field of fire must be your target. (His argument was: "well, is there a difference between a "target" and "the unit that takes casualties from my fire"?)

I'm serious. And I could go on. And on. Wargamers are like that. But more to the point: None of the aforementioned questions came from Americans.

If your rules aren't meticulously precise, then you are going to get people asking questions like that, from all over the world. You can just ignore them, or you can answer them, hour after hour, day after day… Or you can try to write rules in as watertight and precise a language as possible, to minimize that sort of problem.

You'll never be able to get rid of the problem altogether, but that has nothing to do with any one nationality allegedly being more litigious than another. It has to do with the fact that lots of wargamers – of all nationalities – are highly competitive and are always looking for an advantage, and trying to manipulate the game in whatever way they can. So if the rules don't specifically define "Concealed" as the opposite of "Visible," then I can assure you that you'll get dozens of gamers – who wouldn't normally have any trouble understanding those words in their daily lives – suddenly being unable to figure it out, and arguing passionately about it, around the gaming table. (Amazing how basic language comprehension breaks down as soon as the dice start rolling….)

-

PS – If, for example, Brits and Kiwis were more laid-back than American gamers, then kindly explain why we find the gaming world's most popular tournament-based sets coming from those countries, constantly tweaked and re-engineered and re-released in umpteenth editions with people ranting about this or that change in points-values for this or that Army List.

@ Terrement my answer…

I unreservedly reserve the right to change my mind at any time about the subject that I've just written, and make changes to the spelling, grammar and contents as I see fit, up to and including the total removal of said posting if necessary. Furthermore what I've written at this point may be just what I'm thinking at the moment I wrote it down. Nothing should be inferred about any authority of the writer to write said thoughts down, as everything that has been written is meant to be entertaining for the reader, and it shouldn't be construed as anything more than the ramblings of yet another person on the world wide interweb. However, no contract should be assumed between the writer and the reader about whether or not the article is entertaining or not. Remember service brings citizenship, but reading a post on TMP is purely voluntary, and you remember what your parents said about volunteering don't you? If you don't remember, or know, then the writer of this post cannot be held responsible, or liable for the outcomes that arise from volunteering for things that can have deleterious results to either your physical, mental, or emotional wellbeing. All posts are condensed & abbreviated summaries of complex arguments posted for discussion on the internet, and are not meant to be authoritative in any shape, or form on said subject.

Lets put the question another way:
How long do you want your rules?
12 pages? 30? 70?
I've played ITGM for a long time. This was a set of rules that evolved through playing with their original author (P.Gilder). Originally designed to be played with an umpire who was also the author, so no great need for massive "precision" as it has been (imprecisely) termed here.
The first set of rules was about 50 pages of widely spaced print. About 10 years ago it was decided by PG's successors to do a re-write encompassing ALL the anomalies and explanations which wern't immediately obvious in the original. No great changes, just expanded explanations covering the 20 odd years of continuous playing (ITGM could be the most play-tested rules in the world in terms of man-hours spent playing in the presence of the writers).
The result was 75 pages of very close-typed, turgid prose. The word count is about 6 times that of the original. I know these rules inside out, and rarely have to consult them, but when I do it can be a struggle to find what I need- and this isn't actually a criticism- a LOT of thought went in to making the layout logical. The trouble is though the rules are highly complex for a first time reader.
"Precision" as you put it, comes at a price.

Like a mini dress, long enough to cover all the salient points, but short enough to attract attention.

@ Schnurfel

I wonder how many people posting have published rules and then tried to deal with all the questions on Forums and chat sites?

I have. The rules were free, but they were out there and the membership was up over 100, with no "advertising" in other forums like this. I considered that pretty good, considering the rules used miniatures and a grid.

It is not there anymore, as I got the design I wanted out of it and only one person was asking questions, so we just emailed each other directly if necessary. :) I have free rules on my blog too, dealing with the AWI. So yes, I have gone down this route, in a limited way.

After all, the rules didn't prohibit it…

A common refrain, on a lot of rules forums. Rules authors should put in a statement that the rules define what can be done, everything not explicitly stated cannot. Then keep repeating that over and over on the forums. Eventually someone will come up with something that isn't in the rules, and should be. I then thank them for pointing out my oversight, add the rule, and put out a new version. But, that is me.

It has to do with the fact that lots of wargamers – of all nationalities – are highly competitive and are always looking for an advantage, and trying to manipulate the game in whatever way they can.

I don't think that "looking for an advantage" and "manipulate the game" necessarily follows one another. There was a thread on "rules lawyers" a while back and it was interesting to note the different definitions people had for that term. To some, a rules lawyer is someone who interprets the rules literally, so ambiguously worded rules are fertile ground for misunderstanding and multiple interpretations. For others the term was synonymous with "cheater" and thus ambiguously worded rules were fertile ground for manipulation.

Your reply contains a lot of insight. It really is not an American/European thing, but probably an Old School/New School thing. Or maybe it is simply the tournament player that is different. Looking at the other recent threads those that talk about "in the old days" are generally more laid back in their responses about how they handle things. When I meet with a newer gamer – one who started gaming in the last few years and probably cut their teeth on more mainstream games – they are more competitive, generally despise ambiguity, and will likely disagree with you on those ambiguous sections due to the way they play it locally. No one likes rules changing on them in the middle of a game.

@ Christot

The result was 75 pages of very close-typed, turgid prose. The word count is about 6 times that of the original. [snip] "Precision" as you put it, comes at a price.

That doesn't sound like my definition of precision. Increasing clarity doesn't necessarily require more words. In fact, it sometimes results in less, because people keep tripping over words. Also, one would not expect you to find much value in a re-write of rules you knew inside out. The question is whether the target audience found much value in the re-write.

I doubt anyone found value in it though, as you make it sound like it was badly written, which is of no real value no matter how long or short it is. Bad is bad.

Thanks though. I now know another set of rules to avoid.

Dale

My answer…

First, there are games with incomplete, contradictory and inconsistent rules, which people desire to buy and play.

Second, the question of the increased desirability of complete, non-contradictory and consistent rules, I can't answer, for two reasons:

- To prove the argument would require a large statistical database of rule sets, where either quantitative data for "complete, non-contradictory and consistent rules" versus "incomplete, contradictory and inconsistent rules" had been measured, or a qualitative data had been collected by coding peoples desire to play the games.

- The trouble with the word "desirable" is that it would depend on the precise meaning one chose to use. Given that desire encompasses feelings, then what I desire may not be what you desire, but your desires are no more valid than mine, or vice-versa mine are more valid than yours.

And that is why I can't agree with the OP, or Terrement's arguments.

Disclaimer: All posts are condensed & abbreviated summaries of complex arguments posted for discussion on the internet, and not meant to be authoritative in any shape, or form on said subject, T&CA, E&OE & YMMV.

I'm curious as to howmany folks here using the term "precision" actually know what the word means, as I've seen it repeatedly used incorrectly

"A British bank is run with precision.
A british home requires nothing less…"

That kind? How are wargaming rules/games/scenarios made more enjoyable with that kind of attitude? Yegods!…