"Rick Priestley on Rules Questions" Topic

From Rick Priestley in the latest issue of WSS:

The best way to work out a rules query is to work it out with your opponent. The second worst way is to delve into the
rules – wasting precious playing time, but at least you should
find your answer in the end. The worst way? Hunt down the
author and ask him! Few authors have encyclopedic knowledge
of their own rules and, when put on the spot, won't
actually remember exactly what they have written!

What do you reckon?

The best way is to roll a die during the game and later, when things calm down follow Rick's advice.

Having one design under my belt, I agree with his last point.

I agree 100%, but still find myself spending too much time doing the second worst way.

I reckon that is very good advice.

The worst way to settle a rules question is to combine delving into the rules, then arguing about what should be changed, in the middle of a game, one of my worst character traits as a gamer. I am the author, or co-author, so "hunting down the author" never takes any time at all :) ….

Rolling a die is the worst way of all, because that renounces reason for chance.

Other than that, the ordering seems reasonable.

All the best,

John.

Rolling a die is the worst way of all, because that renounces reason for chance.

Exactly!

Having designed and published rules, I can back this up. I forget our rules all the time. With over 15 books out now written by three people, it's easy to forget things, even basic things. It's become a joke in our game club when we use anything I wrote to say "Gee, it's too bad we don't have anyone here who wrote the rules so we can ask them."

Now that Rick Priestly admitted it, I can invoke this rule in my defense. Not that most of them care who he is…

The issue really comes down to what you can reasonably expect from a set of rules.

I've read a number of rules sets where it seems the author has thought of everything (or nearly so) and has put it down in black and white (and it's not always that complicated).

I've read many more sets where it seems the author hasn't really thought things all the way through, resulting in many ambiguities, issues unaddressed, etc.

As a paying customer, I think I'm entitled to some level of "completeness".

I don't think there's a bright line you can draw. It's more of an "I know it when I see it" sort of thing.

I find this comment extremely annoying, reinforcing my opinion that many published rules creators are in fact "cocks" who class themselves above everyone who plays their games !!

Write decent, clear rules in the first place and then playtest them. Support your product and be grateful that other people like & support (usually financially) what you have produced. Be willing to enter into discussion and provided appropriate channels are followed (ie: no stalkers) be open and helpful to those that seek guidance.

Yes the best way to resolve a query is it work it out with your opponent BUT based on the rules. That's sort of the point of having them in the first place.

And personally I can't stand the roll a die option as that just smacks of laziness by all concerned.

Do it right or don't bother at all.

Yes mistakes can be made, and things can be misinterpreted but to set out from the onset with this attitude that its ok we'll just "get by" and "wing it" is quite offensive.

Anyway, you asked .. so that's what I reckon.

I always read my rules before a game, so I don't look like an idiot.

I think a distinction might be made between rolling a die as a temporary measure to resolve a dispute for the duration of that game only, without claiming to set a precedent, to prevent the game being delayed, and a more considered discussion/resolution of the issue by close reference to the rules and any other work by the author that might throw light upon his intent, afterwards, with the aim of finding an agreed solution to the problem to be used in future.
In the first situation, the die roll has some merit; in the latter, as John D. Salt says, it has little or none.

I say roll a die during the game rather than argue, then settle it with a discussion once the "heat of battle" is over. I've seen more than one game ruined by heated argument that should have been settled by dice. I'm not saying dice settle the issue for all time, but for right now they can't be beat, especially when two guys get hot under the collar about it.

Edit: Arthur beat me to the punch.

In our rules we put in a 7 page section that has our ideas behind why we designed the rules the way we did. Now, I've found that there are some people who play our game much more than we authors do. We still get asked our opinions and freely give them, but we might be incorrect at some times. Also the two authors sometimes disagree (Imagine that).

which is it then? Half the people here say rolling is lazy, and the other half say it is efficient. Can we just flip a coin and have it one way or the other, sheesh.

The issue really comes down to what you can reasonably expect from a set of rules.
I've read a number of rules sets where it seems the author has thought of everything (or nearly so) and has put it down in black and white (and it's not always that complicated).
I've read many more sets where it seems the author hasn't really thought things all the way through, resulting in many ambiguities, issues unaddressed, etc.
As a paying customer, I think I'm entitled to some level of "completeness".

I agree. Rules should cover pretty much all eventualities, and dice rolling should not be required to settle differences. I have requested (and been given) a refund on rules I have purchased when I did not consider them complete.

Write decent, clear rules in the first place and then playtest them. Support your product and be grateful that other people like & support (usually financially) what you have produced. Be willing to enter into discussion and provided appropriate channels are followed (ie: no stalkers) be open and helpful to those that seek guidance.

Exactly. It's not that difficult to do, and if you find it is, then you shouldn't be writing wargames rules – well certainly not selling them, anyway.

write them properly in the first place.
and play test them thouroughly

Allow me to paraphrase his answer: "Don't bother me."

Surely the worst way is to go outside and beat the living $^%$ out of each other … no wait, sometimes that works :-)

I disagree that rules should cover every eventuality.

What I do think that rules should provide is a basic framework that covers most common situations, and should instill in the player's mind an idea what the underlying philiosophy of the rules is.
Then, if an eventuality comes up, you have some ground level mechanisms and insights on how to resolve this uncommon or rare eventuality.

If a ruleset would cover (or would try to cover) all possible situations, there will always be situations that will not be covered. Then what? The spirit of the rules is obviously that they cover everything. But in specific situations they don't, and the players will not know what to do.

I agree that more open rules that leaves room for interpretation (based on common sense and on the basic framework of the rules) might not work in a competitive or tournament setting. But then, the answer is to use umpires, as almost all sports and games do that hold competitions. Umpires are there exactly because the rules are incapable of covering every possible situation.

Also, in my experience, the most rules discussions in wargaming happen in games which have extensive rules. Games without extensive rules usually have much less bickering over the rules. Something to think about …

I've not seen the latest issue of WS&S – but I didn't write the paragraph quoted at the top of the page.

I suspect it is a gloss or a caption added by Guy – as he often does at the end of a piece.

Who plays that way? Why wouldnt you read the rules to find out the answer first. Otherwise why do you need a rulebook? Sure if you cant find it in the rules then you can decide with your opponent how to resolve it.

As with board games, I think the difference is in Euro gamers. Euro Wargamers tend to want to chat about things, have an umpire, etc.

American Wargamers tend to want to have tight rules suitable for competition play.

Flames of War vs Bolt Action is an example.

True "rules questions" (such as: "Do I have to roll an Armpit Test if my supporting unit falls back through a beehive at an oblique angle during the enemy's undergarment freshening sub-phase?") are almost always resolved between the players, simply because they have to be. They need to get on with the game.

Then, later, somebody might post it as a question on the game's Forum. But the players already "resolved" it, or else they'd all still be standing there!

On the other hand, there are a lot of "rules questions" that come from people who haven't played yet, or aren't intending to play, but rather they've read through the game and think that something isn't right, and so they post their "question" online, which is typically something like: "I don't think it's right that Flargnasian Tirailleurs should be able to wheel to the Left while discharging potato launchers after 1834…"

I have never understood what the person hopes to achieve with a "question" like that. In one recent example on my forum, the person got irate when people responded to him with the rule, and he wrote (and I'm quoting):

" I'm not asking what the rule is, I can read the rule, I'm asking whether the rule is correct. YES I know what the rule book states; my question was whether this rule should be changed. PLEASE read the question folks!"

If I had a dollar for every time somebody asked me a question like that, I'd be able to give away my games for free. I've never understood what those people think the answer ought to be. The game in the book will never be the game that's in his head, so it will never be "correct."

In cases like that – and they are quite numerous – the answer "Play however you like" is not lazy, nor evidence of poor editing. It's simply the only reasonable response.

@Rick Priestley,

Thanks for clarifying. Perhaps the OP could also address the context more directly.

My observations is that Rick has typically not abandoned gamers playing rules he was involved in developing.

I have been chided for forgetting how parts of my own rules work if I run such a game more than a year or two after development. I cut myself slack as I don't profit from designing games.

@Rick Priestley,

Thanks for clarifying. Perhaps the OP could also address the context more directly.

It is the last paragraph of Rick Priestley's column on p.15 of WSS66. It is written in bold – I had thought it was his last emphatic word on the subject, but clearly it was the editor's (though it isn't marked as such).

Regards

Thanks Whirlwind. An understandable assumption.

Rick is right.

The words are mine and my personal views, not that of Rick's. We add an editorial comment/caption to the end of most articles.

It was slightly tongue in cheek and should be read in the context of the article on 'officialdom', which is well worth the read. One of the most enjoyable aspects of my job is reading Rick and Rich's pieces first. It is also based on my personal experience – In my youth I would track down the author expecting them to know all the answers, when it was usually (back then) down to me not reading the rules properly!

For me, the flow of the game is the most important thing, so stopping it mid flow for fifteen minutes to look up an obscure rule is quite frustrating for me. Better to make a note of the point and continue play, then discuss after the game what the rules should have been.

Interesting food for thought by the way with the replies! There's an article in that… :-)

Guy

Obviously, clear and well-tested rules are something gamers can reasonably expect from designers. However, I think it's unreasonable to expect no questions coming up or any need for adjudication. With no hexes to control movement and orientation, the possible variations in unit moves and contact on a game table are huge, and it is impossible to cover all possible contingencies, even with the best written and most tested rules.

The other problem is what kinds of questions gamers ask. Just on his thread, there have been three kinds:

1. I don't understand how the rules work as written [sometimes because they haven't read them closely….]

2. We have a particular game situation that doesn't seem to be covered by the rules.

3. What do the rules represent that would help in understanding the rules' intent and supposedly help with adjudication.[that demand for 'correctness' visa vie history/warfare]

Gamers often will ask question that they haven't thought out, and end up asking a #1 question when they really want a #2 or #3 answer, so that complicates things…

Our wargame rules are relatively complicated and involve a lot of complications on the table, even the simplest rules. We should expect some need for clarifications over time, but will competently done rules, that shouldn't be often.

One problem is that few of our miniature game designers are professionals, most have few contacts with the larger game and simulation design community, and even then they operate on far, far smaller budgets than even mainstream board game companies like GMT or Milton Bradley. And of course, minuscule compared to the computer game industry.

Even so, with those products, board and computer games, there are still gamer questions…

One problem is that few of our miniature game designers are professionals

This is true. Wargame rules would definitely improve if designers had some basic knowledge of games design theory and the related areas such as structured english, systems thinking, diagramming, task analysis, probability etc. But to get the knowledge means tertiary study or on the job training. It is not going to happen. Nonetheless lack of availability of high quality design knowledge is impacting the standard of rules being produced.
But there is an ever increasing amount of games design material being published by people who are experts in the field. I am currently reading a 2012 book that has a chapter on Kickstarter projects. The observation was that there is nothing being proposed that is an evolutionary leap forward, it is just the same old stuff re-hashed. If there ever was a hobby that has been guilty of re-hashing the same old designs for the last 40 years, wargaming is it.
Another area where professional expertise would be of benefit is in magazines, both in commentary and in articles.

But to get the knowledge means tertiary study or on the job training. It is not going to happen.

thehawk:
I agree with all that you say. The re-hashing is rampant, but that is also true of military history in general. Look at the eight books [!] published on Albuera in the last seven years. Most all were derivative with little new information…if valid history at all. I do have hopes that the wargaming hobby will catch up, even if it is done slowly. Look how long it took them to actually consider card-driven games and how clumsy the first attempts were.

Bill

Wargame rules would definitely improve if designers had some basic knowledge of games design theory and the related areas such as structured english, systems thinking, diagramming, task analysis, probability etc. But to get the knowledge means tertiary study or on the job training.

I tend to disagree. Not that this knowledge is useful to the nascent amateur game designer, but that it requires a vast effort to acquire. On the contrary, this is all knowledge that someone wanting to be a game designer can set about acquiring just by thinking carefully and studying what makes – in their opinion – good games or otherwise.

The capacity for critical analysis is all you really need to get started.

I tend to disagree. Not that this knowledge is useful to the nascent amateur game designer, but that it requires a vast effort to acquire.

precinctomega:
What makes you think so? There are any number of books, websites, blogs and designer's articles on just that subject.

On the contrary, this is all knowledge that someone wanting to be a game designer can set about acquiring just by thinking carefully and studying what makes – in their opinion – good games or otherwise.

The capacity for critical analysis is all you really need to get started.

I have to disagree here. While careful study, actually designing games and a capacity for critical analysis is certainly important, we aren't talking about 'getting started', are we?

And as for that, which requires more effort:

1. Learning the entire craft and attendent methods from scratch, or

2. Delving into what has been already been discovered and refined over fifty years of serious game design progress? You get much farther up the learning curve standing on those who have gone before.

Reinventing the wheel is the hard way to do it from my experience…of learning how to design games and simulations. And the learning process isn't all that easy in any event, so why make it harder than it has to be?

Both 'rules' design, and the writing of rules, books, and articles in this hobby are predominantly amateurish. The whole scene is characterised by sloppy design and rampant semi-literateness (you just have to read the contributions to this and other threads of some of the major figures on the scene to see evidence of their ignorance of fundamental syntax, grammar, and spelling). For instance, where would this hobby's rules and magazine writers and 'editors' be without that most versatile of punctuation marks, the comma? It stands in for the full-stop (period, for US readers),the colon, the semi-colon, and the dash – except where there should be a comma, when the full-stop invariably puts in a misplaced appearance. The rules of written English exist for very good reasons: if we're all working with the same code we're much more likely to obtain comprehension, consistency and clarity.

At the core of the professionalism problem is some rules authors' identification of the activity they're engaged in. Some of the above posts betray an old-fashioned immersion in and acceptance of the open-ended rules writing paradigm of the early days of the hobby, in which games are moderated by a 'set of rules' that presume that anything that happens in the real world can and should be replicable on the table-top. If you start from this lazy design position you'll never achieve a clean, sharply defined, closed system. You're just setting your readers/users up for endless confusion and uncertainty. To avoid this outcome you need to work within the professional game design paradigm: the author understands from the outset that he's creating a representation of reality in which he sets the design parameters, and if its not included in his model, it doesn't get represented.

I also can't understand how so many wargames rulesets get to the publication stage without any evidence of editing or proofreading. Even if , as seems to be all-too-commonly the case, the author is only semi-literate, surely it can't be that difficult to find one or two fully literate individuals within the author's circle of gaming friends. I recently acquired a copy of a newish card-based Dark Ages game that's marred throughout by the most atrocious English, compounded by countless typos. Years ago I bought the first set of rules released by this company, but never used it for the reasons already cited (along with important rules being entirely omitted), and it would seem there's been no improvement in the designer's writing skills in the intervening years. There may well be a good game lurking within the attractively backgrounded textual fog (most of the reviews have been positive on the gameplay/historicity front), but a literate reader is likely to be deterred from making the effort needed to find it.

Correction, line 13: it's, not 'its'.

@McLaddie – We're talking at cross-purposes.

I was *disagreeing* that this knowledge requires a vast effort to acquire. It doesn't it's easy to acquire and very useful to the nascent game designer.

I was, in fact, talking about getting started and encouraging people to give it a go. I tend to believe that the second best way to learn how to write games is to write games. The third best way to learn how to write games is to play games.

The best way, obviously, is to play games *and* write games.

If you *also* want to immerse yourself in historical research, statistical analysis or any other related subject, then go ahead. But it probably won't make you a better designer.

I feel for rules writers these days.

They are dealing with an audience that has often quite basic reading ability. A lot of arguments are caused because one or more players cannot read well enough to really understand the rules wirters' intent.

They have to somehow write complex and perhaps novel ideas clearly and precisely and also with brevity. An unholy trinity!

A LOT of players these days have grown up on rules that could be demonstrated in a Games Workshop within 10 minutes, and new bits bolted on a few rules at a time, often with no consideration of how it would impact on previous rules.

I see many rules writers have made videos and have them up on youtube to demonstrate. This is a great idea but cannot replace a definitive set of rules everyone can understand.

A further point is that when writing, the process is such that 90% of the time is spent on the final 10% of the job. You can often get a rough workable rules set quite quickly – but honing it, proofing and editing will take far longer.

People just won't pay for that even the publishers/writers are willing and able to do so.

Oh, it isn't easy. Writing rules is a real art and demanding craft.

A further point is that when writing, the process is such that 90% of the time is spent on the final 10% of the job. You can often get a rough workable rules set quite quickly – but honing it, proofing and editing will take far longer.

It it is even easier if the rules are pretty much rebaked versions of older rules. But yes, honing proofing and editing is just as difficult as anything. Note all the Amazon-published books where the authors have done a sloppy job of editing and proofing their work before putting up on Amazon.

I agree, Skarper: reading comprehension has inevitably degraded in tandem with the fall in writing standards amongst both designers/writers and their target market/readership.

I've sometimes struggled to come to grips with impenetrable passages in sloppily written rulesets that other members of my regular group claim to understand, when it's apparent that they only think they understand because they don't have the English comprehension skills to perceive the deficiencies in the text. Of course, their individual interpretations of the same rule are likely to differ, although the cognitive dissonance won't become apparent until there's an argument in the middle of a game.

One thing that annoys me a great deal when trying to write rules (or anything else really) is the bad habit of skimming/scanning text rather than properly reading it. I've spent a lot of time teaching reading to EFL students and while sometimes it is useful to quickly skim for a general idea and at other times you are scanning for specific details – at some point if you need to read it you need to READ IT. Every word, phrase and punctuation mark must be read or you will only know enough to fake an understanding of the text.

OK – so we are playing games and not 'working' but the difference is in my mind moot. You ought really to enjoy your job if at all possible [or change it] and you should put effort into what you do when playing games.

Sloppily painted figures spoil the enjoyment of wargames – and sloppily written and read rules do even more to spoil the fun.

I'm sure we've all had the experience of playing rules in a closed group and then meeting another group only to discover they don't play it the same way.

The way punctuation is abused and neglected in most sets of wargame rules, reading every – misplaced – punctuation mark (assuming there are any) is only likely to befuddle the would-be learner/user.

Are you making fun of my overuse of the dash? Touche.

I started out as a Maths person and only later put any effort into becoming literate. As such I tend to write in short statements and can't seem to write a whole paragraph without a dash or three…and don't start on my dot dot dots.

I'm not coming at this argument from any position of strength.

Phil Barker is famous for his impenetrable but quite meticulous English. His sentences are so long that by the time I've got to the end I've forgotten where I started. But I'm not a very skilled reader.

There is some scientific work on assessing READABILITY of texts. It counts words per sentence, syllables, flags obscure words and complex grammar forms (like the passive!). MS WORD used to have a feature to measure this and maybe still does.

You want to get a readability score of <= 10 for anything that needs to be understood by an average adult. We might stretch it to 12 for wargamers. The figure is the approximate number of years in full time education needed to easily read and comprehend the text. Readability scores of over 15 make for pretty challenging texts. I'm going from memory on this so maybe I got some details wrong.

EDIT This is the kind of thing I mean.

read-able.com

I pasted this post into this website and scored 7. Which means 12-13 year olds would be able to understand it.

I'm sorry Skarper, but your last sentence isn't a sentence. If you simply changed the full-stop into a comma, and reduced the double-u in 'Which' to lower case, it would be satisfy the rules of correct grammar.

:-\

I'd much rather play a game made by someone who has passion for what they do and cares both about the system and communicating it to others in the best possible way.

There is so much great stuff out there right now written by people who actually care and are excited about their own work that I don't really see why I should bother with contract workers who just want to forget the rules and get on with the next project.

You can have people write on a contract basis and still get authors that actually care enough about their games to play them and know them. And then you also have independent/creator owned publishers where the authors go above and beyond.

Daniel Mersey continues to blog about Dux Bellorum and talk about the game on BGG. The game is based on a previous set of rules he wrote.

The guys from TooFatLardies seem to be able to produce a lot of great rules content and still know their stuff backwards and forwards despite being involved in quite a few projects.

Craig Cartmell adapted his own system for In Her Majesty's Name and has also helped bring us great things like the FUBAR system and the various other games on Forge of War.

Andrea Sfiligoi is the author of the upcoming Of Gods & Mortals which uses his "Song Of" system that he's been playing and selling for years.

Ed Teixeira of Two Hour Wargames puts out loads of games and still manages to know his own designs for question after question and discussion after discussion in the THW yahoo group.

Sam Mustafa manages to answer questions on his Honour line of games with surprising alacrity on the forums on his website.

And that's not even counting all the free or electronic only products written on a labour-of-love basis. There's simply no shortage of games to chose from if you're looking for one written with care and passion.

It seems like it's just Priestly And Friends that bounce around from project to project like mercenaries and don't seem to bother knowing their own games. Did their experience at GW teach them "how the professionals do it" which means not caring once the book is off their schedule? Clearing the head-space for the next project?

Sorry Rick, but the rules authors I respect do know their own games and still have passion for their own work. A rules author that doesn't like his rules enough to play them is like a chef that doesn't like his food enough to eat it. No thanks!

I once watched a programme about what famous chefs ate at home. Beans on toast, mostly.

Cobbler's children and all that, I guess.

I've been playing with my own set of rules since 17 years. And:

- I always lose (well, nearly always). Perhaps because I have a (conscious/inconscious?) tendancy to react as game master rather than as player; and also because players find cunning tips to go round the rules, which I don't dare to do;

- Players remember the rules more than I do! Perhaps because I'm also busy imagining variants and extensions, but the players stick to the written rules so it's easier for them :-)

In large part I think this goes back to the old dividing line in rules philosophy.

The British Conceptual Rules Design vs The American Representational Rules Design.

The former tend to write piles of little basic rules sets with very little testing and follow through aimed at just getting something fun to use when playing with your toy soldiers down on paper.

The later tend to be highly designed and tested efforts that the authors support and update for years to come because they do not repeat the effort that went into the design with great regularity.

Right now I think we see Lot more of the British ideal than the. American. Not sure why. Perhaps it is just the nature of our culture right now to be attracted to simple solutions for pleasure vs more involved outcomes.

I miss the intellectual challenge of a game of Empire Napoleonics pitting myself in a really solid simulation of Napoleonics warfare. These days a. Game like Flames of War is more popular. A game set in a particular historical setting but really trying or succeeding in simulating the combat or challenges of the period at all. Geared more being a challenging competitive game that happens to use WW2 miniatures.

I get the. Appeal of both. However it makes me think it is more of the Games Workshop influence seeping between genre.

I think its more the "playable in two hours with reasonable sized forces" effect.

Everyone wants a "simple" rule set that allows for an evening's game play to a resonable conclusion. Its all a matter of available time.

I grew up playing the old Avalon Hill games (Advanced Gettysburg, Panzer – Leader/Blitz, etc.) and remembered hours of set up, getting a couple of turns in, then leaving the board set up to come back to play further turns over the course of a couple of weeks. Much more immersive, "simulationist", etc. Now I don't have time to play games like that (but would love to).

I do not think, though, that there is any excuse for any ruleset to require extensive FAQs, or to need the author to give his two cents as to what was "intended" by a particular rule or rules. Rules, particularly these "high production value" and expensive sets, should be complete and understandable. Unfortunately, that happens only rarely.

I lay a lot of that on the head of editing and playtesting, or an author writing in a way that's perfectly clear for him or his group, because they play it that way, but isn't as clear as it should be for the rest of us.