"Written vs verbal rules" Topic

Last night as I hurriedly tried updating a set of house rules for tonight's game I got to wondering;

Do we even need written rules?

Leaving aside value for a purchaser's money, most gamers I know learn by instruction and then follow up by reading only a few paragraphs or pages as they relate to a specific question or disagreement.

Written rules give us a solid point of reference rather than "didn't you say last time" but in an age of Youtube and video files and multiple hand held computers at the table would people being willing to accept a video as a rules set?

Not me, sorry.

Videos are nice for explanatory information. Yet, I want to read written rules and then have something tangible to fall back on when I am unsure during a game.

Written rules give us a solid point of reference rather than "didn't you say last time" but in an age of Youtube and video files and multiple hand held computers at the table would people being willing to accept a video as a rules set?

If the video was brief enough, it could work. Would I like it? No. I prefer text that explains the basics.

Videos can be good to explain things in brief for a basic scenario just like a game master does at a convention to a player new to the game. A video will fall down when you have to explain all the special rules and cases to play a game in full.

Verbal instruction is undoubtedly the fastest way to learn rules. But I don't think I'd ever undertake it without a QRF for players to look at. Modern and untrained human memory just doesn't work that way.

Pff. Lightweights. I want my rules expressed in a formal system such as Lambda Calculus.

All the best,

John.

Besides, I mostly read rules instead of paying attention in faculty meetings -- which is also why I favor points systems, for all of their problems. Gotta have something to fiddle with and stay sane.

Video is quick (if it's done right), but I don't think it's the best way to learn. Besides, I get really distracted by all the other videos on youtube, and click off before the video finishes.

I like reading stuff.

I do like PDFs of rules.

I don't particularly like web videos, most are low resolution, badly shot and badly recorded. Its also hard to find stuff within a video.

I seem to often be the one in our group who reads the rules and explains them to the rest of the group.

I did like the Too Fat Lardies videos explaining the ideas of Chain of Command – but while they were great at giving and overview, they couldn't give enough detail to actual learn the rules. But they were really good at giving you an overview of the shape of the rules.

"Run it back a bit. I can't remember how far infantry in column move. Now, forward about a minute so my column can pass over that wall."

A video is fine if I need to learn to play but there will be an experienced player/guide/judge there.

But if I am trying to learn a game to teach to others it's GOT to be print.

What keeps verbal rules the same each time they are said?

Written rules won't change so the players can at least agree what they are arguing about.

Video rules? Seriously?

I guess it would depend on how simple the rules are, I have never seen rules written down for rock, paper, scissors but get much more complicated than that need something.

I think rules should be written as nursery rhymes. They are the most memorable form of instructions ever.

Or Limericks.

I like written rules (especially my own).

But I often see some players who knew the rules many years ago, and who continue to play instinctively without having read them since a long time and who don't bother to read the updates. Not sure if it's good or bad…

I want my rules expressed in a formal system such as Lambda Calculus.

But den ith tho hawd to unduwthant dem.

:)

Speaking, demonstration, writing, and diagraming (as well as others) are all different modalities for conveying thought. Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses (and tsk-tsk on MJS for foreshadowing my upcoming rant on why I can't get any freakin' news without having to watch a video anymore).

Wargaming is a broad scope of activities, so is spans a performance space where you each of the four I listed (and potentially others) are optimal. I would say it also spans such a broad performance space that none are optimal a sufficient amount of the time to stand alone.

I run a game called SUTC--Small Unit Tactical Combat--and even though the author Michael Korns, wrote a book of statistics and about troop's behavior, backing up his stats and theories on how troops handle the stress of battle--he didn't cover enough ground. The book is his The Modern War in Miniature.
As this is a double blind game with the gamer "on the battlefield" role playing his figure, not in personal control of the other figures, only able to see and hear what his figure would see or hear--and unable to get direct normal wargame reports from non player figures that move out of hearing or sight, the umpire--me--has to run these--but Korns left off any charts or advice to aid the umpire as to how the non player trooper should act in the absence of his leader--meaning the player figure--
So, I've had to add charts based upon the small unit individual soldier tactics--and advice for the umpire--if I want to play in the game and not be umpiring all the time--But how complex and thorough must these charts and advice be--?
Item: Japanese grenades were armed by striking them on something hard. In such a Pacific island scenario, if I told the Marine leader that he heard the sound of metal striking on something hard--and the player has no idea because, well, he's fresh in from the Eastern Front, then the Japanese grenades fall and catch him--indeed, I've seen this before with George Jeffrey's Code Napoleon, a two kilo sized tome on Napoleonic tactics, that are the rules, written to immerse the player in the historical tactics, without which the gamer wouldn't know what hit him as that cavalry regiment was aimed at his infantry brigade from across the field (no usual turns, all real time--the variable length bound--same as SUTC)
Indeed, to prove to the losing player in SUTC, I usually have a "witness"-a non playing gamer who simply watches what is going on so that when I explain to the gamer why he got shot in the most unbelievable manner, the witness will back me up--and I can show the gamer the charts used and the dice roll results, which include accuracy of shots fired to type of wound inflicted to observation probabilities, even to the fact that the leader figure turned left at the wrong time.
No verbal rules--just verbal info given to the gamer playing to give him info so that he can make the next decision--but no verbal rules

As the one guy who reads rules in my group, I've often wondering if I couldn't just run the game and make things up as I want. Further, I've wondered if that wouldn't be just as accurate and a heck of a lot faster :)

I would say that written rules are essential.

A good way to use new technology is to make the rules available as a PDF and then have some examples embedded as video links within that PDF. Additional photography could also be done the same way so that the reader can print off a cheap version of the rules but still have plenty of photo support from the PDF on their computer / pad.

>I've often wondering if I couldn't just run the game and make things up as I want. Further, I've wondered if that wouldn't be just as accurate and a heck of a lot faster :)

I ran a Brit colonial Matrix Game (I think Hamster Press was the publisher) which had some basic movement (6") and firing rules (6s hit), where you could do pretty much anything you could think of as long as you made an 'argument' for it. If the umpire thought your reasoning was OK, it was a 4,5,6 to do it. If you stretched the idea, it went to 5,6, and if you really came up with something crazy, then a 6 was needed. If it was easier than expected, the roll could be 3,4,5,6, etc.

If you rolled the number, whatever you said took place, although the umpire could modify the results even if you rolled a 6. It could be anything, and fellow gamers' reactions would influence the judge.

For example, I single-handedly charge twice my normal distance and defeat those 20 Pathans because I want to be a hero and be mentioned in dispatches. OK, maybe that merited a 4,5,6, to do 2x move, BUT you'd still have to roll for melee against 20 opponents… etc.

Initially, players in the game preferred to move and shoot/melee, etc, but the more creative players started to made 'arguments' that flexed the system.

If you do something like that, you don't need much more than a postcard-sized QRF.