"Indictment - crimes by rules writers" Topic

Count One
Expecting each base to be an individual diorama

I'm looking at you Arty Conliffe. "Each base should be a vignette" my arse. I've got 200 bases of figures to paint, base and flock (Q:how many bases do you need for F&F – A: more than you've got), I don't have the time or patience to tell the back story for every soldier in the AoNV. Plus in horse and musket everybody was doing roughly the same thing at the same time. It's not as if there is a huge amount of 'interesting poses' available.

Count Two
Mixing measurement conventions

Black Powder. Bases in mm's, game measurements in inches. Why? this causes problems below.

Count Three
Different measurements for different scales/sizes

If playing with 15mm multiply all measurements by .66 (Think that is Shako). Also (I can't be bothered to nip upstairs to check) doesn't Shako base for one size and play measurements for another?

Howabout you produce the rules with one definite set of measurements, and we will decide whether to put more figures on a base or whether to divide all distances by 2. Rules are independent of figure scale: it doesn't matter if I'm using Plastic Army Men, 28mm or M&Ms, as long as the footprint is what the rules state. I've played CoC with 28's, 1/72-20mm mix and 10mm all with exactly the same table scale. It doesn't make a difference.

This is why the Warlord mixing of units is annoying. We use 10mm and just sub in cm for inches. However we had to decide what the metric equivalent of 20mm was…!

Count Four
Weird base sizes

1 1/8th by 7/8ths of an inch. Really. What was wrong with 1 inch square? I don't care what the drill book says – lets face it actual on the field wasn't ever going to be that precise, and you expect us to measure that 1/8th difference to cut. Plus 'not quite square' bases run the risk of figures mistakenly being glued on at 90'.

Stick to the major measurements in the ruler.

Count Five
"The most accurate rules ever"

I don't mind you bringing your years of research/reenactment to the table, I've done it (one on one combats for the Dark ages aren't what a lot of people expect once you've been in one) but MOST ACCURATE…. hmmm hell of a claim, and one that people will happily pick holes in, because we are still interpreting the reality, not living it. We are supplying the physics as well as the basic rules. Plus there are next to nil rules written by people who fought that period for real – how do you model the fear? I am constantly amazed at the willingness of horse and musket troops to stand still under artillery fire.

Count Six
Lack of Index

It's the 21st century. Word has had cross-referencing functionality available for 20 years. Contents are a start, but 'Somewhere in that 1500 words is the phrase you are looking for" needs improvement

Count Seven
Scattered Rules

One rule may have sub-clauses and codicils scattered through several separate sections, on different pages. PUT THE ALL TOGETHER. Even if it makes sense for that part to appear under 'Morale' you CAN REPEAT IT – this isn't a novel, you are allowed to repeat the same bit in every place it is relevant – or at least cross-reference it if space is tight (like an Osprey rules set, which has a 21000 word count)

Count Eight
Get someone to try and break the rules
Related to Seven. Get someone to check what ambiguous situations come up and decide if they are common enough for you to make a reword. Example BP; unit shaken by close combat, the rules for this is scattered in 3 different section, each 2-3 pages from the last, and appear contradictory unless you read them all together in one block. Even then I'm not convinced about our new interpretation.

I'm still deciding whether to have 'less fluff, more diagrams' as a TiC (taken into consideration)

Burn them!

Hilarious. Add amusing line drawings & you've got a winner, here, a la James Thurber:

No Quick Reference Sheet included with the rules.

Oh, and I agree with the Scattered Rules, and lack of an Index issues too, but suspect I know why they do the former (harder to copy that way, especially if no QRS is included, either).

This is why the Warlord mixing of units is annoying. We use 10mm and just sub in cm for inches. However we had to decide what the metric equivalent of 20mm was…!

Not exactly difficult. If substituting cms for ins, you are effectively multiplyng all dimensions and distances by 0.39 (1/2.54).

20mm * 0.39 = 7.8

Burn them, burn them now before they breed!!!

Tally Ho!

Lack of an index makes me think of a lack of education. Publishers/printers should refuse such orders.
If no quick reference sheet is provided I'll make my own. I have a mind, I'll use it…
Oh, did I mention including an index in your opus?

"Preach it, Brothers! Preach it!"
Now open your hymnals to 237, "A Mighty Fortress is in Our Way".

My biggest gripe is the "need" to keep issuing amendments and new versions because some sad Byzantine player is having problems defeating Samurai, and the Byzantine player is one if the rules writers.

As for based, I smear white glue on them and randomly dribble sand or ballast on them and then flocking. This is a battlefield, not a topiary.

Major – the conversion isn't difficult if you know the maths, but having to do it. Plus I know my battalions are x cm long, but everything else on the table is inches, having to do it on the fly sometimes to make decisions

Getting the history messed up.

"Across Five Aprils" is a romantic way to say the ACW lasted four years.

Plus I know my battalions are x cm long, but everything else on the table is inches, having to do it on the fly sometimes to make decisions

Having to do it on the fly? Since when did the size of the base the figures are on make that much difference?

It does when rules writers are being "clever" and specifying game measurements in base widths.

I'm 100% with you on numbers 6 and 7. It's almost disrespectful to make the end user leaf around frantically trying to find the correct case.

It does when rules writers are being "clever" and specifying game measurements in base widths.

Nah. Just make up a measuring stick marked off in base widths. Simples!!

An Index! What an idea. Well, I never. And I won't. In this day of Ebooks, a simple link to the relevant section cited is good enough. A printed version can parenthetically reference a page number to the cited section/rule.

Am I guilty? I make standard base sizes in 5mm increments, yet the game is played with inches for range and movement. If you insist on using Metric, two point five-four centimeters equals one inch.

The scale of the figures used is immaterial. Using figures at all is immaterial, but much more fun to play with than raisins, beans, Skittles, M&Ms or cardstock markers. But any or all of the above work equally well to PLAY the game….

Writing in a dialect of English spoken only by one married couple, and no phrase book remains in print. Yes, I'm talking about Barkerese.

Too many pretty pictures but not enough explanatory diagrams. I'd much rather have a pretty illustration of the rule than an example of somebody's great painting job.

On a related note: are we all just getting dumber? Shorter attention spans, less patience, etc? I know I certainly am. Long gone are the days when I could digest page after page of dense type without any sort of graphic assistance.

Now I want my rules to have large, clear type, lots of illustrations to show how it's done, and little call-out boxes to repeat in bold font, what they've already just written in the text, so I don't miss it.

But Charts and Tables, Good God…. If I see more than two of those I'll bin the thing without a moment's remorse.

Writing in a dialect of English spoken only by one married couple, and no phrase book remains in print. Yes, I'm talking about Barkerese.

Yes, we all joke about "Barkerese", but if it is so inpenetrable, how do you explain the large numbers of players worldwide who apparently have no trouble understanding it and enjoying games based on such rules?

Count Nine
Thanks for buying these glossy, expensive but actually partially written rules. Now please buy the supplement that includes lots more of what you really need to play. Oh and another, and another, and another. And whilst you are at it these awesome army lists comprising 200 pages of flannel and glossy photos along with one page of "special" rules that you MUST HAVE to allow you to play this particular army between the dates of January 1st 1799 and December 31st 1801 – don't worry, the 1802 supplement will be out in a few months.

Oh, and related to that, authors who write a set of rules with a clear intention to cover various aspects in a supplement but who choose not to develop that content at the same time as the main rules are written. Chances are it won't be consistent! As an example I was helping a friend with a set of WW2 rules he was working on (and which were eventually published). He was aiming them initially at Western and Eastern Front, 1944-45 so the game worked fine with the range of vehicle types commonly used. He had an intention to go back to do early war. Trouble was the stat range that he used was such that early war vehicles were all squashed into a very narrow amorphous blob that made everything pretty much the same and thus rather uninteresting.

Of course duff stat ranging can be an issue from the start – I present exhibit "A", Sails of Glory, a set of rules ideally suited to frigate actions but written with a statting system that kind of) differentiates between ships of the line and gets progressively less able to differentiate ship types as they get smaller.

Examples of play! One or two of these, if done in English or language of publication, will most often clear any remaining fog.

Do players really understand or are they believing they understand?

Count ten:
When the rules say and allow you to "change 'em!" If you have a unique situation occur that the rules do not address. This occurred in the Battleground WW2 rules Q & A section. The question was if something came up not addressed by the rules what should a player do? The answer from the manufacturer of the rules were, literally, two words: "Change them." If a rules set is so meticulously play tested over and over by many play testers, all the bases should be covered regarding any questions, right? If a rules set gives the option of changing the rules, then that tells me the rules were not complete and released prematurely on an unsuspecting public.

Yes, we all joke about "Barkerese", but if it is so impenetrable, how do you explain the large numbers of players worldwide who apparently have no trouble understanding it and enjoying games based on such rules?

Well, as someone new to the language and game I am AMAZED at how much time is spent debating meanings and looking things up among experienced players. I've joined a campaign but based on my experience so far this will be my first and last foray into DBA….

If a rules set is so meticulously play tested over and over by many play testers, all the bases should be covered regarding any questions, right?

Wrong.

No matter how much play testing you do, odd situations will ALWAYS come up. I do not think I ever played any miniatures game EVER where there wasn't at least one question that we just had to "decide" and move on.

IF you are going to be encyclopedic – have an index. A quicky set that gives relatively general guidance and asks players to determine the situation is fine too. Here I am thinking pulpy games rather than tournament style.

I agree with consistency. Use metric or Imperial measures. If possible use one type of die. An exception here is Force on Force, which uses die type to differentiate – a neat mechanic. Make the "goal" of a die roll consistent. If high is good for shooting, make it good for everything. This is a minor and cosmetic thing, but useful

Well, as someone new to the language and game I am AMAZED at how much time is spent debating meanings and looking things up among experienced players. I've joined a campaign but based on my experience so far this will be my first and last foray into DBA….

Really? You surprise me. But tell us, is it the Barkerese you don't understand or is it that you just don't enjoy the gaming experience the game offers?

Granted it is based on a limited number of games but the game experience seems to include a lot of time "translating." I'm used to an occasional "what do we do here" but so far with DBA the percentage of time looking through the rule book is very, very high.

but the game experience seems to include a lot of time "translating." I'm used to an occasional "what do we do here" but so far with DBA the percentage of time looking through the rule book is very, very high.

That's strange. I don't have that experience at all. Admittedly I have been playing DBA since the early days of the 1st Edition, but the rules in essence are very simple and straightforward.

In particular, a lot of the confusing stuff in previous editions has been sorted in DBA v3.0, and a lot of the "geometry" has been tidied up or removed resulting in a much more streamlined and faster game . I wonder what version you are using?

During my first foray into writing instructions, I was asked to look at how cookbooks are written as an example of procedural instructions for the public:

There was no one way they were written. Some were very chatty, others very dry and technical.

There were those that were very detailed and sequential: "Measure one fourth cup of flour, evening off the top with a knife, do not pack. Add slowly, mix thorougly as you stir clockwise." [Yep, even that last part.]

Then there were those that were what was called 'global':
"While mixing, add about a cup of flour."

And everything inbetween. You see the same range of rules writing in the hobby.

And like experienced cooks, experienced wargamers get very good at translating them…to the point that they don't necessarily see any major translation issues with any approach. To avoid such translation issues, designers have found it far easier to use known mechanics and terms.

And of course, how well the rules [or novels] are written isn't necessarily a determiner of success. e.g. Jackie Collins and Dan Brown.

I would say that Barker is the Jackie Collins of rules writers. Sam Mustafa is more a Hemmingway or Conrad.

To flog the analogy, how well the instructions are written does have some effect on how the finished recipe tastes, but isn't necessarily indicative of the actual recipe.

Add slowly, mix thorougly as you stir clockwise." [Yep, even that last part.]

I wonder what happens if you stir anti-clockwise …

Then there were those that were what is called very global:
"While mixing, add about a cup of flour."

I am not aware that a "cup" is a universal quantity of measurement? I have many cups in my house and they vary in size quite considerably!

Major – The Colonies in Rebellion have managed to invent a volume unknown outside of the US. The definition of a cup I have seen is a unit of weight, not volume, something they take forward into beer. Its about half of their mini-pints They have pints (small ones) and access to ml, but measure beer by weight.

Nope, I've got no idea either.

My fave crime was the guy who wrote the Newbury Rule's last release Power & Glory, when he repeatedly uses the acronym NO for Normal Order. So the rules are full of lines like 'NO troops can enter broken ground' etc.

I know I've done this at least once, but it always amuses me when a reference to a rule or modifier that was removed is left in somewhere.

Major – The Colonies in Rebellion have managed to invent a volume unknown outside of the US. The definition of a cup I have seen is a unit of weight, not volume, something they take forward into beer. Its about half of their mini-pints They have pints (small ones) and access to ml, but measure beer by weight.

Nope, I've got no idea either.

Imperial and US Gallons? Ditto for Pints?? Thank the lord for the metric system…

With that kind of mix up, the next thing we'd be doing is crashing space ships into Mars…

John T

That's strange. I don't have that experience at all.

There's the issue: you haven't had that experience, but clearly many, many other people have. :)

I am not aware that a "cup" is a universal quantity of measurement? I have many cups in my house and they vary in size quite considerably!

Exactly…. And I have no idea what would happen if you stirred counter-clockwise. I am sure there were a number of folks that tried it just to find out. I know I would.

A U.S. cup is 8 onces. Two cups make a pint. Is the 'pint' universal among beer-imbibing cultures?

Plus there are next to nil rules written by people who fought that period for real – how do you model the fear?

Simulation designers have been modeling group fear for a while now, particularly based on past events… For example, I was able to see one computer simulation of crowds panicking to test the flow patterns and choke points in an arena design that hadn't been built yet. The reactions of the crowds were based on many previous panics. It doesn't require a computer to do it, just a procedural system like a wargame.

The recent crowd flow disaster in Mecca had been predicted…but hey, it was a simulation of something that hadn't happened in a new environment, so the possibility was ignored.

That's strange. I don't have that experience at all.

There's the issue: you haven't had that experience, but clearly many, many other people have. :)

I wonder who they are? None of the people I know seem to have any problem with understanding DBA.

If I had a nickel for every time a rules set was trumpeted as "The most heavily playtested rules ever!" to be followed two weeks by 2 pages if errata… I would have a lot of nickels.

My worst examples are from Ancients.
Amendments that say "Delete 'cannot'. Insert ' must'." (Some WRG set or other)
Army lists that give Super Powers to troops that do not cost more points than "normal" troops. (Warrior)

McLaddie your cooking analogy says it all. If you like how it tastes then it's a good recipe.

I like what David Manley said about making rules "scalable"or not as the case may be. I'm tinkering with my own space combat rules and have started with fighters and now statted corvettes. From what David says I need to think about how larger ships will work. Very timely advice. Thanks.

@MajorB

Drop by the Fanaticus forums. There are groups developing FAQs so at tournaments they can tell you how the rules are played here.

One example: Bows shoot a target and cause it to about face and flee. Next turn they shoot it again, same result. So the unit about faces and moves back to where it started. Some say, no the target continues fleeing. Others say the rules are very clear and the target moves back toward the shooters.

I played 2.2 twice with a friend teaching it to me, and we spent a good amount of time re-reading and parsing rules. I've played 3.0 twice and had the same experience. In each case we noodled with the verbiage, made a note, decided, and played on.

imulation designers have been modeling group fear for a while now

But I doubt any rules writers have!

I have just read the intro to a set of rules I bought some years (10? 15?) ago. I won't name them but it basically says: "These are based on Rules set 'x' but we've made changes and now even the original writer admits he is a poopyhead." Maybe not quite that, but there is a level of arrogance in the intro

The "recipe" analogy works well--more so in that if you have no idea what the dish you're making is supposed to taste like, the best-written recipe in the world doesn't guarantee success.

A U.S. cup is 8 onces. Two cups make a pint. Is the 'pint' universal among beer-imbibing cultures?

Your 'pint' is not my 'pint'. So no: mine's 20% bigger than yours en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pint

John T

Drop by the Fanaticus forums. There are groups developing FAQs so at tournaments they can tell you how the rules are played here.

I read Fanaticus forums regularly. Yes there is a FAQ (isn't there one for most games?), but as you note this for for tournaments. I don't know anybody that plays DBA in tournanments.

One example: Bows shoot a target and cause it to about face and flee. Next turn they shoot it again, same result. So the unit about faces and moves back to where it started. Some say, no the target continues fleeing. Others say the rules are very clear and the target moves back toward the shooters.

I have no idea where you got that from. There is a recent discussion on the Fanaticus forum about Artillery shooting at Light Horse and causing it to flee. However, the rule is quite clear that the intention is that the fleeing LH element flees away from the element shooting at it.

I played 2.2 twice with a friend teaching it to me, and we spent a good amount of time re-reading and parsing rules. I've played 3.0 twice and had the same experience. In each case we noodled with the verbiage, made a note, decided, and played on.

So with 2.2. you "spent a good amount of time re-reading and parsing rules.". With 3.0 you "made a note, decided, and played on." Sounds to me like you found 3.0 a lot easier to understand than 2.2.

"YOU CAN REPEAT IT" This is a major help to a new system. Repeat the most basic points that need remembering. If you start the book with a statement that says "Here are the most important points to remember" and then list them quickly, you can repeat them a few times throughout the book and they'll get drilled into the player's head.
When I start reading a new rules set its easy to get lost in the volume of info. Starting out knowing the basics to pay attention to eases the learning process.

imulation designers have been modeling group fear for a while now.

But I doubt any rules writers have!

I have just read the intro to a set of rules I bought some years (10? 15?) ago. I won't name them but it basically says: "These are based on Rules set 'x' but we've made changes and now even the original writer admits he is a poopyhead." Maybe not quite that, but there is a level of arrogance in the intro.

Last Hussar:
Well, imulation designing is an old art, but not particularly fun for the players. Yeah. If rules writers what to simulate 'group fear' there are ways to do that with reasonable validity. However, it's easier to say you have captured that aspect of reality and not bother. They can always defend it by saying 'opinions differ.'

The "recipe" analogy works well--more so in that if you have no idea what the dish you're making is supposed to taste like, the best-written recipe in the world doesn't guarantee success.

Jeff:
Oh, yeah. Well, said. Lots of mystery meat on the market.

Bill

Your 'pint' is not my 'pint'. So no: mine's 20% bigger than yours en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pint

John:
You win. I'll drink your 'pint' instead.

25% larger.

I feel cheated………