"British or American Style Rules?" Topic

I maybe the only person to pick up on this but here goes. Do you prefer what I call the British style of rules or the American style of rules?

I describe the British style as rules which read more like a story with suggestions for rules sprinkled throughout. Leaving it up to the reader to select or base his own rules on. I have seen the term "tool kit" to describe this approach. A flexible style which allows you to build the rules as you please.

I describe the American Style as having a more rigid organization. Like an alphanumeric outline. It attempts to tell you exactly what you can and cannot do. Think of board games from AH, SPI, GDW and more recent GMT and COA among others. This style of rules would often have optional rules for you to semi-customize the rules. You don't really need to be told you can modify the rules to taste. You already know you can. I know there are some significant exceptions. This is just my overall impression.

1. I prefer the American style. I want a complete set of rules. I don't want to write them.

2. I prefer the British style. I appreciate the flexibility and find it a good jumping off point.

3. I don't agree with the premise of this poll.

4. I don't see any difference.

5. I see differences but not these. (please explain)

6. I see additional differences. (please explain)

7 .Both sides of the pond have some of each.

8. I don't like the "story" or "tool kit" rules but don't associate them with either side of the pond.

9. I don't like the "rigid" or "alphanumeric outline" rules but don't associate them with either side of the pond.

10. I have no idea what you're talking about.

If you agree that each country has this difference, then why is there this difference? What does it say about how we each approach our shared hobby?

3. DBx is looking down it's collective nose at you.

Actually I think DBx falls under the category of American style rules as described in the original post.

4.

I have seen the differences that you mentioned in the OP. I see the British style as you say and always took it as a presumption of having some knowledge of gaming and the era being played. Seems to leave room for wiggle/negotiation or GM ruling. The US versions do seem to have that board wargame style that I assumed was because I perceive the US as more of a boardgame base in the bobby. (My perception – not a scientific fact.) We also seem to be a more litigious and rules governed society so I always thought that played into our side of the pond.

Being 55 and a life long board gamer and only into miniatures in the past 12 to 15 years, the US model is more comfortable to me. I have seen, read and played a bunch of the British model rules and like the different feel they offer. I do see some British style creep coming in to some of the US model rules of late. I have also taken some liberties in adding some British features to US rules that I play. So I guess what I'm saying is watch out, I can swing both ways!

This question actually gets brought up fairly regularly here.

I'll go with #1, but my favorite rule book is "The Wargame" by Charles Grant, which is very much written in a conversational tone.

6" close order, 1/2 speed rough, +D6" charge.

Wargaming is my hobby.
I like to relax and have a fun game with friends.

Do I prefer rules written in:
a) a relaxed and conversational manner
or
b) a formal, technical manner like a legal document

Really, why on earth would I prefer the latter in that situation? Too much like hard work. In fact, too much like work, which I am trying to forget by relaxing with friends. However, I am British.

As above, this comes up fairly often.

As both sides of the pond now seem to produce rules which are stuffed with unnecessary verbiage, pictures, fluff and general distractions, I am less convinced there is a difference in cultures. However when I contrast the beautiful simplicity of Battles for Empire with the rambling mess which is Fire and Fury (both essentially the same game), I can't help thinking there is something in it.

Of course you can't beat a good wargaming book, such as those of Charles Grant, and more recently, those of Neil Thomas.

11. Neither – I choose Canadian, the best of both worlds

(although knowing Canada, probably the worst of both worlds)

I don't like rules.

And, with the exchange rate being what it is, you get 30% more pages in a Canadian set.

BobGrognard speaks for me, too!

I increasingly prefer simple rules such as those of Bob Cordery [see his Wargaming Miscellany blog], Ross Macfarlane [Battle Game of the Month] and Neil Thomas, with which I can tinker if I want.

Never cared for DBA &c. – too much like reading a statute or regulations when I did a Law degree.

3

3. I really don't see the difference.

Look at the General de Brigade series. Each title (Die Kriegskunst, British Grenadier, Guns at Gettyburg, There Are Your Guns) is a complete set of rules, written in a technical style.

Look at Warhammer Ancient Battles, Warmaster, or any of the Games Workshop historical sets. Those are complete games, not toolkits.

As previous posters have pointed out, the DBx family carries completeness and precision to a fault.

All of those rules written by Britons and are published in Britain. All of them have significant followings on both sides of the Atlantic.

I really don't see a national difference here. Yes, there are different types of gamers who prefer different types of rules. They exist in both countries.

I think there is a difference between a 'wargaming book' like 'Battle' and a set of rules. WRG produce rules. Grant, Wesencraft, Featherstone etc. produced wargaming books.
Therefore 5.
I like rules to include some extra details so that I am given confidence to writer has some depth of knowledge about the period.

1. I like a complete set of rules.

The toolkit thing is just marketing to cover themselves when there is something missing.

I prefer the American rules generally although the WRG sets are excellent and raised the bar.

Favourites include; crossfire, armati, dba, shako, grand armee, on to Richmond, alter of freedom, price of glory and piquet field of battle.

3.

3

The toolkit thing is just marketing to cover themselves when there is something missing.

So you would buy a set of tools only to find some of them missing?

1

Your premise falls apart when you start to mention some of the tournament ready rules such as DBA, WRG Ancients and even the Warhammer stable of rules. All are very British concoctions. You may or may not like them but they are all designed to be tournament games and are rather complete in explanation.

I can't think of any recent games that seem to fall on the other end of the spectrum. I can think of several American made games such as those from THW that are rather complete in explanation but are not designed to be tournament games.

The toolkit analogy seems to apply mainly to Black Powder which rather than being a toolkit just aren't very good.

I don't see it as a National characteristic, more as an indication of the Wargames tradition the author comes from.

Some people come from groups with a tradition of playing home made or club rules. Here the players themselves are the rules authors and do come up with new interpretations for odd situations. I think the Two Fat Lardies are from that tradition and expect people who play their rules to understand co-operative decision making.

DBX comes straight out of a competitive tradition, where I suspect the authors have seen some very non-cooperative behaviour. While not written in the American board game style of numbered and bulleted paragraphs, they do try to restrict decision making points if they can. Mainly by setting up a restricted game environment, it is no accident the terrain rules are up front before the actual playing rules.

JohnG

I don't really make a big deal about how the rules are written. I care more about how they play.

I cut my teeth on Squad Leader, and although reading the rules is sometimes an ordeal once you start playing you realise how good the gaming is.

At the other end of the extreme, I really like Black Powder because it plays very well. If I'm running a game, I only alter 1 rule: I swap the movement and shooting phases around, other than that I keep things as written. On the other hand you have Napoleon's Battles: Everything all laid out and present and correct but for me it plays horribly.

I love the Lardies WW2 rules because they play very well and you get a sense of narrative to the game: Forget the story being in the rules, the story is in the game as it's played. Flames of War, lots more rules and codifying what can and can't be done, you still get a narrative and ebb and flow of battle. Rapid Fire; simplicity itself and yet unsatisfying: You see it you hit it you hit it you kill it.

So the style of the rules writing is pretty moot for me; it's got to work on the tabletop.

I think the set of rules which did this best was Gavin Lyall's operation war board from the 70s. The first 2/3 was an introduction to ww2 wargaming, with scenarios played through, tips on models to use, discussion of how to use the rules etc, then the final 1/3 was The Rules which were very plainly laid out and well organised.

For me this is the best of both worlds as you get to see the authors intentions explained and a couple of scenarios and playthroughs, but you don't have to wade through pages of chat when yure trying to find how far a jeep moves.

I am a Yank but my favorite set is "The Wargame" by C.S. Grant.

Although I have and will play anything, and enjoy Junior General rules.

Back in the 1970 and 1980s, there was discussion about the format that the rules were written in.
Many American designers were influenced by SPI and liked the case format for rules. I used them in my rules of the time but by the 1990s rules that I worked on for others preferred the paragraph system.
Honestly I still prefer the case system. It may use up more runt space ( back in the earlier times print space was not taken up with the fluff of photos that became the norm later.
Anyway the case system was a more specific way of presenting the rules. Clearer language and less chance to misunderstand the rule. It was also easier to identify and locate a specific rule under debate.

I see the difference as

British: If it isn't specifically banned, then it's allowed (but expect your opponent to call you out if you try it on – "It doesn't say my cataphracts can't climb castle rules" will lose you friends)

American: If it isn't specifically allowed, then it's banned.

3.