"The ideal rulebook is this long..." Topic

You were asked – TMP link

A publisher should aim to have a rulebook which is no longer than… how many pages?

Average of all responses: 67 pages exactly

Actual rules, no more than 8 pages. Background, lists, scenarios, whatever is needed.

"No longer than" is likely different than "ideal," isn't it?

Long enough for what?

I prefer rules books where the rules are crammed into 12 pages, with the remaining 240 pages filled with useless crap. Like 40K 8th as it happens.

Front and back of a 3x5 index card….

Why 67 pages and not 64?

Sixty-four is the square of the cube of two, thus ineligible.

I think Dba three gets it just about right. Couple pages of introduction, six pages of rules, some diagrams, and 40 pages of armies.

GOT to be tthe daftest statement ever like trying to describbe a universal perfect women, or man if you are a woman, not possible.

The best can be said is a rule book should only contain what is neccessary to play. Like you car manual it should not contain irelvances its a manual not a coffe table book. It need to be big enough to do the job no more no less.

Heck, History books should only be 64 pages long. Osprey is already providing just the right amount of history…

Six pages of rules? With that limit, no wonder many games come out looking alike. How many popular rules exceed that number by four or five times, and how many popular rules Meet that limit?

I mean, if that was hobby 'perfection', wouldn't we see most rule books continually tending towards that, if not accomplishing it?

The question is are you playing with toys or making an attempempt at modelling aspects of the real world? I just checked at random on the M240 machine gun, heck there is almost half a page of VERY basic data, Type of round, range effective ranges, tripod bypod. Range of graving fire. If you were playing a skirmish game thsn this is the minimum detai;l to make it credidle. Never mind complex moral (if you want it). Short rules are for toy soldier players not interested in geting even close to real world tactics. I have seen two page rules, my opinion was worthless insuficient detail to end up with a model capable of relating to the real worls in any of the complex situations that arrise in a meodel, never mind about the real world.

Surely there is an important distinction to be made between the initial explanation of the game structure, rationale of the rules and examples of how the rules operate in practice, which may need to be quite lengthy – especially if dealing with an unfamiliar period/level of action and/or rules mechanisms that are significantly different to existing rules – and the QRS or rules summary/tables to which one refers during play?

Consider the Generalship Game in Paddy Griffith's Napoleonic Wargaming For Fun (Ward Lock, 1980; reprinted in the History of Wargaming Project): a very different, original game system, quite unlike any other existing at the time, took a chapter to explain (understandable) but requires only a two-page QRS to play once one understands how the game works. Seems ideal to me!

Consider the Generalship Game in Paddy Griffith's Napoleonic Wargaming For Fun (Ward Lock, 1980; reprinted in the History of Wargaming Project): a very different, original game system, quite unlike any other existing at the time, took a chapter to explain (understandable) but requires only a two-page QRS to play once one understands how the game works. Seems ideal to me!

That seems reasonable, but that "once one understands how the game works" is the rule book, not the QRS. At best, the QRS is a summary of the longer rule book. So, Paddy's rule book was at least a chapter long.

To suggest that a rule book should be no longer than 8 pages is saying more about what kind of game you want than an 'ideal' length for a rule book.

A fair point, McLaddie, save that nowhere did I suggest that 'a rulebook should be no longer than 8 pages'.

My contention is that the total length of a rulebook is not the important issue; what matters is the number of pages, charts &c. to which one must refer regularly during play.

I'll happily read a lengthy book explaining the game system, how to play and the author's interpretation/analysis of history that led to the creation of the rules. What I don't want is to have to refer to lots of tables, charts or legalistic 'Barkerese' text with numbered paragraphs, sub-sections &c. while I'm playing.

Another example: when I played the 1824 Kriegsspiel with Bill Leeson, I had read his 100 plus page English translation of the rules – but never referred to it during a game, unless I was acting as umpire.

I suppose the 'ideal' length for a rulebook, IMHO, is the minimum number of pages it takes to explain the game's concepts, structure, representation of the history, rules &c. sufficiently clearly for one to be able to play without having to refer to more than a two-page QRS.

A fair point, McLaddie, save that nowhere did I suggest that 'a rulebook should be no longer than 8 pages'.

Arthur:

True. I was responding to an earlier post from nnascati and didn't label it. Sorry. Mea Culpa.

My contention is that the total length of a rulebook is not the important issue; what matters is the number of pages, charts &c. to which one must refer regularly during play.

Agreed. I am surprised how awkward many rulebooks are when game USE is considered.

How many charts you refer to is also a function of how often you play. Diffrent armies will have diffrent wepons and organisations and statistics. If you change from Italian tanks to German tanks more tables will be required. If not then you have failed to represent them doifferently, an epic fail in my book.

Again if you only play a game occationally you may never learn even the basics so you will never be able to leave a decent set of rules alone, as you will never have made enough effort to play effectively.

An 8 page rule book will have only minimal if any representation of the real world whatever period you play.

The length of the rules has to be long enough to have a clearly written section for the rules with lots of examples of play both verbal and illustrated, and clear and well thought out QRS. I want a good section by the designer who tells us about his thoughts and goals to represent the period covered, and a section describing the historical tactics and organisation of the combatants. That is an ideal length.

WKeyser I have to disagree in no small order. It is not the job of a set of rules to do othet than present the functioning of the rules. While some very basic tactics may be included as much to descrbe the terms in use. As an example our rules describe Hide, Turret down and Hull down for AFV's attempting to describe infantry tactics in any uasefull way is well outside the scope of a set of rules. All the Allies have whole manuals on their tactics and organisation and those of there opponents.

However unusually we do provide the meand to generate the statistics for vehicles etc. from data available in a myrid of sources.

If you want to actually fight useing tactics of your chosen faction you need to have studdied them. What is the point of reproduceing a historic set if you can't be botherd to study your period. Ineffect you are just playing fantasy. Nothing wrong with that but don't confuse the differences.