"Worst kind of rules." Topic

Those which have been played in and developed by a club.
They all know the rules. They've all played them. They all understand them, so ambiguities are non-existent. No independent players.
Then they publish and sell them. Played one tonight. 4 pages of rules. 32 pages of scenarios.
What fun.

This is a common issue. If you decide to go down this path you at least need to create an examples document. However from personal experience an example document can often end up being much larger than the original rules, in terms of pages.

Form my professional work Ilearnt Gfeinition is all. |Actually defining things unabigiuossly is difficult. It aleays supprises me joe much description it tkes to be precise. As the \op said its not required if you all have the same definition in your head. One page rules are a disater for that nothing is defined and ther is alwys a bit that is not within svch very basic rules.

Rules that require someone who knows how to play them, have to teach them. I can think of a number of rules 'families', some give brilliant games, that are so badly written that without someone in the know, they are completely useless. Yet the rules writers don't see any problems whatsoever. Rules should be able to be picked up and learnt without having to resort to using YouTube explainers, someone with prior knowledge, or having an encyclopaedic knowledge of previous versions.

Oh, and if you want my money, the least you can do is put the manuscript through a spell checker. Proof reading is very underrated by rules writers. Just published rules should not need extensive errata sheets.

yes, tried to play a few sets that are probably great if you have the author in the room, unplayable if you just have the rules

Rules should be able to be picked up and learnt without having to resort to using YouTube explainers…

Funny you should mention that. 🙄 That's exactly what this particular set has.

Reminds me of Calvinball. :)
link

Some sets, like the old SPI board game rule were written
like legal texts to remove ambiguities. They were a chore to get through but usually thwarted 'rules lawyers'. Even so, more often than not, they generated errata sheets of re-writes or more detailed descriptions of the originals.

Cottage industry rules usually go for a simpler path with
similar results. Both styles seem to attempt to cover all of
the possible options for the players.

This seems to be the case, whether they are generated by a company, individual or 'club'. The question is-do they create a consensual reality that can be re-created by anyone, anywhere?

This is where editing and testing is critical. We have all seen extremes of this, one way or another. Good gets rave reviews, lousy gets – well just see the OFM's intro.

Great topic!!

i used to rant about the poorly produced, poorly written, ambiguous rules i bought.

after 30 years i've given up.

Rules that even decades after publication still have the same community debates over how to play them. Especially rules where the "way to play" is contrary to what the written rule actually says…

Phil Baker has some excellent written rules!

Nuff said.

Napoleonic rules

Something always happens that someone thinks is unrealistic and complains

Still my favorite period. One day I might write my own set, which will no doubt have every fault imagination and some new ones all of my own making

John

@UshCha – spellchecking also useful :D

(sorry, couldn't resist)

David, someone had to say it.

My spelling would be worse than UshCha's but I use this:
sapling.ai/plans#pro_edit_click

link

Wolfhag

The OFM is right: If you develop rules with your friends, they should be handed off to complete strangers for feedback before being released to the wider world.

That said, "short" is not the same thing as "unclear." And while the overall objective should be both clarity and brevity, if all you do is play with a few close friends, how much does it matter that another group of wargamers a thousand miles away understand it differently?

Unfortunately, in both board games and miniatures gaming right now, development and play testing has taken a back seat to getting the product published. This has led to what is termed "living rules", where many designers and companies release their games and/or rules, then once there are a number of complaints, suggestions, found errors, etc., put a reworked set of rules online as a PDF.

Yeah getting the rules written so they are clear and not open to mis-interpretation is a skill.

One of the best board games I've played is a moderns game called 'Air&Armor' by West End Games. It came out in the 80's and was great with about 20 pages of clear, concise, very well written rules.

So the same Author has just brought out a Designer Signature Edition where the rules are now 148 pages filled with Designer Notes, examples and further padding.

Comments from new users include "Where are the rules?" and "Do you have to read all 148 pages to understand the rules?"

People are even going back to the old rules to try and make sense of the new stuff.

Apparently a set of YouTube videos was meant to be released at the same time as the new rules to explain everything but haven't been released yet.

Pages of Errata including new counters and even a sticker for a map correction were released when the game came out.

A bit different to the original release.

Worse issues occur within RPG rules: they cannot cover every aspect of every situation which comes up in the games, at the tabletop -- they're more like guidelines. really. The same is true for war games: you cannot create a rule for every possible situation (see the SPI comment, above).

I am not excusing shoddy rules writing, but if you want perfect rules, stick with rules you and your buddies write within your club. LOL!

I wrote an introductory set of wargame rules for playing with Army Men, in 1998. I ran them in Community Education Classes for nearly eight years. Everybody had a blast with them. I sold around 160 copies, over a period of 10 years. I basically broke even, even though they were sold mail order, with a few overseas sales. My attempt had no budget for advertising -- all magazines and websites are pay-to-play, no matter how they present themselves to their readers: if you do not purchase advertising from them, they will not review your product, even if you send them a free copy.

Bottom line: there is almost no profit in selling miniatures game rules, IMO. Bitch all you want, it won't help. If you don't like the rules available, write your own, and self-publish them. LOL! This is a niche hobby. It is, what it is. Cheers!

"you cannot create a rule for every possible situation."

You know, I'm not convinced that's true for miniature warfare above the skirmish/RPG level. At least it needn't be true, but the ways to avoid it move us somewhat in the direction of board games. I love free-form terrain, but a highly competitve miniatures game with free-form terrain can be a nightmare of troops partly sheltered from fire, or either just on or just off a hill. Use of areas such as squares or hexes eliminates all of that. Another set of problems arises from dealing with figures rather than bases. I've seen enough battles grind to a halt over whether Pvt Stock's hand was or was not just barely under the bounce stick to last me a very long time.

Move and fight by areas and treat the stands as real and the castings as symbolic, and I think a good set of rules can provide an answer for every situation. You won't always like the answer, or think it perfectly historical, but you won't get that from any rules set.

The pity of it is that I suspect our desire to protect copyright and the illusory expectation of financial gain actually makes this worse. We don't take the pretty good four-page rule set and fine-tune it, because most of us can't legally, and because there's no money at all in the sort of short, simple rule sets which used to be published in Miniature Wargames or MWAN. So instead we have a dozen sets of 32-page rules at each period and level, and finding an opponent is like trying to find someone with the same fingerprints.

Fifty years ago, I thought this would eventually get better. If it will, "eventually" is something I'll have to leave to descendants not yet born.

I have to confess having written and published rules the worst bit is proof reading. It's long and arduous and you will miss stuff. Also I can't help feeling Arthur C Clarke was right, "Write your first half a million words throw them away and you are ready to start writing".

We put out Issue 2 of our rules, There was enough new stuff for us to make the effort, we have learnt a lot more about the real world and gaming in 16 years. I do admit with 16 more years of work and writing some of the first stuff was not great in hindsight.

Of the first set one of our more educated reader's said the writing was bad. When I protested that it was a lot better than many rules, his replay was yes, it was better than many, but that was not a reasonable datum., Issue 2 got an "Almost Readable" which from him is high praise indeed!

One of my relations is a proof reader, I wondered why a very clever University educated person did this as a job. I Now know it is a very demanding task.

Worst rules, not "leveled" over detailed in one area and no detail at all in other areas. One of the worst was on Fighting in Built Up Areas (FIBUA). It had every nature of ammunition but nothing on how to shoot up and down high buildings, how to breach walls, how to use ladder. As bad as an aerial game that fails to address the 3D nature of the fight.

Sgt Slag NO WAY – we recon we have made £ 0.02 an hour now far more than we ever expected . We charge so we can see that some folk think we are worth reading.

One of the most difficult things to write is a "how to" manual. To do so successfully, you must be an expert in the subject matter, but must write the manual so that somebody with no knowledge of the subject whatsoever can understand it. You can't assume anything.

Successful rules writing must share the same challenges.

Is the set used available? What period and conflict scale (skirmish, army, etc.).

I am working on re-writing my rules for sale as both PDF, and color POD. I will NOT make photocopies, fold and staple them together, again… Writing, editing, printing camera art copies, making photocopies (covers were done separately on 110# cardstock), assembling, stapling, and mailing, was a lot of fun, for a while.

I was limited in page count by my binding method. I had to remove scenarios when I combined the basic and advanced rules into one book. With PDF and POD, I can add in all of my scenarios, all my terrain making techniques, my painting instructions, and anything else I want to add. I can also use color photos/text/et cetera! Ain't technological advances great?!?! Cheers!

Is the set used available? What period and conflict scale (skirmish, army, etc.)

Naaah. Not going to name and shame. No clues either.
A friend who couldn't make it did call me and ask if it was XXX by YYY.
I said it was, and he laughed at me. 😄

All I'm saying is that the solution to our MANY problems was not in the rules.
If they're part of "tribal knowledge", that's just sad.

As above, there is no such thing as a perfect set of rules, and even if there was, we get bored and move on. I've modified dozens of sets of rules and written/slung together dozens of others, many of which are 'published' for free. If people like them great, if they don't, well there are lots of other rules. Rules come and go, the only thing which last forever are figures.

Really anyone complaining ought to think about tryimg themselves.

Yes you're paying for rules so want a decent game. I suspect most of us have a shelf full of rules but not played them all.

Every set of rules I've played has benefited from playing with either the author or someone very familiar with the rules. Slogging through heaps of text without someone in the know can be hard. But I'd never bash anyone who has written the rules.

Sean, I'd be surprised if there was anyone in this thread who HASN'T written rules--though not always of the "heaps of text" variety, or which only work if the author makes house calls.

Special place in my heart for the rules which only work if you own an expensive volume written for another period, or which get to some critical mechanism and say "we'll do it the way they do it in XXX Rules."

When I started designing my system my small group broke up pretty quickly. I started putting on games at conventions so new people were always playing for the first time.

I had to streamline the game and get feedback from new players who had some of the best suggestions for the rules or play aids because they had a different viewpoint than I did.

I'd watch the players and if it looked as if they were having difficulty with something I'd ask them about it and get suggestions rather than tell them they are doing it all wrong. Overall it is a more playable game without compromising the historical aspects I want to bring out because of using new players in development.

Yes, writing the rules from the viewpoint of someone who has never seen them before is difficult. It's easy to assume people have the same knowledge as you. After writing a few pages I'll spell check it using two different spell checkers and then use the "read aloud" function to let my female AI assistant read it back to me to make sure it makes sense.

I started out using as much military nomenclature as I could, but very quickly realized most people don't know them so I had to simplify a way to represent it in a way they'd understand.

People learn by reading, listening, and watching a video; not everyone is equal in those areas. The more you can engage all three senses the quicker someone will come up to speed in the game.

Now you can read the rules, listen to someone read them to you and I use QR codes to bring up a short video example in the middle of the game and the rule book.

Since it's hard to get people together to play test I have Zoom meetings to discuss issues.

Wolfhag

As above, there is no such thing as a perfect set of rules, and even if there was, we get bored and move on.

So if we had the perfect rules we would abandon them, surely if that was true Chess, Ludo, Football and Golf would long since have gone as they have never really changed the rules in decades. The logic supporting this statement seems very elusive to me.
So the rules of chess are of no value only the chess pieces again logic seems a bit off.
Rules do not need to be written for the lowest common denominator. They such rules are invariably lacking in fidelity as they are written for folk who have no understanding of the period. That is unappealing for those of us who want fidelity and can cope with the demands, as we have read extensively on period and tactics. There is room for both types. Rules written to be played at most 6 times a year are going to be different to ones played 40 times a year by period enthusiasts.

You should never start a thread like this decades of resentment become real.
Rules that really just don't take tanks seriously. Tidying up stuff for a show at the weekend, I was putting the Hull down markers away and relalised so few rules can even cope with this level of detail. Infantry in cover yes, tanks in hull down, the excuses are limitless and pathetic but it is ignored like the differences between Assault guns and tanks. Un-penalized tank parks, did the designer never read a book?

Yet, it is surprising how many rules writers do get it right, and don't need a member of the rules team to guide you through mechanisms.

Baroque, for example, originally written in Italian then translated into English, which you'd think would be a recipe for disaster- can be picked up just from the rules book. (Yes, there are a few annoying acronyms that are a little confusing due to translation, e.g. base value unit is VBU, but quickly overcome).

Develop a set of rules, then give them to playtesters who were not part of the development team. If they can't pick the game up just from what's written in the book, then maybe the rules need rewriting. It might give a great game, but if it can't be picked up from the book then it is not going to succeed as well as it deserves.

You should never start a thread like this decades of resentment become real.

Only from people who walk around carrying resentment for decades…

You should never start a thread like this decades of resentment become real.

When I was a graduate student in Chemistry, one of my "stipend" assigned tasks was to grade written exams turned in by the students.
"This isn't an English course! You can't deduct for spelling or grammar errors!"
Yes, I can. If you hand in gibberish, I'm not about to waste my time trying to figure out what you're trying to say. Spelling, in Chemistry, is vital. It distinguishes between very different chemicals, for one MAJOR thing. 🙄 duh
If your sentences clash together, I'm not going to try to figure out what you're trying to say.

And to think that this example comes from a "professional rules writer" is laughable.
That's just one example from this very thread.

Form my professional work Ilearnt Gfeinition is all. |Actually defining things unabigiuossly is difficult. It aleays supprises me joe much description it tkes to be precise.

Oh, the irony! 😄

John, English is a second language for UshCha. I think we all understand his intent, in spite of his poor English. Having said that, we do not all share his viewpoint.

UshCha has espoused many times, previously, and again in this thread, that he prefers highly detailed, so-called, realistic rules systems. He is on the highly-detailed, simulation end of the granularity spectrum.

In other words, he wants as much realistic detail within the game, as is possible:

few rules can even cope with this level of detail. Infantry in cover yes, tanks in hull down, the excuses are limitless and pathetic but it is ignored like the differences between Assault guns and tanks. Un-penalized tank parks, did the designer never read a book?

Others only wish to achieve a result similar to history, without all of the granularity -- what is often called strategic level of play, rather than tactical, in the trenches, play. And others simply design games to be fun, tossing realism, and accuracy, onto the unnecessary, un-used, un-wanted heap.

Rules writing is technical writing: decide your level and type of game, then write your rules to the comprehension level of your desired audience. If you are writing for absolute beginners, then you need to explain everything for them to understand -- this adds page count, quickly. If you are writing for gaming grognards, you assume a certain level of understanding and familiarity, and you write to that perceived level. It ain't rocket science, but it is not as straightforward and simple as many here assume. LOL!

Not every gamer, even crusty grognards, have the same level of understanding and familiarity as the author. I suspect this is more of the true issue with badly written rules, than anything else.

If the customer's level of understanding and familiarity is higher than what the author writes their rules to, the customer may feel insulted, as many on this forum have espoused. If the author writes using terms and acronyms the reader is not familiar with, then they may become angry because the rules are impossible to understand!

My published rules were for absolute beginners; I printed my books on 5.5"x8.5" format, two columns, so they had a 96 page count, which was my limit in that format. I covered: the game rules; around six scenarios, with maps; painting techniques; how to build terrain, and the concept of using a Ping Pong Table; I collected all of the tables and charts in the back, sans text; there was a photocopiable set of pages for noting hidden units according to their numbered markers; numbered hidden unit counters to be photocopied; a landing craft model to be photocopied; and Notes pages for the owner to write in things, such as new rules. I was unable to put the complete game into those 96 pages, so I split the game into a basic booklet, and an advanced rules 96 page booklet: another six scenarios, with maps; more tables and charts; more Notes pages.

I read a lot of pontification in TMP posts from folks who apparently love to be the armchair quarterback on how commercial game rules should be written and published… If you have no skin in the game, leave off on the criticism of those who do have their own skin in the game, that is, those who have put the time, effort, and money, into publishing a commercial set of rules, in the real world, not the Internet forums. Your criticisms do not sound knowledgeable, nor credible -- quite the opposite, really.

Everyone has the right to review a given set of rules, and to publish their reviews on whatever forum they choose. But to blather on about how poor the sets of published, commercial rules are, ad nauseum, is really tiresome. Get off your lazy backside, and write and publish, your own commercial set of rules -- after all you know better than the majority of the commercial publishers already out there! Get some of your own skin (time, effort, money) in the game! Then, people will really listen to what you have to say, because they know you are more than an Anonymous Internet Warrior who knows better than the rest of the entire world. Like I said, this ain't rocket science, but it is work -- hard work, that typically takes hundreds of hours to create something; then, the publishing and the marketing efforts begin… Cheers!

Again, the old "If you're not a professional singer, you have no right to criticize Bob Dylan" argument.
So I'm not allowed to criticize Nicholas Cage's acting.
I'm not allowed to say that I find Citizen Kane boring.
I'm not allowed to say that a game that I paid good money for is unplayable, or gibberish.

If you charge money for a thing, you abandon any claim to be free from criticism.

I did not say you could not criticize, I said the same old song and dance, bitch and moan, by people on the sidelines, gets old.

Everyone has the right to review a given set of rules, and to publish their reviews on whatever forum they choose. But to blather on about how poor the sets of published, commercial rules are, ad nauseum, is really tiresome.

If you know better, then do better. Get up and do something besides complaining about the work of others -- show the "professionals" how it should be done. Put your time, effort, and money, where your mouth is.

UshCha, I believe, has published rules. He has credibility for that. I can respect his criticisms because he has done more than complain from the bleachers; he has done the actual writing/playtesting/publishing work, himself, presenting his work outside of his group of gaming friends.

Armchair quarterbacking is the same as Internet Warriors posting in forums: I take their critiques lightly, at best. Cheers!

Overall I agree with Sgt Slag.

I have a copy of UshCha game rules. They are well written. I don't know why he insists on not using a spell checker.

In many sports there is a rules committee that can change and enact new rules. Chess rules evolved until the 18th century. American football has slight changes every year and different versions are played at the junior,touch and flag football, high school and college levels. Canada is different than the NFL. The same goes for golf with miniature, par 3, 9 hole, 18 hole and professional level. There is something for everyone. It's about entertainment and how you spend your leisure time. Professionals do not criticize amateurs for not playing at the professional level.

Commercial war games need to be profitable so they appeal to as broad a base as possible. To do that you go towards the lowest common denominator, people who wat to move their toys around as easily as possible and have fun. If that's not you get something else.

Every year Origins gives awards to historical miniatures games and Bolt Action was the last winner.

When you write anything you are generally targeting a specific group as it is hard to please everyone. If a game is targeted at beginners don't criticize it for not having enough detail.

Wolfhag

Not sure why I am getting the flack NOTE.

There is room for both types. Rules written to be played at most 6 times a year are going to be different to ones played 40 times a year by period enthusiasts.

This is not saying all rules are to be designed to the same objective, just the opposite.

The worst kind of rules will be subjective, dependent on what you want out of an entertainment.

Somehow my rant against poorly written and incomplete rules has turned into "if you think you can do better, publish your own!"
If you have the gall to charge money for your rules, you have a responsibility to make them playable.

complain from the bleachers

What is this bleachers? Is it slang for pit-of-stomach?

It is a reference to sports fans, seated in the bleachers/stands/stadium, who try to tell the coach on the field, which plays to call, which players to swap into/out of the game. Cheers!

Best thread in years!!!!

Aren't rules like activations, command points, and variations of IGYG subjective? Add to that is the different types of dice and cards that can be used in various ways. There is no standardized way to use them.

You can have an infinite number of ways and methods to design a game so I don't see any way you could design a perfect game or one where a majority of players would buy into.

I think how realistic the game is comes down to the individual, their knowledge and experience and you'll rarely find two people the same. It takes months of training for military personnel to learn their job and tactics. A realistic game would be over the head of most players with no military experience and present a steep learning curve. Great visuals overcome the subjective reality the rules present. From my experience, players will choose the visuals over the rules.

The majority of players have no military experience, differing levels of historical knowledge (some of which has been proven to be inccurate), never been shot at or seen the direct observation of weapons performance, or fired weapons. So if they think a particular game is realistic then to them it is. As they gain additional knowledge and try different game systems I'm sure their opinion will change.

Even if the most esteemed and authoritative historian or game designer designed a game he's still be constrained with the same rules and mechanics everyone else has unless he comes up with something new.

Will it be balanced or historical and realistic? How will he balance detail and playability? Will it be targeted to entry level or experienced players? Will he use dice, cards and record keeping? See the problems? You'll never please evereyone so don't try.

How is it that a game can win multiple industry awards and not be the game played by the majority of players?

Regarding playability, I think it depends on how much time you are willing to spend learning the system. ASL is a good example.

If you think your design is realistic then to you it is. If you can sell the idea to other players so much the better. However, don't expect the military to buy into it. Real combat it a time competitive contest, not a contest of subjective abstracted and/or randomized actions. This is why the military simulators use computers and crews train to execute their orders aas quickly as possible. Speed seizes the initiative.

Combat is not fair and balanced but most players want a fair and balanced game.

The other design challenge is to recreate the realistic interaction of different rates of fire and movement. Giving each unit two actions per turn is balanced and playable but not realistic. Alternate IGYG presents a playable Chess like game and strategy but is not very realisic either.

Since most of the rules being published are from amateurs (most with no publishing experience) giving their subjective opinion of a game and reality there is alot more to not like than to like.

Wolfhag

So according to Wolfhag we English don't know when Our kings died and we don't know that a Panther Tank Looks like; its all subjective. Hate to break to him it but there is hard physical evidence when our kings dies and what a Panther looks like, and how they work. I'm Not REME but I know how a tank works and can read hard data on gun ranges and accuracy. To claim it's all subjective is patently absurd.

In my experience visuals don't compensate for a poor game. A poor game is just that and no amount of dressing can make it better. As we Brits say "You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear"

If I'm watching a Line Dancer at my local Honkytonk, and she falls flat on her face, am i allowed to call that sloppy dancing? (Please note that I am a terrible dancer.)

What if I'm listening to a really bad singer who can't hit the notes in Easy Loving, can I call him out? Bear in mind that I have been booed at karaoke.

If Travis Kelce drops a sure touchdown….
You know what I'm getting at?

Be still my beating heart…
I'm agreeing with UshCha! 😱

Mq<You know what I'm getting at?

Yes, it's called fundamental attribution error, and militaries (as well as many other organizations), go to great lengths to train people not to do that.

If the line dancer falls flat on her face:
– it could be sloppy dancing
– she coukd have been the first one to hit the spilled beer
– her torn ligament from rugy ten years ago could have just give way
– she could have gone off balance to aboid hitting another dancer who was screwing up
– and so on

The classic expression of FAE is that other people screw up because they suck, I screw up because of circumstances surrounding what I did.

In wargaming, losing doesn't mean you made the wrong choice. The harder one is that winning doesn't mean you made the right one.

The objective fact of her fall is not subjective. What elements you decide to includie in your analysis of what happened is.

U have no doubt that people can see things happen and read data. I frequently find that people don't (want to?) understand the context under which objective facts are obtained, so they just make up their own.

My original point was that a particular set of rules sucked.
To be transparent here, I have written my own rules for use at home. Some I found to be successful. Others sucked.

Do I, or do I not, have the right to criticize an unnamed set of rules because I found them woefully incomplete and unplayable?
Do I have to establish credentials to criticize? Or do I have a right? Even if I have never written any rules, do I have that right?

By the way, the Ohio State quarterback made a bone headed decision on the very last play last night. Can I criticize him, even though I've never played football?

By the way, the Ohio State quarterback made a bone headed decision on the very last play last night. Can I criticize him, even though I've never played football?

Well, I sure did!

And I have dined in 4 star restaurants and have had meals that where poor despite never having worked as a professional chef. Can I complain to the Maitre D' even though I have only cooked in my on home (and consider myself a pretty good cook)?

I don't care if the chef is having a bad day or whatever, I just know if the food is bad I'm unhappy.

Gotta agree with OFM

Kim