"Are the rules you wrote any good?" Topic

Oh, heck no! 😱
My friends knew how much work I put into painting the literally hundreds of figures for Trenton.
To my horror, the rules I wrote for this game absolutely sucked.
Afterwards, everyone consoled me. "John! That was a really good game!"
Liars, but God bless them for that.

Now, I stick to taking British Grenadier AWI scenarios and just …. tweaking them. Now they bitch. I got only one pass. 😄
(Like adding The Band to Bennington…)

No.

Last year, after a long search for suitable rules (or even rules I could torture with excessive house rules), totally at my wit's end, I was forced to write a set of rules for an extremely niche period I wanted to play: the late ironclad period, 1875-1895(ish). The first game was a bit of a clunker, but for the next game I got enough sorted out to make it work. I'm still adding and revising rules with every play, but they are playable.

Personally, I think the rules are…. well, not great. The game plays slower than I want, it's too bloody in some respects and not bloody enough in others, and it's too much work to add new ship designs. I think the author is the most important component of the game – I don't think it stands on its own well enough to be playable without me there. Some of the worst problems are hidden deep in the spreadsheets and rosters where nobody can see them (ssssshhhhh!). I deliberately made the game "crunchy" and very process-heavy, because it's all about the nitty gritty picayune differences between experimental ships with experimental guns, experimental armor, experimental engines, and experimental torpedoes. This kind of brute force approach is the easiest way to write rules, but the hardest way to make them fun, because everybody except the saltiest naval grognards get bored grinding through charts.

Strangely, this game seems quite popular with naval gaming veterans and casual gamers alike. I get a lot of repeat players, including some really not-at-all-naval gamers, and I practically have to force people to stop playing. The game is a hit, and that makes me happy, but I don't understand why. <shrug> I think it's all the fun toys. Miniatures gamers are suckers for a nice miniature diorama.

- Ix

. The game is a hit, and that makes me happy, but I don't understand why. <shrug>

Yeah. Similar to my Trenton game.
I threw my draft copy away.

Yes and no. I released a number of rules back in the 1980-90s. Some were picked up by others wanting to publish them.
A number of rules I wrote as a result of research that I had done for military articles. Those were for self-gratification.
Still at it. I am working on a boardgame on Creek War of 1812 and one on Three Kingdoms Korea. These match two information primers on similar subjects.
I do have about twenty never released titles.

"Are the rules you wrote any good?"

Yes, but I need to finish writing them first… ;-)

I think they are pretty good once some issues are worked out, but what others think of them may be a different matter. Especially when my first attempt turns out to be a real stinker. It's the temptation to continue to tinker with rules once they are working well and people enjoy them that is hardest to resist.

Yes are ours good. We are still playing them 16 years on and the are still selling. Are they perfect no. Every year you learn new things as your knowledge grows, new books new perspectives so minor fixes are always required. 16 years on we have issue 2. Some minor improvements but the basic mechanisns are unchanged, the English is better than before. Would I do it again, perhaps not, it took 2000 man hours for the first set, a new set would need inpiration on a new period and the same or more time, perhaps beyond me at my age.

It is niche audience, your typical minature collectos play lots of periods superficialy an often want minimal a learning curve, not a tool to understand the issues about which they read.

If I had my time again I would still have done it, yes. It massively improves your undrstanding of yopu chosen period but it is a massive investment in time. A hobby within a hobby.

I have written so many sets of rules over the years…. or more generally , adaptations of other people's rules. I enjoy the process,and one or two of them are even half decent until I get bored and move on to something else. I did once win a 'best participation game' prize, which was a nice surprise. But usually they are full of holes you can drive an elephant through or only work for very specific situations.

Writing a set of rules for your own use is very different to writing a set of rules that others can read and understand without you in the room. Written loads of rules over the years; some of them were not bad, a few got published in magazines. It's a lot of work, and a lot of playtesting; these days I'd rather find a commercial set that I like and use that instead.

Sometimes. I sometimes hear "dull"--usually put more politely in my presence, of course--but I never hear "unplayable" or "don't understand what the author means." A good game requires a good scenario, though, and good players.

yes. But needed more development.

I've written seven playable games in the last ten years. I'd rate three of them (admittedly simple compared to tactical skirmish combat) as 9's or 10's. I've taken them to game conventions and gotten strong positive feedback; there's a lot to be said for heading off to dinner and returning to see a group of players you don't know playing a game you designed.
My other games are all more complex and a bit more clunky but otherwise result in a good tabletop experience.
When writing, I always try to maintain the reader's perspective. Explain everything, define everything and provide lots of visual step-by-step examples.
Years and years of writing computer system instructions for end-users has taught me that one must spell everything out quite plainly and any mistakes by the author will be magnified a hundredfold by anyone attempting to follow those instructions.

I haven't looked at them in over 40 years. Space ship battles on a large table or one the floor. So that basically sucks.

I have a couple sets that works quite well. They have not been released into the wild. The test of any set of rules for me is the results they produce. Under that criteria they are successful.

I think so. Others, who are not close friends or family, have said so.
But it depends on the rules. Some of mine I suspect are turkeys; some I really like. Some I'm probably attached to despite being turkeys.

With which one of the home-grown rules you have written are most satisfied? Desiderata are never published, playtested multiple times, and revisions more-or-less complete.

For me, it would be my mech warrior rules "Lance Leader". I'm fond of my VSF rules "Her Majesty's Mechanical Marvels", but in candor they've only been playtested once.

Yes, people seem to like them 😀

Yes. Do they work when I'm not there? Maybe. Guys are always asking for a copy so I must have something.

Rules must have a target audience in mind. Once a year mini enthusiasts are not the same as 50 to 100 times a year tactics and warfare enthusiasts. Their requirements cannot be met adequately by a one size fits all set.

We started down the fix X-rules and found it was never possible to get it right, better yes, but there are fundamental assumptions in the base set you can't change, so its never right.

We started from a very few base assumptions some recognizable from some rules, IGO UGO at element level, which could be modified to work for us. Some in our experience completely novel approaches (some almost heretical) to mini games.

Then lots of reading and testing. Interestingly of the 2000 hrs probably the basic mechanisms were defined in a few hundred hours. The rest was defining EXACTLY how the interactions between the systems were to work and checking endlessly for stray invalid reactions.

To be honest most of the time was FUN deciding what result you wanted for a test case, like the guys shooting out of the AFV hatches, did this give a plausible result, when and why and in what circumstances this was a credible approach and when was it not. The last few hours were NOT really fun, polishing the English, endless formatting of teXt and data. Drawing diagrams and because its new concepts not covered by classic 6", 12" rules, training examples.

One horror you have top be aware of if you start off down such a road is the disillusionment in existing rules. Many rules are based on "traditions" with little or no grounding in reality. The words "We never do it that way, we always do it like this". The challenge on this statement results in "Well we always do it that way, everybody does". Sad but true, but forge on and you will get there and the effort is well worth it.

Good point, UshCha. You have to know your audience. My teenage son does not complain about my index card 54mm cowboy or Lego WWII rules. Others might not enjoy themselves.

You do indeed have to know your audience. But it isn't really necessary to constantly sneer at those who don't do it your way.

Co-wrote a set of Napoleonic miniature rules from the old SPI Wellington Victory game and used the SPI CA naval game for the SOP. Started at 120:1 miniature ratio, now covers 75:1 to 100:1 ratios for historical scenarios. That was back in 1977 and the small group I play with still use the rules with changes throughout the decades. Recently expanded the rules to cover the WSS era, and with further adjustment, the WAS and SYW eras. Still looking out for ways to quicken and simplify the game flow mechanics… never ending task.

I wrote a few sets in the 90s and 00s. I thought them adequate then; I'd probably think they sucked now.

The Last Conformist – Was that the writing standard, we get better with practice or have you changed in what you want out of rules?

John the OFM no sneer intended- but differences of opinion are just that.

I admire the old authors when it was all hand written and amended, no computers, no printers till the final Banda masters for some.

I still have most of mine online, and they occasionally get upgrades link . I think they are ok as club sets, but not for much more!
I am writing a solo set for Dr Who at the moment, I just hope my clubmates like them…!!!

My early ones are all awful in some way. Written between ages 15-17. WWII battalion level game was ridiculous. Trojan War skirmish game lacked depth necessary for a melee heavy skirmish. My AWI game gave good combat results for realism but lacked the development of asymmetric victory conditions so playing as the Continentals always led to defeat.

Space fleet combat game I made four years ago…ripped apart and remade. It's better but needs work.

Modern platoon to company level game is in its infancy. We will see where that goes. Very kill heavy. Inspired by the book Seven Seconds to Die.

Rules must have a target audience in mind.

I disagree with this statement, even though I concur with almost everything else in that post. No target audience is required. Rules can be for a one-off game, or a niche topic, or to simulate a particular battle or situation or as-yet ungamed historical context, or might be a reinterpretation of history based on new evidence, or maybe just a thought experiment.

I wrote the ironclad rules I mentioned above because there was exactly one set of rules that could bring those ships to life, and it looked like agony to play (crunchy 1970s rules). Since it was going to be more work to modify that, or any of my other published sets of rules I preferred, I just started from scratch – literally my last choice, after exhausting all other possibilities. Popularity and appeal weren't even considerations. I only needed to get 2-3 games in before I abandoned the effort. A half dozen successful convention games and a year of playtests with repeat players has been a complete surprise. FWIW, I'm not disillusioned with any of the rules I rejected for this project; I like some of them even more. The extra analysis actually confirmed some of the design choices for me, and in fact I vaguely regret not deciding to modify the crap out of David Manley's Iron & Fire rules instead of starting from scratch. Whatever, it was a rewarding experience.

I have a set of ancient galley rules I started because I want to incorporate William Murray's research and conclusions (published in The Age of Titans) into large galley battles with hundreds of miniatures, with some very specific game mechanics I want to incorporate. No target audience, only design goals.

I once started a set of rules just because I wanted to use a Renaissance-themed tarot deck for Renaissance gaming. Who's the target audience for that? Gamers who like strong themes?

- Ix

My INLGames rules, etc. have 1500+ post-exposure purchases, that is, a customer purchased a set of stuff or downloaded free stuff then came back on a separate occastion to purchase more stuff. Make of that what you will.

The question is not useful, since "good" is a subjective criterion. Rules could be good for the author's intended purpose, but not all the players'. Or the other way around. Or good based on when the author wrote them, but the author has moved on. Or …

I have written simple rules for participation games that seemed to work.

My only commercial set of rules is Martian Empires which seems to have sold well and is having something of a renaissance at the moment.

Yellow Admiral, when you wrote that 'No target audience is required for a set of rules' but then stated 'Rules can be for a one-off game, or a niche topic, or to simulate a particular battle or situation or as-yet ungamed historical context, or might be a reinterpretation of history based on new evidence, or maybe just a thought experiment.' were you not effectively suggesting possible target audiences?

In other words, those looking for a one-off game; people interested in a particular niche topic or a reinterpretation of history; wargamers wanting to recreate a particular battle, et cetera, ending with someone desiring a 'thought experiment' – oneself?

The most successful rules I ever wrote were for gladiator fights, aimed specifically at 8-11 year olds in my Classical Studies classes. They were enjoyed by pupils in that school for several years, at my daughter's junior school, and at another local preparatory school, and introduced them to some simple Latin phrases (the action cards were in Latin) to help with their study of that language. My son also used them (with English cards) for the Wolf Cub group he ran for the local Scouts.

They had no pretensions to being very realistic, and were certainly not a simulation, but they succeeded with their target audience. They also worked as an entertaining 'beer & pretzels' game for adults, but that was just a bonus.

Presumably not as all the play testers have yet to give me any feedback, which I'm interpreting as 'so bad I'm not even going to bother trying to play them'.

One off games will not have the complexity of a game designed to be at its best AFTER several games have been played a few times. Hence target audience is key. Our target audience is folk like us into tactical details and realities.

Yellow Admiral, when you wrote that 'No target audience is required for a set of rules' but then stated 'Rules can be for a one-off game, or a niche topic, or to simulate a particular battle or situation or as-yet ungamed historical context, or might be a reinterpretation of history based on new evidence, or maybe just a thought experiment.' were you not effectively suggesting possible target audiences?

In other words, those looking for a one-off game; people interested in a particular niche topic or a reinterpretation of history; wargamers wanting to recreate a particular battle, et cetera, ending with someone desiring a 'thought experiment' – oneself?

I wasn't making a philosophical examination of ways to remove an audience. I was pointing out that UshCha's reduction of wargames into two camps, simulations and games-for-entertainment, is leaving out other categories that do not prioritize the audience. He said "rules must have a target audience" (emphasis mine), but that is clearly false. There may always be an audience, but one can write rules without considering the audience at all, and such exercises can still have value.

That said, I agree with UshCha that rules written without regard for an audience are less likely to find an audience.

- Ix

Rules are not for an audience. They are to present desired decisions to players.

As Yellow Admiral says, you can use an audience to scope the desired decision space, but you don't have to. Most of that actually happens in the scenario, rather than the rules. I prefer to keep the scenrios as separate from the rules as possible.

Not generally, so I abandon them. A couple of them, I quite like. I wrote a set of quick play WW2 air rules which I usually prefer to the commercial sets I have around, and I prefer my version of Shadowrun to any of the published versions.

etotheipi – can't agree. If players out their do not want to touch there turrets on tanks and turn them, or not to hide troops then quite rightly they will not want to play those rules. Threfore writing such rules excludes that audience like it or not. Similarly if the detail of the simulation is to fine or complex for them they will not want it so are excluded.

I have to agree with UshCha. If a ruleset purporting for me to be a company or battlegroup commander had me manipulating the facing of individual AFV turrets or making me define precisely which model tree each model soldier was hiding behind*, I would definitely not be the target for such a game and should be excluded. I need a bit more focus and realism in my rules.

(*OTOH, I am more than happy to live with such things when playing Firepower say, or Twilight 2000).

Interesting some folk like die to replace real folk though some don't. Personally die have severe limitations in replacing the human decision making process only a very limited series of options available. You either use die for a mindless unpredictable but not neccessarily rational reponcem. Or you do it yourself, not ideal as one person playeing several folk, but I never an unrealisc irrational responce.

In the real worlr tha tanks take up a formation and guard certain sectors, I have never seen a die driven system at low level that sets up its responce to a threat. I have seen it ignored and the effect is truley irrational, all tanks shoot at all targets, not poissible without a change of formation.

I suspect it's simply a trade off of which is more credible, its one actor, a die or a person.

A target audience can be one… the writer. 😀

Ushcha
You seem to be seeing things in binary
"You either use die for a mindless unpredictable but not neccessarily rational reponcem. Or you do it yourself, not ideal as one person playeing several folk, but I never an unrealisc irrational responce."

There are of course degrees between those two extremes.
We've discussed before on other threads other ways and my own approach which denies the player complete control, affects tbe subunits choices based on circumstance orders, training and experience. And allows a human, the player, ti make decisions in that frame work, so it not just a mindless dice system.

It's not perfect but it's not more than the binary you suggest and allows a workable solution to the issue of operationally important decisions bejng made, that would be outside of the player/role remit.

If players out their do not want to touch there turrets on tanks and turn them, or not to hide troops then quite rightly they will not want to play those rules.

No, they will not want to play those rules. So what?

As you point out, there are many different desires for many different audiences. Writing rules for one audience will necessarily exclude you from others.

In the feedback I have received from the "audience of people who like my games", different people like different aspects. And different people dislike different aspects. The audience for a game is really a set of individuals making their own weighted value judgements. You will have people in there that like or dislilke one element to varying degrees.

While you can design for an audience, you don't have to. Whne you do, you are really not designing for the audience, but rather what you percieve to be aggregate likes and dislikes.

When you design a wargame for a customer, you need to meet the customer spec. When I've done that, the customer doesn't have an audience … they create one. We need to analyze this or train to do that.

Likewise, when you design a game starting with the desired behaviours, you create the audience. These people will like it and those won't.

Are the rules you wrote any good?

Only time will tell.

Ideally, you write the rules from the perspective of the person reading them, who knows nothing about the type of game you are playing. The more you take for granted, the harder it will be for new people to understand the topic. This can be a real challenge.

This includes terms and nomenclature, which must be defined. That, along with attempting to address the multiple variables and interpretations, makes it even more difficult to write a complete set of rules. To overcome that I'll be doing short videos on the important aspects of the game.

I've found that many players prefer a specific type of highly abstracted and balanced IGYG or activation-type system. Different mechanics and die rolls create a level of historical realism in their minds even though they have nothing to do with military tactics or decision making. Some players are really into the balanced tournaments but that's more for entertainment rather than recreating historical scenarios.

Real combat is simultaneous action across the battlefield. It's impossible to simulate. Most game systems use some type of structured IGYG, initiative determination, or player choice of unit activations and some randomness in an attempt to parse the action in a somewhat playable and believable manner. There is an infinite number of ways to do it using dice, modifiers, special rules, FoW, cards, and abstracted game mechanics.

Most systems tell players what they can do, when, and how often. To simulate FoW, C&C limitations, and suppression, the rules may restrict what the player can do or the turn may randomly end before some units can do something.

The fact that there are so many variations, most of which are subjective (dice are better than cards, D20 is better than D6, etc.), allows commercial game publishers to release a new version every few years which never seems to please everyone.

My approach to low-level 1:1 armor combat is to allow the player to order his units to move, shoot, or be in overwatch ready to react. Each unit is active and observing. To react, engage a target (get the gun/turret on it) and shoot takes a certain number of turns as orders to shoot/reload are not executed immediately. There is no need for traditional activation, initiative determination, or other abstracted rules.

This is a completely different approach and your previous knowledge of various game systems will not help so I need to be very specific and cover all of the variables and use videos.

I must not be very good at it because it is taking so long but otherwise, the game is playable for first-timers because I concentrated on customized play aids and videos to guide the players.

Wolfhag

Gamesman6 I think your system is for multi player per side games. We don't play them so that approach is not relevant to my situation. Take my current "big game" the platoon on the right flank an armoured platoon unfortunately has two complex jobs watch and protect as far as is reasonable the dismounts from an armored assult in one direction which I believe is a real but relatively low probability while lending a hand protecting the flank of an adjacent wood. Getting a die to do that and making the right decisions given the very specific situation is beyond a die throwing exercise. There is no mid ground as its me or a die. What perhaps is not so obvious is that the games own Command and control systems, hinders the platoon commander from deciding to do something radically different in a different section of the battlefield with any speed. So my choce is by definition binary in your terms.

No, they will not want to play those rules. So what?

It matters not but it does indicate by writing for an audience you will optimize for that audience and not everybody else QED.

Ushcha
Gamesman6 I think your system is for multi player per side games.
We don't play them so that approach is not relevant to my situation.

G6… no. The rules are intended to allow the players subunits have a "personality". It doesn't matter how many players there are.

Take my current "big game" the platoon on the right flank an armoured platoon unfortunately has two complex jobs watch and protect as far as is reasonable the dismounts from an armored assult in one direction which I believe is a real but relatively low probability while lending a hand protecting the flank of an adjacent wood.

Getting a die to do that and making the right decisions given the very specific situation is beyond a die throwing exercise.

G6 as I said. It not just a dice rolling exercise. What you're describing sounds like the orders the until has received. My question is. Will a unit I've issued orders to, follow those orders.
My issue from a game design point of view was to have the unit respond to the situation in part with a set of actions that would not have the usual situation where the players maintenance absolute control as we have in many systems.
So it's not just the dice and it's not just the player.

There is no mid ground as its me or a die.

G6 given the whole purpose of the design was to create options that would be viable to the unit, and still allow the player have some agency… I can categorically state there is a mid ground. 😀

What perhaps is not so obvious is that the games own Command and control systems, hinders the platoon commander from deciding to do something radically different in a different section of the battlefield with any speed. So my choce is by definition binary in your terms.

G6bl assuming the order issued based on the current information when those orders were issued were all "good" doesn't allow for the fow and friction that define real life as opposed to theory… or orders.
Again. The player still controls the unit… its just that the unit may not be behaving exactly as a symbiotic extension of the players will. It also means I can get rid of many other "gamey" constructs we commonly find in rules that I didn't like.

Now I'm not suggesting you're an audience for my rules. 😀 I'm just saying that there is a middle ground between player and dice.
And as a set of rules they work for their audience…. me…. 😁

I wrote an introductory set of Army Men rules to entice kids to play war games, and have fun doing it. I self-published the hard way: I printed photocopies, bought a deep-throat stapler, assembling the booklets by hand, mailing them to customers.

I sold them from 1998 until 2007, with roughly 150 sales, total. I ran local community education classes where I invited adults (1st year only, not popular enough to keep going), and to children (sold out, was asked to run three extra classes, each time; ran classes for three years in a row).

Were they a success? Yes, based on sales and feedback from repeat students in my classes, who typically bought a set of rules from me the second time around. Also, based on my Sons' enjoyment of our family games: in 1998, they ranged from 9-12 years old, but they still enjoy playing it, today, in their mid-30's, because they love the game!

Is there a target audience? Yes, actually, there is.

Writing a set of rules is technical writing: you first gauge your audience's familiarity with the subject matter, then you write to their level of understanding. I wrote my rules for ages 10+, assuming they have no familiarity with miniatures wargames, at all. I included tools and techniques; how to make terrain; how to make buildings; 16+ scenarios; photocopiable layout patterns for building Landing Craft models; and other sundry items like how to use a Ping Pong Table to get off of the floor…

Due to page count limitations imposed by my chosen format (8.5" x 11" pages, folded in half, stapled in the center), I was limited to roughly 96 pages, per book -- I had to break it into two booklets, Basic and Advanced. Later, I combined the rules into one booklet, moving my scenarios to the website.

I had a freely hosted website, back then. I had a zero-Dollar balance for advertising. I naively sent out free copies to various sites and magazines, not realizing that I had to buy advertising from them, before they would even look at my rules. If I bought advertising, they would 'review' my rules -- I had to pay, to play. I understand their position, but they do not publicize how they do business to their fans/readers/membership.

I warranted some criticism from competitors: in their blurb descriptions, they noted how different their rules were from mine, "how much better" their approach was -- in reality, they were writing their rules for a more advanced audience, and that was alright by me, I knew the specific audience I wanted to reach; they also bought the web address for my game, paying for a re-direct to their web page. LOL! It was a blast to self-publish, but I barely managed to break even, the entire time, even including the pay I received for running my classes.

I am casually working on preparing a new version for POD sales, along with PDF sales. This will be 8.5" x 11" format, in color! This will allow me to include all of the scenarios with their color maps; more in-depth instructions on how to paint the figures and vehicles; more terrain construction ideas; and anything else I think of to include. This new version will have a high page count, but considering that I am throwing the proverbial Kitchen Sink into it, I know it will be more than comprehensive and fully justified, both in price, and in page count. I still need to figure out how to do the Ready Reference Sheets, as before, they were printed on 110# cardstock, included with the rulebooks; I will likely include instructions on printing them on 110# cardstock, and how they can inexpensively be laminated, using Clear Contact Paper/Kitchen Shelf Liner vinyl adhesive -- my goal is to introduce crafting methods along with gaming rules… Time will tell if I ever push it across the finish line. LOL! Cheers!

"Die" (the noun) is singular. "Roll one die."
"Dice" is the plural. "Roll three dice."

As for the rest, the audience can be one person— the writer. If you're simply writing rules to satisfy yourself, then you are writing for the audience of oneself. And that "audience" will always be in mind.

The catch is when you start writing for others, in which case you should have in mind clarity of language at the very least.

And without being too picky…. moi….
Writing rules often is used instead of, designing rules. Which initially is different than writing those rules down in a fashion that allows others to understand and/or use them.
I've read some well written explanations of what would call, poor rules. And brilliant ideas that were written down poorly or terribly.

If only we could write the way we design. A little lanbda calculus, and its over.

I have spent an enormous amount of time and effort in trying to understand what a set of rules should look like, putting aside the game systems for now. Its not easy and I ended up creating a rather long winded video series covering what I feel is important or should be considered when writing rules. I am still not certain if I have got it right and expect this effort will continued until they put me into the ground.
link