Rules Clarity

"Fire & Fury" immediately popped into my head, Chris.
Bob

Hello.
The Terry Gore rules (Ancient Warfare, et al.) are good.

I suspect we can probably give you more negative examples than positive ones.  ;-)

Bob Bailey

Bob that is a good idea, the negatives that is.  Share with me your worst and perhaps what mad it so bad in your eyes.  Again mechanics and period interest asside.

For me I'd have to say any of the DBx games.

Chris P.

Yes that is very well laid out and very tempting to the eye as well.

Hello.
It's funny how things work.

One of the worst for organization was and is one of my favorites: the old original Stars N Bars ACW rules. It would help, for instance, to be able to tell what skirmishers do in a charge in the charge rules, without having to look up the skirmisher rules instead.

My personal preference is for rules that play well with a relatively simple mechanic (like yours) and give a result that doesn't leave me confused on how this fits the history. The real advantage to a simpler set is that repetition like having the charge-on-skirmishers rules in both the charge and skirmisher sections doesn't make the whole lashup ungodly long and complex for the GM starting out with the set.

I also find that two things help: (a) rules that flow with the way a turn flows, which ain't completely possible, and (b) reasonably clear English about what's going on. I also find that indexes are mostly wasted paper for me, because I look things up by the section of the rules (which HAS been known to remind me of something I missed in the turn sequence).

Hope that helps.

Bob Bailey

I have to both agree and disagree with what Bob said in his previous post.  In the main I agree; for example simple mechanics are in my opinion a must, and in most cases I find, actually make it easier to make the history the star...  Simple mechanics make for fast game play, therefore more turns, and more gamer attentiveness, and in the end more enjoyment from/for the players.

I would also say that even though the mechanics may be simple, that doesn't have to make the rules any less 'real'... when P. Rice and myself wrote our new rules for ACW (and evolution of Fire&Fury - many generations back)  we took what we felt was a good set of mechanics, and made it better (yes our humble opinion ) by adding 'flavor' that worked within the mechanics.  The other thing that we did, and that F&F did not do; and in fact many of the glossy published rules systems don't; is to add design notes.  i.e. we state what the rule is, and then we explain WHY.  So few rules systems bother to do that, I for one would much rather have the Rules writers explain their thinking/thought process on why the rules are what they are.  At least in my eye that makes a big difference. 

One of the minor disagreements I have with Bob is the "can't write the rules to match the turn sequence.." (Bob I am not criticizing, please don't misconstrue my comments, just disagreeing).
I believe that it is imperative for the reasons Bob cites, (playability, clarity, ease of reference) that the rules follow the turn sequence.  Our ACW rules do, down to the letter.  I would also say that I think that rules/turns should be in this order:  Movement, Fire, Melee  ( anything else is appendices, or supplements as required.) 

The other disagreement is in indexing or TOC; I think that a fully indexed and cross indexed rules set is critical to ease of reference and playability.

Anyway, thats my two cents worth.

Tim R

One of the things I find annoying in rules is the over use of abreviations. Especially using an abreviation the first time without spelling out what it is.
 
Christopher

Hello.
Tim, I don't disagree with what you've said. I had forgotten about Designers' Notes, which are something I ALWAYS read, sometimes several times over.

My comment on the impossibility of following the turn sequence completely is because of things like the skirmisher rules I mentioned. Every period has its unusual troop types and particular situations/relationships (like the genocidal tendencies on both sides in World War II on the Eastern Front, or the Japanese bushido code in the Samurai era) that need to be explained separately, which necessarily must be done outside the turn sequence layout. Obviously, that took a lot more explaining than I did the first time around.

I personally use the Table of Contents (an absolute must regardless of many other things) but the index is useless for me. You are also right that cross-referencing is VERY handy. It also helps to use examples (with diagrams/photos/whatever to show the situation) whenever you think that what you are explaining in the rules is hard to get across. If you are concerned, rest assured that the new GM will get lost at that point. I have done so enough times to recognize the situation.

On the subject of simplicity of play, that can be misleading. I still love Tractics, which is probably the most complex rules I have stayed with. My trilogy of Seven Years War/Napoleonics/American Civil War house rules use morale points and figure casualties as separate but interrelated things to determine combat & morale results, and have cannon skip the ball into units to the rear & howitzers ignore stone walls in combat results, all without undue difficulty. I have borrowed from SPI's old Air War board game of jet combat in my 3-D air-to-air rules, and that was one of the most complex games I've seen in  a long while. Complex can still be playable and fun, but that's not an easy thing to do. The best example on the "fahgeddabahtit, WAY too complex" side that I can readily think of is the old Blue Light Manual American Civil War rules. I couldn't even read through the set, say nothing of play it.

On the subject of abbreviations, the most famous for me is the old "TTC TM" (telescoping time concept-trade mark) of Scotty Bowden in his far less worthwhile second edition of Stars N Bars. It made the game itself hopelessly confusing and frustrating for me (something that all rules writers want, I'm sure), and the abbreviation showed up all over the rules.

Sorry about going wild on input, but I love rules theory and particularly like getting other points of view. The best ideas usually have an element of plagiarism to them, I'm afraid.

Bob Bailey

Hi Chris,

It sounds like you are specifically asking about layout and structure.

I think that some of the best looking books are the Scott Mingus ACW supplements that Ivor Janci did the layout for.  These are Enduring Valor and Brothers Divided.

I personally believe that the rules should attempt to adhere to the Turn Sequence as much as is practical, include the relevant rules in the appropriate section even if there is some duplication (a big no no for some publishers), and I also like a good index as well.  I do feel that the index is not as important as a detailed Table of Contents and good cross referencing.

Anyway, just my opinion.

What are you doing the layout with?

Have a good one!

- Andre

http://www.GameSoapbox.com

Thanks Guys

Chris - the things I hate about bad rules is:

Poor grammar - a lack of consistency in terms (is a turn a turn or a phase?) - and an un-numbered format that doesn't follow the order of play. Some may think that indexes are a pain but they're essential to finding clarification in the middle of a game.

Andy

Chris,

I have to agree with Andy. I suspect that those who think indexes are of not much use have been victims of lousy indexes.

A complete and descriptive table of contents can go a long way towards making an index nonessential but a good index can make it much easier to find that reference that "I know I read somewhere".

My favorite rules also have good design notes which explain the "why I did it this way" stuff.

Regards always,

Cousin Mike

Well I would agree with that 101%.  I think to many of them are just generated say through MS word and not really checked.  I good give away is if the headeings etc. are all in different typ szes, fonts and even caps.  Heaven knows I am guilty of this.

CP

Yes I too agree, with what Mike is saying.  The Index has to be correctly built, referenced and cross referenced to be any good at all.  If not, then its nothing more than a TOC with too many entries to be useful. 

So if its there it has to be done right.

I would also concur with Andy's statement about consistency.  Nothing is worse than changes of phrasing or new terms popping up mid way through a set of rules and making you wonder what the heck your reading about....

One other thing, I would suggest keeping the charts to a minimum in the text, save those for the end, maybe as an index that can be a Quick Ref Card.... but on the other hand, plenty of diagrams, line drawings, photos, etc.  illustrating say formations or various melee situations, can make a big difference in the readability and playability 'out of the box.'

Tim R

 I have to say that one of the best laid out and easily understood rule sets I've encountered is Warhammer Ancient Battles.  It's well written (to my mind, anyway), the rules follow the turn sequence, and there are plenty of illustrations and diagrams to make certain you understand what is being said. There is a very large section of designer's notes, and what is interesting is how they will give both sides when there are debates about certain historical units, tactics, etc. so the player can decide for himself which better fits his reading of the narrative.

 Additionally, the supplements all have background information to support the army lists and specific rules for different units, letting the player have a good understanding of WHY his choice of army should look and perform in a certain manner.

   V/R

Hello.
I don't really understand why, but a lot of the rules I play most are really badly laid out. The old Stars N Bars comes to mind. I guess the way the game itself plays will shine through anyway.

"The ways of men are passing strange,
They buy their freedom and they count their change,
And they let the wind their days arrange
And they call the tide their master."

Bob Bailey