4 ms·
One of the biggest issues I have is that a good rulebook/teacher should start at the "What are we trying to do?" From there everything else should flow. I hav
by wormius 2y ago
One of the biggest issues I have is that a good rulebook/teacher should start at the "What are we trying to do?" From there everything else should flow.
I haven't read all this yet, so maybe he touches on it. The point about interconnecting pieces or like "gears" that are all involved is a good thing. Everything is dynamic and in interplay.
A lot of that means these are not linear systems (not in a systems theory sense, but textual sense). Graphics and images do volumes. But only so much as you understand, again, the WHY. Everything has to feed into the "economy" of the game and how all the parts interact.
Rulebooks also need to make sure terminology is consistent. I've played some games where I see a word that's used, and then I try to find the definition and it's just... not there. At least not easily found. An index of some sort is necessary if you're going to use special terms that aren't obvious (and if they are obvious/standard words, but you use them in a unique way, also define that).
I think there should be:
0. Intro/thematic vibe/core concept - the what you are trying to do and possibly why.
1. Component Overview - the what you are playing with. (Include a layout of the setup version of the game).
2. Step by step rules, underlined words that have specific definitions to be referred in the index.
3. Examples are ideal (including images), especially in tricky situations that involve edge cases (or worse, corner cases)
4. Common "edge cases" (oxymoron?) that are trickier should have their own FAQ/addendum for clarification.
5. Glossary/Index
Rules should not try to be cute and invent words for common scenarios unless it's clear what it means in context.
Rules should NOT try to be super thematic. A little flavor text at the beginning is fine, but like the above issue, there should not just be things like "Grippledize the phlumoxor to gain 10 boodiboos" Just say "place your character piece at location 3 in order to gain 10 units of currency" or whatever.
If you're going to use terms like that - use them on the cards as flavor text, not hinge the rules on understanding them; or if you're going to be cute with names, be consistent with it, and constantly use it so it's etched into the brain "OK, Grippledizing means Place at a spot" - if it's just a one off thing there is no need for a "cute" name for it. This is similar to how some science fiction loves just inventing words for things that already have perfectly cromulent terms.
- crazygringo 2y ago> One of the biggest issues I have is that a good rulebook/teacher should start at the "What are we trying to do?" This a million times. It drives me nuts when you're trying to learn a new game, and it's only at the very end that it explains what condition results in winning. Like, if you'd started with that, reading the rules would have made a LOT more sense.
- legitster 2y ago> "What are we trying to do?" From there everything else should flow. Excepting those with particular types of autism, this is the core of how all learnings works. Explain to humans the problem, describe the tools to solve the problem, let humans learn on their own how to overcome the problem. But the goal of these rulebooks is not to aid the largest number of people in efficient learning, but to draw scrutiny from the least number.
- ThinkingGuy 2y agoThat works great, except for that genre of board games in which everyone is playing by a different set of rules: "Player 1, you're the cat, and you're trying to get mice and avoid water. Player 2, you're the fish; you're trying to get water and avoid cats.. Player 3, you're the dog, and you're trying to get cats and avoid newspapers, etc...."