Skip to Content
 

Game Rules Developer's Toolbox

13 replies [Last post]
Hedge-o-Matic
Hedge-o-Matic's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008

Since the subject of game rules writing, and written rules sets, has been floating around here in different forms, I'd like to start a thread dedicated to exploring what people here have discovered works very well in their own rules sets. I'm not talking about game mechanics, here, but what, in the actual written rules, have you found to be most effective?

Here are some of mine:

Glossary: One of the things I've done for years is standardize my rules writing as much as possible. One thing I always add is a glossary that defines the game terms used elsewhere. Each entry in the glossary has a page number that tells the reader where the term is first used in the game.

Pseudo-Hyperlinks: This is something I've just recently used, and thats to place terms to be defined or the names of rules that have examples attached in a different color. These refer to text boxes in the sidebars that share that color border around the textbox.

Visual Example Image Set: I always design a "play set" of game graphics as seperate computer files, and these are used to create the game's example pictures. Having these seperate from the "working" files leaves me free to move them around, as opposed to having them in printer- or cutter-friendly formats.

FAQ: I've only recently added one of these, but it helps me make rules points in a conversational way, elaborating on subtlties or strange situations that may come up, without harping on them or bringing up strange situations during the rules explanations. I'll likely add these into older rules sets, and continue with them in future games.

Notation: Since I design a lot of abstracts, I always like to offer a system of notation with my games. This makes e-mail play simple, and offers an immediate standard notation.

Example Game: I always include the notation for a complete game of every abstract I write. For board games, I always include at least one full round of play.

Puzzles: Think of the "knight's tour" for chess, and all the chess puzzles offered out there. I think that abstract games offer great puzzle opportunities, and I always include a few.

mawibse
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game Rules Developer's Toolbox

My thoughts:
I prefer making glossary words bold then having a first used reference.

Dual rule sets:
Dividing the rules into a thinner Starter rules and a thicker Advanced rules set. Sometimes the advanced rules just go over everything more detailed, sometimes also adding optional new rules, scenarios or puzzles.
The thinner makes it accessible faster and less intimidating for new players.

Rules/examples page layout:
The rules page layout having the rules written in one column to the left and having the examples for that rule in a different colored column next to it to the right.
This is so that the actual rule texts don’t get cluttered by examples. Also "flavor/mood" text should go in the "example" column.

Consistency: Make sure all you’re wordings are consistent, like not using both turn and round in reference to the same thing.

Nestalawe
Nestalawe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2008
Game Rules Developer's Toolbox

I would see the FAQ as a useful tool when designing/playtesting a game as well. Ideally, I reckon it is best to have everything in the rules themselves, without a FAQ, as they are usually needed to clarify things.

But when designing or playtesting a game, I reckon a FAQ is a great thing to keep up to date to keep your own knowledge of the game up to par (if you keep changing your mind on rules...) and also useful to keep track of questions that arise from yourself or players when playtesting.

My aim would then to get all the info from the FAQ into the actual ruleset, where it should be, and make sure it is clear, and blends with the rules.

Does that make sense?

Not that I have a completed game yet ;)

markmist
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game Rules Developer's Toolbox

I think it is important to keep the main ruleset as clear as possible, with the least amount of wording that completely discusses all major rules.

I think a FAQ comes in helpful to explain situations that will not arise often, but are still theoretically possible. That way, a player can focus on the most important rules during the first read through. The FAQ could be referred to later if any of the less likely situations arise.

A example of this is Bang! Because there are many different ways the cards can interact, there are many variations that can occur. The rules cover all of the major ones, but cannot possibly talk about every possibility. A FAQ was produced. Although not packaged with the game, it is available off of BGG.

Now, I just wish that the FAQ was better organized and included all possibilities as there were still some we came across that we could not find in the FAQ.

Hedge-o-Matic
Hedge-o-Matic's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Game Rules Developer's Toolbox

Yes, I use a FAQ to clarify, rather than actually explain the rules. There are some times where perfectly reasonable play will lead to situations that either are pretty strange, or even just look unusual, and lead players to ask "Did I just do that right? Is this possible?" FAQs are great for answering these questions, since they are about the implications of rules, rather than the rules themselves.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Game Rules Developer's Toolbox

In the game I am currently develloping, I decide to split the rule book in 2 document : the tutorial and the reference book. I chose this path because there was a lot of rules to learn and it was much easier to learn while playing and assimilate gradually all the elements of the game.

I generally use standard tools in the document since I am using latex. So I don't get too fancy. Which mean I use tables, figures, index, appendix, table of content, etc.

When the game is done, there will probably be a FAQ to clarify some difficult element. But there will also be some erratas that will correct the rules if there is an error in the game.

jkopena
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game Rules Developer's Toolbox

Wow---another LaTeX user for typesetting rules!!! I thought I was the only one!!! I'm so happy. I'd be very curious to see some of the rule sets you've produced that way.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Game Rules Developer's Toolbox

Latex is a Demi-God. Sure it can become complex when configuring some modules, but I an an EX-Programmer, so I am not scred at all. I am some much deceived that few people use this software. The Microsoft empire does everything to make sure that the users does not get in touch with anything else than word processors. One of my friend told me that they where working on a latex 3 where the goal was to ease the configuration. I am curious to see how it will look like.

If you want an example of rule book. I can post what I have done so far.

http://www.bgdf.com/files/My_Uploads/Larienna/tutorial.pdf

OK, This is just an example. I posted it here just to give you a general idea of what it looks like, it is not really for the content. Now, THERE IS A LOT OF LANGUAGE ERROR since they have not been corrected yet. There also A LOT OF CHANGE TO THE CONTENT to be done. Which mean that sometimes the rules can contradict themselves. And there is a lot of error on the output. For example, the unit list in the appendix is not shown correctly.

So if it looks UGGLY, BUGGY and NON-ENGLISH, it's NORMAL.

Hedge-o-Matic
Hedge-o-Matic's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Game Rules Developer's Toolbox

But does it add anything special to the concept of the rules themselves, such as information-delivery, that can't be done any other way? That's what we're dealing with here. Ideas for tranmitting your game's rules in new, more accurate, and user-friendly ways.

seiji
Offline
Joined: 04/29/2009
Game Rules Developer's Toolbox

I'm still designing my first game, but one thing I'll be adding to my rules is a "strategy/tips" section.

Nowadays, games seem to only have one chance to make a good impression (in a game session or with a game group). I originally thought it's better for players to learn strategies for themselves with repeated plays. However, I have realized that people sometimes give up on a game very early, unless they are pointed in the right direction initially so they can play (somewhat) optimally.

Hedge-o-Matic
Hedge-o-Matic's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Game Rules Developer's Toolbox

Hi Seiji, and welcome!

I agree about the sense that player's won't likely put in the time to develop effective play, and so a strategy section is important. It's sort of strange, that people don't want to be the "discoverers" of new tactics, but rather put into play tactics found by others.

A strange problem I've noticed, though, is that I usually have to continuay revise my strategy and tactics sections, as various ploys are shown to be inneffective, or inferior to other ploys. It's interesting, as a designer, to see the development of tactics within you own game, and to be able to claim that you developed this or that tactic. but still, I can't help but feel that any game that really takes off is going to evolve far beyond any tactics we individuals come up with.

But that's not a bad thing, either.

Nestalawe
Nestalawe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2008
Game Rules Developer's Toolbox

Hedge-o-Matic wrote:
A strange problem I've noticed, though, is that I usually have to continuay revise my strategy and tactics sections, as various ploys are shown to be inneffective, or inferior to other ploys. It's interesting, as a designer, to see the development of tactics within you own game, and to be able to claim that you developed this or that tactic. but still, I can't help but feel that any game that really takes off is going to evolve far beyond any tactics we individuals come up with.

But that's not a bad thing, either.

Indeed, it is very interesting to see how players approach a game, especially when it is in the early stages. I have only just started playtesting my games but it is fascinating to see how people approach things when they are not sure what exactly they should be doing.

I just had the first playtest of one of my games (a two player one) last night and it was great to see how quickly it was picked up (even though my friend is colour blind - a bit of a disadvantage in this game...). He got a bit stuck working on what he should be doing, and I found myself suggesting certain strategies, or saying 'Because the blue area is empty, and easy to move around, it may be a good idea to expand in that direction...' and then straight away saying '...i think so anyway, maybe not...' and then realising it is best to just see how he approaches things, knowing what the winning conditions are and knowing the mechanics of how he gets there, but not knowing the Flow of the game, thats interesting and thats where I can see a lot of good things coming out of playtesting...

Hedge-o-Matic
Hedge-o-Matic's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Game Rules Developer's Toolbox

I'd agree with all of this. One of the things I like best is seeing how others develop their own strategies for my games. and, seeing as I have a reputation for being a lousy player, nobody would take my strategic hints very seriously anyway. Tthat's why I end up using so much of what others develop in this area; whether it's my own poor play, or a designer's myopic grasp of good play within their own games, other people simply see the more valid stategies first. Usually, my mental idea of game flow, or the experiences I have while solo testing, are very different than the competitive experience.

But once I've got sound strategies from somewhere, I try to include them in the rules, for those who like to read that sort of thing, rather than going in blind. Personally, I like to go in blind and find my feet while in the mix. Maybe that explains my poor record?

I doubt it, somehow...

Nestalawe
Nestalawe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2008
Game Rules Developer's Toolbox

Developing strategies while playtesting is tricky, especially when you are continually developing the rules/system/mechanics. The particular game I was testing has a similar strategic value as chess, in that there is little randomness, and has a chesslike complexity.

The best moment was when my playtester, after examining the map thoroughly for a while threw up his hands and exclaimed 'Damn, I can't do it!' with regards to a particular move/outcome he had in mind...

Hmm, I think i've gotten a bit off topic here...

Ah yes. There was another topic somewhere (was it this one?) where people were discussing putting strategy comments into rules, as many gamers don't play a game enough times to really get a handle on the strategy and what they should be doing, to really get the most out of a game and to be able to explore its possibilities. I know that in my gaming 'group' we are all pretty keen to give each different game a lot of pays, so we can really get into them.

But especially in longer, more complex games, it would help to even have a general outline of how players should go about things, or have general strategy tips that 'All' players would be likely to pick up after a few plays, to help get new players in on the action. I know I have played alot of games (usually when joining a new gaming group) where I hadn't read the rules, and played the game through once, without really knowing what I should be doing - its just not very satisfying. But I know that on the second playing I would know so much more...

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut