Hey ya'll!
Ok, I am just putting together the rulebook for the main game I am working on. Its a bit of a monster (40 pages...) but I have yet to go through and edit it, as I have written everything in a very clear, repetitive manner mainly so that I, in designing each aspect of the game, wouldn't forget why I chose to do things as I did...
Anyway, so I am in the rulebook editing phase, before which I will pass it along to a few compatriots to help with editing and redefining, before mocking up a game to run a few playtests before ripping it all apart again :wink:
What I would like to explore, and what I am sure would be of good use to other designers, is what makes a good rulebook. What makes things clear and easy to reference, and allows players to play the game right out of the box, without being daunted by the rules. I know my rulebook will be fairly chunky (though I reckon I can get it down to 15 pages or so...) but I would like to have it so that a new group can get stuck in straight away.
Anyway, have been reading a few rulebooks online, in particular for various Fantasy Flight games - WOTR, Arkham Horror, Runebound, Doom and A Game Of Thrones. Each of these have a similar structure -
- Welcome / Background
- Introduction / Object of the Game
- Components Listing
- Components Description
- Game Setup
- Turn Structure
- Any other important info
- Winning Conditions
Sometimes the order is a little different, but thats basically it. The guts of the info is in the Turn Structure section.
Apart from looking great artistically, the Fantasy Flight game rules also provide good examples and to me are always pretty clear.
I have slogged through a lot of 'old style' rules, including such classics as those from Magic Realm and Freedom In The Galaxy. But while I am 'kinda' willing to slog through the rules if I 'know' the game is good, it is not something I wish my players to have to do. Also, I have read a LOT of rules for games that are 'broken' and have had numerous re-writes, addendum and revisions (see MR and FITG above...)
So, what are some other rules people have used that they have found to be good, easy to understand etc etc. The game I am working on is fairly detailed, but I am hoping the core mechanics should be fairly easy to remember after a single turn of play.
Another set of rules I admire are those for Mare Nostrum, which fit into four A4 pages, though I must admit there has been a lot of FAQ for the game. But I know my rules will be 15+ pages, so what else is out there that work really well?
I agree. The way I have approached designing the game was after writing down a lotta notes (and having an idea for this game for the last six years or so...) was to break the game into sections (as if I was writing the rulebook) and then write up each section, developing the rules system and mechanics as I went along, making change to things I had previously written as they came up. Now it is a a matter of putting each of these sections in order, and then trimming them all down to that they make sense. A part of this is getting away from having to have the same (or simliar) information in more than one place, but at the same time having it in a logical place so that I don't have to write 'see below' etc...
Rulebooks tend to either have the winning conditions right atthe start, or right at the end. Thinking about it more, it does kinda make sense to have them atthe start, so that when going through the rules, players have a good sense of what they are trying to achieve. But I do think it depends on the type of game.
Interesting bringing up the point about explaining games to people orally as well, as I usually find most games are taught by one person reading up on the rules and then explaining them to the group. I think that if the rules are written well, and within a clear logical structure, then it makes it a lot easier to teach people the guts of the game swiftly and in the right way, i.e. A then B then C etc.
Yep, I agree. I also think it helps if the designer 'knows' their game well, in that they know the core aspects of the game that players really need to grasp to play correctly so that they may then focus on the 'special fluff' later. Thus if they understand the core mechanics well, then they can better understand how to utilise the special fluff as effective strategies. For example in the game I am working on there are a lot of special Abilities that players will be able to build up, gather and use. The core mechanics of the game should work without them, but by using these well, I want my players to be able to immerse themselves in the game, get a real feel for the theme and an attachment to their position - each player having a different role, strengths and weaknesses and playing style. But only by understanding how the game essentially flows (gaining/spending resources, where and when they can do certain things during the turn) will player be able to really utilise their special abilities well.
Heh heh, maybe Mare Nostrum wasn't the best example for me :wink: but yes, I totally agree. I think it will be a tricky balance making sure everything that needs to get explained is covered, but in a clear and concise manner that won't cause confusion. I'm kinda looking forward to being able to edit and cut my ruleset down, which is a good sign I reckon :wink: partly because, as you say, if a rule is difficult to explain, then there may be a deeper underlying problem that must first be addressed.
And yeah, for me anyway, writing the rulebook throughout the design process is very important. I see any game I design as being very strong thematic-wise, so the theme should show in every aspect of the design process. I always think back to the 'game-world' I am creating and asking myself how things should happen in that world, thinking how I want the players to 'feel' when playing the game...