Having written the rules for three published games already with formatting requirements, I can say four things:
1. I really need the practice
2. Space, not word count, is the primary limitation
3. Sometimes less is less
4. Practice requires feedback
Although my rules are precise, they tend to be more formal than colloquial. They also tend to be presented in a way that is logical, from setup to completion. But, I have noticed that many people do not organize their thought like I do. So, I have begun to err on the side of redundancy, examples and summaries a lot more.
I have found that people often want to know how you should play the game, not how you can play the game. So, it is always difficult to be helpful without necessarily telling them how they should play. After all, if there were only one way to play the game, it probably wouldn't be a fun game.
But all this fluff adds room to the rules which could be circumvented with if I had the capacity to personally teach the rules instead of having to explain them on paper. Once the components are in front of you, you can use unspoken language to clarify points and people can ask you questions along the way. Odd events that don't happen very often and only vaguely effect strategy can be omitted or answered as they come up.
But when you can't be there and you don't have a computer demo for them to see, you have to rely upon the words you use and the pictures you display. And, although there are examples of great games which have less than 800 words, most good games that sell well have more than 800. They also have a blurb on the box to entice customers which is constrained by space, not word count. In addition to that, they frequently have tables and lists which tend to convey a lot of information in a tight area and are extremely easy/quick to read, but wreak havoc on word count.
So... 800 words is not the standard in publication. It is also unheard of that you wouldn't have some flavor text, and people have come to expect lots of graphics and examples in their rules, not less.
Even if there is something to be said about needing practice to learn to be brief, concise and precise, you still need feedback and advice to do so as well. But, with 800 words and three graphics, people will more likely be asking you for further clarification than be able to point out where you have been redundant and what is superfluous.
Since the formal rules of most good games cannot be explained in 800 words or less, the GDS format requirements ultimately force you to under-explain your game. So far, I have found myself having to chop out vital rules and sections in order to get to 800. The elimination of these sections I believe have actually made the game less clear, not more. At the very least, it has required the reader to infer more (which is a horrible idea if you want to actually practice rules writing).
The reason we have these requirements is for each other. Since I don't know how good your writing skills actually are, it's easier for me to know what I'm getting into if the word count is 800. But, some people have great writing skills and I'd love to see them use it (if only to be amused).
And, I must tell you that (like most people) I stop reading when I'm bored or confused by something. This usually is a time/value efficiency issue for me, but I suspect a lot of the game playing population feels the same way. So... if I'm not getting something out of an entry, it doesn't matter if it is 400 words. I still might not
finish it.
Now, chances are that at 400 words, it's more likely than not that I will finish before I realize that the confusion is not my fault but the designers. But, under that same logic, I could read 4000 words and still feel engaged and amused.
I find that the solution to reality is almost always experience, brutal honesty
with yourself and discretion, not formal structure. Vote for whatever
you want and for whatever reason you want.
