In reply to What makes a good Rulebook?:
chriswhite wrote:
1) What are your personal favorite rulebooks? Any specific reasons why?
Galaxy's Edge springs to mind. I felt like I had a firm grasp of everything that was going on after one read, and it was not a chore to read it.
Quote:
2) Many rulebooks suffer because they are written for experienced gamers, not for light-players learning the game. These are usually sterile, jargony, fluffless, and have walls of text. Other rulebooks suffer because they are written primarily for inexperienced gamers, which end up leaving many grey-areas in the rules because of a lack of clarity or thoroughness. There are good arguments for each side.
a) What is a good balance here?
b) What about the case of a mechanic that is simple at its core, but may require large amounts to text to thoroughly clarify interactions or timing (e.g many Magic: The Gathering mechanics, such as banding or trample are like this). Should the 'basic' rules text be located in the same place as (immediately proceeding) the thorough explanations that veteran players may need? Or should clarifications on mechanics go elsewhere?
The balance should lean towards whatever your target audience is. If it's a family game, it needs to be expressed simply, with little or no jargon. If it's a gamer's game, the jargon will help them grok it faster.
Start with the simple explanation ("Trample damage deals damage to the blocking creatures first, then any extra damage is dealt to the defending player"), Then give the thorough explanation. If you're going to have "quick start" rules, these would be in separate places. If you're not, these would usually be together, one after the other.
Quote:
3) Should you include examples in the case of rules that are so simple that they don't really need them? (As a general rule, example are good, but more examples can put more text on the page, which can be visually daunting. Also, space is money.) How intelligent should you assume your readers will be?
This would be something best answered by the playtests. When you do observed blind playtests, pay attention to the small hang-ups. Did they have to consult with others at the table to make sure they were understanding what was written? Did they stumble and "um... i think..." over particular parts? If you can't solve this with re-wording the basic rules, then you probably need an example.
Quote:
4) What do you think about a 'side-strip' occupying a side 1/4 of a page, that parallels the rules with skeleton rules, examples, pictures or definitions? (Many Rio-Grande game rules have this).
a) What is the best function of this?
b) Where should it go? Most visually obvious is the outer edge of the page, but that will mean that it will be the left-most material on left-side pages. Inside edge of the page has the same problem in reverse. Rio Grand puts it always on the right, which makes the page-spread asymmetrical.
I like this for longer rules, so that when I have to skim for the right info, i can skim the sidebar. In shorter rules, sidebars are usually better for gameplay hints and fluff, so that they're not slowing down the initial run-through of the rules (i.e. maximize the advantage of having a potentially short rule set).
Right hand side, usually. Important info starts on the left/top, summary/other things on the right. Look at your standard webpage, then google heat maps for eye movements of people when they're browsing. Similar concept. The lack of symmetry won't be noticed when actually reading, and having a consistent place for your eyes to go is more important (usually).
Quote:
5) Sometimes the mechanics that need to be explained first are integrated with other mechanics.
a) If while explaining one mechanic, another one needs referencing, is it acceptable to simply use the latter word/name and let the reader simply wonder what it is for a few pages? Or should an explanation be given immediately?
b) Sometimes, for the purposes of helping new players see the whole scope of the game, rulebooks make incomplete, greatly-simplified, or even misleading statements early on and clarify them later. Is this acceptable? (For example, would it be acceptable Lords of Waterdeep rules to state that "In order to gain Victory Points, players must complete Quests"––to help new players understand their initial objectives––even though there are several other normal methods by which players can gain small amounts of Victory Points ?)
Very often, you can re-arrange the order of explanation so that mechanical terminology won't overlap unfavorably. For example (sort of), Dungeon Lords essentially opens up by explaining combat, THEN starts in on order of play. If you absolutely can't find a way to arrange this, try to make the mechanic terminology be words that make sense contextually, or that can be explained briefly. For example: "...then draw 2 cards and keep 1 from the deck (following the same rules as 'Accessing The Database', below)" would give people the basics, maintain the flow of the explanation, but lets them know that there may be more to the action than simply "draw 2, keep 1".
Yes, you absolutely can (and usually should) oversimplify the initial goal statement. "In fair Verona where we lay our scene...", not "in the sub-county of Verona, governed by duke something, population of 12,597, average taxes of 3.2%, unemployment rate of 18%, poverty level 25 gold crowns per season, council member names are...". Enough information to get you moving into the turn structure. More thorough victory conditions can be handled later.
Quote:
6) Fonts:
a) How small a font is too small? Race For The Galaxy uses something like 6pt or 8pt Times– it's small, but perfectly legible. Bigger fonts mean more space, which means more cost.
b) In terms of looking more inviting to new players, does the extra ease of reading larger font make up for the fact that all rules-text now looks longer?
c) Serif/hooked fonts (Times New Roman, Garamond, common in literature) vs sans-serif fonts (Arial, Helvetica, common in instructions and technical writing). Both are used a lot. FFG uses almost entirely serif fonts. Small companies usually use sans-serif.
d) Should theme/fluff dictate fonts? (or any other rulebook considerations?)
The answers the previous poster gave were very good.
Quote:
7) How important do you feel the following aesthetic elements are?
a) Rule sections are not interrupted by a page-break, such that a section is split across 2 pages.
b) Rulebook pages contain background art/texture (as opposed to a blank space behind the text.)
c) Pages have a thematic, decorative border.
a) nice if easy to accomplish, but not necessary, generally.
b) Plain white background looks cheap in MOST rulebooks, even on shiny paper. I would consider very basic and unobtrusive texture or art standard.
c) Nice if you've got the space and/or art budget for it.
I will add that quick lines of fluff or small pictures are best used when they add to the thematic mnemonics associated with particular rules. Don't put the picture of the gunner next to the rules for melee, put him next to the rules for shooting. If a mechanic represents haggling with NPC's/the game system, but doesn't state that explicitly, a quick blurb or a picture of someone haggling with a merchant is both functional AND thematic.
Quote:
8) Many rulebooks devote the entire cover page to art. Some put art only in an upper section and then have preliminary rules (set-up, fluff, components) below. Some jump straight into the rules. What is the best way to use this page?
Depends on the target audience. Puerto Rico players? Just a tiny bit of fluff/history, get to the rules ASAP; The box cover and description on the back handles most of the theme for you. Twilight Imperium 3? ART! FLUFF! THEME! MORE! Family games? somewhere in between.
Quote:
9) The following things are very space-consuming, but can be very illuminating to new players.
How much importance to you think the following things have?
a) A narrative example of a game turn.
b) A narrative example of a whole round, including intercut illustrations of how the board looks after each turn.
c) A picture of a game in progress (complete with piles of chits, player hands, etc)
d) Glossary
e) Index
f) Strategy tips for new players
g) 'quick-start' rules that encourage people to play before they full understand the game.
I think this is mostly answered above- examples when needed based on playtest results. Glossary/Index for longer rules (as prior poster mentioned). Strategy tips are best used to make sure a key concept is not overlooked, because often only the player who reads the rules will see them.
I think one of the best things I can say about illustration examples- do your best to make sure people can play the game with TEXT ONLY (that's what blind testing is great for). Then, once you feel the rulebook can convey everything is necessary, you can add illustrative pictures to make it EASIER. But don't remove the text, expecting the players to use the explanatory pictures, because people will gloss over things you wouldn't expect them to. Giant picture, "IMPORTANT!" in big bold red text with arrows pointing at it, and they'll still flip back and forth through the rules, looking for something they'll later claim "just wasn't there".
Quote:
10) Lastly–– Is having a good rulebook really that important? There are many, many successful games with poorly-written, visually-confusing, ugly rulebooks. Of the ~100 games I've played, I think I have only learned ~5 by reading the rulebook by myself–– the rest were taught to me by someone else. How does a good rulebook compare with other factors, like price or component quality?
Will it be the singular thing that MAKES your game a hit? probably not by itself. It is one of many many factors that can contribute to a good experience, and people actively wanting to share that experience. However if the rulebook is BAD enough, it CAN be the thing that prevents your game from being a hit. I recommend not aiming at the middle ground. In any undertaking, the last step is as important as the first.
A good rulebook takes time, but not necessarily additional money outlay. On that basis alone, people should work harder on them than they do. For smaller companies or newer designers especially, they often don't have a "process" to make sure the rulebook is up to snuff, so the rate of bad is significantly increased. Desire to make a good rulebook is more a matter of work ethic, an "I want to make sure MY product is GREAT!", which should be the mentality associated with the whole process. But patience in the process is also hard to come by for lots of people, particularly if they think the game mechanics are finished.