So... rulebooks

For a game that uses keywords I like when it’s defined at the first point of use and then every keyword is put into a glossary for easy reference

2 Likes

I like the idea in theory, but in practice the rulebooks I’ve read with glossaries have been generally inferior to the ones without: either the glossary was incomplete, or it contained rules that weren’t in the rules.

you mean not like Imperium does it? Important game concepts get only explained in the glossary. Example: Break Through is one of your 3 options for taking a turn but unlike the other two options it only says: skip your actions to “break through” …

Break through is also a keyword on cards though.

Break Through is one of two ways of acquiring cards and to find that only in the glossary in a deck building game …

Ideally one will play the game more often than one learns it! Or at least no less often…

Ideally they shouldn’t be required, I think, though definitely nice to have. They should be sidebar material – putting stuff you need to know only in the examples is a rulebook sin of some sort.

I’ve played at least four different versions of Startups based on what people at the table thought the rules were meant to be.

A good one: Aeon’s End - I borrowed the rules (and not any components) one night and was 95% of the way to demo-capable the next morning.

Does anyone like the new FFG style of “learn to play” plus “rules reference”? (As opposed to the newer FFG style of not including a rulebook at all.) I’ve been frustrated by not necessarily knowing the specific index entry under which they will have listed the thing I want to know.

3 Likes

All the FFG rulebooks I’ve read have been pretty bad.

That was one of my frustrations. I knew I could ‘break through’ but didn’t know what that meant when I read I could do it.

1 Like

I too have recently struggled with the Imperium: L/C rulebook. I’ve played 2 partial games and neither time have I left the barbarian phase.

The bit I found most difficult was already referenced by @yashima. The nonsense explanation which had my head spinning until I worked out they were trying to say you can only add one card per turn from your nation(?) deck to your hand on a reshuffle. It described a sequence of shuffling tokens around without explaining the point of all the token shuffling. I womder if this is why it’s a difficult rulebook, it describes in exacting detail the sequences but as it’s all so discrete while relying on inference it’s difficult to parse the point or effect of the rules? What jumps that up in confusion was that another section of the rules tells you when to clear and reset tokens on your state card, but without that knowledge reading the rule made it seem like you could only add one card per game and then your nation deck would lock and you’d never go out of barbarian state. It was like reading code where the flow control was done with poorly named multi use variables which are set in hidden module, no comments and that’s a tough ask to understand how they fit in the context at hand. :roll_eyes:

A friend I called with rules queries did say when you know what’s going on a bit it becomes an excellent reference document. If that is true at least it succeeds on one of the possible uses for a rulebook.

I think that the FFG idea of splitting rulebooks in to how to play game one and reference manual isn’t a mad idea, however they executed it poorly. Given how poorly executed the other rule books were I think I’d like to see the idea executed by a publisher with a better record on rulebooks to make up my mind on the format.

I find that as time has gone on that I now always assume my first play will be redolent with mistakes and after that first game going back to a rulebook should ensure the second one is very nearly using the published rules. I find that a play through gives context and connectedness of concepts in a way I never get from a rulebook after game reaches a level of complexity.

I was fortunate in that my first play of Imperium was taught by someone who already knew it.

I think that it’s probably OK to repeat material, as long as the editing process makes sure that it’s the same material each time it’s repeated. A cross-reference takes time and adds friction that skipping over irrelevant local text doesn’t (at least for me).

2 Likes

That’s absolutely it. On the one hand they assume I can infer all this. The rulebook never tells you why for anything especially those tokens. Aside from the rulebook the existence of those tokens just makes me angry. Those are action counters and “tap stones”. Both actions and exhausting cards are well-known concepts that I would have expected in a game that relied so much on me “getting what they meant because I know games” they should have assumes that I would not need handholding with action counting and exhausting cards. Plus the whole exhaust limit is also bogus. 5. When do you ever exhaust 5 cards in this game? It’s as if a software dev named all their getter methods something else just to spite the people working on the code next. The only thing I understand is placing an X on your development area/additional cards to prevent you from gaining more than 1 each turn. Exhausting a whole deck is not a standard thing.

All my griping aside once setup is done and rules are relearned Imperium: C/L is a fun game to play and the solo mode is really well-done and quite unique. Not even the looking up stuff in tables bothers me at all.

But getting to an understanding of the game… this was one of the most difficult games I ever had to learn for sure. I blame a novice designer and David Turczi “helping out”. I just checked… and I am scared for Voidfall–another collaboration between the two–which I backed a while back. Maybe I need to check BGG for the current rulebook on that one. At this point it is surely possible to get some feedback to them. (Not that I actually feel qualified to do this…)

edit: the more I think about this I need to check if Turczi has some programming background or so. The story of Imperium goes something like Nigel Buckel couldn’t finish the game on his own it was too complex. The rulebook feels like they had a really difficult time getting all the concepts straightened out and by the time they were done, they were unable to recognize that those tokens (just one example) represent fairly well-established concepts… from editing my own book sometimes one assumes that one has said something because as author one knows the story so well… omissions are very likely.

2 Likes

A game I gave away due to having a terrible rulebook… Black Angel. (Well parts of the game were badly integrated, too) I wanted to like this so much but it also relied on inference too much. The order in which things were explained was chaotic.

Red Flag on rulebooks: having to go back and forth while learning the rules.

I’m not sure he’s so novice. Nigel Buckle has 2 published games prior. Omega Centauri is reasonably well regarded and in fact was the one 4x game I was most keen on trying for a while.

1 Like

I had seen and ignored the previous 2 games. I would still say novice designer. In any case I scanned the rulebook for Omega Centauri and it looks much better structured. Now I really wonder what happened here. Too much refactoring…?

Btw: The action tokens seem to be also present in Omega Centauri as well.

1 Like

Maybe Osprey’s history as a publisher of books detailing soldiers uniforms and such has left the in house editing team overly focussed in listing details? I seem to remember Lost Expedition failing to be clear in the overall but precisely detailed. It’s been 4 years since I looked at that though. Am I misremembering?

I think the only other game I’ve played from Osprey is They Come Unseen, which suffers a bit (in both game design and rulebook) by being a labour of love over many years by someone who, for all his other virtues, isn’t an experienced game designer or player.

(Though my word it’s tempting to PBF that.)

I believe Osprey Games is a fairly distinct division within the company, which encompasses their RPGs, the blue wargames books plus board games. I’ve certainly not felt that any of the wargames books are badly laid out (e.g. Ronin, Lion Rampant, all of Joseph McCullough’s 'grave books, etc), although each has a similar structure depending on the lead designer/core rule set variation (i.e. all the 'grave books have a similar structure, as does Lion Rampant, Dux Bellorum, Dragon Rampant etc.). I don’t recall anyone complaining about Undaunted’s rulebook, so it is possible these issues stem more from a designer than a publisher?

I haven’t played them yet, but I just received Brian Boru and The King is Dead 2nd ed, both from Osprey games, and I felt the rulebooks were perfectly usable. Then, both games are by Peer Sylvester, so maybe he’s the link that makes it work :smiley:

And then again, maybe David Turczi is the issue. There have definitely been some issues with Undaunted’s solo mode, released in the Reinforcements expansion, which he had a hand in. At least, going by BGG’s forums. Though it may have been due to the compression of the rules, as David Digby, the solo mode co-designer, posted the original design notes for some of it which was clearer.

I also have Tawantinsuyu: The Inca Empire by Turczi, which I got for really cheap through a consignment sale, and after reading the rules, while I do think I could play the game while following along with it, it seems complex for complexities sake and it would require a lot of referencing the rulebook during play. In a very rare occurrence, I intend to part with this game without even playing it.

1 Like

The absolute worst rulebooks for me?

  • Anything Tiny Epic
  • I am the Fourth Wall - where they decided to split the rulebook into three
  • Gotham Gotham City Chronicles - so… many… icons…

Best?

Em… I remember Bargain Quest having excellent rules. Clear and to the point. It’s been a while since I’ve looked though.

I actually quite like the AH:LCG rules, with a quickstart guide and then extensions…

OH! Very good - Galaxy Quest. Get the players going then add complexity.

1 Like

Oooh, this is a good call out. Not sure to blame the rule book for the icons issue, though. That’s more just the overall design of the game. While I can appreciate the idea of using symbols to make a game mostly language independent, if you have a hundred of the damn things, you should probably include a reference sheet. Even better, one for each character. Say, on the back of their sheets where you included a bio instead of something actually useful for the game.

2 Likes

Recently I’ve found the Kemet: Blood and Sand rulebook to be awful. It uses a lot of abbreviations when I don’t think it needs it to save space. The box also contains a lot of expansion material which isn’t mentioned in the rulebook, that’s in a separate place. It just seems really bitty and clumsily written.

I like the CGE rule books for Alchemists and Galaxy Trucker. I find them genuinely funny to read and the humour helps set the rules in my head.

I like the “Uwe says” sidebars in the A Feast for Odin rule book. I find examples very helpful.

I wonder if rule books are changing? I tend to a video to be taught a game and use the rules as reference these days, rather than trying to learn the game from the rules. I’m not one who can sit and read a rule book.

7 Likes

Certainly videos are good medium but I find kinaesthetic learning to be my thing.

Getting a rulebook out, setting a game up and playing the game for a few rounds on my own is my jam for learning.

3 Likes