Reply To: Rule Books. How do you like them?

[Rhoderic]

I’ve yet to be annoyed by novice-level explanations of dice, measurements and the like. They tend to be brief enough.

I like “flashy” rulebooks, within reason. There’s such a thing as going too far in that direction of course, but I feel that plain text rulebooks and rulebooks with poor-quality photos are going too far in the other direction, given that the hobby has by now advanced reasonably far past its humble beginnings. That’s not to say I won’t read or buy a rulebook that falls short of the mark in regard to decoration (it’s not as if I’d pass on the rulebooks from, for instance, Peter Pig or TooFatLardies). It just won’t be ideal, that’s all.

The Osprey, Warlord Games, VBCW and old Warhammer Historical rulebooks are good examples of what I think is the right level of gloss/chrome. Not too much, not too little.

I for one appreciate the steady flow of new rulesets, again within reason. I do think of the hobby as a “flow”, and I like to be in the flow. I suppose that this is, indeed, partially to do with the fact that I don’t get much actual gaming done – this hobby isn’t just something that I game, it’s something that I follow. I appreciate the motion of it.

Besides, rules design is one of the aspects of this hobby that people enjoy actively taking part of, much like making terrain, painting figures, researching military history, acquiring OOP figures, and so on. It’s perfectly natural for people to want to design new rulesets. I don’t believe it’s “holy grail effect”. It’s just fun to design rules (or test new rules designed by others) and have that be part of a greater flow within the hobby, that’s all. There’s no holy grail, but each ruleset has a different “flavour” (even within the same theme/period/setting – sometimes especially so) and appreciating those differences is enjoyable in itself.

How about hobby sections? I’m generally a big fan of them, despite the inevitable (and understandable) objections by some that they’ve nothing to do with the rules. Obviously they must remain fairly modest inside a rulebook, but even as little as two or three spreads devoted to building terrain, painting figures and collecting armies/warbands can go a long way to setting the mood and whetting the appetite. If for instance I’m browsing a new rulebook for swashbuckler skirmishing, and I find a hobby section wherein the authors showcase their “studio” collection of Barbary Pirates, Knights of Malta and port-of-Tripoli terrain, with some notes on how they made it all, that would make me feel much more inspired by the rulebook and the subject it covers than had the book comprised only rules mechanics.

One exception to this is that I don’t care for lengthy “masterclass” painting tutorials that are compelled to show a photo of the same figure at every stage of painting through 5+ layers of highlights. Doesn’t belong in a rulebook, even one with a hobby section.