Ideology on Rules Writing

[Shawn Taylor]

I have had rather an odd epiphany this morning. I realized as I was reading over INEPTT that I subconsciously leave some pieces vague because I have a deep belief that gamers will change at home what they don’t like. This to my mind has meant to be more precise on the points important to capture the feel of my game and should not be modified, but a lot is almost glossed over.
I am not sure yet but I think i may have to cut back on some detailing and enhance some of the glossed over areas to give a more rounded product and not rely on my belief that gamers will change it anyways. There is still plenty of scope to home brew some aspects, especially with INEPTT. But I have done the same to a lesser degree with GWSH II and Mourir pour l’Indochine.
The other part to my epiphany is that holding true to my reason is critically important to me. I don’t write miniature game rules to make money, I write them because I feel that the subject I am writing on with the style of play is fun and engaging, either from a historic perspective (GWSHII & MPI) or a pure gaming perspective (INEPTT II & Terror at Camp Nightfall). When I sway from my purpose it makes me not want to write because it feels like I am cheating.
Why as I writing this? Because I am looking at revamping all costing of print material for my products as well as where I sell them.
For me it is much more important for my products to be accessible, playable and enjoyable, than it is the at I make xx number of dollars per sale.
Cheers,
Shawn

[Not Connard Sage]

INEPTT? GWSHII? MPI?

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Guy Farrish]

Google suggests:

International Exterrestrial Paranormal Tactical Team

Great War SpearHead(?) II

Max Planck Institute ? Ministry for Primary Industries (NZ) ? Master Painters Institute ?

I may not have scored full marks on the last one.

 

As for giving a more rounded set of rules – I would.

Yes, some (many?) gamers will do what they want anyway, but many will follow the rules as designed if they are logically coherent and produce a sensible result.

NOT providing chunks of rules because they may be ignored will definitely result in gamers perforce making their own bits up – and Balkanising the resulting game into different experiences wherever gamers meet.

So accept there may be changes but write the rules you want people to play. What they do with your work after that is, perhaps regrettably, perhaps laudably, up to them.

[Jim Webster]

Funnily enough I also assume that players will change stuff to suit them. Perhaps because it’s something I do and other gamers at our club do?

In fact I’m always interested in their changes and might incorporate some into my own play 🙂

But when it comes to writing rules, there has to be a hook, an interest to draw me in. It can be a long standing interest, or somebody turns up with really cool toys and they suck me into the period.

And I think if you produce a set of rules you have to offer something different from those that are out there. It needn’t be world shattering. (Fun and simplicity are always worth aiming for 🙂 ) I’m pondering something for the 19th century at the moment, but they are going to be ‘colonial’ but without necessarily including the colonisers. Indian or Chinese war as it happened in the period when the colonial powers were often merely observers. To see the warfare through other eyes.

 

https://jimssfnovelsandwargamerules.wordpress.com/

[Norm S]

I feel that there is only one standard for rule writing and that is … complete!

If gamers want to tweak things, then that is up to them, but in the first instance, a rule set should be tight enough that two strangers could meet and play the game in the certainty that they are playing correctly to the design intent.

[Jim Webster]

Norm S wrote:

I feel that there is only one standard for rule writing and that is … complete! If gamers want to tweak things, then that is up to them, but in the first instance, a rule set should be tight enough that two strangers could meet and play the game in the certainty that they are playing correctly to the design intent.

That is oh so rarely achieved 🙁
I remember playing WRG 5th and 6th edition with mates from away. The interpretations we assumed to be obvious obviously hadn’t occurred to the others 🙂
With the arrival of the internet, the growth of forums and similar should help ensure the ‘correct’ interpretation, but alas they all to often dissolve into battlegrounds.

I think that if you keep rules simple it can be done. But you have to be very careful and precise with your language 🙂

https://jimssfnovelsandwargamerules.wordpress.com/

[kyoteblue]

Shawn, I’m very happy you posted here. Thank you.

[deephorse]

I tinker with most of the rules I’ve tried over the years.  This mainly occurs when the reality portrayed by the rules doesn’t conform to the reality that I envision (I might be wrong, but I believe in what I believe!).

Thinking about it, the only rules I can remember not altering are ‘Smoke on the Water’ (ACW naval), and anything by Sam Mustafa – though I only own ‘Longstreet’ and ‘Blucher’, so it’s a small sample.  I think that Mustafa’s rules are a fine example of relative simplicity, clarity, and ‘tightness’.

Play is what makes life bearable - Michael Rosen

[Not Connard Sage]

deephorse wrote:

Thinking about it, the only rules I can remember not altering are ‘Smoke on the Water’ (ACW naval),

 

Is the author a Deep Purple fan? 🙂

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Robert Armstrong]

Guy Farrish wrote:

Max Planck Institute ? Ministry for Primary Industries (NZ) ? Master Painters Institute ?

I may not have scored full marks on the last one.

I’d guess this is slightly more likely – https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/taywarpub/mourir-pour-lindochine 🙂

[Tony S]

Norm S wrote:

I feel that there is only one standard for rule writing and that is … complete! If gamers want to tweak things, then that is up to them, but in the first instance, a rule set should be tight enough that two strangers could meet and play the game in the certainty that they are playing correctly to the design intent.

I completely agree.  (And I also agree that Mustafa’s rules are probably the tightest, cleanest well written rules out there.  I own all of them, and have played all of them, and I quite honestly don’t recall a single time there was a rules disagreement).

It’s always jarring while playing a new game, to fumble though a rulebook, trying to find a half remembered phrase or example, attempting to parse out the author’s intent.  My group are a laid back, completely non competitive bunch, so there’s never any acrimony, but I’d rather be playing with toy soldiers than playing at being a lawyer.

So, please less “hand wavy” bits in rules for me.  Even if something gets changed, it’s not because we don’t understand it, it’s because our historical biases differ from the writer’s.

[Shawn Taylor]

Dont get me wrong, my rules are complete, but where I makes some rules (for lack of a better term) air tight, others I leave with some interpretation. Again this is mainly for INEPTT (International Extraterrestrial Paranormal Tactical Teams), I did this because of the huge variety of weapons, creatures, aliens and agents that can be used. With MPI (Mourir Pour l’Indochine) there are smaller amounts of variance, but some is there. For example, due to the genuine lack of self loading rifles during the Indochina War I don’t include them as a type of Fire team. However I do make it clear that French Marine Commando (who were the only ones in Indochina with any real amount of SLRs) can have a wide variety of weapons and that player research is usually the best answer. From there it is too easy to add in an SLR fire team adjusting the rate of fire somewhere between the regular fire team and the Automatic Rifle Fire team.

Appreciate your thoughts 🙂

[willz]

Any rules longer than 2 pages are overly complicated, we are after all just pushing or toys across a table.  Its all about simulation and enjoyment anything too complicated takes the fun and enjoyment out of the game.

[Tom Dye]

I am a proponent for changing the value sets that rules have been based upon. The reality is that regardless of whatever weapons systems are employed, they are only as good as the trigger puller. It’s the unit leadership that is most important. Keeping the unity of effort going allows for the measure of unit cohesion.

Combat results have always been expressed in terms of casualties. But every period of history one can find where units ran/broke down with little or no casualties yet in the same period, examples of units fighting till nearly the last man. That’s enough to question “Are casualties the best way to quantify unit capabilities?” I say “No.” So what to look for?

Training, Experience and MOST importantly, “How long have these men been under the control of these leaders?” Think of where you work:

1. Who do you trust most to go to for help?

2. How much can you predict who are the best workers? Worst workers?

3. Ever notice that sometimes the best work happens when someone is absent?

4. Does your leader care about you as a person?

5. Do you care about your leader?

Everyone in your workplace is part of a team. It takes all of you to perform tasks to get the job done. As long as everyone works together as a team, helping out the weaker members, the team will succeed. A good leader knows everyone in his/her team. He knows who to task and assigns tasks based upon whom he thinks can best accomplish the task. When tasks get accomplished, the team feels gratified. When it is done half assed, they all know it.

Take for example a newly raised unit in the ACW. Before they “see the elephant”, they have had to perform as a “Unit/Team” from muster in date. Marching, wearing of uniform, imposed discipline which leads to self discipline, target practice, etc. aren’t done in a vacuum. Leaders watch for who does it right and who helps others accomplish the task. By the time they experience their first action, the leaders know who they can trust and the men know if they can trust their leader’s competence.

Therefore, casualties are not as important of a value set as the unit’s control over the men during stressful situations. So why not rate the level of cohesion as the regulating indicator of unit performance. Since units are made up of men, no two identical, why do units have to be rated as if they were made up of clones? Such stuff deems thought and most gamers never give it much thought and blame weapons systems for why they lost a game.

I will close this rant by saying that it is possible to quantify the seemingly unquantifiable by simple algebra. If X= the best a unit can be, then X-1 is half as bad as X-2 which is half of the value of X; x-3 is when a unit is operating at 25% of X, and the unit ceases to exist at x-4. (The astute will have noticed that if we express combat results in losses of 25% increments of lost cohesion, (or regained cohesion) we have just quantified the unquantifiable! Instead of Morale checks, Cohesion checks. Ask a typical gamer what he is doing when making a morale check you probably get an answer like, “Checking to see if the men stay around”. Well, it ain’t democracy in the army!

Hope this gets someone to thinking about new ideas in game design a bit.

Tom Dye

[Tony Hughes]

Tom

That kind of mindset of command is a fairly modern aspect of combat and, even then, more true at lower levels of command than at higher ones. In the more distant past the same may also have been true in warbands or medieval companies where a leader’s personality and perceived competence are more important. Once armies get organised on a mass scale and you want to wargame those larger battles I don’t see that mindset being of use in rule design, even if it did apply at lower levels of command.

 

[Author]

Posts