tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375223151643195646.post3946426847976255374..comments2024-03-28T10:29:24.426+01:00Comments on Random&Creative: On rules clarity and compositionAndrew McCoryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18203034461676669716noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375223151643195646.post-38185299127086296462014-10-21T16:09:51.748+02:002014-10-21T16:09:51.748+02:00I tried to do the same with my WW2 homebrew, while...I tried to do the same with my WW2 homebrew, while the rules are basically four pages, the QRS is only one, it has a quick flow and is very entertaining. Andrew McCoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18203034461676669716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375223151643195646.post-22388496244134112502014-10-21T15:42:15.378+02:002014-10-21T15:42:15.378+02:00Hi Andras! I finally had some time to get over her...Hi Andras! I finally had some time to get over here and read your post. You are right we both end up at the same place with your emphasis on the rules themselves and mine primarily on layout and functionality (eye candy as Mike puts it). I think we inadvertently complimented each other's posting!<br /><br />I do like clean straight forward rules, and organization of those rules is a key component of that. I dislike finding a key portion of the rules for say WWII tanks buried in the transportation section. I'm also a big fan of tables although more towards how they can be expressed on a quick reference chart. I think the best QRC I have seen is the one for Fire and Fury. Once you have played the game a couple of times you don't need anything but the reference card. The design of and what it contains, as a compliment to the rules is a key indicator to how well the author understands both the subject and his own rules.Heislerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16825061407797980077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375223151643195646.post-37600101835234232014-10-15T13:46:20.113+02:002014-10-15T13:46:20.113+02:00Absolutely, and that's the challenge of the ru...Absolutely, and that's the challenge of the rulebook designer. It's a balance of making the book appealing to all (whether they like the eye candy or not) yet developing a marketable brand for the game – alas, as you say, too many miss the mark. <br /><br />I did start to read some of your own rules (will continue when I have more time) – very interesting stuff!The Dark Templarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03051984305736707874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375223151643195646.post-15611178447350871222014-10-15T11:35:00.701+02:002014-10-15T11:35:00.701+02:00Quite right, the comparison may not be the best. B...Quite right, the comparison may not be the best. But that paragraph above all represents my own preferences: it is not a general statement and is there to emphasize (ok, make fun of) how <i>too much</i> is too much. Andrew McCoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18203034461676669716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375223151643195646.post-59478183543318248162014-10-15T11:06:37.529+02:002014-10-15T11:06:37.529+02:00Interesting perspective, but for your last point y...Interesting perspective, but for your last point you're comparing apples with oranges. <br /><br />Most miniatures games by their very nature are a visually stimulating hobby – we all prefer painted miniatures and covet amazingly realistic terrain to play on. It's not surprising therefore that rulebooks often try to tempt potential new players with visually stimulating rulebooks. Don't get me wrong, some rulebooks are hideously designed and have too much eye candy and not enough rule quality, but a balance can be made if done properly. It's all about marketing and branding the ruleset – a very visual industry.<br /><br />Conversely, no legal documents would ever have remotely similar levels of eye candy (if any at all) as they're legal documents and it's all about the content and not at all about how it's presented.The Dark Templarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03051984305736707874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375223151643195646.post-5700298265915343612014-10-09T09:04:29.088+02:002014-10-09T09:04:29.088+02:00Thank you for reading. Your version is clear and e...Thank you for reading. Your version is clear and ergonomic, something I would use.Andrew McCoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18203034461676669716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375223151643195646.post-88889613733152141372014-10-09T08:57:52.936+02:002014-10-09T08:57:52.936+02:00As far as the measurements are clearly explained, ...As far as the measurements are clearly explained, it matters little in the end how they are written; but they should not be controversial. It is a very minimal requirement.<br />When translating Sharp Practice, I made cross-references from the general rules towards the specific, but did not reference back. The original rules use a title system where the titles are numbered (1.0, 1.0.1. etc.) This could have been exploited well, but the original rules did not, they were put in the index and that was it. When, in the opening articles I introduced the difference between troops and leaders, I added quick references (e.g.: "troops have two actions that they can do on a leader's initiative, see title x.x."). I really hope this will help in practice.<br />Legal texts do this back and forth and sometimes when the third or even further reference is added ("as by paragraph x", then x refers to y and y refers to z") it becomes very confusing.Andrew McCoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18203034461676669716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375223151643195646.post-83290159929784551712014-10-09T02:56:16.594+02:002014-10-09T02:56:16.594+02:00Good observations regarding rules' design. Si...Good observations regarding rules' design. Since ranges are continuous, in your example, it really is sloppy work to produce overlapping weapons' ranges. I would prefer each range band to list only its upper bound. That is, 9", 18", 27", 36." Now we know with certainty that close range is out to 9 inches. <br /><br />Interesting post!Jonathan Freitaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07862373894196924886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375223151643195646.post-65323136005179498272014-10-09T01:21:15.924+02:002014-10-09T01:21:15.924+02:00Some very good points you make, Andras - I'll ...Some very good points you make, Andras - I'll keep them in mind for my own sets. Some comments:<br /><br />I've often wondered about how to express intervals of distance, such as expressed in firepower ranges. Preferring tabular forms, I find a single figure to express the range always causes me to 'double-take' and remind myself what is shown is a maximum. So I've tended to use intervals like 0-9" or 9-18", say. Now, a target at 9" exactly would be short range (say), that at 9.1" at the longer range. But you are right: it is a little ambiguous. As a mathematician I might write the intervals as (0",9"] and (9.18"], the left parenthesis signifying exclusive of the lower bound; the right bracket signifying inclusive of the upper bound. This has the virtue of removing all ambiguity, but how many readers would understand that?<br /><br />I've considered something like 'Up to 9cm' or 'Over 9cm up to 18cm'; but that might not fit a table so well. An alternative might be something like this:<br />0<SR≤9cm; 9<LR≤18cm. I think this type of unambiguous symbolic presentation might be easier to understand.<br /><br />When putting together my own rule sets (for my own use), I like to add a few photos, partly because I can, but also it breaks up white space left by inserting page-breaks between sections. Generally speaking I don't sentences or sub-sections to carry over a page, so I'm fairly liberal with page breaks. Of course, as mine aren't commercial sets, the amount of paper (not large anyhow) isn't much of a consideration.<br /><br />Crossreferencing. In my view crossreferencing should be used often, but only insofar as it is relevant. For example, suppose a unit's combat capability is affected by disorder. This will be mentioned as modifying shooting and close combat, and might also affect movement and morale. At these points a cross-reference seems indicated to direct the reader (if needed) to the substantive rules on disorder. I don't think a reverse direct cross-reference is necessary or even desirable, except to state in the substantive rule that disorder does affect these aspects of a unit's battle performance. What do you think?<br /><br />Cheers,<br />IonArchduke Piccolohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533325665451889661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375223151643195646.post-21709073836727187982014-10-08T20:37:23.249+02:002014-10-08T20:37:23.249+02:00Thinking about it, we house rule basically every c...Thinking about it, we house rule basically every commercial set we use, be it RPGs or wargames.Andrew McCoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18203034461676669716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375223151643195646.post-63531484224998284942014-10-08T20:04:50.932+02:002014-10-08T20:04:50.932+02:00Excellent post Andras. I prefer simple, unambiguou...Excellent post Andras. I prefer simple, unambiguous rules too. Good points on feedback as well. I think some rules are driven by commercial interest (ie: how can we sell more of this or that particular figure) more than balance or common sense. Of course, there's nothing wrong with changing rules you don't like, so long as everyone playing agrees!Paul Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17249430164077358978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375223151643195646.post-23248714580294036872014-10-08T18:52:33.285+02:002014-10-08T18:52:33.285+02:00Nothing wrong with good photos, but too many - eve...Nothing wrong with good photos, but too many - even the most well made - photos are a hindrance to the rules I think. Andrew McCoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18203034461676669716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5375223151643195646.post-53172507337272693742014-10-08T18:38:22.903+02:002014-10-08T18:38:22.903+02:00I must admit that I struggle with rule books that ...I must admit that I struggle with rule books that are over complicated. I like to know that I can get models on the table in double quick time or I lose interest. That said, I am a sucker for a good set of photographs though. Michael Awdryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07049982879661559305noreply@blogger.com