TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Every board game rulebook is awful [pdf]

340 点作者 sgbeal5 个月前

61 条评论

bondarchuk5 个月前
I kind of like Root's approach, just make three separate rulebooks. One quickstart guide, one "normal" rulebook, and one "law" type rulebook laying out everything in almost procedural style with clear and consistent definitions etc. Many games could benefit from that.
评论 #42301038 未加载
评论 #42298693 未加载
评论 #42299794 未加载
评论 #42300299 未加载
评论 #42300782 未加载
评论 #42301978 未加载
评论 #42303242 未加载
评论 #42306134 未加载
评论 #42298748 未加载
评论 #42298833 未加载
评论 #42301036 未加载
评论 #42331173 未加载
评论 #42298824 未加载
jvalencia5 个月前
I recall my favorite part of opening up a new Nintendo game was poring over the manual. I didn&#x27;t actually want it for instructions. It was the lore and the pictures and the dreams of what I could do with the game that made it fun.<p>Now, people are so media saturated that they&#x27;re begging to remove as much content as possible in order to just get the clearest bit of information. I can&#x27;t help we&#x27;ve lost something in society when we&#x27;re not really enjoying or having fun unless we get immediate and overwhelming pleasure triggers.
评论 #42298924 未加载
评论 #42298908 未加载
评论 #42298737 未加载
评论 #42298813 未加载
评论 #42302441 未加载
评论 #42298687 未加载
blakeburch5 个月前
As an avid board gamer, I think one of the biggest factors is page count. A big rule book makes the game feel less approachable. In the example provided at the bottom, the rewritten rulebook is ~50 pages. The original is 24. It doesn&#x27;t matter how well it&#x27;s written if it scares people off.<p>I find that many people are so afraid of reading game rules that they&#x27;d rather watch 15-30m how to play videos. It&#x27;s telling of the industry that these videos are typically better learning resources than the rulebooks themselves.<p>My favorite rulebooks have 1-page rule references at the back or scannable columns on each page that summarize the main text.<p>As someone who enjoys technical documentation writing, I think board game rulebook writing would be a rewarding experience. Not exactly sure how to get into that field though...<p>(I have yet to read this in full, but I&#x27;m excited to dig in)
评论 #42300415 未加载
评论 #42300387 未加载
评论 #42299081 未加载
评论 #42299997 未加载
评论 #42302107 未加载
评论 #42303187 未加载
评论 #42301967 未加载
评论 #42303959 未加载
评论 #42299903 未加载
评论 #42303454 未加载
popcar25 个月前
I&#x27;ve only read like 20 pages but this is already hitting the nail on the head for me. I&#x27;ve tried many times to play specific games with friends on Tabletop Simulator, but more often than not we bounce off because it&#x27;s too tedious to read rulebooks.<p>I get that game designers want the player to understand <i>all</i> of the rules in a game but it quickly turns into its own game of trying to decipher a huge tome to understand how this game works. We just want to play the game as soon as possible and learn as we go, but tons of rulebooks try to teach you every single mechanic before you move a piece on the board.<p>My biggest pet peeve with rulebooks by far is how many rulebooks feel like they&#x27;re written out of order (which is touched on in the book above). I would get to parts that should be simple like moving a character or something similar, but there would be ten asterisks to how it works, each explained in different parts of the book.<p>Fake example: &quot;Here&#x27;s the movement phase, where you can move your character! Character movement is determined by your weight, refer to the weight class your character is currently in.&quot; Meanwhile, weight classes are explained 30 pages later. Now you&#x27;re expected to either memorize everything, or bounce around flipping pages left and right in order to go step by step...
评论 #42303144 未加载
评论 #42298932 未加载
AceJohnny25 个月前
Tagentially, I&#x27;ve been working on how to best to explain Destiny raid mechanics to new players.<p>Background: Destiny 2 is a co-op multiplayer FPS, and its pinnacle activity is 6-player raids, which requires players to combine fast-paced FPS gunplay, split-second reaction to mechanics, and coordination and communication with other players. This can be a daunting and overwhelming challenge for players new to the raid, even if they already are experienced in FPS gameplay.<p>Challenge: explain to a player, familiar with Destiny gameplay but new to the raid, the mechanics of an &quot;encounter&quot; in 5-15 minutes, live. It must be as concise as possible so as not to confuse or overwhelm them, and not stretch the patience of the other players already familiar with the encounter.<p>Too often I&#x27;ve see players start from the immediate aspects, working forwards towards the later&#x2F;broader aspects of the encounter, but I find that in the firehose of information, by the time the explanation is complete, the player has forgotten the first, immediately important details: &quot;wait, tell me again what am I supposed to shoot first?&quot;<p>So the approach I&#x27;ve been experimenting with is to work <i>backwards</i> from the goal of the encounter, so as to finish with the most immediate, tactically important information, so it&#x27;s freshest in their memory. I don&#x27;t yet have enough data points to conclude whether this is a better approach ;)<p>In any case, I&#x27;m just barely wading into the immense topic that people have spent decades, careers, and PhDs on: teaching, but it is fascinating the breadth of choices one has in how to approach an explanation.<p>(I also play a fair bit of board games, and learning a new board game is the primary obstacle of adoption, so I really appreciate the OP author&#x27;s points)
评论 #42301495 未加载
评论 #42301375 未加载
评论 #42301602 未加载
alach115 个月前
When I teach people how to play a game, I usually omit several of the rules upfront to help people grok the goal faster. For example when teaching Texas Hold&#x27;em, we might play all the way to the river with all cards face up and no betting. Then we&#x27;ll play a round with up-front betting keeping our hole cards private. Finally, we play the game &quot;correctly&quot; with turn-by-turn betting.<p>I&#x27;m surprised more board games don&#x27;t include a &quot;first game&quot; playthrough guide to slowly introduce mechanics. This is extremely common in video games.
评论 #42301246 未加载
评论 #42325469 未加载
评论 #42306116 未加载
评论 #42301717 未加载
mdaniel5 个月前
The Farming Game rulebook[1] authors must have taken this list as a &quot;how to&quot; guide because it is by far the worst I have ever encountered. They intermix <i>rules</i> with some <i>narrative</i> meaning one has to parse a lot of words to extract which ones are relevant to getting started with the game and what actions are legal during play. It&#x27;d be like if those infamous recipe blogs <i>intermingled</i> the SEO content in between baking instruction steps<p>1: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;upload.snakesandlattes.com&#x2F;rules&#x2F;f&#x2F;FarmingGameThe.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;upload.snakesandlattes.com&#x2F;rules&#x2F;f&#x2F;FarmingGameThe.pd...</a>
评论 #42301868 未加载
评论 #42299862 未加载
评论 #42302872 未加载
burticlies5 个月前
I tried to work around bad rule books by building <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.boardgameonepagers.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.boardgameonepagers.com&#x2F;</a><p>It’s open source, all the rules have simple markdown formatting that’s easy to glance through on an phone, and they try to be as concise as possible.<p>But it’s hard work writing rules and I’ve never given it the effort I’d like to.
评论 #42298885 未加载
评论 #42299367 未加载
Pet_Ant5 个月前
The rulebook for GMT&#x27;s &quot;Combat Commander&quot; by Chad Jensen is in war gaming circles often mentioned as an excellently written rulebook.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com&#x2F;gmtwebsiteassets&#x2F;living_rules&#x2F;CC_Rulebook_v1.1.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com&#x2F;gmtwebsiteassets&#x2F;living_r...</a> [ 5MB PDF ]
empath755 个月前
I think a lot of the problems with game _rulebooks_ are actually problems with the game _design_.<p>Once you start getting into _dozens of pages_ to explain the rules, there&#x27;s no amount of re-organization or quality technical writing that can fix that.<p>Some people like really crunchy rulesets with lots of rules, and that&#x27;s fine, but games like that are never going to have an easy teaching or learning experience.<p>Probably my favorite board game rulebook wasn&#x27;t a rulebook at all:<p>Fog of Love has a playable tutorial, where all the cards are setup in a particular order with game rules printed on cards that you draw when you need them. You don&#x27;t even really need to open the rule book to get through the first game, and it&#x27;s actually a fairly complex game. The rulebook itself after that is mostly for reference.
评论 #42325513 未加载
评论 #42300665 未加载
denvaar5 个月前
I have noticed that when people are explaining the rules of a game, they tend leave out the goal of the game, or wait to mention it toward the end of the explanation. You gotta lead with what the goal of the game is.
评论 #42301781 未加载
nerdjon5 个月前
As someone with over 200 board games.<p>There is one game I can think of with a fantastic rule book is Azul. But I think that’s partially a symptom of those rules being very simple to explain and really you can only appreciate how complex it can get by playing. A close second is secret hitler thanks to its rules being all over the game itself.<p>Other games then fall into 2 categories.<p>Over simplification: an attempt to not bore seasoned players leads to some rules being up for interpretation. This leads to getting through the rule book quickly but annoyances while playing.<p>Over explaining: to appease everyone they explain every single thing in extreme detail. It’s agonizing to read through and by the time you’re done you forget how the basics in the beginning (like turn order) work. Some address this by there being guides or hints on the board or whatever.<p>Personally I have become a big fan of games that introduce things piecemeal or have a basic set of rules but then the complexity is dictated by card text.<p>But that doesn’t work for every game.
评论 #42306109 未加载
ianferrel5 个月前
How much of this is just &quot;most board games are awful&quot;?<p>Awful in the sense of overly complicated and fiddly. There are plenty of games with deep strategic depth that have been around for hundreds of years and are simple enough that the rules fit on an index card and children routinely learn them from other children in the course of playing.<p>If you end up with a 20-page rulebook, perhaps the problem is not how best to organize that rulebook, but that you have 18 pages too many rules in the first place.
评论 #42302000 未加载
评论 #42303146 未加载
评论 #42303658 未加载
评论 #42302092 未加载
评论 #42303619 未加载
评论 #42309549 未加载
评论 #42302844 未加载
joemi5 个月前
It&#x27;s unfortunate that the author chose such a clickbait name for this essay. It puts me, someone who has seen boardgame rulebooks that definitely aren&#x27;t awful, in an angry defensive mood when reading this, which is bolstered by the fact that good practices that the author recommends are in fact things I&#x27;ve seen good rulebooks do.
Buttons8405 个月前
Tangentially: How do y&#x27;all approach explaining the rules to a new game?<p>For the card game Hearts I would say something like:<p>&quot;I will give a 20 second explanation, and then go into more detail in a second pass.<p>Hearts is a trick taking game. In Hearts players take turns throwing cards into a pile. Depending on which cards are placed in the pile, one player will take the pile, and that player will get some points. Points are bad, the objective of the game is to avoid getting points. Now let&#x27;s just play through a mock round, it will only take a minute or two...&quot; Etc.<p>I&#x27;ve given some thought to this, because I&#x27;ve often had games explained to me and the explainer is going deep into the rules about some game mechanic before I even know what the objective of the game is. I also know that people&#x27;s minds work differently, and so maybe my high-level-first approach is confusing to others.<p>Any advice on how to teach the rules for a new game?
评论 #42300529 未加载
评论 #42300483 未加载
评论 #42301138 未加载
评论 #42301029 未加载
评论 #42300566 未加载
评论 #42302159 未加载
评论 #42300535 未加载
jarjoura5 个月前
The problem with 2-4 hour boardgames that require extension rulebooks, launched in the last decade, is that these games are islands. No game can point to another game to offer mental shortcuts in absorbing similar gameplay.
评论 #42302137 未加载
iamwpj5 个月前
I think Jaws of the Lion broke the rules down for Gloomhaven really well -- it introduced the complexities of the game slowly over scenarios. I would advise anyone who has a game that takes more than a couple of hours to play to have a way to start the game and then add complexity after initial barriers have been met.<p>Mechs vs. Minions is another one that does this iterative process of teaching.<p>This article looks great, I&#x27;ll continue to read it.
评论 #42300964 未加载
erehweb5 个月前
Also worth considering - Fluxx <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;boardgamegeek.com&#x2F;boardgame&#x2F;258&#x2F;fluxx" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;boardgamegeek.com&#x2F;boardgame&#x2F;258&#x2F;fluxx</a> where the rules are created during play as you go along. I really enjoyed the first experience of playing this and not knowing anything about it, but have not found anyone else who thinks this way.
评论 #42304606 未加载
wormius5 个月前
One of the biggest issues I have is that a good rulebook&#x2F;teacher should start at the &quot;What are we trying to do?&quot; From there everything else should flow.<p>I haven&#x27;t read all this yet, so maybe he touches on it. The point about interconnecting pieces or like &quot;gears&quot; that are all involved is a good thing. Everything is dynamic and in interplay.<p>A lot of that means these are not linear systems (not in a systems theory sense, but textual sense). Graphics and images do volumes. But only so much as you understand, again, the WHY. Everything has to feed into the &quot;economy&quot; of the game and how all the parts interact.<p>Rulebooks also need to make sure terminology is consistent. I&#x27;ve played some games where I see a word that&#x27;s used, and then I try to find the definition and it&#x27;s just... not there. At least not easily found. An index of some sort is necessary if you&#x27;re going to use special terms that aren&#x27;t obvious (and if they are obvious&#x2F;standard words, but you use them in a unique way, also define that).<p>I think there should be: 0. Intro&#x2F;thematic vibe&#x2F;core concept - the what you are trying to do and possibly why. 1. Component Overview - the what you are playing with. (Include a layout of the setup version of the game). 2. Step by step rules, underlined words that have specific definitions to be referred in the index. 3. Examples are ideal (including images), especially in tricky situations that involve edge cases (or worse, corner cases) 4. Common &quot;edge cases&quot; (oxymoron?) that are trickier should have their own FAQ&#x2F;addendum for clarification. 5. Glossary&#x2F;Index<p>Rules should not try to be cute and invent words for common scenarios unless it&#x27;s clear what it means in context.<p>Rules should NOT try to be super thematic. A little flavor text at the beginning is fine, but like the above issue, there should not just be things like &quot;Grippledize the phlumoxor to gain 10 boodiboos&quot; Just say &quot;place your character piece at location 3 in order to gain 10 units of currency&quot; or whatever.<p>If you&#x27;re going to use terms like that - use them on the cards as flavor text, not hinge the rules on understanding them; or if you&#x27;re going to be cute with names, be consistent with it, and constantly use it so it&#x27;s etched into the brain &quot;OK, Grippledizing means Place at a spot&quot; - if it&#x27;s just a one off thing there is no need for a &quot;cute&quot; name for it. This is similar to how some science fiction loves just inventing words for things that already have perfectly cromulent terms.
评论 #42300212 未加载
评论 #42300457 未加载
评论 #42300784 未加载
imzadi5 个月前
The rulebooks are the worst part of the hobby. Some are beyond awful. One Deck Dungeon took me several attempts and a few google searches to figure out.<p>Another bad one was the travel version of Azul, which assumes you have already played the full size version.
评论 #42300660 未加载
antisthenes5 个月前
I tend to agree.<p>Our first playthrough of a new board game usually ends up being 2x longer than the average game time listed on a box, mostly due to how long the rule book is.<p>My thought is that you basically need every rulebook to have an MVP - what is the fastest way to get players to start their first game. If that takes longer than 45 minutes, it&#x27;s a pretty big drawback. If it takes an hour - it&#x27;s a game design failure.<p>It&#x27;s also the reason why we keep coming back to the same classic board games - Marvel, Battlestar Galactica, Carcassonne, Terraforming Mars, Race for the Galaxy. We already know the rules and it&#x27;s so much easier to pick it back up with a simple refresher.
d3VwsX5 个月前
Old boardgame (wargame) rulebooks used to have numbered sections and subsections. I often miss that in modern rulebooks, even if some wargame rulebooks still have them luckily. It is so much easier to discuss the rules of a game when you have unambiguous identifiers for every paragraph rather than having to come up with ad-hoc vague references to some page and location below a heading.<p>The linked article has numbered sections, which is nice, allowing for specific references like &quot;in Section 2.3&quot; or &quot;Figure 14.4&quot;, but the example rulebooks discussed from what I can tell do not.
评论 #42308966 未加载
r00fus5 个月前
I liked how in Exploding Kittens (card game not a board game but similar genre) they basically say - watch this YT video URL + QR code to understand how to actually play.
评论 #42298781 未加载
评论 #42298600 未加载
评论 #42299118 未加载
julianeon5 个月前
I&#x27;m learning Conquest and Netrunner now. I kind of half-understand Conquest now, and as for Netrunner, lol. One day. So this is very relevant to me.<p>I would compare the experience to being lost in a class, failing the first test, but just hoping you&#x27;ll be able to learn enough by semester&#x27;s end to pass. It&#x27;s not easy, explaining all the ways things influence each other and cross-contribute. But thinking about it in a structured way can only help.
评论 #42298584 未加载
wrp5 个月前
Since this is HN, I&#x27;m hoping for some discussion of how this could be applicable to software documentation. I&#x27;ve felt similar frustration with complex board games and software, and thought often about crossover in techniques of presentation. At the least, I&#x27;d like to see software manuals have a consistent structure, like those of the old SPI wargames.
评论 #42302032 未加载
bawolff5 个月前
One of the things i find with playing a new board game (as a very casual player), is it usually comes down to someone reading the rules to the group.<p>This is always frustrating because the person usually drones on about the part you understand, until eventually you stop paying attention,but spends ten seconds on the complex part.
评论 #42304079 未加载
legitster5 个月前
I cannot begin to express my frustration with rulebooks. At this point, I basically assume that we will always get some rule wrong.<p>There was a trend 10ish years ago where the best games actually came with <i>two</i> rulebooks. One was a book designed to walk you through your first game, and the other was a reference book. They worked really well, but I can imagine they were a pain to develop.<p>The hallmark of a good rulebook is that there is a section in the back that has commonly missed rules or details. Besides being extremely helpful, it&#x27;s a good signal that the rulebook has actually been tested.<p>Another &quot;green flag&quot; is if the rules include strategy tips - vomiting rules on me doesn&#x27;t necessarily help me understand how I am supposed to experience the game.
masfuerte5 个月前
Direct download link that doesn&#x27;t require any Google js:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;drive.usercontent.google.com&#x2F;download?id=1nkHWqYre866xihxN3MnHr5YFzY4gQWDT&amp;export=download" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;drive.usercontent.google.com&#x2F;download?id=1nkHWqYre86...</a>
ndsipa_pomu5 个月前
I&#x27;m a fan of how the rules are structured in Scythe. Initially it seems very complex, but there&#x27;s an underlying logic to it and you can figure out most of the rules by looking at the special abilities of each player - they each provide an exception to a rule.<p>I don&#x27;t relate well to reading rules although I&#x27;m quite good at picking up on the &quot;exceptions&quot; to rules e.g. you can only own two twizzles unless you&#x27;ve unlocked the fandangle. What works for me is playing an example round&#x2F;turn to see how the various mechanisms fit together. One problem I find with game rules is when they introduce a term without the corresponding picture of the card&#x2F;token etc.
josephcsible5 个月前
&gt; In a talk at PAX, Brandon DeCoster and Scott Rubin describe how you can ruin Wizard, a trick-taking card game, when someone plays a card that they weren&#x27;t allowed to play:<p>&gt; DeCoster: Now, in Euchre, there&#x27;s a rule for that. It&#x27;s called a renege. The other team gets two points, and you just play a new hand. Fine. But, in Wizard, which is my favorite trick taking game, there is no way to handle that situation.<p>&gt; Rubin: Not, at least, officially in the rules.<p>&gt; DeCoster: We&#x27;ve been trying to come up with a way, but there&#x27;s no official way. There&#x27;s no rule that says if someone reneges, do X, Y, and Z. And, in fact, by the nature of the game, it&#x27;s very difficult to come up with a fair way to resolve that situation. So the game actually has... It&#x27;s like a video game that has a glitch: go into this one spot, the game crashes, and your save file disappears. The same thing can happen in Wizard. (DeCoster &amp; Rubin, 2016, 41:33–42:06)<p>But <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.usgamesinc.com&#x2F;Wizard-FAQ.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.usgamesinc.com&#x2F;Wizard-FAQ.html</a> says:<p>&gt; 30. What happens if a player reneges (i.e. does not follow suit when required to do so)?<p>&gt; If noticed before another card is played, no penalty.<p>&gt; If trick is completed and the mistake then discovered, players automatically make their bids except the player who reneged loses 20 points.
jncfhnb5 个月前
I don’t know much about Paul Grogan but I know he was specifically brought on for the ISS Vanguard rule book and, man, what a piece of fucking trash that thing is. The book dedicates a considerable amount of pages running you through a walkthrough game. Every time I open it I’m reminded that a large portion of the rule book is, in fact, not rules.<p>My favorite rulebook is Stationfall. There is a dedicated rulebook for fun lore and general tips; a set thing for walking through a game, and two copies of the dry legalese.
评论 #42301945 未加载
评论 #42299104 未加载
adamrezich5 个月前
Very interesting and informative read. It&#x27;s kind of wild that nobody other than this author seems to be approaching this topic from this sort of technical perspective. In fact, it&#x27;s kind of blowing my mind a bit that the game design program at the school I attended never had any sort of technical writing course at all, despite emphasizing rulebook ease-of-understanding and so forth when grading our board game projects. In hindsight, this is quite the obvious oversight!
jader2015 个月前
I’ve not read the PDF yet (but will), but posting now becuase by the time I have time to finish a 50-page PDF, this thread will be dead.<p>But I’ve been watching Paul’s Gaming Rules! channel [1] for several years now, and regard him highly for not just writing rules, but also his YouTube content.<p>Re: On Mars, I’m curious to see what the author points out as critiques, because I felt like it was really well done. The game is a beast, and I think it would be hard to put together a rule book for such a game without it being a complex task.<p>But I feel like most complex games (heavier weight — 3.5+ according to BGG’s scale) are hard to learn by rules alone, and these days watching a teach on YouTube — or, even better, a playthrough — really helps with these heavier games.<p>To the OP’s (likely) point, maybe rules alone should be enough? I mean, how else are the YouTube content creators going to learn! :)<p>But I think for heavier games, no amount of rules wordsmithing will allow people to learn them without some fumbling and in-game rules referencing… and still getting some of them wrong.<p>Also, if interested, there is a blog on BGG by the OP, with more discussion there. [2]<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtube.com&#x2F;@gamingrulesvideos" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtube.com&#x2F;@gamingrulesvideos</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;boardgamegeek.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;13453&#x2F;blogpost&#x2F;164134&#x2F;every-board-game-rulebook-is-awful-the-essay#comments" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;boardgamegeek.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;13453&#x2F;blogpost&#x2F;164134&#x2F;every-b...</a>
ChrisArchitect5 个月前
Alternate link instead of Google Drive<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;boardgametextbook.com&#x2F;EBGRIA.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;boardgametextbook.com&#x2F;EBGRIA.pdf</a>
评论 #42299452 未加载
tashian5 个月前
I tried learning to make sourdough bread by reading the Tartine Bread book.<p>The problem is, baking bread is such a sensual activity.<p>You need to understand what it feels like when the texture of the dough is right. You need to learn how to fold and stretch the dough and shape it in ways that are very difficult to describe. None of this translates well into English, no matter how good of a writer you are. And photos are of limited utility.<p>Learning in person from a knowledgeable teacher is ideal. Just as with a board game.<p>But, since we are talking about media here, what helped me the most with bread baking was Instagram. I watched videos of bakers doing each stage of the process and talking me through it. I saw the texture of the dough they were using, and how they worked it.<p>I learned by example.<p>And I wonder if board games are similar to bread.<p>Would I rather read a 70-page rule book, or watch someone play the game for a while or teach it to me in a video?<p>I&#x27;d prefer the video content, and then I&#x27;d want rulebook as a reference guide rather than a tutorial.
评论 #42301437 未加载
评论 #42301447 未加载
furyofantares5 个月前
I feel like they mostly don&#x27;t playtest the rulebook very much, and that doing so would get it in great condition.<p>Watching someone try to learn the rules will tell you exactly where the rulebook is too complicated, doesn&#x27;t introduce something at the right time, doesn&#x27;t reiterate something that needs reiterating, doesn&#x27;t emphasize something enough, etc.
评论 #42299219 未加载
评论 #42300622 未加载
评论 #42300259 未加载
roydivision5 个月前
I&#x27;ve been wondering for some time if it would be possible to create a formal way of describing board game rules. Although there is much variety in board gaming, mostly they consist of some sort of state machine, with events that change that state, and usually a clear end game state.<p>Does anyone know if this has been researched?
评论 #42304408 未加载
评论 #42305556 未加载
NelsonMinar5 个月前
I like zefquaavius&#x27; &quot;holistic summary&quot; of the rules for Daybreak [1]. They&#x27;ve published a bunch of others games rules in this form too [2]. They&#x27;re not sufficient to learn to play the game but are absolutely perfect for remembering the details of how the game works after you&#x27;ve learned once.<p>1. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.google.com&#x2F;document&#x2F;d&#x2F;1blJZCDK2A8DC6f6akcCcQ9_MyiwCgiL85MKAxA29_74&#x2F;edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.4ztrwkiy2miz" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.google.com&#x2F;document&#x2F;d&#x2F;1blJZCDK2A8DC6f6akcCcQ9_M...</a><p>2. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;boardgamegeek.com&#x2F;geeklist&#x2F;190653&#x2F;holistic-summaries-by-zefquaavius" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;boardgamegeek.com&#x2F;geeklist&#x2F;190653&#x2F;holistic-summaries...</a>
jordanpg5 个月前
As with most difficult things, you have to learn by doing.<p>For well-established board games, the best solution is to watch an intro video and then play a few rounds using an online version like BGA if it&#x27;s available.<p>For non-well established board games, someone with some pedagogical chops has to bite the bullet and read the whole manual and then teach it, in little pieces, to folks during an example playthrough.<p>There is a weird conceit among some board gamers that you can know what the hell you&#x27;re doing on a first playthrough. For any moderately complex game or beyond, of course you cannot possibly know much about how to play much less what strategies to use. This is why I don&#x27;t like playing games once or very infrequently.
n2dasun5 个月前
Can confirm. I really like the one for Dice Hospital. I learned from that one that Paul Grogan is the best at doing rulebooks. I also don&#x27;t mind the one for Obsession, but maybe because I just love the game that much
adamredwoods5 个月前
The rulebook is the blueprint for gameplay as the designer intended. The more complex the rules are, the worse job the designer did.<p>That said, some people love to figure out complex rules, and that can be a part of the game experience.
mithametacs5 个月前
Both Pathfinder 2e and the Lancer TTRPG rulebooks are basically software implementation guides.<p>Lots of use of tags and other capitalized technical terms. Information presented roughly in the order you would program them.<p>Excellent on the technical end but also understandable.<p>And a good rulebook has pictures&#x2F; examples too.<p>Lancer does a great job of also presenting mechanics in the order you’ll encounter them. High-level abilities aren’t available till late game and the new mechanics they introduce only become relevant late game. So they’re later in the book.
pcblues5 个月前
For a bit of tangentially related fun, I recommend Steven Jackson&#x27;s Murphy&#x27;s Rules. It was a book of irrational game rules. I used to have a hard-copy of this. Sorry if this is not an official link. You may have better luck finding it yourself :) <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.drivethrurpg.com&#x2F;download_preview.php?pid=317646" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.drivethrurpg.com&#x2F;download_preview.php?pid=317646</a>
Jiro5 个月前
There&#x27;s a problem which he misses in this which appears in this game and almost everywhere: Games that don&#x27;t have any useful words on the board, presumably because the game is to be sold in multiple countries. For instance, the question about what the crystal icons mean could have been resolved if the game had had words like &quot;per round&quot; or &quot;additional&quot; on them.
p1necone5 个月前
One thing that seems to be a trend recently is replacing a lot of text explanations of things with little pictograms. I understand this is usually some combination of needing to fit them onto the game board + avoiding needing to translate more things (and if you&#x27;re lucky there&#x27;s a lookup table of text descriptions somewhere in the manual) but they&#x27;re usually completely incomprehensible to me.
blibble5 个月前
5 year old me could understand monopoly&#x27;s rulesheet easily enough<p>(and if you actually follow the rules the game ends in a reasonable amount of time)
评论 #42300475 未加载
galkk5 个月前
That&#x27;s why I don&#x27;t like&#x2F;play physical board games.<p>Computers are much better in enforcing every arbitrarily complex rule&#x2F;mechanic and there is no need to get into any rule lawyering disputes.<p>Also, I can avoid any boring&#x2F;time consuming stuff like counting tokens, points, scores, roads etc.
TeeMassive5 个月前
I sponsored Nemesis on Kickstarter. A very good game. But the rules are horribly written. 5 years later I still discover new rules. I didn&#x27;t even played the extensions I bought because it turns out 35+ years old adults don&#x27;t have much time.
jes51995 个月前
I think at some point you have to conclude that people <i>want</i> to be confused. That part of the pleasure is trying to internalize a bunch of disjointed nonsense until eventually something clicks
zahlman5 个月前
There&#x27;s a lot to read through here. There have been points I disagreed with, but overall this seems like a very solid overview of basic ideas.<p>I think those ideas could probably be presented <i>much</i> more tersely. But I&#x27;m in the middle of putting up with a 150-page PDF, not so much because I&#x27;m engaged with the material, but because I want an excuse to spend a large amount of time thinking about it.<p>... Which tracks a lot with the start of section 2.2, actually. I <i>could</i> engage on these ideas in my own time and not feel like the author is wasting mine as I read. But the important thing is that I do engage with them at all; they&#x27;ll stick because I&#x27;m actively processing them, just like in the experiment in Spielman et al.&#x27;s book.<p>Another interesting connection I notice here is that Kalb&#x27;s model of experimental learning seems to map very neatly onto the Diataxis model for writing documentation (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;diataxis.fr&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;diataxis.fr&#x2F;</a>).
xpe5 个月前
I&#x27;ve written many game engines (simulations). I&#x27;ve found that parsing the rulebook into code gives me a much clearer insight into the game.
StanislavPetrov5 个月前
You decide to peruse the History. Settling back under the Willow Tree, you open the book.<p>(You read the Book of History)<p>(No, really! Read the Book of History!)
barbs5 个月前
My first thought when I read the title was &quot;but I play lots of new games all the time and I don&#x27;t find it too difficult to learn the rules&quot;. But then I realise - most of the time I find a learn-to-play video on YouTube and rarely learn the rules from the rulebook itself.
assimpleaspossi5 个月前
Has anyone ever tried to look something up in a car manual? OMG!
评论 #42308668 未加载
laurieg5 个月前
My favourite board game rulebook is Pictomania. It starts by giving a very high level view of what the whole game looks like. It&#x27;s a single page in the rulebook and doesn&#x27;t get bogged down in details.<p>Then, it explains the small details of the scoring system. Since you know how the whole game basically works you can mentally hang the smaller rules onto the overall game system.<p>It reminds me of Jeremy Howards Fast AI course. He teaches &quot;the whole game&quot; with some of the details skipped. Then, he adds details one by one so you never get lost. The analogy often used is teaching sports to children. You start with a simplified version of the sport (For soccer: kick the ball into the other goal) and then you add extra rules (out of bounds, off-side, penalties etc) when they come up.
thaumasiotes5 个月前
Clearly false; the Dominion rulebook is stellar.
siva75 个月前
I never got what people like about board games. Studying a manual for hours in order to play a game isn&#x27;t fun to me but people are wired differently
评论 #42305167 未加载
评论 #42304386 未加载
评论 #42302268 未加载
Apreche5 个月前
WTF I am cited in this paper?!?!?!
csallen5 个月前
When I&#x27;m explaining game rules to someone new, my goal is to teach them without overwhelming them with irrelevant info, and without boring them into zoning out.<p>I&#x27;ve found the most important thing to be the <i>order</i> in which I present information, and the best approach to be layered, like an onion. Essentially, I give them a broad overview of everything, then I do it again but with more specifics, then again with even more specifics, etc. Each layer provides context that will make it possible&#x2F;easy to understand the specific details that I&#x27;ll be explaining in the next layer.<p>This runs counter to how most people and rulebooks explain the rules. Usually they try to group related facts together, e.g. &quot;Here&#x27;s all the rules for movement,&quot; &quot;Here are all the rules for scoring,&quot; etc. That&#x27;s great as a reference for people who are trying to look stuff up. But it&#x27;s horrible for a beginner, because (as the linked PDF explains) it ignores cognitive load. It gives people information that only makes sense in context, but it doesn&#x27;t give them that context, so they don&#x27;t understand it. So they&#x27;re forced to say, &quot;Fine, I don&#x27;t understand these details yet, but I&#x27;ll just hold them in my short-term memory while I continue to read the rules until I get some context that helps me understand.&quot; But our short-term memories can only hold a few items, and they usually start to overflow pretty fast, long before the rules add the missing context we&#x27;re hoping for.<p>It&#x27;s the equivalent of telling someone, &quot;Hey, remember this number: 1823. And remember this number: 9094. Don&#x27;t worry, I&#x27;ll tell you later why you need them. But first, remember 6642, too. And 11456. Got it? Okay, just a few more things…&quot;<p>Ugh.<p>Here&#x27;s how I explain stuff instead:<p>1. Start with the goal&#x2F;objective. For example, &quot;The goal is to be the first to get to 10 points.&quot; The goal is the most important context there is! Without it, people have no idea why they should do anything you explain, which means they won&#x27;t fully understand anything you explain, because &quot;why&quot; is one of the most important parts of understanding.<p>2. Explain the general <i>flow</i> of the game in simplified terms, and connect it to the goal. For example, &quot;It&#x27;s a free-for-all, not a team game, so you&#x27;re trying to get to 10 points by yourself. We&#x27;re going to go around in circles where we each get a turn. On your turn you&#x27;ll take some actions that try to help you score points, or at least set yourself up to get closer to scoring points. Then once you decide you&#x27;ve done everything you can, you end your turn, and it moves clockwise to the next person.&quot;<p>3. Discuss the mechanics of <i>how</i> to win, i.e. how to accomplish the goal. For example, &quot;So how do you get to 10 points? Mostly, you can build buildings in this game that are each worth points, usually 1 or 2 points. So the most basic way to win is to gather resources and build lots of buildings. But <i>usually</i> that&#x27;s not enough to get you all the way to 10 points. So in addition to buildings, there are a few special bonuses and cards you get can get that can also give you 1 or 2 points and push you over the edge to 10 points. I&#x27;ll explain those later.&quot;<p>By now, the players have heard the goal of the game repeated <i>three</i> times, they understand the basic flow, and all they&#x27;ve even been vaguely introduced to some strategies, details, and mechanics. With each step, they have more high-level context that makes the specifics I reveal later much easier to understand. (By the way, the game I&#x27;m explaining in this example is Catan.)<p>4. Keep explaining things recursively. Always explain a goal&#x2F;strategy, so people know <i>why</i> they&#x27;re acting, before you explain the mechanics of <i>how</i> to do that action.<p>This has always worked fairly well for me. It&#x27;s essentially just respecting the &quot;curse of knowledge,&quot; which you do by accepting the implications of the fact that your listeners don&#x27;t know what you know.
dpc_012345 个月前
TL;DR? Seems interesting and worth keeping in mind for other types of documentation.
评论 #42298672 未加载
评论 #42298897 未加载
评论 #42298476 未加载
edweis5 个月前
TLDR:<p><pre><code> How Do We Fix the Rulebook? My first answer is: I don&#x27;t know!</code></pre>