I'm currently working on the rulebook for my card game, and I was wondering how you feel about repeating one's self when explaining rules.
The best example would be that there are multiple occasions when I talk about combat with monsters. In the first instance that it's brought up, I write "(Learn more about combat with monsters on page __)". Should I write the same thing on other instances of discussing combat with monsters, or should it be something I only bring up the first instance.
I think a way that repeating yourself works is when you summarize a rule at one point, then get into details of the rule at another. The details should probably include everything you want to know about that part of the game, so if it repeats something that was mentioned in the brief summary, that's ok. Then, if you're concerned that it might be too repetitive, maybe the summary could be more general, so you still have the good details in the combat section?
Also, I think the game design showdown on the forum is great for practicing rules writing. There's one going on right now! It's a challenge, not just making some game in a week, but figuring out how to write the rules with just 500 words, in a way that's understandable, keeps peoples attention, and sounds fun. You don't always need 100% complete rules in the contest, but it's still good practice.
It depends on the format at little. However I see nothing wrong as long as what your repeating is critical and easily forgotten.
In some instances it may be necessary depending on the complexity of your rules. Of course there'e no need to beat a dead horse and repeat the whole procedure every time the rule is mentioned.
The method you mentioned is a good one, mentioning a rule and leaving a notice of further details on a different page is good.
Short summaries are also good.
Sometimes you can forgo repetition by having examples of play in a short section that helps to explain things when they are mentioned among other rules.
I would say repeating yourself in rules once is okay, like hinting to a later page for more specific rules and examples. More than one repetition is prone to annoying the reader. If your ruls is easily forgotten or hard to grasp (which it should not), piut a set of short reminders on the last page, kind of like a FAQ.
Personally, I don't think you should keep doing it. If your rules are fairly complex, maybe a table of contents at the front and an appendix at the back?
Question for forum: In my other game it is a bit more complex (not just card based). It requires resolutions to combat and tiles. I have used references e.g.
(See Fighting Players pg. ) or (See Resolving Ties pg. )
It occurs once for any given topic but there are about 9 references in the rules across 5 pages. Is that overkill?
I would not say so. Once I write rules I will try to give a general overview 'linking' to the exact rules for each phase, which will be explained later on. So if in your general overview you link to the specifics on later pages (once each) it should be fine.
I might write a blog about the parallels between game rulebooks and teaching (my girlfriend soon will be a teacher, so she knows this stuff en detail). Would you (the readers, not Eberhardt specifically) be interested in this?
You could also include sidebars to reiterate some simpler concepts, or concepts that you haven't included yet. It's better than telling the reader to just go look it up, but bear in mind that you don't want them to be even more confused.
Sidebars are also a great way to discuss the big picture so that the player can see how some rules work in relation to one another. I was immensely frustrated on my first read-through of "Labyrinth - The War on Terror 2001-?", because the rulebook kept giving references, but never a big picture perspective. After all, to the author (who already has the big picture), the little details always make sense in the context of the game, but to a first-time reader, it might not.
In summary: don't just give references all over the place: when things are interconnected, sometimes it's good to give an explanatory sidebar to show the relationship between the two rules. Sometimes this isn't necessary, particularly when it's intuitive. It's a possibility that's worth considering.
I think the general behavior is that readers don't refer to another place in the rules, when you say "see _______ later". And it's regarded as desirable to have all the rules needed for something in that place (sequence of play rather than reference rules). I include a "rules often missed or misunderstood" section at the end of the rules to highlight just that.
See my "Sequence of Play versus Reference Rules" screencast at http://youtu.be/fEqtp0c540w
Lew,
As always, thanks for the great video ~ I can tell you that Ernie Copley, Designer of the monster hex-and-counter war game, The War: Europe 1939-1945 distinguished himself by his writing. While it subscribes to the "reference" style found in war games for the past 40 years, he wrote in such a wonderful, conversational tone that the rules proved quite accessible.
Cheers,
Joe
The guy in the video explains the two methods well, but seems clearly biased towards the reference style. There are good reasons sequence of play is showing up more lately. Games are meant to be fun, not a technical exercise. Sequence of play helps make reading the rules less dry. It's not just a list of rules that you have to piece together like a puzzle. It helps you imagine how the game is played, and helps you remember the rules you've read as you go through them.
That said, writers using the sequence of play style should still put some thought into referencing the rules later. I can't stand when I have a vague recollection of a rule that's mentioned once, and can't find it because it seems like it was put in the wrong section or something. Including an index for reference is helpful a big rule book.
 | Hidden Movement: What Makes it Cool? (36) by questccg |
| I need a 5th category of encounters (7) by larienna |
 | Dymino Monsters Update 4-18-2024 (2) by Stormyknight1976 |
| Wizardry Legacy: the Forgotten Academy (12) by larienna |
| TradeWorlds — Tactical Core (3) by questccg |
| Introducing, Jacob! (that's me by the way...) (0) by Jacob |
| Chat GPT: Testing as a design assistant (8) by larienna |
| Winner Announced for the Meta Progression Community Challenge! (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Hi guys ~ Gameland and Yaofish are officially accepting board game design submissions! (1) by questccg |
| A programmer's dilemma (16) by larienna |
| Qubits: a solo trick taking game (9) by Wobt2 |
| Worker placement, Role selection and Action cards: Is it the same thing? (11) by larienna |
| Site Ads and Google Experiments (0) by questccg |
| TradeWorlds — Smuggler's Run (7) by questccg |
| Single Item Shipping at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (May 24-26) (0) by The Game Crafter |
| How to avoid being blocked at content creation (10) by questccg |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (0) by sirvalence |
| In need of some IDEAS concerning a "Battle" System (15) by questccg |
| How to avoid quarterbacking in an adventure game (7) by larienna |
| How complicated could math get? (23) by X3M |
| Can we have gaming ads on this website (7) by questccg |
| Dice Mitigation Challenge - Winner Announced! (0) by The Game Crafter |
 | Delving! - " That is when it hit me, it was starting to feel like other games" (3) by MarkJindra |
| Game Purchase Contract (0) by MarkJindra |
