The rule book.
Board games need rule books. The rule book is arguably the most important part of a game. It is the introduction for how the player engages with the game. And we designers want our players engaged.
I know some people read game rule books because they enjoy reading them. I am not one of them. However, I do read rule books in spare time as research. How does a certain mechanism get explained in said game? How does the setup get presented? Are images used in place of text for things? Is there a common sequence of rules elements? Are there components not listed in component lists? How are players referred to? Does the rules include a thematic story intro or jump right into rules? What rules are generative and what rules are restrictive? And so forth. I do this research so that I can improve my own ability to write rules for my games and so I can provide a more trained eye to help others with their rule book.
For many designers, writing the rule book is a necessary evil, the bane of the design process. For me, I often write the first draft as soon as I think the game is viable. The game may iterate a ton after this, but the result is saved versions of rules that I can return to (along with the the earlier game
iterations and notes) if needed. This process is what works for me and may not work for others.
Recently, a fellow game designer was procrastinating on writing the rule book for one of his games. I knew he was putting it off and I thought about what might help him get started on the rule book writing process. So, in a reply to one of his social media posts, I wrote:
Step 1: Write the components list.
Step 2: Write the object/ive.
Step 3: Set up the game for real and then write down what you did as the Setup.
Step 4: See if this provides the momentum to write more.
I put a bit of thought into these four steps, actually considering them as a sort of rule book of its own. I gave sequence, parameters, and agency. In fact, this step-by-step suggestion is not how I begin a rule book, but like a writer/editor does, I considered the audience. What does the audience want or need from this? What is the audience's expectation?
I figured the steps had to be small, achievable, relatively simply ways to get the designer to begin the writing process. The steps also had to increase incrementally to show progress and achieve more toward the end goal. The first two steps can take very little time to complete, too. Step 1 is simply a list of mechanicals, the necessary tools. Step 2 is more expository, writing the object of the game or objective of the players. This is not quite a game summary or one-minute speed pitch, but rather a concise way to tell the designer's audience (the players) what the players are trying to achieve.
Step 3 is something I always do for my rule books. This is something I consider to be a critical exercise. This allows the designer to handle the game, to think of the game more than to think of the rules-writing process, and to analyze whether the way the designer set up the game is the best, most efficient way of doing so. Then, the designer writes down the best way to set up the game. The writing aspect of this step is really a kind of note-taking, in that it is very sequential and mechanical. Step 3 could take 10 minutes, if the setup is easy and already well-established, or two hours, if the analysis of the setup and explanation of it presents issues or potential confusion that the designer then wants to address before writing it down.
I left Step 4 open-ended. Does the designer now have the momentum to keep going? At that moment in time, maybe not. But that is okay too. A chunk of the rule book has been created. Progress has been achieved. There can be a sense of accomplishment just from those steps being completed. There is a foundation to which the designer can return and build the rule book.
If momentum occurs, the designer may then proceed with whatever they feel is the next logical part of the game to describe or explain. But, and this is important, what is being written at this time is the not the final draft. So, while I did not say it in my social media post, I urge "Just get it down." Write it all down. The process could be stream of consciousness, a brain dump of all the rules of the game in whatever order they come from the brain to the paper/screen. The process could be very methodical in terms of the logical progression of how to present the game's rules. This is really up to the designer. The goal is just to get it all written down.
This is just the first draft. The sections of the rule book may shift, be reordered, be rewritten. For me, revising and editing the rules after that first draft is a great critical analysis of the game. If I am struggling to explain a rule clearly and/or concisely, maybe the problem is the rule itself. If I cannot succinctly present the rule, how on earth would I expect the audience to implement the rule without confusion, ambiguity, or even disdain?
Designing a game is a creative process, and making the rule book can tap into that creative part of the brain, too, particularly in relation to pulling the audience into the game's world. The first draft of the rules may be very clinical and directive. But going back into it for revisions, the designer can (or should) weave more of the game's theme, tone, terminology, feel into the rules. Let me say though that the rule book must be written for the intended audience. If a game is for ages 6 and up, the language must be appropriate for age 6. If the game is for ages 13 and up, then the language can be a higher level. I don't mean just the word choice, though that is vital. If the rules are buried within exposition of the world, 6-year-olds are likely to miss context, so more straight-forward, mechanical rules are better (Player X can do action A or B. Then, player X can...).
This leads to whether the rules allow for player decision-making or constrain what the player can do.
On a recent Ludology podcast, Sen and Erica spoke with author Gordon Calleja about his book Unboxed. Part of the discussion was about rules and Calleja's breakdown of rules as generative or restrictive. I agree with the author. Generative rules and rule books bring the gamer into the game's world better, but this does not mean restrictive rules are bad. Essentially, generative rules are those that generate the game's world and player agency. Restrictive rules are the boundaries, restrictions, and constrictions upon the world and players. I think the better rule books use both.
Again, consider the audience and the game itself. Is many instances, restrictive rules can actually be presented in a generative way. For example, let's say a player can do one of three action on each turn. A restrictive approach could be "On their turn, the player must draw a card, roll the two dice, or play a card." A generative approach could be "On each turn, the player chooses one of three actions. 1. They may select one card from the available cards in the center of the play space to add to their hand. 2. They may roll the two dice and place the dice on their player board. 3. They may play a card from their hand and complete the ability on the card." Either approach may be perfectly appropriate for the tone of the game and the intended audience.
The rule book is the doorway to the world within the game's box. It introduces the audience to the world, how to play within that world, and most likely how to win within that world. Whichever way, method, or approach is used, the designer should take advantage of what can come from writing the rule book. A designer engaged in the rule-writing process is more likely to engage the audience in playing the game.
Opmerkingen