Thursday 19 September 2024

Game Design #107: Weird Concepts = Simple Wording

I recently read my daughter The Vagrant. It's pretty weird sci fi for an 11-year-old, where demons have broken through a rift and are kinda possessing/interacting with the human populace, whose empire is led by mysterious angelic beings. 

However. It had short, punchy sentences. Which made it easy to interpret. Kinda like a noir detective novel. Or a comic. Or Lee Childs. 

The short, simple sentences (often quite cleverly chosen) made a difficult book digestible.

So the (perhaps obvious) message here is: The more complex your topic/rules (or unique your mechanics) the simpler your wording and the more illustrations/examples you need.

Here's the rulebook example that made me also think of the topic and prompted this post - I discovered it in my recent exploration of my pdf rules folder:

Killwager. Blomkapfesque sci fi. I loved the idea of it - the rules gave me a feeling that guys who had played Infinity wanted to simplify things, trim out the bloat and make the gameplay flow, with less IGOUGO and more integrated actions. To focus more on gameplay and choices than stats and special rules. My kind of thing. The models are also very cool, if rather pricey for 3D prints.

But it kinda suffered from unclear rules, not helped by renaming common wargaming terms so you had to translate them in your head. Take these passages, which is the very start of the rules:

For a miniature to influence the battlefield it must perform. When a Model performs it may declare Measures and have Measures declared against it. The results of these declarations are called a “performance.” A performing Model may only declare one Measure, or two Measures chained together per performance unless noted.

Each Model may have a maximum of 4 Flow at any time. Flow is a resource. Models spend Flow by declaring Measures. You know how much Flow each opponent’s Model’s have spent. Different Measures spend different amounts of Flow.

First you need to figure out performance = activation, measure = action (not distance), flow = action points....  ^Extra translation stage

....Then grasp how the measures (aka actions) are resolved in a particular order: Automatic -> Direct -> Trained -> Technical. (There's also reactive measures!). Each class of measure (action) has its own sub rules. While there isn't many stats or special rules, there's ~25 actions (measures, I mean!). It certainly needed a lot more illustrations and examples than it contained. Rather like a Steven Eriksen Malazan book, there seemed a kinda assumed familiarity.

The ideas behind Killwager are great. It's certainly different. It's the sort of game where if you are willing to spend time on Discord or watching how-to-play videos, or have an enthusiastic friend to teach you, it's probably great. But the rules should not be reliant on outside sources. As an early adopter, it is very offputting.* Also, paying $35+ AUD for a pdf (which doesn't actually do its job fully) then being asked to pony up for army lists seemed a bit GWesque to me...

*I'm using this as an example, not attacking the author/s - I'd recommend a gander at their latest (free!) rules, BLKOUT (sounds like a musician? like Weeknd!) which has a very tidy layout with rules labelled old-school style like 1.2, 1.3 etc and uses conventionally named Actions, Activations, Initiative etc. It's 100x easier to read and understand - so they obviously have fine tuned things a lot! I wouldn't be surprised if these new rules replaced Killwager altogether.

TL:DR

The post title seems kinda self evident, but the folk who visit this blog seem to be dabblers or even creators of esoteric indie rules and mechanics so I thought it worth highlighting - for example Killwager has great concepts but may not 'stick the landing' or get the widespread play its cool concepts deserve....

Also as a side rant, renaming commonly understood wargaming terms and stats is not creative or innovative, it's f****g annoying.

....Whereas a boring 40K clone like Bolt Action or (surprisingly dense rules) Flames of War needs little explanation/can get away with sub-par examples as I can extrapolate from previous knowledge.

Perhaps as a somewhat isolated gamer in a small town, this is something I notice more than others (as the rulebook is often my first exposure to the game). On the other hand I am an avid PC gamer and tend to also avoid games where you need to spend hours on Youtube to grasp the basic gameplay. (X4: Foundations is an amazing game but the fact is has 120+ keybinds kinda speaks for itself!)

Have you ever come across interesting rules whose rulebook (and layout/explanations/lack thereof) actually was the barrier to playing?

8 comments:

  1. I completely agree with the use of common labels to simplify things, although it's also fair to note that the common labeling is by convention. There's no reason we couldn't be rolling "bones" to resolve "performances" spending "flow", it's just that we collectively use "dice" and "activation" and "action points." Now if "performances" and "flow" are thematic, it can be understandable from a game world immersion POV, especially if it's a lifestyle game like D&D, 40k, or Kingdom Death. But if it's a small, simple game, then the designer should keep the rules simple.

    - GG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An author can use any terminology they like - but it is an unneccesary barrier, needless complexity to translate into common parlance. Like requiring a phone to use a special adaptor to connect to USB. You CAN do it, but it's not improving the product.

      If the author need to use the words flow instead of action points, or rename fisticuffs instead of fight to make the game unique/special/have a "thing", I feel they probably are missing the point.

      -eM

      Delete
    2. Yes, but done well, it's like going from German to Swedish.

      - GG

      Delete
  2. Hola

    Creo que en un manual de reglas quieres comunicar algo, y cuando quieres comunicarte has de usar el lenguaje adecuado.

    Puedo decirte un vehículo de cuatro ruedas con motor, pero termino antes y más claramente diciendo coche.

    Un saludo desde España.
    MM

    ReplyDelete
  3. We were playing Killwager at my club last year for a bit but found the terminology a huge point of friction. We moved onto SkullCore, also by ESS, and it was better written and more readily played for it. I played the Beta version of Blkout and it was (different) but a more solid product. I'd likely have stuck with Blkout but I found the release version was missing the wagering concept and I found Black Powder Red Earth. Now there's a game that just gets thinks right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't find if I have the BPRE pdf but I think I've tried it?

      It came with a comic series, was a relatively short orange-y book, had cards, and you shot first, THEN moved which I thought was unusual. Can't recall much besides an impression it was quick and "lite" i.e. no suppression/morale/reactions you either dead or alive...?

      -eM

      Delete
    2. I think you'd remember BPRE if you had played it - it has a distinct feel about it. Each Turn has a Direct Fire, Manoeuvre, and Assault Phase that creates the foundation for some really though in-game tactical choices. E.g., activating a Unit during the Direct Fire Phase provides shooting bonuses but then leaves the Unit unable to move - alternately a Unit activated during the Maneuver Phase can Move and Shoot.

      There's no suppression per se, however there is a staggered effect - the game is typical of many Moderns systems with firefights being lethal (i.e., no hit points etc).

      It really shines when playing the 'official' map layouts inclusive of building interiors - lots of action can and does occur on a 2x2 table.

      Lots of other little features that collectively make for a great game IMHO.

      Delete
  4. I find the easiest way to make rules readable is the following:

    - Bullet points for rules
    - Numbered lists of action steps to resolve outcomes

    Simple yet effective.

    ReplyDelete