In my last post on Rules I talked about where I started my rules-writing process and my thoughts on Conceptual Mechanics. So I’m going to pick up from there by talking about the other type of game mechanics that I have thoughts upon which to speak: Physical Mechanics.

Generally speaking, I think Physical Mechanics are easier to explain than Conceptual Mechanics. Many of the physical functions of board games are well established already: drawing, shuffling, and discarding cards; moving spaces with a pawn; rolling dice and adding modifiers; etc. The difficulty that I find when it comes to Physical Mechanics is deciding what to trust my players to already know. And I’m discovering that this can be a very fine line. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t understand drawing and discarding cards, but specifics for play need to be explained. And I don’t know anyone who doesn’t understand rolling dice and adding them up, but I can really only trust that players with a background in D&D or a similar game would understand adding modifiers or a roll over/under system without any explanation.

So where do you draw that line? Honestly, I don’t really know. And I find myself continuously revising my rules as I consider whether or not I need to explain something in detail or if I find a better way to explain it. The only way to really know you’ve written good rules for certain is to put the rules in front of someone who has never played the game and ask them to follow them and see what happens. And even this is a loaded scenario, because if that player is a gamer they’re going to draw natural conclusions (hopefully ones that agree with your intentions), but if they’re not a gamer type they may not understand your intentions at all.

But is that really a problem? Maybe not, because chances are non-gamer types probably aren’t going to be the ones reading the rules in the first place. In my experience most groups typically have someone they expect to learn and explain the rules (among my gaming groups this is typically me) and that player likely has read rules and played a few games before so they can figure out what the heck it going on and decipher that for others, who we will assume have been dragged into this game by the gamer-type in the first place.

So if we’re assuming that the player reading the rules is most likely someone who reads rulebooks regularly what’s the best practice for writing rules? At the end of the day I think it’s better to be more detailed than not. It drives me crazy when I come up with a rule question while playing a game and while I can make some assumptions or rulings based on what I think would make the most sense I’d rather just have the answer in plain text, because the only time it’s worth it to be vague with rules is if you specifically want your players to discuss or, let’s be honest, argue about them.

I’m thinking an easy rule to follow when writing rules is something along the lines of “have we seen this in Monopoly or Poker or [insert other well-known game here]”? Then you probably don’t need to explain that rule in too much detail. I shouldn’t have to explain to you what I mean when I say “draw a card.” Though I do need to tell you if I need you to draw it face up or not.

And which deck to draw from when you draw it.

And where to put the card when you play it.

And how many cards you’re allowed to have in your hand.

[audible sigh]