I'm going to confine this rant to the friendly confines of this much-beloved zoo.
I suspect few others want to hear.
And maybe most here don't either.
But I'm saying it.
I'm reviewing "Sovereign of the Seas" at the moment and finding it a basically solid, if simple game. I think I will end up liking it a lot as a Napoleonic Age of Sail nerd and recommending it with caveats for the broader audience.
That said, its rule book has proved a hate-box filled with cat hair, wire, and rusted razor blades.
I will leave to the side the rules that contradict one another.
I will leave to the side the rules that the game's author indicates should have been deleted from the final version but weren't.
I will leave to the side the general imprecision and near-opacity of the prose.
I will speak only of cases where I just could not, without the assistance of the designer himself, determine either what I was supposed to do or what the author intended when he wrote a particular phrase, paragraph, or sentence.
Now, to his credit, the author has been making regular appearances at BGG to clarify what he meant by different things. Often enough, I will note, he has surprised folks who had no clue he had meant THAT.
Today, however, he posted this:
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1807278/clarification-battle-results
Read all the way through, please?
Since when, borrowing Doug's usage, did war game designers start offering us "kits" or collections of parts from which to fashion a game? Of course I can house rule everything. It's my game. I paid for it. If my foe and I agree, heck, we can run submarines into the Bay of Biscay and deal with the Victory once and for flipping all. That's hardly the point.
Read for a moment the rules linked to in the front page article by Banzai Cat. Yeah, the front page. Here at Grogheads. Yes there is one.
Those rules were hammered out in 1981 without any of the technological blessings of the present and are far tighter and more precise than a lot of the junk that's being floated out there right now. Perhaps we're spoiled. Maybe it's just too easy now to shove your errata onto BGG's forums -- or offer them as an update pack (shame on you DVG). Perhaps we've got too much of the "hey, let's be like Euros" and chat our way through the rules. I honestly don't know. But not being willing to accept your responsibility to deliver a complete game to your customer base is poor form.
Of course the rules of my youth were far from perfect. Nothing is perfect. But I can recall no designer proffering defenses of this type.
Own your stuff. Own your mistakes. And, once having done so, put in the effort to ensure they're not repeated.
Feel better? ;)
I would not be happy about those kinds of rules issues with a game that retails for $110 (I know the current pre-order price is 'only' $82). Not happy at all.
oy vey
I think you touched on part of the issue at hand; the foreknowledge that they can 'fix it later'.
Between attempting to push new titles out ASAP, and the convenience of the internet, I don't think the printed material in the official release is getting enough scrutiny.
Ofc, the writing has to be faulty in the first place. None are perfect, but some drafts are worse than others.
Rules with any small amount of sophistication requires numerous sets of eyes to proofread and clarify. I've seen numerous examples of KS projects which released early drafts of their rules so future players could check them. In every case, they needed multiple wide-ranging revisions before going to print. They wouldn't have got those revisions if those early drafts weren't released to the public, and the end result would've been a damn mess.
Hell, they still come out with some issues even after public proofreading. But far fewer than most quick in-house jobs.
Other than using the word "could" the rules seem pretty clear to my non-sailing game brain. Disabled with 0/1 damage that ship heads to the closest friendly port. Disabled with 2+ damage that ship heads for the closest non-enemy controlled port (Neutral or friendly).
Did I miss something? :arr:
I'm surprised that rules aren't "play tested" to correct errors or confusion. If they are then this wouldn't be the only instance of confusing or incomplete rules.
Quote from: Bison on July 05, 2017, 07:25:46 PM
I'm surprised that rules aren't "play tested" to correct errors or confusion.
In theory, I think they usually are play tested. Oftentimes you're left wondering though.
Yeah I guess that's my question/point. If you are having people volunteer to play test why not push a draft version of the rules at the same time to play test for clarification or simple editing.
I think part of the problem is that the test groups are too small. Once a team knows the rules, new eyes need to be brought in to read the rules with fresh eyes.
^ Good point.
Quote from: Barthheart on July 05, 2017, 08:21:07 PM
Once a team knows the rules, new eyes need to be brought in to read the rules with fresh eyes.
This.
@Cap'n: He was able to clear up that bit, but my concern was about the Pondicherry piece. The rules explicitly state that you cannot capture a non-grey port. Pondicherry is blue (French). But there's a special rule that says you can take Pondicherry. The British are supposed to be able to take it only after they've controlled the appropriate adjacent sea area for two consecutive turns. But the British don't usually control sea areas -- it's their job to prevent the "European" power from doing so and, as a result, there's no way to mark British control of any sea area. But then he went on in that same forum to say he doubted whether you should be able to take Pondicherry, even though the British did have a go at it historically.
That's not an insubstantial rule about which to be uncertain.
And, I'm sorry, I cannot imagine play testing this game even once and not having the British player have a go at Pondicherry at least once. It's the only French base in the British backfield.
Weird thing with all this, I really, really like the game...
Driving me nucking futs...
Quote from: Cyrano on July 05, 2017, 10:41:27 AM
I'm going to confine this rant to the friendly confines of this much-beloved zoo.
....
I'm reviewing "Sovereign of the Seas" at the moment and finding it a basically solid, if simple game. I think I will end up liking it a lot as a Napoleonic Age of Sail nerd and recommending it with caveats for the broader audience.
That said, its rule book has proved a hate-box filled with cat hair, wire, and rusted razor blades.
.....
Today, however, he posted this:
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1807278/clarification-battle-results
Read all the way through, please?
Since when, borrowing Doug's usage, did war game designers start offering us "kits" or collections of parts from which to fashion a game? Of course I can house rule everything. It's my game. I paid for it. If my foe and I agree, heck, we can run submarines into the Bay of Biscay and deal with the Victory once and for flipping all. That's hardly the point.
I am OK with the designer's seemingly cavalier attitude toward rules. "House rules" are the very stuff of wargaming as far as I am concerned.
Still, while I love Compass games, I have noticed that some of their games could use the services of a good tech writer to check for clarity...and as already mentioned, a good round of play testing should shake out much of problems as well.
Having had a brief fling with recent play testing (for another company), I guess that part of the problem is reliance on volunteer testers. Some folks are really good at pointing out issues with the rules, others are not...
But even the most re-published and revised rules still have issues. I play a great deal of GboH. And in some cases Berg's venerable rules are on their 3rd revision. Take the Great Battles of Alexander for example. After all the eyes that have been on those rules over the years, I still find sections that leave me scratching my head.
In this case, I agree that's a pretty big error/oversight in the rules.
That said, I was playing 1754 Conquest - The French and Indian War at Origins with this dude that was complaining to the Academy Games guy that the rules needed to be changed in certain parts. He went on to say that he loved 1775 Rebellion but had shelved it permanently because of one rule he didn't like. To me that seems a bit crazy. If you love a game that much then house rule it to your liking and keep on playing.
@Cyrano - Thanks for the clarification. That makes no sense. You should not waffle as a designer. Rules should be clear and concise. If the rule(s) is possibly confusing or unclear use an example. You need to be careful when using words like may, should, could or any term that renders a concrete rule ambiguous. Every designer knows that exact meaning of the rule they have written (or they should), but very few review or edit rules with the mindset of a new player who has never played a game before. This goes to Barthheart's point of fresh eyes. If you can do "fresh eyes" pass it over to someone who can. End the end, house rules fix the bugs. O0
I don't mind house ruling things at all. Problem I find is that is tough to get consensus within a group of gamers as to what the house rule should be. That's why it's important that the 'official' rules be well written and unambiguous. Otherwise, it leads to a lot of time spent bickering over what a rule means and if it's 'broken' how it should be fixed.
Gamers love to argue. Rules clarity helps to minimize the bickering.
Quote from: mirth on July 06, 2017, 08:57:05 AM
Gamers love to argue. Rules clarity helps to minimize the bickering.
I demand support for this assertion, sir!
Quote from: Bison on July 06, 2017, 09:36:25 AM
Quote from: mirth on July 06, 2017, 08:57:05 AM
Gamers love to argue. Rules clarity helps to minimize the bickering.
I demand support for this assertion, sir!
Stuff it.
Duel at dawn down by the river! Pick your second, sir.
I choose Bill Murray, of course.
Ghostbusters Bill Murray or Caddy Shack Bill Murray?
Stripes Bill Murray
Caddy Shack!
I pick Grosse Pointe Blank John Cusack.
Okay. Bill and I will both skip the duel and be hanging out with John Candy at the bar with the mud-wrestling chicks.
Can I come too?
Sure.
Uncle Hulka will referee...
The Big Toe
The forum here is starting to read like the game company folders at CSW....
That said, I too didn't see a problem with the rule or his clarification but that's one small example of what sounds like were many cases.
I've seen and been told by designers on more than one occasion "If you don't like it, house rule it". It's hard to read their demeanor on a message board and so I don't know if that is a half-joke or a straight up "go pound sand" type of response. Could be that they feel threatened that the players know how to better the game that they designed; I dunno.
You guys laugh and mock about it but I've found over the many years of playing that the ASL rulebook is probably the best written rulebook out there. Sure, questions arise and sure clarifications/errata has gone out many times but never once have we consulted it (and yes, that is frequent) and not gotten an exact "to the point" answer. It's not a rules book, it's a how-to reference manual and it's very difficult to just read cover to cover but once you know them and have to reference/cross-reference several rules, you'll get right to your answer in there. I wish more of the "meatier" games were like that; I'm thinking Regs XXX for La Bataille right now. The wordy prose seems to read ok when you're just reading the rulebook but when you actually sit down to play and need to find something...ugh, what a mess.
Anyways, good post Cyrano - you certainly have some valid points about the state of game design these days.
@GJK: I greatly admire the rules in ASL. Honestly. You have to know what you're getting into going in, but the whole point of the exercise is to avoid the need to house rule and, yes, that comes at a cost of a small measure of, what, familiarity? Conviviality? I don't know what the word is, but it seems to be what the author of the rules in question sought and what I think I least want in my games.
It's a pity (but understandable) that with the more meatier games you can't have 2 manuals, one for learning and one for reference. The learning one is conversational in tone while the reference manual would be written like the ASL manual. Would be a huge amount of work though.
Quote from: Pinetree on July 07, 2017, 02:09:05 AM
It's a pity (but understandable) that with the more meatier games you can't have 2 manuals, one for learning and one for reference. The learning one is conversational in tone while the reference manual would be written like the ASL manual. Would be a huge amount of work though.
Not a wargame, but Star Trek Frontiers has exactly this. One manual for learning the game that basically steps you through the entire process of a game, with rules references to another manual that is written as a very detailed reference to each rule. It works really well.
Quote from: Pinetree on July 07, 2017, 02:09:05 AM
It's a pity (but understandable) that with the more meatier games you can't have 2 manuals, one for learning and one for reference. The learning one is conversational in tone while the reference manual would be written like the ASL manual. Would be a huge amount of work though.
The "Starter Kits" did just that - it uses more of a conversational style presentation with the rules with idea being that if you got through the SK's and were ready for full ASL, then by that point you should have no problem with the 'tome of rules'.
The COIN series does that w/ the "playbooks" too. They walk you through a turn or two with a narrative in the playbook to help you get the hang of the game.
^Lock 'n Load also has a game play walkthrough that is helpful.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on July 07, 2017, 06:12:27 AM
The COIN series does that w/ the "playbooks" too. They walk you through a turn or two with a narrative in the playbook to help you get the hang of the game.
Most (if not all) of the GMT games do this now.
Good front page review. Game looks beautiful. Unbelievable that the rules are so screwed up on a game that is being redone and where they are charging $80+. I would play with someone else (with house rules) but would never, ever buy something so slapdash.
Thanks for saying so.
My strong impression based on the designer's own comments is that some of the worst "offenses" were not of his making.
They also appear to be heading towards a re-editing of the rule book.
Good signs.