How to write rules the Hollandspiele way
https://twitter.com/amabelholland/status/1654231400806076418
Amabel Holland (@AmabelHolland) 2023-05-04
9 times out of 10, we do a rules rewrite for every game we publish. Let’s take a quick look at some basic principles we follow, and the reasons behind them.
1. SIMPLE AND DIGESTIBLE
Especially with wargames, a lot of rulebooks make games look a lot more complicated (and more intimidating) than they are. A common culprit is excessive organization: rule number 2.3.2.1 (a) feels daunting.
With few exceptions, when we use case system rule numbering, we only drill down a single level - 1.0 is followed by 1.1 and 1.2, but never 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 and 1.2.1 and 1.2.2.
“Okay, but what about the info that would have been in 1.1.1 and 1.1.2?”
Well, we include that in 1.1. Either we incorporate it right into the rule, or we break it down into bullet points within the rule, or we break out a subheading - but we don’t label that subheading with a rule number, because that makes it feel complicated.
2. WHEN IS THIS USEFUL?
We’re careful not to over-explain or go into too much detail too early. The person reading the rules is trying to grab onto and retain information, so hitting them with a bunch of details and edge cases when they’re still finding their footing is bad.
As a general rule, everything before the sequence of play should be relatively quick and breezy. I’ll show you the pieces and tell you what the number means, but not every application of them. “This is a Combat Factor”, but I’m not telling you how Combat works until later.
If there are some really unusual concepts that need explanation as soon as possible, I might include them in the early sections of the rules, to give context that will allow you to comprehend what follows. The point is to give a big picture before going into detail.
You’re building someone’s understanding of the game piece by piece. You’re handing them jigsaw pieces one at a time, and each has to snap into place with what they’ve built already.
3. VIGOROUS WRITING IS CONCISE
strunk n white bay-bee
“a sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts”
Our rulebooks tend to be shorter than what was submitted to us, stating each rule in the most concise way we can. We also try to avoid redundancy within the rules.
For example, if t-rexes are removed from play when you hug them, and triceratops are removed when you hug them, I’m not gonna put a sentence stating that in rule 4.1 T-REXES and a sentence in 4.2 TRICERATOPS.
More likely, I’ll put a sentence in 4.0 that goes, “If a dinosaur is hugged, it is removed from play”. Restating the same basic rule 6 times in 6 different specific sections not only makes the rules longer, but it also makes the game feel more complicated, and here’s why:
It makes it feel like you’re handing the player six distinct unrelated jigsaw pieces to represent the same rule/process.
(You’ll note, then, that all three of these principles are interrelated.)
And, finally:
4. WHIMSY!
Too many rulebooks pretend they weren’t written by human beings. A small dumb joke here and there, something that suggests a personality, it gives delight and makes it feel more approachable, like someone sitting across the table teaching you the game.