Is it just me? Or are AH's rules text efficient shite?

I just traded away GW's classic The Fury of Dracula for Avalon Hill's Gangsters. Wait, wait, ever since FFG went and streamlined their version it pretty much guaranteed that the ol' fangface would never hit the table again, so I pulled the trigger.

I'd heard some good things about Gangsters, and I was sure that it would be up my gaming groups's collective alley (heh). Having now read through the fucking rules for the umpteenth time I'm positive of it.

About those rules: WHAT THE FUCK?! Look, I have no wargaming background, but I have and still do play some rules intensive games, heavy on the chrome-- best example I can site off ther top of my head is GW's (then Fanatic's, then Specialist Games'-- never mind) Bloodbowl. With a rule book comparitive in size and scope to AH's Magic Realm, I still found it easier to learn than a game of what? Medium complexity? Like Gangsters.

First off, I fucking hate anything unnecessarily written in legal format. Unless it involves alimony or kicking me the hell out of my house, don't crack my fucking nuts.

I'm not GW's biggest fan, but if there's one thing they always got right it was their instructions. Simple format: tell'em how, show'em how. All information pertaining to a specific rule is all within the same paragraph followed by an illustration of an example-- none of this:

Step one: further explanation on step one in Section 2.3

2.3 Blah, blah, blahh is further clarifed in section 6.9

Oh for Chrissake! It's thanks to this shit that even a game like Wrasslin' is pain in the ass to learn unless someone shows you how to play-- nevermind the potential aneurism that is learning to play Magic Realm.

I can't be the only here that feels this way.

I just had a vision of Nascar and Shlitz.

I dunno...

I actually kinda miss the CLARITY of Avalon Hill rules. Right now, I'm reading the rules for the new Miniatures Game, "Field Of Glory". Man, it reads like stereo instructions. But it is SO clear.

General Rule A.
-Exception #1.
-Exception #2
Overview and Example.

General Rule B.
etc.

Bodely-Scott breaks it all up into little chunks, all very clear. Its also easy to FIND everything when you're trying to get a ruling in the middle of a game.

The same was true with the better AH rulebooks. (Streets of Fire: Stalingrad had a good one.) Reading it was DENSE- but once you got through it, you KNEW the game.

For one, more and more I hate the 'conversational' style of some rulebooks. Yeah, its easy to read, but then you're always arguing about 'what the rules mean'?? *ugh*.

Clarity. I'll take it over simplicity ANY old day.

Darilian

billyz wrote:

I just traded away GW's classic The Fury of Dracula for Avalon Hill's Gangsters. Wait, wait, ever since FFG went and streamlined their version it pretty much guaranteed that the ol' fangface would never hit the table again, so I pulled the trigger.

If you listen closely you can here the echoing sound of Robmartins falling tears.

billyz wrote:
I just traded away GW's classic The Fury of Dracula for Avalon Hill's Gangsters. Wait, wait, ever since FFG went and streamlined their version it pretty much guaranteed that the ol' fangface would never hit the table again, so I pulled the trigger.

Why aren't you fuckers trading this stuff to me? Honestly.

I don't have any AH games (well, besides Vegas Showdown and Nexus Ops), so I can't insightfully comment. I can say that different rules work for different folks. I don't have problems with "legalese" as you describe if it's used to point to sections for reference. I have HUGE GIGANTIC problems with "flavor" in my rules. Fuck that. Return of the Heroes rules are so bad I never read them. Someone on the 'geek re-wrote them into rules and took out all the dialogue-y BS. I like the Columbia Games rules with rules over here and some sidebar setting action over there. I can dig that.

To each his own, I guess. Unless you want RotH-style--then you don't get your own.

Darilian wrote:

Clarity. I'll take it over simplicity ANY old day.

Darilian

the problem is that it takes several readings for them to ever be clear. the fact that Iam continuously checking up and extrapolating how one rule is described in three different sections of the rulebook kinda limps my noodle.

Clarity at the price of effective brevity-- since textually legalese is brief by definition... oww... my head hurts.

As long as it's not the "Return of the Heroes" type of instructions, I'm fine with anything.

And I prefer AH rules over FGG rules.

Highlighters definitely HELP. I've used up two going through Magic Realm.

Darilian

The prime example is probably Up Front. It's said to have bad rules.

With "bad" I expected unclear or illogical rules, but they are just written to explain an innovative game system to classic wargamers, and therefore nothing for your average Ticket to Ride fan. I have yet to find a clearer rulebook than the one from Up Front. I had no rule questions at all. And the game by itself is very fluid (it rates a 4 on the AH complexity scale, with 10 being Magic Realm and 2 Wrasslin').

Hmmm... just spoke to a friend of mine at work that is an old school, and avid wargamer. He explained the quasi necessity of legal format when it comes those big honking historical simulations where clarity is the imperitive. Chiming in with with what Uba said, he explained that it also considerably lessens the downtime involved in looking up some obscure "chromy" rule that only comes up every so often.

Alright. I give. Legal format make perfect sense for big games.

But I'm still sticking to my guns when it comes to medium heavy games. the best example I can think of is Battlelore/CC:A. They're both using the same system but Battlelore's ruleboook blew CC:A's out of the water both in ease of learning and in ease of use.

MWChapel wrote:

I just had a vision of Nascar and Shlitz.

Duh?

billyz wrote:

MWChapel wrote:

I just had a vision of Nascar and Shlitz.

Duh?

exactly.

MWChapel wrote:

billyz wrote:

MWChapel wrote:

I just had a vision of Nascar and Shlitz.

Duh?

exactly.

Thought so.

Well Chappy, lacking the intellect to come up with something witty, looks like I'll have to settle for something I can wrap my head around.

How's suck my dick monkey boy grab ya?

Schweig! wrote:

The prime example is probably Up Front. It's said to have bad rules.

With "bad" I expected unclear or illogical rules, but they are just written to explain an innovative game system to classic wargamers, and therefore nothing for your average Ticket to Ride fan. I have yet to find a clearer rulebook than the one from Up Front. I had no rule questions at all. And the game by itself is very fluid (it rates a 4 on the AH complexity scale, with 10 being Magic Realm and 2 Wrasslin').

I mostly agree with what you say here, but the Up Front rules also have some truly horrible bits, with the malfunction rules

---

being somewhat surreal. I picked up a 2nd copy of UF off ebay (because someone included the Desert War expansion in with it) which came with the 2nd edition rulebook. Some bits seem better [and some of the early errata in the back are handy] but I'm still penciling in explanations off the web throughout. What AH rules had, UF in particular, that so few games do well [or at all] anymore is the programmed play approach. Those "STOP! You have now read enough to play Scenario X" approach really helps bring the rules home, at least to me...