Sam Pearson at SPGD Youtube channel has an interesting video Technical Writing In Tabletop Games where he talks about various aspects of how to write good rules text by contrasting it with examples that fail in those aspects.
Sam focuses on tabletop miniature wargames in this video.
Types of issues in rules writing
Ambiguous rules
First type of issue Sam brings up is ambiguous rules, ie. rules that can be interpreted in more than one way which leads to conflicts between players and either direct disagreement or potential mislearning of the rules.
He brings up an example of an activated ability on a unit that says:
Blessing of Might, 1 CP
Until the start of the next round, add 1 to the Toughness value of friendly units within 6” of this unit.
He explains how this can be interpreted in two ways (and reveals to me that while I thought of both of them, I intuitively chose to interpret it in a fashion not aligned with how wargamers generally would):
- Activating this ability creates an aura with a radius of 6” around the unit itself. For the rest of the round, at any given moment, any friendly unit inside that radius gets +1 and if they move out of it, they lose it. New units that move inside it, gain the +1 for as long as they stay within.
- Activating this ability “tags” the units that were within the 6” radius at the time of activation gain +1. They keep it until the end of the round regardless of if they move outside the radius later. Also, units entering the radius later will not gain +1.
I think it’s a great example for this type of ambiguous rules text. It’s one that without any extra explanation is impossible for the players to figure out what the correct interpretation is.
Fixing it (for both cases)
To fix Blessing of Might’s rules text to be less ambiguous and more accurate to the first interpretation, Sam proposes adding a word “while” into it:
Until the start of the next round, add 1 to the Toughness value of friendly units while they are within 6” of this unit.
In addition, you could give the ability a keyword or category like Aura Ability to give players extra context on a glance that this is indeed meant as an ability that lingers on its caster. Usage of keywords can also be used as a “hook” that other rules, effects and abilities can reference.
To fix for the 2nd interpretation, you can create a “tag”/“status”/keyword for this effect:
Each friendly unit within 6” become Indomitable until the start of the next round. While a friendly unit is Indomitable, add 1 to its toughness value.
This adds clarity that it’s triggered on activation and like with the keyword/category above, it provides a hook so other rules can interact with it.
In the video, Sam offers a few extra steps that improve the rules text even further for consistency and even more hooks.
Inconsistent use of terms
His second type of rules problem is about inconsistency of terms used. Here, he shares the following example:
Moving
During their movement phase, models can move up to their movement rate in any direction. They may move (including running and charging) up and down ladders and stairs, and over low obstacles such as barrels, boxes, etc.
In normal circumstances models don’t have to move their full distance, or at all if you do not want them to. All exceptions are explained later and invariably involve either charging or compulsory moves.
Running
The normal Movement value of models represents a warrior moving at a fairly rapid rate, but allows time for him to aim and shoot a weapon and generally observe what is going on around him. If you wish, a model may move much quicker than this — he can run! A running warrior can move at double speed (for example, 8” rather than 4”).
Note that running is not the same as charging as it does not allow your model to engage the enemy in hand-to-hand combat.
Sam points out that this two parts of rules use three different phrases to say the same thing: movement rate, Movement value and speed. And he points out that none of them are correct as the game defines the correct term to be movement characteristics a couple of pages before.
This could be a case of writing these bits at different times and failing to notice the inconsistency at editing stage but it could also be a desire of the writer to have more variety in their writing. Variety is often wonderful in prose but in rules text it can create confusion.
Another example he shares has to do with changing the wording of the rules in future editions. In the older versions, they had a rules text that said
… the bearer fights at the start of the combat phase, before the players pick any other units to fight in that combat phase.
and in future edition, they simplified it to
… the bearer fights at the start of the combat phase.
He talks about how this created confusion (and not clarity they sought out to create) as players thought the new rule was another, different rule and not a clarified wording.
Fixing inconsistency
As you create phrases and wordings, Sam recommends maintaining a Standard Wording Document. In it, you keep track of how your game’s mechanics work and how they are explained.
It should include examples of every ability or effect in your game. It helps both while creating new mechanics and while editing the rules.
Sam provides a list of commonly used words that should be standardised within the rules like pick/choose/select.
Natural language vs jargon heavy
Sam places natural English (I’ll use natural language in my notes since it’s not in any way specific to English) and jargon heavy writing as two opposites of a spectrum where every rules text lands.
Natural language is easy to read and follow and flows nicely, following the rules of grammar and uses words in a way that’s natural to the reader.
Jargon is specialised terminology like keywords or shorthands that are specific to the game at hand.
He compares the definition of Fireball spell from Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) 4th and 5th Edition rulebooks. The earlier 4th Edition rule text is more jargon heavy and very condensed while the 5th Edition is more natural language style, although it also includes very specific D&D terminology.
Jargon creates a barrier of entry and a learning curve at the beginning but once you become more knowledgeable about the game, it can help communicate concepts accurately in smaller space and with less ambiguity.
Magic the Gathering is a game that balances with the dense jargon (through keywords and icons) and more explanatory natural language in very tight space on the cards. Some keywords like Flying can be intuitive (like Mark Rosewater explains in ‘Magic the Gathering’ 20 Years, 20 Lessons Learned when he talks about piggybacking) for a lot of players from outside the game but a keyword like Crew 2 is something you need to learn and remember (or have a wiki reference with you) through gameplay.
In Magic, it’s interesting how the keywords are occasionally explained on the card right after the keyword and sometimes not, relying on player knowledge of those words.
While jargon can be effective, it’s also very exhausting to read. Every word packs a lot of information, the text doesn’t flow quite as well and you may need to be constantly checking from a reference guide what things mean.
Glossary and reference
The more often you need to repeat something, the more beneficial it can be to create a glossary or reference in the rulebook to define your own terms and then replace the full explanation with these keywords.
I find it a good choice to have a different formatting (like bold, italic or Title Case) to make it clear when a word is a defined term instead of a regular word.
One thing Sam doesn’t talk about but I feel is valuable to note is that while glossaries, references and FAQs can be a powerful tool to simplify rules texts and lessen the effects of ambiguity, it’s important to not be lazy. It can be tempting to explain a confusing rule or interaction in the references instead of working to improve the phrasing and the mechanic to avoid the need for extra explaining.