It occurs to me that the written rule generally takes a back seat to the 'understood' rule in most gamer's experience. Most gamers do not read the rules prior to play, but rely on one or more members of their group to teach the system to them. This is true regardless of whether the rules are NB, Empire, or Piquet. Usually one member of the group is the 'reader' and his understandings are passed on to the others. His success or lack of success in absorbing the rules then lead to several outcomes:

1. He understands the rules well, likes them, and his understandings and approval are passed on to other players. They all enjoy the game and even when 'strange' outcomes occur they all find 'reasons' to accept them, or they create (not write) a rule to answer their objections.

2. He understands the rules well, but dislikes them, and his understandings and disapproval are passed on to the other players. They try a game, but a 'strange' result occurs-this gives them a reason to reject the game and they do. It is never played again by the group.

3. He misunderstands the rules in one or more significant ways, but still likes them, and his misunderstandings, and approval are passed on to the other players. They try a game, but a 'strange' result occurs-they accept the strange result and find convoluted reasons to do so; The 'reader' makes an inquiry to a guru (author) or experienced player and corrects his misunderstanding, which he then passes on, or they create (not write) a rule to answer their objections.

4. He misunderstands the rules in one or more signifigant ways, and dislikes them. His misunderstandings and disapproval is passed on to the other gamers. They try a game, nevertheless,but a 'strange' result occurs-They all throw up their hands and announce that the author in an idiot and never play the game again!

The fact is that each rule set is usually judged initially by one member of the group and his understanding and approval is crucial, because it will directly, and indirectly influence several other potential players. How does a designer get this person's approval? In some cases, it is easy. If the gamer is dissatisfied with a current set, if the rules meet some expectation he already has about a period or rule mechanisms, or if it will add to his own group's estimation of his expertise and/or intelligence.

In other cases, it is almost impossible. If the gamer is extremely satisfied with his current set, particularly if he has an economic or emotional (Playtester) attachment; If they conflict with some deeply held belief that a gamer may have about a period, or rule mechanisms (Move-counter-move), or if changing to this alternative means that he is no longer the most expert in the group on the play of a rule set, or if he feels challenged by others of a differing view as the leading figure-particularly if he has designed a set of rules that cover the same period!

How a set of rules is written can also influence this person's view of the rules. Certainly clarity and structure and its careful application can make a rule set more or less accessible to the 'reader' in a group, but as WRG, FVTW, and some would say Piquet, have shown, this is seldom decisive. The reason for this is that the 'reader' and his group have often made a decision for all the reasons given above and will tough it through out of love-or consign it to the darkness from their dislike-in spite of having to unlock the secrets of the text.

The nature of the group is key to certain rule sets flourishing or failing within their group. A highly competitive group, especially if one or more members of that group really don't like each other (it is not uncommon) will seek out every competitive advantage they can find with little concern to the spirit or intent of the rules, or the historicity of their position. That group can only survive in a highly litigious, heavily annotated, rule environment that spells out every possible permutation of combat and movement.

A group that is less competitive, and enjoys the experience of getting together, playing with history, and have a committment to each other that exceeds their desire to be 'right' or win, will find they can survive with a far looser, and more interpretive rule set. Pat Connor spoke of "gentlemen" gamers. Being a gentleman means that you have a much stronger personal committment to the social group you exist within, than merely winning a game-whether it is a hand of poker, or a wargame.

In many cases, you will go out of your way to see the others point of view, and concede to him on a close point. You see winning on a larger canvas than one melee, or one wargame. Winning is your group having a good time. Happily seeing your friend Jack, who always is defeated, actually victorious in a highly risky attack by cavalry-against YOU! It is leaving the room laughing, with no hurt feelings, and looking forward to next week. It is as if both sides are conspiring to create an exciting, fun experience TOGETHER even though they are also trying to beat the other side.

Piquet has an added twist of being multi-period-which means that, though it may have a chance at being many person's second favorite set, outside of their favorite period where they are 'experts,' it will always be open to "added rules," another die roll, or special cards by people who want to cross the design threshold and make it 'more historical.' They want it to include an effect, a fact, a decision that they personally think is 'important' or 'better.'

It is also 'new.' Though many rule sets have come out claiming that distinction-Piquet certainly earns that description. But it isn't just new in the sense that infantry now move 12" instead of 6", or Cavalry are now a Plus 2 modifier versus another set's 3. It is a new type of wargame. It asks different things of the people that play it. It is far more demanding on players in making decisions - scenario decisions, deployment decisions, or tactical decisions - than a typical set. The player must participate in the design process, not just accept a rigid set of rules. The player must be creative and think about the game he wants to play-he is not a passive slave to the designer's historical viewpoint.

Because it is new, I have had to think of new ways to write the rules-a simple "Here is the turn sequence and the case points that cover it," is not only wrong, it immediately casts the rules in a way that works against their strength-THEY CAN BE SHAPED BY THE GAMER.

I also come from a tradition of gaming, and a gaming group, that is less competitive, and we like to think of as gentlemanly. Many of the 'details' that some want to add in a written form to the rules, are easily handled by us on a case-by-case informal basis. When confronted by a curious bit of terrain or a village-we think of the situation, the nature of Piquet as we know it, and what seems logical, and pose a 'solution.'

Many of those solutions become standard over time, but a few change for reasons that are often strange, but acceptable.

Don Featherstone once told me about his gaming group with a single page of rules. They have been playing together for years. Every once in a while a new potential member shows up to play. He is shown the one page of rules, and they play. What he doesn't know is that there is one very important unwritten rule-If the gamer quibbles, complains, or 'acts the fool' he is never invited back! That rule is only revealed to those gamers who are asked back! In any case, as you experiment with Piquet remember that complexity is the enemy; seek the elegance of the simple answer and the clean rule adaptation. Avoid rules that are too baroque.

Above all, be someone that you feel Don Featherstone would ask back!