Have you noticed how many times in a game that players must refer to several locations in the rulebook to determine how to resolve a debate? It seems that the majority of rulebooks have a layout that defies easy location of critical information. The problem is further complicated by the lack of an index or cross-referencing system. Most rulebooks have incorporated quick reference sheets or something similar to remind us of the basics such as sequence of play, shooting and melee factors, movement rates and weapon ranges. Most of these do not have any reference to the location in the rulebook where this information is contained. This means that the player has to then try to locate the information by skimming through the rulebook. We can all remember a situation where it was necessary to check three or four different places to find out how to complete an action. For example, a cavalry unit consisting of two types of figures in two ranks is attempting a charge. The first rank will be using lance or similar shock weapon and shield. The second may have the ability to fire, as its figures are bow-armed. Generally, one or more players have to check sections dealing with charges, shooting, morale tests and formations. These sections must also be checked as applicable by the intended target of the charge. A third check may be required if the target evades and uncovers another potential target, should the charging unit have the option to convert the charge into a pursuit. In defense, writers can argue that they spend a great deal of time developing a logical layout for their rules. Most rulebooks in fact follow a pattern, which can be seen by the titles or headings that are commonly used. The first part usually relates to what is needed to fight a battle and the general scope of a game including figure ratio, points system, dice, terrain and measuring devices. The player then encounters game set-up, movement, shooting and melee. Somewhere in there may be a section on morale and testing of morale. The penultimate section normally is the post-melee phase. The final section concerns how to determine victory. Overall the layout covers three main topics: how to prepare for a game, how to play a game and how to determine who wins. Most of the first part can be considered well before a game is begun. The second part consumes all of the timeframe of a game. The third part is a consideration during the game, although most players will know the main points before play begins as the outcome is normally pre-determined by the attainment of victory conditions and/or loss of units or figures. Following a standard layout certainly makes it easy to find basic information; however, there is less standardization when it comes to specifics. Did the writer place information about "troops entitled to shoot in a charge" under charge moves or under shooting? Experienced players can usually find what is needed because of their familiarity with the rules. Regular use of the rules either resulted in memorization of the details or knowledge of where to look for specific information. The inexperienced or infrequent player has a much harder task. It can be very time consuming and frustrating having to refer to the rulebook to determine how to proceed with certain actions. Sometimes, it is necessary to read carefully so that a precedent is not missed. It is easy to miss things because of some simple quirks. Some rules require the use of different types of dice, which means that players must remember when to use each type. While the quick reference sheet may list all the shooting ranges, it may not identify the shooting arcs, which are found somewhere in the main text. If one uses a variety of rulebooks, then it is easy to get confused and forget the nuances particular to each set of rules. This is compounded if using more than one rulebook for a specific historical period. Then it becomes easy to confuse even the basic rules--now is it four inches or six inches per move? I think that this issue warrants more attention particularly by writers, who envision their rules being used in tournaments. Most tournament rounds have a time limit, which can be very constraining for some players. If you face an opponent, who refers frequently to the rulebook and takes lots of time in doing so, then there may not be enough time to achieve a decisive result. The blame should not necessarily be placed on the players, who may have to modify how they interpret the rules in a tournament. Even experienced players can be confused by the convoluted prose employed by some writers. In addition, some information, which may be crucial to completing an action, may be buried in a long paragraph or placed separate from the major points pertaining to that action. This is one reason that interpretations and detailed diagrams became popular. Most tournaments do not restrict entry to veterans only, although this may be preferred. Even when two experienced players are in a game, it may be too much to expect them to quickly resolve their differences without recourse to the rulebook and/or umpire. Everyone has a different way of interpreting the written word even if only minor variances. There will be times when the umpire is not able to quickly respond in order to resolve an impasse. It is these times when quick discovery of the essential information is important. One method used among players is the dissection and reconstruction of the rulebook so that all information pertaining to one subject is grouped together. This can be a very time consuming process as each paragraph and in some cases sentences must be reviewed so that the information can be placed in the appropriate place. Often material will have to be reproduced several times so that it can be added under each specific heading. This approach works well with thin rulebooks. Tournament gamers may wish to do this regardless of the size of the rulebook. Another way is to colour information with markers designed specifically to highlight text. Information related specific subjects can be highlighted using a colour coding system. For example, shooting could be green and charging could be blue. This works well as long as one does not need to refer to many sections for different subjects and large sections do not need to be highlighted. It is appropriate for identifying less obvious material in long paragraphs. These are only good until the introduction of errata and/or amendments. Changes to some rules occur several times in a one-year period. At a time when most rules are written on a computer (or word processor), it is surprising that more effort is not expended to ensure that an index or cross-referencing system is included before the rulebook is published. Most modern word processing programs can be manipulated to develop an index. The quick reference sheet can also be annotated to include the source of each major entry. One approach for writers to ensure that players can find information is to task playtesters to list each location pertaining to an action. This may be very useful to identify which sections need to be highlighted by cross-referencing or indexing. Using the example above, each section or paragraph pertaining to a charge can be identified so that players know when they read about charging that they must look elsewhere for shooting in a charge, charge responses, permitted formations and anything else which may apply. With such a system in place, it may be easier for all of us to complete our games in the timeframe suggested by the rule writer. It is a goal to which I aspire just like assembling toys for Christmas without having spare pieces at the end. Back to Saga #75 Table of Contents Back to Saga List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2000 by Terry Gore This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com