Read on Twitter
One thing on my mind a lot over the past few days is the idea of overexplaining versus underexplaining in rulebooks. I find myself coming back to this topic constantly, but especially so right now, as Fort is getting released and reviewed, and as Oath is wrapping up. (1/11)
Assume that a rulebook includes all the rules on paper in order to play the game. If you executed them like a computer, you would play correctly. For some people, this is sufficient. But many people—likely most people—need more. They need context and clarification. (2/11)
Context (including proper theming) explains the “why.” Clarification highlights the implications of rules—a game has a finite number of rules, but those rules can have an essentially infinite number of implications. (3/11)
Underexplaining leaves out critical context and clarification. Overexplaining gives so much that it’s impossible to parse the important from the unimportant. I likened overexplaining to “death by a thousand paper cuts” during my work on Root. https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1885915/editor-diary-usability-fun-and-profit">https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/18... (4/11)
Unfortunately, distinguishing under- and overexplaining is a wicked problem—per Wikipedia, “a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize.” (5/11)
And what are these requirements? People’s needs—which depend on demographics, games experience, the setting and time allotment of the teacher’s prep and the group’s play, social dynamics, and even. Needs also change over time: learning the game versus reviewing rules. (6/11)
This variance of needs is why I like to run some game tests in bars. They tend to be some of the least hospitable atmospheres for learning a game, so if the game experience shines there, then that’s a good sign. (7/11)
For Oath, early rulebooks were muddled, mostly because they presented the actions with little context for why they might be useful. Eventually, it became clear that Oath would require LOTS of context—it’s a sandbox-y, open game. It can feel “out there” and intimidating. (8/11)
The solution to this was actually quite simple—just tell people why the actions matter. (This is in the playbook, which is meant for learning, not reference.) I cannot describe just how many rulebook readers have said “This is the best!” (9/11)
The second element of this strategy is the call-and-response walkthrough in the playbook. Much like Root, Oath will include a walkthrough to get you started from scratch, but we’ve iterated on the style by adding a nugget of clarification or context after every action. (10/11)
These strategies seem obvious now, but this is why it’s good to use blind readers to get lots of feedback—most of the time, you can& #39;t define the wicked problem until you& #39;ve felt around for a halfway effective strategy. Only THEN do you see what you needed all along. (11/11)
I could go on and on, but I& #39;ll stop there. This is probably the seed for a much more involved development diary. Just needed to get this out of my brain!
