FFG Rulebooks

All the talk about the Wiz-War rulebook hits home for me. Blame a poor upbringing and lousy class of gaming friends, but I haven't played Wiz-War, and have no gaming buddies to teach me. I've been sitting on a copy of the FFG version of this for over a year, unplayed, mostly because the rulebook is pretty obtuse, and I never feel like I've got a good enough grasp on it to teach it.

Anyone got a link to a streamlined version of the rules so I can finally get this damn thing played? Preferably with the most fun, chaotic "variants" included.

Sagrilarus wrote: The problem with second person is that most modern games have players taking actions on other player's turns, and it can be difficult to disassociate the two players from one another. I'll agree that as a general rule (particularly when describing the basic running gear of a game turn) second person is nice because it helps provide a narrative of the turn and brings the reader into the action.

This is a fair point. The old Gamemaster games often took a hybrid approach: using second person to explain the "basic running gear" of "your" turn, then reverting to descriptive nouns like "Attacker" and "Defender" when detailing the minutiae. If executed well, it's not a clunky approach. It's situation-specific and modular, and therefore more closely resembles conversational language.

The games that truly exemplify Ameritrash -- the Gamemaster series and its spiritual successor, the '99-'05 Hasbro AH line -- boasted instructions predominantly composed in the second person. And, for the most part, they were really outstanding and well-organized instructions. Very few of FFG's mainline board games exceed the complexity of the Gamemaster series, yet their rulebooks are considerably longer, more disjointed and difficult to parse.

Also, well-written instructions in the third person are quite possible. Considered side-by-side with x FFG product, a whole bunch of pre-Hasbro AH titles contain relative masterclasses in rules clarity and organization.

You want technical writing?

Try Phil Barker's rulebooks...

Michael Barnes wrote: The rules are usually OK, but the format is a mess- call out boxes, confusing page breaks, over-reliance on detailed examples for simpler processes.

While we've all heard the horror stories about Myth, the instruction manual truly has to be seen to be believed. Seriously, click here and download the pdf. The page breaks, the idiotic side boxes, the flavor text, the gameplay examples that do more to confuse than clarify are a cutting satire of Fantasy Flight's rulebook design. Granted, it's not intentional satire, but Myth's manual is nevertheless the comedy smash of 2014.

Oh, and the writing is hilariously awful:

The term Adventure is mostly unofficial. It is a measurement of time for the players, not the Heroes. It is a series of gaming sessions that are linked by a quest or quests. It can be connected through a series of free-form quest sessions, or a standalone Story Quest. It basically refers to a group of game sessions that have a beginning and an end. It provides structure to the quests and can inform the players when it is permissible to attempt Act and Story Quests within the framework of play. It is also important for understanding when and how Titles are used, because Titles are only awarded for Story Quests, not free-form Adventures.

LMFAO

Motheramercy...If I'm reading a 65 page rulebook, it better fucking be Up Front or Magic Realm levels of quality. But yeah, it is like some kind of nightmarish goof on the FFG rules style. At least they have a voluminous index...

Skipped down to the playtesters...says a WHOLE LOT when children, wives and other family members are credited.

My biggest annoyance with rulebooks is when they split it into a beginner and advanced, but don't repeat stuff in the advanced or have an index. So when you need to reference something you basically have to look through two rulebooks to find it. From what I recall FFG doesn't do this and for that alone their rulebooks are far from the worst.

Michael Barnes wrote: Skipped down to the playtesters...says a WHOLE LOT when children, wives and other family members are credited.

Yup. It also says a whole lot when the EDITORS are family members.

Let's not forget the reason why a company like FFG needs to have a 40 page rulebook explaining every single little thing: it's because if they don't, even more stupid questions will be asked in the forums.

Triumph of Chaos and anything by Phil Eklund.

That is all.

ThirstyMan wrote: Triumph of Chaos

AKA Triumph of Chrome.

Case study of what happens when you don't use a developer.

Docktor is a nice guy, but he needs some oversight. I do wish he'd finish his AmRev CDG. Chromefest or not, I'd buy it.