The Best Rulebooks

Ideally, a good game will have rules that are logical, intuitive, and easy to remember. But there are some great games with more complex rules, and players may need to look up rules from time to time. Even some simpler games may have a steep initial learning curve if the rules are sufficiently novel.

So which games have the best rulebooks? What makes them the best? Tight organization? Handy cheat sheets? A turn sequence on the back cover of the rulebook? Plenty of pictures and play examples? A glossary? Also, why did Fantasy Flight acquire a bad reputation for rulebooks several years back?

I am a big fan of the turn sequence / rules summary on the back of the rulebook. Dungeon Command does this, and it is much appreciated.

Obligatory "Combat Commander" mention for concision and precision and ease of reference. Eclipse's rulebook is pretty clean and tight. The Nexus Ops rulebook for Avalon Hill is nicely laid out. For a complex game, Mage Wars is about as clear and tight as it can be, with an apprentice mode, prebuilt decks, and regularly updated trait/condition codex. Though maybe not best in class, Terra Mystica's rulebook does a nice job of adding some flavor and, more importantly, noting race-specific exceptions to key rules. Lots of honorable mentions should probably go to various GMT rulebooks of recent vintage for their inclusion of separate and often highly detailed playbooks--the Fire in the Lake playbook comes to mind for both detail in play examples and in card and historical notes (though the main rulebook is no picnic).

Edit: Hey! I'm now a "d6"!

I've always liked the design of the Alea rulebooks. Just having a consistent layout and design strategy does wonders, even though some individual games do it better than others. I really like the side-bar on every page that calls out basic rules and examples. It makes returning to the rulebook to find something specific much easier.

My favorite is the ASL binder. It's like reading a holy bible, so many rules and so many beautiful acronyms. I only wish I could get it Illuminated.

For some reason Here I Stand just worked perfectly even though it is an incredibly complicated game.

Spartacus has a nice rule book. Big, colorful, organized, clear, with some nice visual aids. I also like the catchall "Dont be an ass" rule.

I really hate the Combat Commander rulebook. Constantly flicking through it trying to find the relevant part. Totally illogical.

ThirstyMan wrote: I really hate the Combat Commander rulebook. Constantly flicking through it trying to find the relevant part. Totally illogical.

This is the worst post anyone has ever posted anywhere.

I like the Columbia Games (HAMMER OF THE SCOTS, &c) layout. Important stuff in the middle, well described, fiddly shit on the margins. Indexed. Nice graphics.

The rule books from FFG always get a lot of hate, but I like them a lot - yes, also the old ones in the square format. While they could be a pain to search for a specific rule (looking at you, Arkham Horror) what they did and still do is give you a feel for how the game will actually play out. I actually find I know the game just by reading the rules, while that is not the case with most other rule books I've read.

I agree that Spartacus has a great rulebook. All of the Gale Force 9 rules I've read are great. They're very clear, easy to understand and you can cruise through them quickly.

Wizards of the Coast has done an impeccable job with the DDAS games. Those have some of the most concise, easy to comprehend rulebooks.

I also agree that Alea has some nice rules. They all follow the same format which I really like. It sets an expectation and you know what you're getting. The little cliff notes in the side bars make it a breeze to find an important rule/section.

For me FFG is pretty hit or miss. They've been MUCH better over the past 3-4 years. I do like how they've split some of their bigger games into two books (Eldritch Horror).

The main thing I look for is readability and being able to quickly understand the rules/concepts being presented. There are some rulebooks where the sentences are so poorly worded that you're literally re-reading the same thing over and over trying to make sense of it. I also hate it when important rules are glossed over or in a section that doesn't make sense. Most rulebooks that I've had trouble with are due to poor translation.

Agree on DDAS, which I thought about mentioning but didn't. Really, they do a very good job of being accessible to nongamers (I think) while being generally complete enough for gamers.

I think HotS is fine, and Julius Caesar, and probably some others, but once Columbia Games start getting into the more complex areas, the format they use for apparently everything starts to fall apart for me. Victory in Europe is a good, recent example of how shoving everything into the three-column format (plus a really seriously low page count) makes something look simple when it's not. Even for the simpler games, CG tends to wantonly mix rules and fluff in their sidebar column, which I don't much care for.

(Note: Good rules and a good rulebook are not necessarily the same thing by anymeans)

A good rulebook must have:
1) Clear and CONSISTENT language. Nothing is worse than when a game gives more than one name to one activity or function and then uses them interchangeably.

2) Cross references. Ideally a rulebook should define a concept before explaining a rule or procedure that uses it. Sometimes, especially in games where there are lots of wheels within wheels, this is not feasible without a lot of repetition which is not necessarily a bad thing but increases page counts. In those cases at the very least there should be a reference to the rules section where the relevant concept is explained.

3) Clearly labeled sections and subsections. Wargame rules do this as a matter of course but seldom do I see it in more mainstream games. It is so helpful when it comes time to look something up.

4) Table of Contents, Glossary, and most importantly and INDEX.

5) Examples with pictures near rules they describe and ideally a separate section or playbook that contains an extended example of play.

Things like sequence of play, summaries of certain procedures (combat etc) and any other aspect that all players must constantly reference should be on a player aid. Yes turn sequence can be on the back of the rules as well but isn't needed if the player aid has it.

Things that make a rule book bad other than the opposites of my points above are cuteness. Man I hate that. Trying to insert jokes or be funny, insertion of flavor text in the middle of rules. These things annoy me. Conversational tone is ok sometimes as in the Devil's Cauldron rule book but often isn't.

For a reason why Fantasy Flight got such a bad rep regarding rule books you only need to read the rules to Fury of Dracula to understand. I've played that game 20+ times and I still get confused on the combat.

Woodall wrote:

ThirstyMan wrote: I really hate the Combat Commander rulebook. Constantly flicking through it trying to find the relevant part. Totally illogical.

This is the worst post anyone has ever posted anywhere.

Apart from the one you just posted. Dick