It’s one of the most tiresome topics in gaming, not least of all because it is so central: rulebooks. They’re often our first entry point into the game, and as such we expect a lot of different things from them. They have to serve as an instruction manual. They have to explain and explain what the game is about. And finally they have to serve as a reference text during the game.

Occasionally, you might get the impression, that publishers believe this can (and should) be all done with one single rulebook. A feat on a textual as well as didactic level that might only be accomplished by the simplest of games. But as soon as you have a game with rules that can’t fit on a coaster, you quickly reach the limit of what’s possible or sensible.

Much like games themselves, a rulebook has to be adjusted to its audience. The language used is one part of it. Players, who are only now approaching the medium, will not be familiar with common terminology in the scene. A „deck“ is not a term that is self-explanatory. A draw deck, discard pile or card hand has to be made sense of in the context of the game proper, unless you’ve played these types of games before. But the structure of a rulebook must also consider the experience level of the group.

What we expect from a rulebook is to some extent related to how much experience our group has. It makes sense to at least broadly differentiate the approaches we might take.

Expectation 1 – „A rulebook is an instruction manual.“

The purpose of an instruction manual is evident in its name. It instructs players and walks them through a turn of the game. It lays out explicitly which rule to apply at what point. Inexperienced groups in particular are well served by this approach. The process of learning and understanding the game is pushed into actual play. You learn to play from the situations that the rulebook leads you into. On the other hand this comes across as very patronizing to more experienced players. They are accustomed to having a general understanding of the game, before taking their first turn.

An instruction manual doesn’t need to lay out the reasoning for decisions players take. The purpose of an instruction manual lies in highlighting the rules used at specific points during the game. It’s supposed to explain the game’s terms and structure in as clean and simple manner as possible. A great example of this is the game 7 Wonders Architects. Its visual display of a turn easily lays out when a specific rule must be applied.

Expectation 2 – “The rulebook explains the game.”

Whereas an instruction manual leads players through the game, a rulebook that explains the game lays out the various elements and allows players to explore them on their own. That means, that in addition to explaining the rules it also incorporates the theme, in order to point out how the two fit together. The structure of an explaining rulebook starts off with a general overview, before delving into details with the help of thematic references. These rulebooks can be a little more challenging linguistically, as they often replace practical game terms with thematically appropriate ones. Which can lead to phrases like “Place your harvest into the market, and sell it for 100 pesetas to the merchants, travellers (for 150 pesetas each) or to orphans (no pesetas, but +1 on your next harvest for each item).” It’s the kind of sentence that can overwhelm inexperienced players. If you’re not familiar with that kind of technical writing, you will find yourself flipping back and forth in your rulebook trying to make sense of it.

What a rulebook like this is good at, is leading a sufficiently experienced group towards the game’s theme. Even if, ironically, it’s the most experienced players who are skilled at ignoring the theme, once the rules have reached a certain level of complexity. Still, these rulebooks make it easier to understand the tactical and strategic layers of the game. Explaining the reasons behind choosing one action over another makes sense here. The rulebook serves as a starting point to quickly identify goals, even before the first playthrough. At the very least, this rulebook helps to recognize the difference between a good and a bad decision in the game.

A rulebook that explains, leaves you with a general understanding of what the game is about. It might not communicate its rules details fully, but the general play dynamic and thematic shape should be evident.

Expectation 3 – “The rulebooks solves rules disputes.”

This is the most seductive and insidious type of rulebook. At first glance, it seems reasonable and useful. A rulebook that serves as a reliable text to solve questions and conflicting interpretations of a situation. It’s supposed to help players get back into the game quickly, if they are unsure how to proceed in a given situation. That’s understandable. This rulebook is often thought of as similar to a book of laws. Both in its watertight phrasing of rules, as well as how binding they are.

The problem with this approach is, that laws always have to be interpreted. Their application has to be carefully considered, weighing pros and cons, before reaching a verdict. The rulebook merely provides a text. It leaves interpretation, application and execution up to players to a great extent.

If you ever had the misfortune of playing with highly competitive players, you will know how quickly the question “Can I move my token there” can spawn a small courtroom drama at your table.

In the end players need to find a solution and make a decision on their own. Of course, it would be very convenient if a the rulebook had a sentence in it, you simply had to find and read out loud to solve any disputes. (And that does occasionally happen.). But the more layered, complex and detailed a game is, the less anyone benefits from having to play armchair lawyer in order to use the rulebook as a legal basis.

If a game slows down due to a question about the rules, it needs either person who is allowed to make a decision or at least an explicit process to solve these situations. Looking things up in multiple rulebooks, hunting down cross-references or reading online comments is the exact opposite of that.

You need a clear method how to solve rules questions and disputes. The fairy tale of the watertight rulebook, that gets irregular updates by way of FAQs or refined phrasing, does little to free board games of their reputation as hobby of obscure and petty arguments over insignificant details. Thinking of a rulebook as a binding, quasi-legal document causes more problems than it solves.

A rulebook needs to be adjusted for its audience. The less experience the group has, the narrower the decision space over the game’s structure should be. Whereas a more experienced groups can deal with a little leeway in learning and playing a game. Previous experience informs their understanding of both a game’s structure and implied playstle.