|
January 2003
Happy New Year, all, and best wishes for another year of
fun and frivolity here at Collector Times. Here's hoping your
holiday season was filled with good times, and that your
memories thereof will not arrive in an envelope from Mastercard.
This month I'd like to discuss something that I believe will
strike a chord in nearly anyone who has sought to learn a new
game or two on their own: Instructions. More specifically, the
clarity thereof. Well written instructions can make the difference
between a game that is played and enjoyed, and one that
collects dust on a shelf somewhere.
I've had considerable experience in both following and
writing instructions. Part of my job over the years has been to
"proof" written test procedures. Essentially, making sure that
the procedure, as written, is not only correct, but
comprehensible. The intent was that anyone with a basic
knowledge of electronics should be able to take one of these
procedures and be able to easily follow it to test an electronic
assembly. What we strove for was a procedure that was simple
enough for a gorilla with skinny fingers to follow. I also had
several opportunities to write such procedures, which I would
then pass over to a co-worker who wasn't familiar with the
equipment to see if I had left something out, or assumed too
much. This was an important part of the process, as it is very
easy to do certain steps in a familiar process without consciously
thinking of them. While I might know quite well how to measure
the signal to noise ratio at J-3, I can't assume that the next
person to do so will be just as familiar with the process as I am.
A good procedure will walk the operator through, step by step,
to ensure that the resulting measurement is accurate per the
specification.
The game designer has the same basic task before them, as
well. He or she must write instructions for the game that are
easy to understand and follow, even for us gorillas with skinny
(or not so skinny) fingers. Otherwise, we're not going to arrive
at the same game process that was intended. The game
designer has the same problem I had in writing procedures,
namely, familiarity with the process that leads to assumptions
and omissions. Even if the designer hands the prototype game
and instructions to some friends to try out, if they're experienced
gamers, they may also have a basic understanding of the process
that will automatically fill in the blanks (a problem which,
incidentally, I also ran into with some procedures I wrote).
The flip side of this, of course, is that old adage of, just when
you think you've fool-proofed something, along comes a bigger
fool. It's extremely difficult to account for all possible
contingencies in written instructions, and impossible to account
for the comprehension level of all possible players. No matter
how clearly it's written, someone will mis-read it. Just because
the instructions say, "If 'X' then this", don't be surprised if
someone reads it as "If 'Y' then that". We won't even delve
much into those who figure they're beyond reading instructions
at all. Those kind most likely play all games by "Calvinball
Rules" (from the old "Calvin and Hobbes" comic strip, it was a
game where the rules changed at whim and circumstance), and
are the bane of gamers everywhere, not to mention a nightmare
to GM's. "House Rules" are a different matter, of course, and
as long as they're explained ahead of time and mutually agreed
upon, are just fine. Try playing chess with someone who
doesn't bother with the set rules, and see how the game goes.
Oy.
What brings this up is an experience my wife and I had this
past week while on an out of town trip. We had picked up a
game from the local game store to play together, and spent some
time trying to clear up some confusion on the rules. While the
game itself isn't too difficult, one of the key processes in playing
it was different from anything we were familiar with, and not
explained as clearly as we might have liked. Plus, we ran into a
couple of circumstances where we were not totally sure how the
outcome should have been, and our particular situation wasn't
addressed in the instructions. We were left having to surmise the
intent of the designer based on how similar situations worked
out. It detracts from the fun when you're left scratching your
head too often.
It wouldn't hurt, either, for game designers to keep in mind
the idea of the stalemate. One of the times we played the game,
we ended up in such a situation, and because neither of us could
afford to lose that round, each replay of that round would end in
a tie. For such situations, it strikes me that the game should have
a "sudden death" provision, even if it's as simple as "Scissors,
Rock, Paper" until one or the other person comes out ahead.
Hmmm... had I thought of that at the time, that would probably
have been a reasonable "House Rule" to solve the stalemate
situation. As it was, we simply agreed to call it a draw and end
the game, but that might not be a satisfactory solution if you or
your opponent are a highly competitive type of person. Arm
wrestling might work, too, but then, the bigger gorilla always
wins.
So, if you're a game designer, please help us newbies out
and try to "dummy proof" your instructions as much as possible.
If you're a newbie like me, and find yourself confused by game
instructions, you can at least comfort yourself with the thought
that you're not alone. With any luck, maybe the spirit of Diane
Fossey will show up and explain the rules to us.
|