Every board game rulebook is awful [pdf]
Overall sentiment on rulebooks
- Many commenters agree most rulebooks are hard to learn from and worse as references, especially for medium/heavy games.
- Others argue there are well‑written examples and that the title overstates the problem.
- Several note that in practice they almost never learn new games from rulebooks anymore, but from YouTube “how to play” or in‑person teaching.
Complexity vs design
- A recurring view: once rules need dozens of pages, no amount of editing fully solves the learning problem; the underlying game design is a big part of the issue.
- Some prefer simple games with deep strategy; others explicitly like “crunchy” rulesets and accept complex manuals as the price of that depth.
- There’s concern that crowdfunding and “maximalist” designs encourage bloated, fiddly systems that are hard to document and teach.
Rulebook structure and best practices
- Strong support for having multiple layers of documentation:
- Quick start / “first game” walkthrough.
- Main rules for normal play.
- A “law” / reference document with precise, indexed rules and FAQ.
- Common complaints: rules introduced out of order, missing or inconsistent terminology, crucial mechanics only explained in examples or walkthrough sections, and narrative/flavor text interleaved with core rules.
- Good practices praised: clear win condition up front, diagrams and examples, player aids/cheat sheets, glossaries and indices, numbered sections for easy referencing, and rules duplicated on cards/boards where they’re needed.
Videos, playtesting, and learning styles
- People split on video vs text: some absorb rules far faster from a short demo video; others strongly prefer reading and find videos slow and imprecise.
- Several argue rulebooks themselves should be playtested with fresh players, not just the game mechanics, though others say usability tests find problems but don’t invent structural solutions.
- Many describe teaching techniques that mirror the essay’s advice: start with objective and flow, then layer in detail and strategy hints while playing.
Connections to technical writing and software docs
- The PDF is seen as a substantial technical‑writing guide disguised as a rulebook case study; some find it valuable, others are put off by its 100–150 page length.
- Multiple commenters connect its ideas to the Diataxis/“four‑types” documentation model and see strong parallels between game manuals and software documentation problems.