Why are Wargames Rules so Complicated ... ?

[Big Insect]

I cannot claim any credit for what is posted below (much as I would like to have written it).
It has been copied (word for word) from the Facebook LADLG rules page, and posted by the rules author.
NB: a (much awaited) new addition of the the LADLG Ancients & Medieval rules (a current favorite of mine) was made available on the 19th April.
Having gone through the Errata phase after the release & publication of BKCIV I can heavily relate to the sentiments of the LADLG author 

   
" I am often asked why the rules are so complicated; Here is the answer : !

In a bar I went to the bathroom, and there I noticed a sign:
"Employees should wash their hands.
I then began to imagine the questions that would be asked by wargamers:
- Which employees should wash their hands? the hands? The employees of this company? or those of any company?
- Do they have to wash them even if they are not on duty?
- Does this also apply to former employees? if so, for how long after the end of their contract do they still have to wash their hands?
- How often do they have to wash them? and how is it counted?
- Can I wash my hands elsewhere, or do I have to do it here?
- Should those who have already washed their hands before coming here start over?
- Can they wash their hands before going to the toilet? or during? or before and during? or only after?
- If they have to wash them after, how long after? Can I wash my hands two hours after using the toilet, or should I do it right away?
- If I have to do it right away, what if I want to do something else here? for example brushing my hair? Do I have to do this before washing my hands? or after ? and if I do it after, do I still have to wash my hands? and if so, how long after?
- Same question as above, in case I blow my nose?
- What if I blow my nose and brush my hair (in that order)?
- Which hands exactly should I wash? can it be someone else's hands?
- If two employees come in at the same time, can they wash each other's hands? or should everyone wash their own hands?
- Should we wash both hands? If so, in what order?
- I tried to wash one hand and not the other, but it is very difficult. Can you explain how to do this?
- What should I wash my hands with? With the soap that's here, and that stream of water? or can I bring other products? and if so, which ones?
- What if there is no more soap? does it still count as "washing"?
- And if it doesn't count as "washing" what happens next? If I haven't washed my hands, am I still an employee? Or does that terminate my contract, but then that would exempt me, paradoxically, from the obligation to have washed my hands. So the rule is contradicting itself!
- What happens if I don't wash my hands? who is checking? and how ?
- Are you going to quickly publish an Errata to cover all these issues? Because it is very annoying.

... And this is why the rules end up looking like this:

"Any employee of this company, on duty when using at least one toilet or urinal in this building, and whatever his other activities in this room, must - afterwards have completed everything he had to do in this room - wash his personal hands using the soap provided on this sink, before leaving this room to return to work. This without taking into account any hand washing that may have been carried out before. Failure to do this, even if not controlled, exposes the employee to being suspended or sanctioned (under the responsibility of the manager on duty at the time). "

In a follow-up response:
"To be frank, a lot of our thinking has been centered on "how are the English going to get around this?"

This last sentiment, I also relate to hugely as a rules writer - English wargamers are, by their very nature it seems - pedantic about rules. Wanting them to be 100% cast-iron in their meaning and intent, in every way and every circumstance possible (no matter how obtuse). This characteristic applies to a rule, even if the actual 'intent' of that rules wording is crystal clear. Which is very odd - IMHO - as English can be probably the most ambiguous language on the planet!

Anyway - I thought you might all enjoy it as much as I did - it made me laugh (in a mad uncontrolled & manic manner!)

Mark

[FierceKitty]

You'd be quite impressed by the ways Latin, logical as it looks, can be ambiguous.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

No Mark - it's cause Phil Barker was a health and saftey director at British Leyland. He also was addicted to multi clause sentances, lots of comas, covering several vital points.

[Raider4]

It's hardly Barker's fault that wargamers try to bend & flex what's written down as much as possible. He may have written that way to try constrain them? I think that's the point of the OP.

[DecemDave]

 

:
"Employees should wash their hands.

The problem surely starts with this not even being a rule in English.  Phrased due to our Brit politeness, its an expression of wish made by an authority  exhorting others to behave.   Like : I should lose weight.  I should stop buying 10mm figures that I wont live long enough to paint.  People with Covid symptoms should isolate....

Maybe this is why those elderly players of WRG 5th in another thread stuck to it!! 

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Maybe this is why those elderly players of WRG 5th in another thread stuck to it!! 

No plyers of 5th left as far as I know, it's 6th they play, almost the ultimate set of "Barkerese" ever writ...

[Big Insect]

The problem surely starts with this not even being a rule in English.  Phrased due to our Brit politeness, its an expression of wish made by an authority  exhorting others to behave.   Like : I should lose weight.  I should stop buying 10mm figures that I wont live long enough to paint.  People with Covid symptoms should isolate....

Maybe this is why those elderly players of WRG 5th in another thread stuck to it!! 

I couldnt agree more Dave - words such as 'should' have no place in rules or health & safety 

[Leman]

Have to agree with Raider4. There are some proper prats out there whose sole aim in life is to win at everything. Don't make rules complicated. If you come across one never play them again.

[Nick the Lemming]

No Mark - it's cause Phil Barker was a health and saftey director at British Leyland. He also was addicted to... lots of comas,

You'd think if he was  health and safety director, he'd want fewer comas, not more.

Or did you mean commas?

[FierceKitty]

The OP was commatose!

[Ithoriel]

Many moons ago, when the world was young, best beloved, I played a wargame whose rules suggested that if an event occurred that was not covered by those rules and if the players could not agree how the matter should be resolved that die rolls should be used to decide which interpretation be used, to keep the game moving.

My opponent spent fifteen to twenty minutes arguing how many of what type of dice should be rolled how often to come to the decision.

We eventually settled on best of three rolls of 2D6.

Never played them again.

[DecemDave]

 

I've always wondered if the games of the pioneers like Featherstone, Grant, Griffiths et al were quite as gentlemanly as their books (and rule sets)  portray.  Perhaps it was an ex services thing or maybe since there were only a handful of gamers in the country it paid to be nice.

And yet most of my games have been solo anyway.    Is this a coincidence?   

[Gwydion]

In a follow-up response:
"To be frank, a lot of our thinking has been centered on "how are the English going to get around this?"

This last sentiment, I also relate to hugely as a rules writer - English wargamers are, by their very nature it seems - pedantic about rules. Wanting them to be 100% cast-iron in their meaning and intent, in every way and every circumstance possible (no matter how obtuse). This characteristic applies to a rule, even if the actual 'intent' of that rules wording is crystal clear. Which is very odd - IMHO - as English can be probably the most ambiguous language on the planet!

Mark

It's odd that anyone would think English (British?) wargamers are keen on rule precision. Back in the 'good old days' I can remember Brits finding the apparent overblown pedantry of American Boardgame rules hilarious.

You know; the numbered paragraphs (an excellent idea) and the weirdly precise description of everyday objects and actions (not) ?

'the attacker [see S.4.a.iv] throws a d6 [a regular cuboid of uniform density, each face of which is marked with a single integer from the set one thru six) in order to generate an attack value [see s4.b.xv]. The d6 should be thrown on a flat even surface and allowed to come to rest of its own volition, displaying one integer uppermost which will be the number used to generate the attack value.'
I can think of several English rule sets which now that pad their word count in this fashion for no apparent reason other than making it look like 'value for money'.

[Steve J]

'Should' is advice in terms of H&S, so is not compulsory. 'Must' is an order and is compulsory. Oh the joys I had when I trying to implement my old company's H&S policy!

I heard a nice story from Stuart Asquith about Donald Featherstone when he was playing one of his ECW games. In short Featherstone made Haselriggs cavalry almost impossible to beat as he had them on his side and was quite happy with this state of affairs, despite everyone else disagreeing with him!

Back on topic, rules cannot cover every conceivable situation. I remember Rick Priestley writing one of his pieces in WS&S where a fellow games said he could shoot through his own units as it didn't specifically say he couldn't in the rules! I feel 'conpetition' type rules try to cover all bases and so end up being open to rules lawyers trying to exploit perceived loopholes etc.

[kustenjaeger]

I know quite a few (but by no means all)  comments on lack of precision of a number of wargame rules come from American readers.

However it is incredibly easy to be unintentionally imprecise.

There's also a language thing.  In my experience US English treats 'should' as 'must' and the UK and much of the rest of the world treats 'should' as 'it is recommended that'.  So international standards (at least in my line of work) use 'shall' to mean 'must'.

Edward