Hello everyone, Susan here! Today we're going to talk about the use of the word "Player" in your rulebook. What brought this up? Well Capps was doing an edit for a game that had a thematic name for it's players in the rulebook. Let's pretend (to keep the game's anonymity) that The game was about horse racing, and the rules referred to players as "Racers" instead of "Players".
Capps had said they should go with Players as it is much more clear, but he wondered if there might be better optionsfor certain games or if others might disagree. So I told him to go make a post on BoardGameGeek to ask! It had a poll, and we've decided to quote people who posted in the thread as well to show what they thought.
Should rulebooks only use the term "Player" when describing the people playing their game? We had 92 votes, here are the results!
32.6% said yes, a total of 30 votes.
17.4% said no, a total of 16 votes
50% said It Depends On The Game, with a whopping 46 votes.
Now at first Capps wasn't sure he should even put in that third option, but he wondered if any games had chosen something different for a good reason. Sean Ahern on BGG gave a great example: "I think you go with "player" unless that would lead to confusion. However, the only case I can think of where that was necessary is Blood Bowl. The rules call the player "Coaches" instead of players because the pieces who are moved around the board are referred to as players."
This was a great example of a time when using the term "Player" would have actually been a bad choice so it is really cool to see. A couple other good examples were pointed out by Ben Crane: "Other times where it would be acceptable are in asymetric games, such as stronghold, where you have an Attacker and a Defender, or something like Fury of Dracula with Hunters and Dracula. To say "player" in either of those games when referring to an action that only some players can take makes no sense."
CrankyPants had a great example as well: "I'm in favor of simplicity and "player" should be used when an actual person playing the game is being referenced but some rules require care. In Pandemic, for example, refering to actions available to the Medic are more simply written as "The Medic can do XYZ." This is much more direct and clear than saying "The player in the role of the Medic can do XYZ.""
So there are definitely times when using something other then player is appropriate. However some strong points were brought up on the Yes side as well.
Mat628 had this to say: "There is no reason to get cute. It is good to create defined terms and use them consistently. But you don't need to do that for commonly understood terms. All they do is create a buffer to understanding and get in the way. Flavor text is for immersion. Rules are for clarity."
Brian Franzman said: "Seriously though, I can see where using names like "Racers" just comes across as being cutesy and pointless, unless it makes more sense to use such a nickname rather than constantly restating something like "a player who controls a racehorse" (especially if it applies to fewer than the total number of players present)."
In the end that is what Capps felt in his particular case. He was confident on his suggestion as not using "Player" would have just held the rules back while trying to be cute instead of being clear.
There is a matter of taste here as well, Grant Stewart said, "This is a perfect example for me. Mention that the players will be refereed to by the term for the rest of the rule book and that would cover it." That certainly is also an option if the game designer wanted the rules to start sinking in the theme for a game.
But Shelby Buttimer raised a fair point on this as well: "For another thing, the player is generally not immersed in the game while reading the rule book. At that point, they're simply figuring out how to play. Don't make that harder. If the theme is so weak that the designer really feels the need to refer to the player as "The Elf Lord" to make it stronger, the theme needs some reworking."
But what does this mustache think? It seems to me like every game can be different but using Player should be the way to go unless you have a special circumstance like one of the examples above. So next time you sit down to read a rulebook, see what they decided to use. To those writing your own rulebook really reflect on whether using another term is necessary or just adding fluff.
This is Susan the Mustache and until next time: Every Game Deserves A Good Rulebook
Capps had said they should go with Players as it is much more clear, but he wondered if there might be better optionsfor certain games or if others might disagree. So I told him to go make a post on BoardGameGeek to ask! It had a poll, and we've decided to quote people who posted in the thread as well to show what they thought.
Should rulebooks only use the term "Player" when describing the people playing their game? We had 92 votes, here are the results!
32.6% said yes, a total of 30 votes.
17.4% said no, a total of 16 votes
50% said It Depends On The Game, with a whopping 46 votes.
Now at first Capps wasn't sure he should even put in that third option, but he wondered if any games had chosen something different for a good reason. Sean Ahern on BGG gave a great example: "I think you go with "player" unless that would lead to confusion. However, the only case I can think of where that was necessary is Blood Bowl. The rules call the player "Coaches" instead of players because the pieces who are moved around the board are referred to as players."
This was a great example of a time when using the term "Player" would have actually been a bad choice so it is really cool to see. A couple other good examples were pointed out by Ben Crane: "Other times where it would be acceptable are in asymetric games, such as stronghold, where you have an Attacker and a Defender, or something like Fury of Dracula with Hunters and Dracula. To say "player" in either of those games when referring to an action that only some players can take makes no sense."
CrankyPants had a great example as well: "I'm in favor of simplicity and "player" should be used when an actual person playing the game is being referenced but some rules require care. In Pandemic, for example, refering to actions available to the Medic are more simply written as "The Medic can do XYZ." This is much more direct and clear than saying "The player in the role of the Medic can do XYZ.""
So there are definitely times when using something other then player is appropriate. However some strong points were brought up on the Yes side as well.
Mat628 had this to say: "There is no reason to get cute. It is good to create defined terms and use them consistently. But you don't need to do that for commonly understood terms. All they do is create a buffer to understanding and get in the way. Flavor text is for immersion. Rules are for clarity."
Brian Franzman said: "Seriously though, I can see where using names like "Racers" just comes across as being cutesy and pointless, unless it makes more sense to use such a nickname rather than constantly restating something like "a player who controls a racehorse" (especially if it applies to fewer than the total number of players present)."
In the end that is what Capps felt in his particular case. He was confident on his suggestion as not using "Player" would have just held the rules back while trying to be cute instead of being clear.
There is a matter of taste here as well, Grant Stewart said, "This is a perfect example for me. Mention that the players will be refereed to by the term for the rest of the rule book and that would cover it." That certainly is also an option if the game designer wanted the rules to start sinking in the theme for a game.
But Shelby Buttimer raised a fair point on this as well: "For another thing, the player is generally not immersed in the game while reading the rule book. At that point, they're simply figuring out how to play. Don't make that harder. If the theme is so weak that the designer really feels the need to refer to the player as "The Elf Lord" to make it stronger, the theme needs some reworking."
But what does this mustache think? It seems to me like every game can be different but using Player should be the way to go unless you have a special circumstance like one of the examples above. So next time you sit down to read a rulebook, see what they decided to use. To those writing your own rulebook really reflect on whether using another term is necessary or just adding fluff.
This is Susan the Mustache and until next time: Every Game Deserves A Good Rulebook