Terminology

Use simple language and terminology on your cards and other components.

You're just trying to help players understand the game.

Even when your wording is correct, and you use simple language, people will still fail to understand things. They'll assume things work in ways that would be clearly overpowered, they'll imagine rules that aren't there, and they'll sometimes just fail to read sentences. Only a minority of players will think "if it worked like X, they would've worded it like Y, wouldn't they?" Don't make this even worse, by using complex wording and terminology.

The Radlands camp Reactor says it "destroys all people". I get people regularly asking if "all" is both players' people, or if it's just the opponent's people. People ask whether "this turn" is just your turn, or whether it's the whole round.

Jargon

Do not use jargon for existing concepts that have an ordinary English word for them. Your deck is just a deck of cards, no matter how much you try to spice it up, by calling it the "archive", "spell book", or "army".

Create jargon when you create a new entity, such as a second deck. However, your jargon should be minimally creative. Its overwhelming objective should be that the greatest number of people correctly understand it. Use whatever word fits that objective best. Tell people a concept, and then ask them what they'd call it. Then, use that name.

I like to use neutral terms like location, person/character and board wherever possible. This is even more important when you have varying types of that thing. I don't want to have to remember which guys are "allies", which are "mercenaries" and which are "heroes".

However, you should avoid using known concepts, from classic games. This includes words like joker, wild, and run. These are themeless and immersion-breaking, reminding the player that they're actually just moving bits around, and not participating in an exciting world.

In Egypt-themed Egizia, there's a worker with a white skirt. He's the only worker that can add his strength to another worker. The game calls him the "joker". When I teach people the game, I call him the "helper". It's far more explanatory, and is thematic.

My publisher renamed Radlands' locations to Camps, and citizens to Punks. These added theme, while not being confusable.

Many people do not know terms from other games like Magic and Dungeons & Dragons. Do not include:

• target (something of your choice)
• resolve (happen)
• control (have)
• 3d6 (three six-sided dice)
• active player
• orthogonal (adjacent, but not diagonal)

Even things like search your deck, and reveal a card, are unknown concepts to many people.

Many things don't need a name

Do not create a named "zone" for everything, that you refer to, and that players will need to remember. Things can just be "in play" or "on the table" instead of "in the battle zone". Cards on the table, but not in play, can just be "set aside".

Just because Magic calls your deck the library, and your discard pile the graveyard, it doesn't mean you should. Magic is a game with a huge amount of depth and complexity.

Language

As with jargon, the phraseology you use (typically on cards) should simply be that which conveys the correct meaning to the most people.

The Magic card Dead Ringers reads "Destroy two target nonblack creatures unless either one is a color the other isn't." Basically, the two creatures have to be exactly the same colour or combination of colours, and not black.

Do not just copy the wording style straight from Magic. It's too verbose and technical. Use less precise, simpler wording.

You do not get any extra points for being technically correct. Only huge games like Magic need exact terminology, because they have complicated rules, and are always creating new cards.

The Radlands card "Looter" has the damage icon, and then it says "if this hits a camp, draw a card." The word "hit" isn't defined anywhere in the game, but it's obvious what it means. Replacing it with several technically-correct words would be ugly, and cause a small number of players to not understand it.

You can be very conversational in the language you use on your cards, as long as people know what you mean. You can also be redundant.

A camp in Radlands once had the text "You can only use this ability in a turn in which you play no other abilities." Basically, it must be the only ability you use in a turn.

If you analyse it, there are temporal problems with this strange wording. When you use it, you don't technically know whether it's valid to use it or not, as you're not yet sure whether you'll use another ability later in the turn. Technically, the card's text should tell you that you can only use it if you haven't played any abilities this turn, and it should prevent you from using any further abilities this turn. Despite this technical error, everyone understood the card. There was never a problem.

You can literally just use an example, for highly variable abilities.

In my pirate game, you put the tokens on the board. Rather than roll a die to see where each one goes, you roll one die. You put the first token on the space with that number. If that space has a player or token on it, you add one to the number, and put it on that space instead. If that space is also taken, you continue adding 1, until you find a free space. Then, you put down the next token, starting with the number you just put the token on, plus one of course.

I recently reworded this. It now says "Roll the die. If you roll 2 (for instance), put the tokens on the 2, 3, and 4. Skip any numbers which already have a token or ship on them."

If anyone is failing to understand something, it's your problem.

Explanatory text

It's fine to put explanatory text on cards. Just some small, grey text, that people don't have to read, but that people can refer to if they get confused.

It's standard practice to put explanatory text in brackets. People who understand the rules will skip it. If you don't put it in brackets, players will assume it's rules text, and wonder why you're restating the rules on the card. Maybe this card changes the rules.

Rules depth

Do not cater to rules pedants, by adding extra text to your cards to make them exactly accurate. Cater to the 99% of reasonable people. I answer Radlands questions all the time, where the answer is obvious, but it would be possible to interpret them differently.

There's a Radlands camp called Catapult. You destroy one of your own people (which is a significant cost), and damage any one of the opponent's cards (which is a great ability). The art shows Catapult hurling a punk through the air. Someone asked me whether the destruction of your own person was a mandatory cost, or part of the effect. If they activated it without having a person to throw, would it still do its damage? Come on.

These days, I tell people quite openly that the rules of Radlands are shallow, and inconsistent. Some questions will have arbitrary rulings that are good for gameplay, or match the theme. Others simply have no answer.

Write game text for ordinary people to understand, not for precision.

I also don't really bother with rules accuracy at all during playtesting. It's just for you and the playtesters.