Reply To: Defining Genres of Rule Design

[Not Connard Sage]

Howard Whitehouse wrote:

I do agree about claims that rules are fast and furious (always that same banal phrase) and just chock full of flavour. Sure, we hope they are. Who would say “Mind-numbingly tedious, and barely related to the topic at all”? Anyone remember the Newbury Rules ‘fast play’ sets, which were fast compared with that company’s glacial ‘normal’ rules, but still pretty damn heavy going. Okay, I’m told so – I’d been scared away by the originals, and wasn’t about to risk the new version. I’d be satisfied if the more complex and detailed rules just used those words as descriptors. There’s no pejorative aspect to them.

 

That was the 1980s ‘Realistic Rules’ syndrome Howard. Just about every set back then were like that, and the general perception was that they were ‘better’.

Somewhere around the early 90s most folks started to realise that life was too damn short. That doesn’t explain or excuse Challenger 2000 however…

 

All I ask these days is that rules are concise, clearly written with illustrated examples. And FUN!!!

 

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.