by Hermjard
chris1nd wrote:
I do believe that people who have (a) not written rules, (b) not designed games, and (c) not really even played the one in question, should suspend their hubris.
What you know about me, interesting. Before I start to play any game, I compose a summary for a game, sometimes even illustrated. Summary is the wrong term though, because in some cases, these summaries are bigger than the original rules. The badder the rules, the bigger the summaries. Often the nature of the game determines the scale of the summary, despite of good rules. In some games, because of dozens interdependencies of card effects for example, it can be quite huge. The biggest ones count 156 pages (Descent, Arkham Horror, War of the Ring, Lord of the Rings LCG) and include nearly everything half-way important, what was discussed in these forums. And there were people who begged for these summaries. I am also regularly asked to take part testing game prototypes. I was even prompted to invent games on my own. I know, you are bursting to brag with your activities. But man, I still feel no necessity, to look up to you.
chris1nd wrote:
p.s., The game works just exactly the same using big cubes and little cubes either way. If that is your pedantic fulcrum, you are really grasping at straws.
Sure it does. That was not the point. The point was, to show you how thoroughly you work with written rules. And to show you, how often you question you game habits and reread the rules, once you played a game. Ah, I forgot... it's not about written rules. It's about game experience.