Prev: Re: [FT] Fighter thoughts (LONG) Next: Re: [FT] Fighter thoughts (LONG)

Re: Figther Thought Questions

From: KH.Ranitzsch@t... (K.H.Ranitzsch)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 20:37:49 +0200
Subject: Re: Figther Thought Questions


----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Burton West" <roger@firedrake.org>

> The flip side: they're really not all that complex once you actually
> play them. They're written up to be excruciatingly clear, and there's
a
> fair bit of repeated material for this reason, but in actual play
> they're as fast as or faster than the standard rules.

Complex phrasing is a notorious problem when writing rules, if you aim
to be
reasonably comprehensive and idiot-proof (*). WRG Ancient period rules
(DBM
and their ilk) are perhaps the best (worst?) example of this difficulty.

Examples, graphics, a plain explanation together with the legalese etc.
would go a long way to help make this palatable in a published version.

Greetings
Karl Heinz

*) The term "Idiot" includes rules-lawyers in this context.

Prev: Re: [FT] Fighter thoughts (LONG) Next: Re: [FT] Fighter thoughts (LONG)