Why are Wargames Rules so Complicated ... ?

[Ithoriel]

My "other gaming" (D&D) monicker is "Big Chicken Eating Steve".

As in "Steve who eats big chickens" or "Big Steve who eats chickens?"

Asking for a feathered friend

[Raider4]

As in "Steve who eats big chickens" or "Big Steve who eats chickens?"

This statement illustrates the OP perfectly.

[DecemDave]

This statement illustrates the OP perfectly.

Well yes. A simple illustration would have made the meaning clearer

[steve_holmes_11]

Well yes. A simple illustration would have made the meaning clearer

Closest living relative to the T-Rex.

[ Warning: above statement liable to be pseudoscientific tosh ].

[Leman]

Yes indeed, its arms look too long.

[FierceKitty]

I've always hated the name anyway; redundant, and an ugly mish-mash of Greek and Latin.

As Calvin would probably say, what's wrong with Terrifying killer dinosaur with huge claws and teeth?

[Raider4]

As Calvin would probably say, what's wrong with Terrifying killer dinosaur with huge claws and teeth?

and teeny-tiny hands and arms

[Ithoriel]

As Calvin would probably say, what's wrong with Terrifying killer dinosaur with huge claws and teeth?

English electric rock band is shorter and easier to say

[Norm]

A few years ago, I was interested in a particular boardgame. i checked out the errata file, which was significant and I backed away from buying.

A few years later, I bought the game, there were few issues that I could see and when I read the errata, it turned out that someone thought it a good idea to put all of the Q&A  into the file, even though some of it was clearly already written in the rules and while accepting the person asking the question may have been stuck on the point, there was no reason to suppose that the wider readership would have been.

In consequence, there was too much stuff in the Q&A file, meaning that the relevant stuff was just drowned out. Whoever authored the Q&A file thought they were doing good service, but that misplaced notion undermined the value of the file itself.

So side A of the coin concerns those who don't do well on the rules reading front

But this, side B of the coin, is balanced in equal measure by whether an author can properly pose and close each segment of the rules and whether enough accurate examples exist to ensure that ambiguity is ironed out. Equal is where the rules have been tested by a small group, where the author is always present and so the group 'know' how to play, but this doesn't translate into coherent rules to serve a wider audience as that group loses all sense of where ambiguity is..

Somewhere between A and B is where most rules seem to sit.

then there is the period expert who assumes that the rule is wrong!

Then there is the competitive player who is liberal with both rules and measurements.

What is one to do, other than to eventually settle with gamers who are closest to ones own gaming style / ethos.

[Raider4]

7. Fan driven second / third / fourth .... editions where you fix their complaints (and introduce twice as many).

Urgh, yes. Seen this. Usually ends up a horrible mish-mash of styles, as bits fans like from other games are pulled in.

[fred.]

A few years ago, I was interested in a particular boardgame. i checked out the errata file, which was significant and I backed away from buying.

A few years later, I bought the game, there were few issues that I could see and when I read the errata, it turned out that someone thought it a good idea to put all of the Q&A  into the file, even though some of it was clearly already written in the rules and while accepting the person asking the question may have been stuck on the point, there was no reason to suppose that the wider readership would have been.

In consequence, there was too much stuff in the Q&A file, meaning that the relevant stuff was just drowned out. Whoever authored the Q&A file thought they were doing good service, but that misplaced notion undermined the value of the file itself.

So side A of the coin concerns those who don't do well on the rules reading front

But this, side B of the coin, is balanced in equal measure by whether an author can properly pose and close each segment of the rules and whether enough accurate examples exist to ensure that ambiguity is ironed out. Equal is where the rules have been tested by a small group, where the author is always present and so the group 'know' how to play, but this doesn't translate into coherent rules to serve a wider audience as that group loses all sense of where ambiguity is..

Somewhere between A and B is where most rules seem to sit.

then there is the period expert who assumes that the rule is wrong!

Then there is the competitive player who is liberal with both rules and measurements.

What is one to do, other than to eventually settle with gamers who are closest to ones own gaming style / ethos.

Well said Norm - I was thinking something similar but couldn't work out the right phrasing. A set of rules definitely needs to be able to stand up on what is written - rather than what is meant. And this is where a number of discussions can come from as players with different experience of other rules will have different starting points and different expectations.

Then you layer historical knowledge and expectations on top of this....

Let alone competitive players!

[flamingpig0]

DBMM rules cover ship wrecked Elephants

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Well there is a WRG set covering enraged bees and bears.....

[Leman]

I am thoroughly enjoying solo gaming. So liberating and leaving no desire to go back to club gaming. Social life much more fun down the pub than in a stuffy room with argumentative shouty old men.

[steve_holmes_11]

Well there is a WRG set covering enraged bees and bears.....

Who won?