Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="lin_fusan" data-source="post: 4617169" data-attributes="member: 37085">In my time as a QA guy for a board game company, I've discovered that people learn rules in two different ways:1) Dude buys a game and reads the rulebook. Sometimes front to back, sometimes skipping. This kind of person (or learning style) works due to the amount of time (and interest) in absorbing the information, and gets a good chunk of the rules. 2) Dude buys the game and decides to learn-on-the-fly. He follows the rulebook like step-by-step instructions, pick the sections that are relevant at the time and muddles through. This kind of dude (or learning style) works because he has turned these abstract words into practice.I personally don't think that #2 works well with this PHB because players (not DMs) would jump only to the sections that pertain to them (such as classes). Personal example: The Fighter player marked his target. The target attacked another player, and the Paladin player mentioned the radiant damage. Both players were confused at first, compared both abilities, then wondered if 'marked' meant the Fighter ability or the Paladin ability. That triggered my 'game term' danger sense and I flipped through the PHB&nbsp; looking for 'marked'.Another example: Movement is explained in 'Movement and Position' but it also explained in 'Actions In Combat'. For example, I wanted to figure out how to 'Run' and I instinctively looked through the 'Movement and Position' section, but it's located in 'Actions In Combat'.If every player in my game read the book cover-to-cover, then we wouldn't have this issue. Instead, we wanted to jump into a game right away.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="lin_fusan, post: 4617169, member: 37085"] In my time as a QA guy for a board game company, I've discovered that people learn rules in two different ways: 1) Dude buys a game and reads the rulebook. Sometimes front to back, sometimes skipping. This kind of person (or learning style) works due to the amount of time (and interest) in absorbing the information, and gets a good chunk of the rules. 2) Dude buys the game and decides to learn-on-the-fly. He follows the rulebook like step-by-step instructions, pick the sections that are relevant at the time and muddles through. This kind of dude (or learning style) works because he has turned these abstract words into practice. I personally don't think that #2 works well with this PHB because players (not DMs) would jump only to the sections that pertain to them (such as classes). Personal example: The Fighter player marked his target. The target attacked another player, and the Paladin player mentioned the radiant damage. Both players were confused at first, compared both abilities, then wondered if 'marked' meant the Fighter ability or the Paladin ability. That triggered my 'game term' danger sense and I flipped through the PHB looking for 'marked'. Another example: Movement is explained in 'Movement and Position' but it also explained in 'Actions In Combat'. For example, I wanted to figure out how to 'Run' and I instinctively looked through the 'Movement and Position' section, but it's located in 'Actions In Combat'. If every player in my game read the book cover-to-cover, then we wouldn't have this issue. Instead, we wanted to jump into a game right away. [/QUOTE]

Verification