Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 2280662" data-attributes="member: 172">You seem to be in denial that that rules light systems must lead to inconsistant rulings.&nbsp; My own experiences have led me to acquire different beliefs -- ones that seem to be supported by repeated empirical testing. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Now I wonder why we came to different conclusions in our so called &quot;empirical&quot; testing.Hmmm... could it be different conditions like different players, maybe?Great! Then why are we having this argument?Not too much differnet than people making unfounded claims that rules heavy games are &quot;too complex.&quot; Because, well, for their purposes they are. The assessment that a game is &quot;incomplete&quot; (or contrariwise, provides more than you need) are the direct outcome of a comparison to your own very personal definition of what is &quot;needed.&quot;Let's try this little excercise.I'll own that rules heavier game come with some attendant overhead in learning and or referencing rules. But my tastes and talents make this tolerable.Now you own up that &quot;rules light games require more ad hoc rulings with less benefit of forethought thus are more inconsistant, but your tastes and talents let you tolerate it.&quot;Ready? GO!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Psion, post: 2280662, member: 172"] You seem to be in denial that that rules light systems must lead to inconsistant rulings. My own experiences have led me to acquire different beliefs -- ones that seem to be supported by repeated empirical testing. ;) Now I wonder why we came to different conclusions in our so called "empirical" testing. Hmmm... could it be different conditions like different players, maybe? Great! Then why are we having this argument? Not too much differnet than people making unfounded claims that rules heavy games are "too complex." Because, well, for their purposes they are. The assessment that a game is "incomplete" (or contrariwise, provides more than you need) are the direct outcome of a comparison to your own very personal definition of what is "needed." Let's try this little excercise. I'll own that rules heavier game come with some attendant overhead in learning and or referencing rules. But my tastes and talents make this tolerable. Now you own up that "rules light games require more ad hoc rulings with less benefit of forethought thus are more inconsistant, but [i]your[/i] tastes and talents let you tolerate it." Ready? GO! [/QUOTE]

Verification