These rules are nowhere near as complex as combat rules in AD&D and yet I find my eyes glaze over when reading even clearly well-written summaries. I think the

These rules are nowhere near as complex as combat rules in AD&D and yet I find my eyes glaze over when reading even clearly well-written summaries. I think the problem is actually that these are actually "combat rules", but they are never explained as such. The combat is between the investor and the investee, in that the investor wants as much as possible for his money under every circumstance, and the investee wants to give as little as possible in every circumstance. Certain important moments and thresholds have become "standard circumstances" over time, and these are basically used to divvy up the battle into bite-sized pieces. Imagine a variant of D&D where every encounter begins with you and your party naked, and after assessing your enemy you have to negotiate with Elves for your armor and weapons - to be paid for after either winning the battle. (If you lose, you might have to give back your battered armor, and try a different group of Elves). In the best case, if you beat the final Boss (which is always the same, the Grand Vizier of Product Market Fit) then you get to keep like 10% of the treasure and the Elves get 90%. (You could grind lower level monsters to buy your own armor, but that can take a very long time and it might wear you down until you're no longer fit to be a warrior anymore. The Elves are smart because they risk money (which is replaceable) but not life (which is not).)