3 ms·

I've commented a few times (on BGG) on games where too many rules can cause frustration or confusion. Are the rules limiting or are they allowing a new ability?

I've commented a few times (on BGG) on games where too many rules can cause frustration or confusion. Are the rules limiting or are they allowing a new ability? Do the rules follow a path that makes sense to the game (heuristics)? The work behind (tabletop) game design is to create a meaningful product in the most elegant and interesting way. Streamlining gameplay is essential. Keep what is meaningful, throw out the rest, and iterate again. The most recent game I played that I feel violated this was Feudum. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/163839/feudum https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/163839/feudum

milesvp 8y ago
This was my biggest problem with the game Brass. It had too many rules to deal with game breaking moves. Time and time again, I'd see something that looked like a strong move only to realize I couldn't do it in what seemed like an arbitrary 'can't do X in round one'. It was clear to me in retrospec that the rule was because it prevented these strong moves, but it felt tacked on and contrived. Worse, is you have to keep a list of all the things you can't do in your head, and they're the type of rules that are likely to be missed, only to have someone salty over losing look at the rulebook, and say 'wait, you can't do that'.