• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
hkmaly

NP Monday November 27, 2017

Recommended Posts

http://www.egscomics.com/egsnp.php?id=698 ... probably. I think I've broken it. It is visible on http://www.egscomics.com/egsnp.php however.

I think the mechanics makes sense in sort of "can't stop immediately". Like, if you get 7, it means you run so fast you can't stop before you actually go 7 spaces even if you want to. Would make even more sense if the pieces would be jumping instead of running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

I think I get the movement idea.  But the rule details seem excessively complex.

 

While I don't do board game design, the reverse direction explanation is a bit weird.  I like the concept but the expression of the mechanic is a bit strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

I think I get the movement idea.  But the rule details seem excessively complex.

3 hours ago, mlooney said:

While I don't do board game design, the reverse direction explanation is a bit weird.  I like the concept but the expression of the mechanic is a bit strange.

Really? It makes perfect sense to me (but then I've been known to explain things in an overly complex manner myself). Out of curiosity, can you elaborate on what you find "complex"/"strange" about the rules / their description?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

Really? It makes perfect sense to me (but then I've been known to explain things in an overly complex manner myself). Out of curiosity, can you elaborate on what you find "complex"/"strange" about the rules / their description?

 

Saying something is weird in the description is weird, just off the top of my head.  The text with the comic should go in designer notes, not in the rules. Explaining about better game play is fluff, not crunch and should not be in the crunch. Try to avoid explaining why a rule is in the rules, if you have to explain why a rule exists, that is what notes are for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mlooney said:

Saying something is weird in the description is weird, just off the top of my head.  The text with the comic should go in designer notes, not in the rules. Explaining about better game play is fluff, not crunch and should not be in the crunch.

Well, you wouldn't normally see that sort of thing in an official, professionally made rule-book, but (a) this isn't the rule book, it's just Hanma breaking the fourth wall to clarify some points, and (b) Hanma has a rather informal, conversational style of explaining things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

Hanma has a rather informal, conversational style of explaining things.

Trust me when I say that informal conversational style of explaining things is a bad thing when you are explaining rules.  Great for fluff, not so great for the real rules.

Don't get me started on May/Should/Must being interchanged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mlooney said:
5 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

Really? It makes perfect sense to me (but then I've been known to explain things in an overly complex manner myself). Out of curiosity, can you elaborate on what you find "complex"/"strange" about the rules / their description?

 

Saying something is weird in the description is weird, just off the top of my head.  The text with the comic should go in designer notes, not in the rules. Explaining about better game play is fluff, not crunch and should not be in the crunch. Try to avoid explaining why a rule is in the rules, if you have to explain why a rule exists, that is what notes are for.

I though this comic ARE designer notes.

You know, playtesting.

44 minutes ago, mlooney said:

Don't get me started on May/Should/Must being interchanged.

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, hkmaly said:

http://www.egscomics.com/egsnp.php?id=698 ... probably. I think I've broken it. It is visible on http://www.egscomics.com/egsnp.php however.

I think the mechanics makes sense in sort of "can't stop immediately". Like, if you get 7, it means you run so fast you can't stop before you actually go 7 spaces even if you want to. Would make even more sense if the pieces would be jumping instead of running.

I think what Dan wanted to avoid with the attraction mechanic was if an attracted player was 5 spaces away from the atractive player and rolled a 7, they would move 6 spaces towards the attractive player which would take them 1 space past, but then move once more to land on the atractive player's space. This would give the other players an easy chance to steal the attractive player's spaces, so instead, Dan made it so that if the attracted rolled a number that was greater than the number of spaces between them and the attractive player, then they'd overshoot and then the next turn, if the attractive player is still attractive, then they'd move towards them again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scotty said:
18 hours ago, hkmaly said:

http://www.egscomics.com/egsnp.php?id=698 ... probably. I think I've broken it. It is visible on http://www.egscomics.com/egsnp.php however.

I think the mechanics makes sense in sort of "can't stop immediately". Like, if you get 7, it means you run so fast you can't stop before you actually go 7 spaces even if you want to. Would make even more sense if the pieces would be jumping instead of running.

I think what Dan wanted to avoid with the attraction mechanic was if an attracted player was 5 spaces away from the atractive player and rolled a 7, they would move 6 spaces towards the attractive player which would take them 1 space past, but then move once more to land on the atractive player's space. This would give the other players an easy chance to steal the attractive player's spaces, so instead, Dan made it so that if the attracted rolled a number that was greater than the number of spaces between them and the attractive player, then they'd overshoot and then the next turn, if the attractive player is still attractive, then they'd move towards them again.

That's obvious. I was commenting how it might make sort-of make sense "lore-wise". It can be accompanies by the player pieces making comically cartoon-style attempts to brake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

Although it would be stretching the analogy a bit if a piece is supposed to move toward a piece in the adjacent square, and the player rolls double six.

Well, yes, but I'm sure you can find example like that in cartoons as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Well, yes, but I'm sure you can find example like that in cartoons as well.

Like the attracted attempt to dive-tackle the attractive, but the attractive dodges and soo the attracted slides/rolls/tumbles past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mlooney said:

The text with the comic should go in designer notes, not in the rules. Explaining about better game play is fluff, not crunch and should not be in the crunch. Try to avoid explaining why a rule is in the rules, if you have to explain why a rule exists, that is what notes are for.

I note within the text quoted in 

 

6 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Yes.

the comment, 

"Document authors should take the time
   to elaborate the security implications of not following
   recommendations or requirements as most implementors will not have
   had the benefit of the experience and discussion that produced the
   specification."

I'd say the need to explain the purpose of a rule when stating it is in direct proportion to the likelihood that someone will say, "That's a stupid rule, let's just ignore that one!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CritterKeeper said:

I'd say the need to explain the purpose of a rule when stating it is in direct proportion to the likelihood that someone will say, "That's a stupid rule, let's just ignore that one!"

A flaw to that argument.

Every rule, regulation, law, custom, or other guideline for activity and behavior will at some point appear to someone to be "Stupid".

Are we going to demand every author of rules provide commentary for all potential audiences?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Are we going to demand every author of rules provide commentary for all potential audiences?

I'm sure there would be considerable increase in quality of the laws if there would be commentary for the parliament included. Commentary which would then go public, not the "we got $200000 donation for passing this" ones, although even THOSE might make the laws ultimately better if they would go public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

I'd say the need to explain the purpose of a rule when stating it is in direct proportion to the likelihood that someone will say, "That's a stupid rule, let's just ignore that one!"

 

2 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

A flaw to that argument.

Every rule, regulation, law, custom, or other guideline for activity and behavior will at some point appear to someone to be "Stupid".

Are we going to demand every author of rules provide commentary for all potential audiences?

Okay, then, in direct proportion to how many people are likely to say, "That's a stupid rule, let's just ignore that one!"  With weighting to account for how important following that rule is for the game to work optimally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I feel tempted to quote the initiative rules from AD&D just to hear the howls and groans from the people who advocate clear and legible rulebooks. But I can't bring myself to do it. :doom:

 

5 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

One word: THACO

2nd Ed AD&D has a lot to answer for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this