"Rules you want to play but not learn?" Topic

What rule sets have you been excited to play but put off learning them yourself?

For me it is Tomorrows War. What I have seen of the rules make me feel I would need to put in the hours to be able to play the game and I just don't have the time to learn them.

I'd play a game in a heartbeat if it was in front of me though!

How can you play a set of rules without learning them?

I do not understand why people say it takes them hours to learn to play a game. After a read through of the rule book I am usually good to go. A good playsheet means it unnecessary to learn the whole system by heart!

I know what you mean.

Though as I think about it I don't get excited by rules that look like they need hours of playing to get the basics of.
FUBAR excited me as it was one side of A4.
Had the same rules been twenty pages with lots of fluff and pictures and diagrams and army lists I would have passed them by..
They may have been the same rules in the end but the fact they appeared more complex would have put me off.

Keep it simple and basic and I am in.
If it is long and complex, or appears to be then I am out, no matter how well the game actually plays once you master it.

I was put off a certain game as I did not fancy reading all those pages, however when someone showed me how to play at a local games day I quite enjoyed it.
Though I discovered there was much more to it that would require some rules study and thorough reading, something that just does not float my boat right now..

My problem is that I find it hard to concentrate when reading these days…

When I played regularly both wargames and roleplaying, the group dynamic was simple, I read the rules and taught the rest!

If you mean rules I want someone to teach me rather then figuring out on my own from the book then Tomorrow's War and Force on Force are up there (but I already know them now). They play easily and are not that complex in actual use, but slogging through the rules to figure that out is hard.

I can't think of any games like that right now though, perhaps the Look Sarge No Charts game or Combat Action Command.

I do not understand why people say it takes them hours to learn to play a game.

Sometimes its editing issues (where is that chart again?)

Sometimes its lots of little rules (what was the movement distance rules again for carrying a heavy weapon, fording a river, and under the effects of combat drugs while in the command radius?)

Sometimes its new game ideas (reaction systems are hard to figure out when you come from UgoIgo)

Sometimes it just take playing the game over and over til you get it! (wait, hold on – the rules say we CAN do that… Yes, I know we got it wrong last game. No I didn't just figure it out when it was me in the same situation.)

Sometimes things just don't click. (If I read it one more time…the wording will make sense.)

Sometimes it's lack of beginner guides. (Well that was a fun 6 pages of rules about facings and charging and not a single picture/diagram to explain a thing.)

Sometimes it a combination of all the above.

There have been games I have picked up in the first reading and there are rules that I still don't get after reading a dozen times.

and there are rules that I still don't get after reading a dozen times.

How strange. I can honestly say I've never had that experience in over 30 years of wargaming.

Field of Glory
GASLIGHT
Squad Leader
Harpoon

Empire.
It works quite well with just a cheat sheet and someone in charge to ruthlessly discard what is not needed.

"Rules" is an overloaded term. If you mean the game dynamics and how they work, then I wouldn't want to play a game without knowing them (or at least, the ones in play at the time I was playing).

If you mean the details of things like army lists, scenario options, point systems, and other stuff that is outside the game, sometimes I am not interested.

Where it gets dicey is when you have many unit capabilities that have their own dynamics (vice parameters of existing dynamics), then I can be content if I know which of the multitude are in play when I am playing.

Magic in fantasy games is a good example of what I mean by this. If I don't know there is a spell that can be cast on swords to make them +1 against my forces, as long as I know that there are swords, and they have a range of damage that could include the +1 value (as opposed to the unmodified value), I wouldn't care. I would consider that a parameter.

If the magic had a capability where my opponent could give orders to my figures during his turn (possession, say), I would consider that to be a dynamic and want to know. Or not know if no one in the game we were playing had that ability.

Even though I have (and love) the Space 1889 rules, I would hardly say I "know" them. I have read them and understood them, but I don't have the details memorized in any way, shape or form. I enjoy playing '89 games at cons because I can go in knowing what to expect (i.e., a 40lb cannon has a shorter range and does more damage than a 20lb cannon).

I have been meaning to get into TSATF through con games with an intro to the rules, but not a detailed memorization of the specifics.

I pretty much don't 'learn' rules – it kind of spoils them … much better to play the artless innocent.

If you play a game a lot, you end up familiar with how it works (which is good, as it makes the game run easily) but you can also end up playing the mechanism more than the game (which is bad) at which point it is probably better to switch to a game you know less well.

Original "Deadlands" RPG.
I do not care for "Savage Worlds" at all.

I love the concept of 3D space combat but there's no way I'm buying Squadron Strike untill I find someone to lead me through it by the hand so I can try it.

Robert

For me it's "Birds of Prey"

I really want someone to show me how to play that beast.

link

I was like that with Field of Glory and "Barrage" for Piquet.

Yea, Birds of Prey for me too, but I don't know anyone locally that plays it, or that is running demos.