"Do you prefer "fuzzy" rules?" Topic

Two lines of thought:

On one hand, we have games that are pretty vague, general or loose, assuming that the gamer will fill in the blanks to fit their game.
An example might be a game like Rogue Trader or AK47.

On the other hand, we have games that try to account for everything and provide complete answers.
Examples might be something like War Machine or Bolt Action.

Both styles have their adherents. Which do you prefer and under what circumstances?

1: Very fuzzy
2: A bit of fuzziness is good
3: Depends on the game
4: Pretty concise is preferred
5: Hard and fast, tournament style rules.
6: I am a special snowflake and will outline why below.

4.

I'm sorry, I don't understand the concept. Could you give some examples of "fuzzy" rules?
I'm thinking a "fuzzy" movement rule would be something like "Infantry move about 6ins." Am I right?

First off, all rules are "fuzzy" in this context. It's a basic property of formal systems. But I would also go with …

4

It's what I write to and what I like to play. The rules should clearly outline what decisions the players can make but not overly constrain all the outcomes.

Where there is a question, the answer is usually to someone's disadvantage. When that person has the option to say, "Yeah, that makes sense to me." the rules are in the right place.

4

3.5
I dislike the SPI style of games with number paragraphs and subsections written in legalese.
I prefer a more narrative style of rule, with clearly labelled sections.

I'm with jamesonsafari. The spi types really annoy me. OTH, BLACK POWDER do a good job at being concise enough without me having to bring my attorney to a game as an interpreter of the miniutae.

So long as the core rules are clear and formatted intelligently, and the 'spirit' or principle of the mechanics is communicated, I don't want subsections and addendum for every possible contingency. Waste of time and paper, IMO.

Guess that makes me a kinda fuzzy #2 gamer.

Then again, I prefer generic rule sets that don't nitpick over types of assault rifles or Body Armor 3.0 versus 3.5.

It's about the game, the story. Not the rules.

4 – but I give a break to the TFL rules. In this case fuzzy is combat shots rated as great/ok/poor and the umpire has to decide what each type represents.

6. "Fuzzy feeling" rules make me want to play the game. You read the rule and it just sounds intuitively right on. You get that warm "fuzzy" feeling that the game is going to feel right when you play. I have to understand the concept behind the rule and agree with it in the first place. Trying to convince me that the outcome is "realistic" (correct and proper), with paragraphs of technical talk, simply makes my eyes heavy and then my mind wanders. That game will never get played….

4

4

I like my war game rules clean shaven and freshly scrubbed. It's bad enough to have to play against the occasional unwashed opponent…

Simple game rules or micro complex simulation…..I prefer a game that has fun in it.

"Concise" does not carry the same meaning as "not fuzzy".

I like my war game rules clean shaven and freshly scrubbed. It's bad enough to have to play against the occasional unwashed opponent…

I'm fuzzy, but I wash.

TMP link

4 for me too!

I value brevity, clarity and internal consistency above all else. Rules which are awash with exceptions, special rules, stuff only happens under special circumstances etc drive me potty.

If I can write a QRS to fit on one side of A4, they are probably OK.

Fuzziness I can live with, I can make up my own mechanisms if needs be. Overprescription is a waste of time it it is done poorly (thinking of the bolted on bits to Command Decision).

So, brevity + fuzzy.

4