Weasel | 07 Sep 2015 2:13 p.m. PST |
Some game rules are strictly clinical and focused on the game. Some include subtle (or outright) editorializing and opinion making, such as in the ways the armies are described (these guys are thugs and bandits while the other guys are noble heroes), selective quotes from world leaders or politicians, design notes where the author flat out gives their opinions and so forth. Some games take a general stance on a particular topic or conflict, while others remain neutral. How do you feel about this? A: It's fine, I prefer games with a clear viewpoint. B: It's fine, provided I agree with the view point. C: It's fine if it's kept to a minimum. D: If it serves to reinforce period flavour. E: Keep it to the designer notes in the back. F: I prefer rules not to editorialize at all. G: I only buy games written by cyborg clones. BEEP BOOP. |
D6 Junkie | 07 Sep 2015 2:19 p.m. PST |
|
Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut | 07 Sep 2015 2:21 p.m. PST |
Really, as long as it does not get in the way of the rules themselves I am fine with it. |
Rrobbyrobot | 07 Sep 2015 2:26 p.m. PST |
Why would someone write wargames rules if they don't have an opinion? That having been said, I'd have to say C, or D. |
Saber6 | 07 Sep 2015 2:40 p.m. PST |
|
Cyrus the Great | 07 Sep 2015 2:48 p.m. PST |
|
DisasterWargamer | 07 Sep 2015 3:08 p.m. PST |
Agree with Saber c/d with e – So long as it doesn't go overboard |
vagamer63 | 07 Sep 2015 3:11 p.m. PST |
Absolutely not! If I want to pay to read someone's opinion, informed or not, I'll buy a news paper! |
Dynaman8789 | 07 Sep 2015 3:35 p.m. PST |
F – Just like Kirk's "Speaches" it is far better to get a point across in how the rules play then by preaching. A section on why the rules are written they way they are, and why they focus on what they do, is just fine. |
Winston Smith | 07 Sep 2015 3:37 p.m. PST |
H). I never ran across any rules that editorialized at all. And I have been gaming since 1964. |
rmaker | 07 Sep 2015 3:53 p.m. PST |
H). I never ran across any rules that editorialized at all. And I have been gaming since 1964. Never saw anything from Jack Radey's Poeple's Wargames, John? |
nazrat | 07 Sep 2015 4:15 p.m. PST |
Several games I have bought and read have spent a good bit of time attacking other rules sets, and hence I dumped them outright. Just tell me how to play and I'LL decide if you are better than what you are trying to replace. |
javelin98 | 07 Sep 2015 4:21 p.m. PST |
|
John the OFM | 07 Sep 2015 4:37 p.m. PST |
Never saw anything from Jack Radey's Poeple's Wargames, John? Heard of them, but never bought any. the name turned me off. |
Doctor X | 07 Sep 2015 5:37 p.m. PST |
|
TNE2300 | 07 Sep 2015 5:37 p.m. PST |
H). I never ran across any rules that editorialized at all. And I have been gaming since 1964. Even Avalon Hill got in on the act Class Struggle 1978 Boardgame Geek: link |
Mute Bystander | 07 Sep 2015 5:56 p.m. PST |
I truly hate to agree with Winston but when he is right (which may be seldom in some views) he is right: H If the rules have a bent it quickly shows up in other's reviews/reports/on forums and I avoid them like the plague. Nazis/Fascists/Communists in WW2 were of the same political school [statists] and absolutely (as should have been expected) all about being Evil and controlling other's choices/views. I leave the politics of that to be obvious. |
Weasel | 07 Sep 2015 6:35 p.m. PST |
Railing about other game rules is another example of what I mean, yeah. |
53Punisher | 07 Sep 2015 6:41 p.m. PST |
|
Meiczyslaw | 07 Sep 2015 8:19 p.m. PST |
E. In the Designer's Notes. That's where they're relevant, anyway. Designing a game requires a designer to make choices, and it's worth explaining your choices. That said, the editorializing should stick to the explanation, and not drift further. |
Mute Bystander | 08 Sep 2015 8:48 a.m. PST |
|
IronDuke596 | 08 Sep 2015 9:23 a.m. PST |
D and E. BTW A is virtually the same as D. |
Old Contemptibles | 08 Sep 2015 12:53 p.m. PST |
F. Can't remember seeing any that do editorialize. But then I usually only read the rules and scenarios. I don't see a need for it in the designer notes. Just the facts ma'am. Save the editorializing for the Op-Ed. Editorializing denotes that the Designer may have had an agenda when writing the rules. A point to make. IMHO rules should be neutral, based on historical facts. |
Saxondog | 08 Sep 2015 1:16 p.m. PST |
C, and prefer it put in as "some people believe" or "we like to think" or something of that nature. |
etotheipi | 09 Sep 2015 9:45 a.m. PST |
I. Don't really care. If it's well written, that part of the approach doesn't make a lot of difference to me. J. One-upmanship on G, I like rules written out in LISP. I do that myself with my rules so I can run sims of the interactions over a big space to get an idea where to focus playtesting. It actually provides an interesting abstract clarity to the thing. |
20thmaine | 11 Sep 2015 12:09 p.m. PST |
Several games I have bought and read have spent a good bit of time attacking other rules sets, and hence I dumped them outright. Just tell me how to play and I'LL decide if you are better than what you are trying to replace. +1 |