"Game Designers you Avoid" Topic

This thread on following game designers interested me as some of the responses indicated that avoiding certain designers, rather than following them, was often the driving force. See thread here: TMP link

What reasons would you have for actually avoiding a particular game designer's work?

Any miniatures rules published by Old Glory that used the "quality dice" concept. Intriguing concept but horribly written.
I am not into the Cult of Personality going on in these polls, do I can't put a name to them. But that is sufficient.

Note that this has nothing to do with the fine miniatures or very nice people at Old Glory.

There is one set of rules that I refuse to play because I find the name offensive. The implication of the name was probably unintentional, but I still refuse to play them.

There is a company that I avoid because of receiving unnecessarily ignorant attitude from the owners/rules writers in online conversations. Likewise, I also refuse to do business with painters, minis companies, etc., where they have behaved ignorantly towards me online.

Then there are the Newbury Fast Play rules. Same idea as above for Old Glory.
If ever there was a contest for "Most Oxymoronic Title"….

There are a few but I wouldn't name them as (a) its a personal preference and (b) it wouldn't make them feel all that happy.

To the question in the OP, rather than the title:

- Inconsistent terminology. Using one word for several different concepts. Using multiple words for one concept. Or doing both at the same time.

- Piecemeal Rules. If an understanding of the dynamics of the game is not complete without buying "supplements" or "add ons". If there are changes to the way the game plays, as opposed to the way specific forces behave within the rules, I am not really interested.

- Gimmicks. Things introduced that add mechanics, but don't change the nature of the play of the game. This would include mechanics with inordinate complexity or granularity.

I can count the number of games I try to avoid playing on one hand…I like most stuff.

Sam Mustafa I have some issues with. He'll have these great command and control rules, fantastic campaign game rules and other aspects of his games that are clever or interesting but then I'll get frustrated when it comes to the actual combat part. Shooting can eat up the entire evening without achieving anything and battles played by his rules can end up stodgy and rely on sheer weight of numbers. With more practice and experience playing them I'm sure I can work out better tactics but sometimes I'll be there thinking "I'm picturing 2 other sets of rules for this era I'd rather be playing right now".

I'm also wary of games by designers who put too much value in national characteristics, especially where one side gets way too many advantages. Napoleonic French and WW2 Germans are good, but they're not so good that they can steamroller everyone else. So if a designer has a record of being a bit partial to one army in particular, I'm wary of their products.

I don't avoid game designers because any game designer can come up with something I'll play. Game types I will usually avoid:

Games that are declared to have "innovative" or "clever" game mechanics. They invariably will be fiddly or go out of there way to do something in 3 or 4 dice rolls when it could have been done in 1 or 2.

Any game that "is simple but focuses on command and control" because invariably these games will plod along at a slower pace than they need to.

Any game that is declared to be a "simulation" because, lets face it, we play games with toy soldiers and don't really simulate anything.

Addressing the OP, because I think they write awful rules, or they write really good rules but buried under such complex verbiage that life is too short to figure out what they actually mean.

This stuff is very subjective.

Any miniatures rules published by Old Glory that used the "quality dice" concept.

Two Fat Lardies

I don't avoid any game designers. I'll always give a set of rules a reading, although I do avoid very complex rules in my dotage.

After WRG ancients 5th or 6th edition I thought Barker was the Beast and then I discovered DBA, which I quite like.

I've heard more than once that the Gothic Horror rules by OG were actually very, very good--IF one took the time to ignore the redundancies, lack of clarity, dozens and dozens of typos (sometimes regarding important rules), and the general "this was written while severely intoxicated" feel to the books. It was all rather like deciphering some ancient text full literary gems but obscured by the accumulated dust of the ages. All quite apropos to the genre, of course, but not exactly what one wants in a rulebook.

Life is probably too short, though.

I avoid games' designers who can't handle grammar and syntax correctly. Unfortunately this covers the majority of so-called rules writers these days. Compare recent rule books with those of the Old School.

There is one set of rules that I refuse to play because I find the name offensive. The implication of the name was probably unintentional, but I still refuse to play them.

I will take a wild guess that it is a set of rules published by Too Fat Lardies. Did I guess correctly?

The set of rules with a title that I find offensive isn't published by Too Fat Lardies …

Kenneth Porter – No, not from TFL. This one's offensive in a different way.

I actively avoid anything from companies with a reputation for frequent edition changes.
Can't be bothered putting time and effort into a project only to find that the goalposts have been moved.
(Not talking about the obvious one here, either, since I'm not generally in the market for GW's stuff.)

Also – loathe to invest in anything too obscure. Does me no credit, I know.
I'm sure that first-time author, self-published game is amazing.
But – call me eccentric – I actually want to play the game. More often than not, that means buying stuff other people are already into.

I don't know the name, but I don't want to be near the designer of chess. He/she is most likely dead, and I don't want to hang around dead bodies. And if they're NOT dead, they're likely immortal and therefore too risky to be around (what with the other immortals showing up wielding large swords and trying to cut off their head).

To answer the question: not really. There are game concepts I avoid like pips or activation dice that allow for multiple actions at once, but by and large I'll look at the new XYZ version of anything regardless of the author or design team. Oh, and I avoid like the plague anything that promises "done in two hours or less." That just isn't worth the time to set up IMHO.

We have used the same rules for over 35 years with some slight modifications for our individual tastes and we are very happy with that. To be honest, I do not really understand the constant urge to change rulesets and the sheer amount of them on the market? As far as the OG rules are concerned ……here's all I have to say to you guys … you are right ..they were pretty bad wern't they? Thats why I now just stick to making figurines like I know how to do
Regards
Russ Dunaway

I don't avoid any game designers but I avoid IGOUGO rules.

Addressing the OP, because I think they write awful rules, or they write really good rules but buried under such complex verbiage that life is too short to figure out what they actually mean.

This stuff is very subjective.

TFL because of their crazy jihadist fanboys.

TFL because of their crazy jihadist fanboys.

???

I avoid ZMan Games' board game offerings simply because I find the box art to be off-putting. I know that may be shallow, but it is what it is. As the customer, if I don't find the product appealing, I'm free not to buy it.

This may get me crucified, but I sold my copies of Hordes of the Things after I got frustrated with the syntax and grammar in the rule books. I know now that "bad going" is British-English for "rough terrain" or "broken terrain", but the inability of the authors to make even the attempt to add clarity to the HOTT rules bugged the hell out of me. If they had even just capitalized the terrain types, I would have been able to tell that "Bad Going" was a terrain type, versus what we here in my corner of the Colonies would interpret as "a situation that is not progressing as planned or developing favorably".

I also find myself bewitched by some of the stuff from Mongoose, but they seem to drop product lines at random or never finish fleshing them out (e.g., Battlefield Evolution), so I'm reluctant to invest in them. It's sad, because I generally like their products.

Oddly, we spent six weeks in close quarters with some British Marines and I never heard the term once!

Well if you were on board a ship, there would be limited opportunity!

I'm sure I'm not the only one who scanned the thread for their name :-)

I have one or two people I tend to avoid, because they've been unpleasant to interact with.
I'm sure someone else would say the same about myself though, so it all evens out, I figure.

know now that "bad going" is British-English for "rough terrain" or "broken terrain"

And here I thought it was "Embarrassing Terrain…"