geek
Rules | Subscriptions | Bookmarks | Search | Account | Moderators
Recommend
53
20 Posts
New Thread | Printer Friendly | Subscribe  | Bookmark
Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Michael Debije
flag
The Republic of Rome » Forums » Reviews
It came, I saw it, It conquered me
Republic of Rome was designed by Duckus Berthold and Robert Haines and published by Avalon Hill way back in 1990. It is playable by 1 to 6 players, and game time can be anywhere from 1 to 6+ hours.

What You Get

Inside the standard Avalon Hill Bookcase box (nicely illustrated) you get an attractive gameboard containing spaces for card decks, markers, lots of charts and some good artwork. There are three 64 card decks, three sheets of colorful cardboard chits, six faction mats with sequence of play and spaces to store funds, and three dice. There were two versions of the cards; some came matte, and some came glossy, and I believe the former were more common. I have the latter, and must admit to preferring their ‘feel’. The cards have nice illustrations, but are not very strong, so some care must be taken. There are a lot of different types of chits: for armies, status ratings, character ‘death’ markers, faction leader markers, fleets… there is good color used, so they are quite distinguishable, but keeping them all arranged requires quite a few plastic baggies. Overall, I think it looks great when set up, and is quite functional.

What you do

There is a lot going on in Republic of Rome, as you are simulating a most turbulent period of history, from 264-43 B.C. I’m sure I won’t do complete justice to all the finest details, but I hope to give a good feel for what happens during a turn.

There are three possible eras to play, the early, middle, and late scenarios, each with their own card deck. It is also possible to randomize by shuffling all the decks together in a massive free-for-all. We almost always start with the early scenario, as it is the hardest, and most of my comments will relate to this game, but for the most part all scenarios play the same way.

The game starts by dealing each player three senator cards to form their opening faction, and these are placed face up before the player. Each senator is rated for his military prowess and oratory ability. They also have a loyalty rating, indicating how fickle they are in maintaining alliances. Spaces on the cards are also provided to mark the popularity of the senator with the general public, a place to denote if the senator has been a consul on a previous turn, and his current influence. One of these three is marked as the faction leader: this figure will be immune from bribery attempts, and the card is maintained even upon the death of the current senator. You also receive three red event cards, which can be action cards (like tribunes, assassins or spies), statesmen (particularly important senators) or concessions, which give extra income when applied to a senator, but at the same time make then liable to prosecutions. Players may play any statesmen or concessions at this point. The Roman treasury is given 100 talents, the Roman unrest marker placed in the ‘0’ space, and the senator card with the lowest ID number is made the first Rome consul. The game is ready to play.

There are seven phases in a turn. The first is the mortality phase. A ‘death’ chit is drawn, and the number read. If the number matches a senator number, that senator has died of natural causes, all his markers are removed, and the card discarded. If the senator was faction leader, you retain the card, but all the markers are lost. Bad news! It is possible the death chit reads ‘none’ (whew!) or even ‘draw 2’ (lots of sweating goes on as the new chits are revealed). Phase two is the revenue phase. Each senator receives 1 talent, and the faction leader three. Every concession is checked for payout, every knight controlled by a senator pays a talent, and if any senators are currently governor of a province, they have the option of collecting personal income, at the risk of being labeled ‘corrupt’. Personal income belongs to the faction ‘bank’, and may be kept in the general fund (for use in protecting senators) or given to individual senators (for extra protection or use in bribing senators or maintaining personal armies). After personal incomes are dealt with, the State gets its funds. Rome gets 100 talents, plus taxes from its provinces. From this 20 talents are subtracted for every active war, 2 talents to maintain each army and fleet, and it must pay for land bills. The money goes fast!

Phase three is the Forum phase. Starting with the highest ranking officer in Rome, two dice are rolled. On a ‘7’, there is a random event rolled with 3d6. These can be somewhat helpful (bequests to Rome), bad (droughts), very bad (natural disasters) or worst (manpower shortage in time of perilous war). Any other roll allows the player to draw a new card. One may keep any red cards. A new senator card will allocate this card to the Forum space on the board, as the new senator is available to be enticed to your faction. A war card may be drawn, and it may be either active (happening now), or inactive (war brewing: will erupt into an active war if Rome decides to prosecute it, or another trigger like a leader for the war comes up). Leader cards with no matching war are placed aside, as they wait for the chance to gather their troops to send Rome to Hades. There are also ‘matching’ war cards: these are wars that had multiple parts like the Punic wars. These generally double the strength of all matching wars, and are Very Bad Things. Woe betide you if you have a matching Punic and Hannibal decides to show up—life goes down the tubes rather fast.

After the card draw, the player may attempt to persuade another senator to join his side, perhaps defecting from an opponent. Bribes can be directed to a senator in the Forum, or in another player’s faction. A die roll is made against the oratory ability of the bribing senator plus his influence, plus his bribe, reduced by the loyalty of the target senator, and counterbribes (from any player), and a ‘faction associated defense bonus’. 2d6 are rolled to see if the defection takes place. The money remains spent in any case. Next, senators can try to attract or pressure a knight. To attract you commit a number of talents and add this number to a die roll. If the result is 6 or higher, you get a knight, which provides votes as well as 1 talent during income. If you need money, fast, you can pressure one of your knights to ‘donate’, but this will cause the knight to abandon the faction. Then, you can either change faction leader or sponsor games at the Coliseum. This gains popularity and reduces public unrest, and there are three versions of the games: the slice & dice, blood fest, and gladiator gala. The people must be kept happy! This ends the Forum phase for this player: the sequence is repeated six times, each senator getting a chance, and any extra opportunities (in games with less than six players) are determined with the highest bidder(s) allowed another round. If the deck runs out, this either signals the last turn, or you can continue the game with the cards from the next era. And if you get this far in the early scenario, congratulations! You have done much better than my group in most occasions.

The highest ranked officer in Rome then rolls for all concessions/senators/war leaders left unallocated: on a 5 or 6 they are removed. Next is the population phase, where public unrest is adjusted for droughts and unprosecuted wars. The highest ranked officer then makes his speech to the people, the State of the Republic. This is a 3d6 roll modified by the popularity of the senator, ill omens, current unrest and other nasty things. If the modified dice roll is less than zero, the public revolts and overthrows the senate, Rome collapses, and the players lose. It is also possible to obtain a ‘mob’ result, which means the furious populace storms into the Senate and haphazardly kills a bunch of the senators. Also best to be avoided. Other results of the speech may be increased unrest, manpower shortages, or perhaps, for the very lucky, an actual calming of the dirty masses.

Next is the biggie, the Senate phase. Here is where the deals are made, the rivalries fought, bribes are offered, governorships and offices allocated, and the prosecutions enacted. It is quite well-regulated, and I’ll give an overview of the actions that go on in this phase. The elections of the next Rome consul and Field consul have to be made. Unless the order is usurped by the play of a Tribune card, the highest ranked officer nominates two senators to fill these rolls from among all the senators in Rome, except the consuls may not succeed themselves on consecutive turns. Each faction has a number of votes equal to their sum or oratories and knights, plus one vote per talent spent. The high officer dictates voting order. If a vote fails to pass by majority, a new pair is announced, and this continues until a pair is elected, or the last possible pair is nominated, in which case they win automatically. The two elected decide between themselves who will be Rome and who Field consul. Then, from among the prior Consuls, a Censor is elected. The Censor then initiates any prosecutions- up to two minor or one major. The Censor calls for all votes in the prosecutions. Minor prosecutions are directed against senators who accepted concession income the past turn, or who was an officer. A guilty vote results in loss of popularity and all concessions. A major prosecution is reserved for officers or former governors, and conviction results in execution! It’s possible to avoid the prosecution by going into exile. If one stands for the trial, the accused can use his popularity to appeal to the people for their support in an effort to gain the extra backing needed to avoid nasty things happening to his head.

After prosecutions, it’s back to the matters at hand. There are a lot of options, all run by the Rome consul unless an option is brought forth by a Tribune, or a senator is recognized by the Consul. During this phase decisions are made as to the increase or decrease of the size of the army and/or navy, and whether wars are prosecuted, who the leaders will be, and how many troops are needed. The Field consul must be the general sent in the case of one war and in the case of multiple wars, must be one of the generals sent. In extremely dangerous situations, there may be a call for a Dictator, to prosecute a really bad looking war. This allows the Dictator to also assign a Master of Horse to aide him in the battle. The Dictator cannot be vetoed in senate and is in total control of the Senate phase. It is dangerous to appoint a Dictator, but sometimes the only chance for Rome’s survival. During the phase, concessions in the Forum may be assigned after a vote, Governorships assigned (with or without the consent of the new governor!), and personal frivolous actions may be discussed at the player’s desire. Our group liked to vote on ‘rounds of applause’ or ‘group raspberries’ for particular meritorious or infamous actions from the previous turn. This phase is really wide open, and the length this phase will take really depends on the personality of your group: if they like to make speeches, it can go on a while… The Senate closes when the highest ranking officer declares.

Next is the combat phase where the wars are prosecuted. Four undefeated wars at once will spell the end of Rome, so the wars must necessarily be confronted, and preferably before they gain strength by the appearance of leaders or matching wars. Plus, a win in war can aide in filling the Roman coffers, and gain in prestige for the winning general! Losses can result in leader deaths as well, so care must be taken to throw enough troops at the fight, but not so many that a victorious, strong general can use them to march on Rome and claim it for his own, and victory in the game (although this is unlikely in the early scenario). Wars are resolved by a 3d6 roll, modified by the strength difference between the Roman and enemy forces, the commander ability and any evil omens. Results could be stalemates, which means the war continues, victories and even defeats. All troop losses could result in the leader death: it’s dangerous to be a soldier! Victories remove the war, and help Rome survive another turn.

The last phase is the revolution phase, as players must discard or play excess (more than 5) red cards they hold. Any victorious commander can then declare Civil War if he does not peacefully return his troops home. He must support the troops from his own treasury. The Senate will be able to raise troops against him in the next Senate phase, and the battle is fought like a normal war. If the rebel wins the war, that player has won the game! The revolt also counts as one of the four wars needed to cause the fall of Rome. This game has it in for you on all fronts! There are also advanced rules that add primarily religion and provincial armies.


So how do you win? Well, survival of Rome is a victory for everybody, but many folks want to crown an individual winner, so… If a senator achieves 35 influence (gained by becoming Consul/Censor among other ways) and Rome survives the turn, that player wins. You can win by defeating Rome as a rebel. You can win by getting voted Consul for Life during the Senate phase. If the people revolt and you are a declared rebel, you win. Finally, if the last card is drawn and you have the highest combined influence at turn end, you also win. There are lots of ways to lose: four active wars, a people revolt, if Rome is unable to pay the cost of a natural disaster or evil omen or other obligations.

What I Think

This is a game in my top 5 ever since I got it in the early 90's, a masterwork, unsurpassed in its genre. There is no other game like this for recreating the intricate machinations of politics in this violent era, or indeed, of any other era. It is a masterful blend of camaraderie, backstabbing, balancing of your fortunes with the need to maintain the common good. There are so many options to follow, and no player is never truly out of the game, although it can be a pretty intimidating barrier to get back into it. The game will reward experience, as good players will often be able to overcome misfortune better than the inexperienced players, and the ability to wield the power of Consul ‘as a surgeon’s knife’ can pull out some victories in the face of defeat. I love the opportunities to deal indirectly but effectively with enemies: how about sending that high-power senator on a Governorship right before the crucial vote? Shall we send old Fabius out to war with Hannibal? Maybe Hannibal can save us the trouble of using our assassin card later.

I have heard so many complaints about the rules of the game, how ‘indecipherable’ they are. This is all nonsense. It is a very complicated game, and has very thorough rules. However, the order of play cards are very clear, and by following step-by-step with the order of play cards, the game opens up in a logical way. Yes, there are a lot of rules, but they allow you to do so many things. This is an intricate game, with a widely-variable playtime. It is a game best learned from one experienced, but certainly can be learned by yourself. A good option is to start with the solo game, which works well-enough to get a good feel for the game, as each of you opposing ‘auto’ players is given their own personality on how they will bid, and how they will vote in matters. It will mainly be ‘you against them’, and can be quite challenging.

I learned a lot about the history of Rome from the game as well, and could better understand some of the maneuverings of the famous figures of the past when I subsequently read about them in books. It is a game of near-perfection in my eyes: almost nothing left out. I’m not sure how it could be improved. Some have suggested streamlining, but everything you ‘streamline’ means the loss of some real flavor. If given sufficient time, I should never turn down a game of Republic of Rome. If you ever wanted to shout ‘Alea jacta est!’, ‘Et tu, Brute!’ or begin with a ‘(Harrumph) My fellow, Senators, let me be brief…’, match wits with other ambitious power-hungry compatriots, or go toe-to-toe with Spartacus with the whole Empire in the balance, then this is you game.
Edward Kendrick
flag
Thanks very much for this - RoR is a case where a rules summary is very useful. I might get it down and try it now!
Pedro
flag
Avatar
08
Excellent review! I've been wanting this game since the first time I read about it.

I hunted for it on ebay but never managed to find a copy at a reasonable price. When Valley Games announced that they were going to reprint it I pre-ordered it in the same second. But now, with all the turmoil surrounding their pre-order system, I fear my waiting will not come to an end in the near future. Oh well.
Darrell Hanning
flag
Avatar
0506070809
Quote:
I have heard so many complaints about the rules of the game, how ‘indecipherable’ they are. This is all nonsense. It is a very complicated game, and has very thorough rules.


I think this might be leaning a little too much in the other direction. Granted, it is a game of decent complexity, but no more so than many other games I learned around the same time frame, from other publishers.

If one looks at the body of rules work done by AH during this period, one can find a rather easily discernible pattern of overwrought rules-writing. There are more succinct ways to express the same notions, and I find myself hearing them in my head, nearly every time I starting relearning this particular set of rules, for example. It always amazed me how I could go through 20 pages of AH rules, yet never be given a single insight as to the overview of what the heck is going on, in the game - no genuine effort at context, nor a reference to the integration of lower-level concepts. It is almost as if someone walked into your garage with a rolling, 1500-dollar toolchest, dumped all the tools out on your floor, turned around, and walked away.

I will always contrast such rulesets from AH with rules for games of equal compexity from SPI. Even though they have traditionally been accused of "SPI legalese", I usually found those written for SPI to be more easily digestible. This discrepancy was even further heightened in contrast to subsequent publishers, such as The Gamers, and even Victory Games. (VG's Vietnam, for example, comes to mind.)
Last edited on 2008-04-29 07:36:53 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Ed Browne
flag
Avatar
Great review of an excellent game. It is a little complicated for the typical modern gamer, but I still have a group that loves to play it once or twice a year and we always sign up to play at conventions. Definitely better to play with someone who has played before. We like to roleplay while doing it. "The Dock Union will side with the Weaponmaker's Union on this vote." "You can't win this war without me!"
"I have only what's best for Rome in mind."
Mike Urban
flag
07
DarrellKH wrote:


If one looks at the body of rules work done by AH during this period, one can find a rather easily discernible pattern of overwrought rules-writing. There are more succinct ways to express the same notions, and I find myself hearing them in my head, nearly every time I starting relearning this particular set of rules, for example. It always amazed me how I could go through 20 pages of AH rules, yet never be given a single insight as to the overview of what the heck is going on, in the game - no genuine effort at context, nor a reference to the integration of lower-level concepts. It is almost as if someone walked into your garage with a rolling, 1500-dollar toolchest, dumped all the tools out on your floor, turned around, and walked away.


I think you have hit on the problem. AH managed to completely obscure a fairly straightforward Knizia game in Titan: The Arena with turgid and ill-organized rules; when the same obfuscatory technique was applied to the far more complex Republic of Rome, the results are daunting indeed.
Adam Di Gleria
flag
Avatar
05070809
Good review! Very thorough.

Having said that...

It's slightly disingenuous to say the rules aren't bad when it appears many people do have a problem dealing with them, while at the same time you have been playing for several years. There was a recent post in the Magic Realms forumn recently (sense a pattern here?) :) about how the gentlemen had played over a 100 times and he didn't see what was so difficult with the rules...

Not trying to spark controversy here, but I just disagree that the rules are adequate, to me they are a complete mess.
Michael Debije
flag
I hear what you are saying, but I had to learn the game from scratch myself, as nobody I knew played the game, or really, any like it. They take some time and some study. I can also understand what Darrell is saying, but I see their rules as simply attempting to be as complete as possible. In a game of this magnitude and complexity, the possibility for loopholes are huge, and they try to cover damn near everything to make sure the holes are closed: for such a wide, free-wheeling game I think you'd agree its remarkable how little dispute there is between players on the meaning/intent of the rules.

The rules should be read following the order of play card, and I think then they are quite clear. Its not a game you can read fifteen minutes before your buddies come and sit and play, but it is not meant to be a Puerto Rico. If I wrote the rules, perhaps I might block them out differently, but I'm not sure they would necessarily be more clear, and certainly not more complete.
Darrell Hanning
flag
Avatar
0506070809
I, too, had to learn the game from scratch, by myself, as I did every other AH, SPI, Yaquinto, GDW, WEG, 3W, VG, CoA, etc. game I bought.

So why, then, do the AH rules in particular always stick out in my mind for their general murkiness, and stilted phrasing?

I can't say that the demand for thoroughness explains this, as I quite often had plenty of questions during and after reading the rules, only to have them clarified in some, subsequent article in the General, or after sending an SASE to AH. (Still have some of these, BTW, stuffed in the game boxes.) I will say that, to their credit, AH did seem to have more in the way of "outside" playtesting to tighten rules up before printing (as opposed to, oh, say, SPI), but then they pretty much relied on outside submission for their existence in the first place, so it rather goes with the turf.
Steve Bachman
flag
050608
Excellent review - conveys my thoughts on Republic of Rome almost exactly. I picked up the game immediately after reading about it in The General as it sounded like such a fascinating game about such a great subject. I read the rules cover to cover and I understood the game fine. So many people like to blast the rules, but some people just require things to be a form that they are most comfortable with in order to understand. Many have 'got it' from the original rules, many others (more vocal) just didn't. THAT is the failure of AH with the RoR rules - getting it through to as many people as possible (i.e. finding the lowest common denominator). Perhaps it was the game's such broad appeal that lead to the debate.

I finally got to play the game via ACTS about 5 years ago and enjoyed it thoroughly. There were a couple of rule questions that had to get worked out, but part of that was due to the Living Rules contradicting published rules and part of it was due to the fact that the game system is quite flexible and 'open sided' that not all possible situations could be covered ahead of time.

Last year, I finally got to play RoR in a face to face game, thanks to the WBC tournament. I was able to play 3 games in 3 days, and it was an awesome time. The game was even more enjoyable with a mix of veterans that really knew how to play (not the rules, but the roles) and so a group of us back home brought it out for a session as, like me, they also had copies of the game collecting dust on the shelf as they never got to play it.

Like many games that get beat up for what some consider cruddy rules (e.g. Magic Realm, Mythology, Revolution: the Dutch Revolt), there is a great game to be played if you can look past the inflated criticism and read the rules for their meaning, rather than their specific verbiage.
Darrell Hanning
flag
Avatar
0506070809
On the contrary, and aside from snide remarks about "lowest common denominator", I found the rules to Revolt: The Dutch Revolution - compared to those for RoR - as being quite straightforward and clear.

It is one thing to glibly boast that you can read the rules front to back and have "no problems". It is another altogether to have the rules read, and, for instance, try to impart them in a meaningful way to others.

I had no problems with GDW's rules for Fire in the East, for instance, or SPI's rules for The Next War or even Air War. Complexity of the rules are not the issue, here - clarity, structure and organization are. Indeed, RoR is not that complex a game, at all, in comparison to many, many other games.

Which is just makes matters more obvious, in my book.
Steve Bachman
flag
050608
Sorry if you took it as snide, but the LCD comment was more a statement that AH needed to find determine what form of the rules would be needed to reach the most people. Some people require a rulebook to tell them exactly how to play, whereas others only need to know the limits and mechanics in place. They apparently did not know their audience, which may have been different or broader than the one they had targeted.

Personally, I don't consider having read and understood the RoR rulebook as something to boast about - it is not that complicated or unclear a set of rules. If one can read the rules and understand them, but be unable to convey it to others in a meaningful way, is that the fault of the rulebook or of the person unable to convey the ideas? Why is AH to blame for that?

I heard it explained once from a veteran wargamer that the issue with the RoR rulebook is that it was written to play by, not to learn from. Upon him mentioning this, it made a lot of sense (the debate over its clarity). As Michael stated, the best way to learn the game is to follow the sequence of play as you refer to the different sections. It is not really that tough a ruleset - far less ambiguous than Mythology, far less confusing than Magic Realm, and far less complicated than many great games.
Peter White
flag
The awfulness of the rules is somewhat overblown.

I think that focusing on the very detailed Sequence of Play before getting too bogged down into the details of the rulebook helps.

Nonetheless, there are a few places that astoundingly in their opacity, e.g. the Victory Conditions.
Andrew Young
flag
Avatar
0506070809
Love the game.

:devil:
Jim Miller
flag
Avatar
0708
Got this game at 19 years old and figured it out pretty well. I think what is a bit daunting for the beginner is the free flow of the Senate phase. If you get some people togather to play that role play their factions a bit, your in for a very enjoyable evening. A good game that really used an unusual play style, which was quite out of the ordinary for that time in gaming history!

Fun, fun and more fun :)
Darrell Hanning
flag
Avatar
0506070809
Ward wrote:
Personally, I don't consider having read and understood the RoR rulebook as something to boast about - it is not that complicated or unclear a set of rules. If one can read the rules and understand them, but be unable to convey it to others in a meaningful way, is that the fault of the rulebook or of the person unable to convey the ideas? Why is AH to blame for that?


I'm glad you asked. Avalon Hill is to blame for that, when generally every other publisher of rules that thorough, covering games of equal or higher complexity, do not suffer from the same malady, in comparison.

If, for example, Peek and Matheny, at Yaquinto, could during that same time period, write a rules set for a game as vast in scope and processes as Starfall, yet still manage to demonstrate superior rules organization, on what leg does AH stand? If Jim Dunnigan can write a rules system for a behemoth such as Wacht am Rhein, and leave far fewer questions in my head at the end of it than RoR did, then again, what's going on? If Mark Herman could write a Pacific War rules set for a multi-tiered, operations-based game covering the entire Pacific WWII campaign, and leave me with a much clearer, overall understanding of what is going on than in something far simpler such as RoR, what is that saying?

AH did not, does not, exist in a vacuum. If, in comparison to other games, one or more aspects of their publications prove inferior to a substantial portion of their audience (and I take this opportunity to point out that this complaint about their rules-writing is something I've seen concluded by many, many others independent of my own thoughts, over the span of multiple decades), then that aspect is, in fact, inferior.

And just to show that I'm not picking on AH's rules writing, alone, I'd like to also point out how a great number of AH game counter sets suffered from inferior die-cutting processes, too, to the point where their counters would almost inevitably tear, unless you ran over every one of them with a razor knife, first.

But, yeah - if I had one thing to pick to change about AH from 1970 to 1990, I would have picked getting a different rules-writing person or staff, in there. In comparison to the rules from other makers of wargames, I have to say theirs were markedly inferior, due to stilted language, lack of overview, failure to integrate interacting concepts, poor organization, overwrought explanation, and just onerous, turgid writing technique in general.

I think the contrast between those rulesets and what you read for rulesets from their offspring company (Victory Games), alone, provides adequate contrast in clarity and quality for anyone to see in just a few minutes of reading.

Perhaps you were exclusively into AH games at the time, and thus had no exposure to comparable material? Because I was buying wargames from everyone under the sun, during those decades. AH games comprised maybe twenty percent of the wargames I was buying and learning, and in comparison, I had to wonder why they didn't realize the problem, themselves.

I playtested for Don Greenwood, in the eighties and nineties, on five different games. (Coincidentally, at the time, I was writing 3 different volumes of documentation on a DoD automated logistics system, for 3 different skill-level audiences.)

Let's just say that his rules-writing doesn't really differ all that much from his letter-writing. He says it all, but seldom attempts to put it in a order that lends itself to digestion, hierarchy, or organization in general.
Steve Bachman
flag
050608
Fine points on your opinion Darrell, but it did not answer the question I posed - you just expounded on what issues you have with AH rules. They are legitimate issues, and may apply to many of their (and other companies') rulebooks, but they are used ad nauseum to pick apart any rulebook that raises any questions instead of answering them all. The RoR rulebook may not be perfect, but it is far from the piece of trash that so many critics like yourself have labeled it.

If a teacher reads a math textbook and can't figure it out, the problem is likely either the textbook or the teacher. If that same teacher reads the textbook and understands it, but has difficulty conveying it to their students, the problem is likely the teacher or the students, but it is not the textbook's fault at this point. Matter of fact, considering a primary responsibility of a teacher is finding a way to get through to their students, the fault is highly likely with the teacher.
Michael Debije
flag
You know, I'm beginning to suspect it may just be a difference in how we read things. To me, the Avalon Hill style of rules writing actually does make sense. Could it be that it somehow 'lines up' with my thought processes? Some other game I have a slower time digesting: Caylus was an example, perhaps because the lack of numbering of sections.

Perhaps, then, my expression of the state of the rules should be modified. I think a blanket condemnation is completely wrong, as some folks really can read and distill the game, and teach it without too much trouble to others. But some may find the style confusing and awash in unclearly-defined jargon or jumbled up in presentation.

Could it be just a function of how our brains process data? If so, perhaps it is a discussion with no satisfactory conclusion?
Walter Greer
flag
INDEED!!!!
Fred Sears
flag
08
That's it. A writers prose is grasped quicker by like brained readers.

"Like brained?" Can anyone figure that out?
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
BoardGameGeek and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.