Rethinking Smoke

[Juiceman]

This is one of the many reasons I play this game system solo as well, I would rather play the scenario than spend time debating rules prior to gameplay, the game system has many gray areas but, in the end, we are not trying find a cure for cancer or split the atom, I respect your opinion, just see it a different way.

[Grognard Gunny]

You have a point, Juiceman. Last time I played with a competitor (...and it WAS some time ago), he wanted to argue about every rule.... strangely enough, he would argue to benefit HIS effort on the field of battle. (Imagine THAT!) Since the historical aspects are more important to me than the mere fact of winning..... I let him "win" to get him out of the house.

This "hobby" is more a matter of 1) Setting the tone for the historical/game aspects of the situation. 2) Seeing how the designers handled those "problems" in the game. 3) Ease of play for the "nonbelievers". For me anyway. Victory/Loss means nothing. (Except that the odds ARE on the side that DID win, historically speaking.)

That's where I'm coming from. I think that PG does that very well..... so I take notes..... AND enjoy the games.(I rather like the AAR system that this forum affords also... adds to the fun.)

GG

[treadasaurusrex]

This is one of the many reasons I play this game system solo as well, I would rather play the scenario than spend time debating rules prior to gameplay, the game system has many gray areas but, in the end, we are not trying find a cure for cancer or split the atom, I respect your opinion, just see it a different way.

True! And, I think that most of us agree that the PG rules are not as clearly written as they should be. Blackcloud6 and others have noted this a number of times in the Forum. Also, a great many scenarios in the PG series were not sufficiently play-tested. I hope that the next edition of the PG rules will include better examples of things like, LOS determination, various types of combat and morale cases and clearer terrain keys.

But in the end, one does have the individual choice to play with those individuals who are not Rules Lawyers, or dogmatic purists, that wish to argue about every rule's interpretation.

[Blackcloud6]

But in the end, one does have the individual choice to play with those individuals who are not Rules Lawyers, or dogmatic purists, that wish to argue about every rule's interpretation.

The law firm of Schwarz, Goodman, Chance, and Schwarz would disagree.  Call 1-800-RULSLAW now for your free consultation.  

[Blackcloud6]

Oh, and Mr. Chance, Esq., is my cat... and the senior partner.

[cjsiam]

Not that there is any problem with playing the rules correctly...
Or playing a game similar to PG where PG rules are agreed to be interpreted differently....

It is, after all, a game.

[Grognard Gunny]

I would think that a consistent "set of rules" would be more optimal....if for no other reason than a common basis point for AARs, discussing different matters and having a concrete point of reference for these forums (for that matter). The objective for "the rules" IS to have a common point of reference. Barring that, it is every man has his own game... Nothing wrong with that, mind you, but it DOES get a bit tedious in trying to reach a common reference.

GG

[PANISTA]

It seems to me that the more often people play these games with other individuals in "shared play", the better an idea is developed about what rules need to be reconsidered, revised or rewritten. I have played enough scenarios to know that most have not been appropriately "playtested."

I read many AARs that talk about potential changes to the general rules, or specific scenario rules and victory conditions. Are the game designers and the manufacturer of PG paying attention to these valuable suggestions?

[Shad]

Mike Perryman is a frequent guest to PG-HQ. Some of our forum regulars are also published developers. I don't know how much makes it back to AP direct employees, though.

[goosebrown]

...Barring that, it is every man has his own game... Nothing wrong with that, mind you, but it DOES get a bit tedious in trying to reach a common reference.

A few of us have "house rules" and we agree on each one before playing. Check out one of Treadasaurus Rex's AARs they list all the rules used. This is optimal. He doesn't have to play with Fog of War and my ATGs get two shots. Maybe not what everyone plays, but as long as we agree it works out just fine. 

The rules as written are somewhat imprecise and agreeing before hand lets you create a shared space with your opponent that gives you an experience you like