Why is it that some gamers can’t grasp the idea of a flexible rules system? Case in point I was just involved in a conversation where my conversation partner felt the rules needed to clearly define buildings, and other types of terrain as to their difficulty, etc. The game system in question basically has the rules defined as “determine with your opponent what keywords apply to each piece ofterrain.” The other side of discussion seemed to feel that the designers had copped out. That to allow the players to decide for themselves how the terrain the use was applicable to the rules was somehow lacking.
As the discussion continued I found myself perplexed, why was the idea of looking at a piece of terrain and deciding if it was rough, or cover, or impassible, not an acceptable way to determine terrain? Has it really come to the point where even the pieces of terrain we place on the table have become a point of contention between players? Ultimately my question became, when did we forget that we are playing a game to have fun?
Of course someone reading this is going to decry, “But what about tournaments, or competitive play?” Yes I understand that in competitive play the terrain being predefined matters, and if the rules don’t define it for players then
Anyway, that's how I see it. Until next time...