Author: Ian Sokoliwski (---.mts.net)
Date: 05-21-2004 16:29
Sometimes the use of examples causes (or fails to prevent) the same problems as brevity.
As an example of a misinterpretation by many players of a simple game idea, back when I first learned Magic:the Gathering (not an RPG I understand, but close enough for this example), I somehow misinterpreted the rules on creatures with 'protection from a colour' abilities; in fact, I interpreted the rule in precisely the opposite fashion from what the rules had intended.
What was funny was, that was also how every other person I ever played with had done as well. It wasn't until one of us went to a tournament, and discovered we had been all using the opposite of the rule, rather than the rule itself.
Now, we had all learned the game from different source material - from the rulebook included in each starter deck, the expanded rulebook in the 'deluxe gift box', or from one of the how-to books released on their own (I don't recall if they were third-party publications or whether WOTC published them). The point here is that some people had learned the rule by brevity (a simple two-line description) and some by example, and yet we all managed to completely misinterpret the rule exactly the same way.
Something to keep in mind - no matter how well designed something is, someone out there will completely miss the point.
|
|
