Tim Wezner wrote (in an email he sent to me because for some reason the
list is rejecting his email:
Thanks to Andy for passing on Tim's comments.
> One suggestion: Say, "Pick one other player."
I would disagree with that. Yes, I'm sure there will be players who
don't realize they can choose themselves as one of the two players. But
that doesn't mean we should overdo the card text to compensate. One of
the beauties of the game is the simplicity in the directions.
If the text were confusing or misleading, then I'd say change it. But
honestly, I think it's fine as it is.
I agree with the need for simplicity. But I was also concerned about
clarity. It's one thing to let people figure out strategies, but it's
another to leave unnecessary ambiguities about the rules. I feared that
this card in particular would be especially frustrating, once players
realized they could collude and make sure #6 was always chosen, so it
apparently wouldn't be any good to anyone. Hence I thought it important to
clarify this if possible.
I don't understand why you thought the suggestion was "overdoing the card
text". It took less space - about 15 fewer characters - and if anything,
choosing 1 other player is conceptually simpler than choosing 2 players.
Still, I like Andy's solution:
But just to help make it clear, I squeezed the word "any" into the first
sentence, so it's "Choose any two players."
It preserves the option of choosing 2 other players besides oneself, while
making it less likely to think that choosing yourself is forbidden.
Regards,
Bryan