Looney Labs Fluxx Mailing list Archive

Re: [Fluxx] More thoughts about Hovercraft Eels

  • From"Bryan Stout" <bryan.stout@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateMon, 11 Aug 2008 17:20:12 -0400
Thanks for your clarification, Tim. 
Yes, I was quite aware I was changing the action a bit in my proposed rewording.  That card already had a lot of text on it, and I was afraid that no clarification in the wording would be done because there wouldn't be room.  So, I threw out a proposal that shortened the wording as well as simplifying the situation; I thought little would be missed with the change if adopted.  Fortunately Andy fixed it in a way that didn't require the change.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Wezner
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Fluxx] More thoughts about Hovercraft Eels

Hey there,

Since I'm catching up, I thought I'd reply to this one too, if only to clarify what I said.

Thank you Andy, for passing on my comments.  Much appreciated.

To Bryan - I think my statement of "overdoing the card text" was not quite what I wanted to say.  Sorry, it was 2am.  :-)  It seemed to me, in your effort to clarify the text of the action, you changed the action itself.  That's how you were 'overdoing it' (to stick with my original language :-).  How many characters or space on the card was never the issue. 

And I agree, I like Andy's solution, adding the word 'any' into the text.  In fact, that's been used on other cards (trash a keeper immediately comes to mind), so it even follows the precedent set by previous cards.

Take care,

On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:46 PM, Bryan Stout <bryan.stout@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.