The Rule of Halves?

You have also to make a distinction between the rule quality and quantity. There are many rules that you can create to solve the same problem.

For example, in a old war game, when 2 armies fight each other, you totalise the strenght, look in a table and make a roll. Today, with axis and allies, you roll 1 die for each unit and check the result. Both system use one rule, but the second one is more convenient, so it's quality is higher.

So simplifying the rules means 2 things, reduce the number of rules and make some rules easier to learn/use/understand.

So quality and number is important.

Sure the overload of rules can persuade people not to play. We have tons of old strategy game at my game club that we don't play, because they are too much complicated. With today's knowledge, we can easily readapt these games and make them more convenient to play by lowering the number of rules and raising their quality.

But there is also a paradox : Dungeon and Dragon 3rd edition. I definately find this game too much complex, but all my friends in my game club knows all the details of these rules.

So why does complexity in the D&D rules does not scare people away, I can't tell. It's a mystery to me.

What is the better thing with this? This is two different ways to solve the same problem and I don’t see why a dice feast (a lot of dice rolls) will give the game a higher quality.

In a game called D-Day, for the combat mechanic you totalise the units value, check a table to see the ratio, then roll a die and check in another table fo the results. Now what makes this mechanics more clumsy than axis and allies, roll one dice for each unit, it result is lower than it's stats it hit.

1- Totalising the unit : Totalising the unit takes time and force the player to do some math for each engagement. There are also some special rules that can double the strength of some units.

2- You need to cross reference a table, having to check in a table for something makes always the game less attractive and also takes time.

3- Using 2 tables to solve each engagement also slow the pace of the game and makes the game less attractive.

In axis and allies, the mechanics has the following advantage

1- No need to do some math.

2- No need to cross refence table each time. Sure when you are new to the game, you need to check the stats of the units, but with a few practice, you can easily remember these stats. But you cannot remeber the ratio table, of the result table for each ratio.

3- Rolling dices for each unit makes the result more visual.

4- The whole combat process takes less much time.

Larienna: As I understand it, you say that A&A is a better game then D-Day, because it's simpler. That is your opinion, and I don’t agree with you.

I wouldn't want to live in a world where the only choice for game was Scene it, the only TV show was American Idol, the only movie is Scary Movie 4, the only food is hamburgers, the only book is Chicken Soup for the Soul, the only color of paint is beige, and everyone has digital watches. You get the point.
Thanks Jpwoo, that summon half of my feelings to this subject.

The other half is that a simple game can be presented in a complex way and a complex game can have simple rules. It's all in the presentation of the game.
There are different ways to present the rules. It is possible to simplify and remove special rules by remove them from the rulebook. These rules can totally change the game.
One way to do this is the CCG style: You have one rulebook that describes the basic games and on the playing components that has special rules (in the CCG case the cards but it can also be other things).
Another way is to do the Warhammer style, where you place the special rules in special books and called them Army books.

// Johan