So part 1 I talked about the rulebook that I believed was not up to scratch
For part 2 I’m looking at something else, when a player intentionally removes a rule or reads a rule wrongly (both can happen and I have experience on both). However I do not see misreading a rule as a bad thing… especially if it means that something comes out of it.
So what can come out of reading a rule wrong? Well actually quite a lot actually; it tell you about the design process that the game had to go through in order to get to where it needed to be.
I have multiple examples and I have to put them to you tube at some point. However I will discuss an experiment; what if you played the game with upgrading following the same rules as Dark Souls 1. See the wiki here
This means you can only level at the bonfire (not actually in the Dark Souls Board Game) so you need to spend a spark at the bonfire to level up (resetting the world), also I house ruled 5 Estus Flasks back instead of healing in full between battles with a single Flask (stamina still heals between battles).
The levelling up at the bonfire would make it VERY hard meaning only 3 runs with 4 players to get to the mini-boss and 6 to get to the end.
However, the Estus Flask house swings it back in the opposite direction; if you take no damage then you still have 5 Flasks to use. Before the first mini-boss we all had 3 Estus Flasks instead of a single Ester’s Flask to survive the mini-boss (we still died).
So why did they choose the rules they chose? I do not want to comment, however I felt in more control of the situation having direct control of the Estus Flasks and felt that I had to take a bigger risk to advance as there was a bigger risk of losing Souls. Shows how a rule change can change a game.
Obligatory Follow Me Section