The Style of Rulesets and I can't shut up Part Deux

["Electronicwaffle" <electronicwaffle@...>]

I understand the "getting the gest" of a game after one playing. 
However I feel unsettled if the rules alone can not explain a game.

Ok, Choosy Sushi Blew Chunks, I admit that... but it was my first 
attempt,  with less than a month of piecepack experience under my 
belt. (Roughly half a month at that.)

I try to keep the tone of my rules formal, not using slang, keeping 
the directions in the third person... stuff like that. I think 
sincerity and an offical prose is needed and expected when one is 
being instructed.

I must admit however, that I threw all this to the wind with a game 
I purposefully wanted to be "casual". With the exception of 
such "party" games, I think certain assumptions can be made, and 
still others can not. 

My most recent game (not the one aforementioned) is stretching my 
gaming experience.I am finding some uncharted teritory, a Unique 
board layout. Another challenge is forcing all of the bits together 
to share more in common.  I wish to use conventions that I may not 
be aware of so later on editing could be kept to a minimum. Because 
piecepack is by definition generic in nature, multiple games and 
mechanics of those games can be designed from less than (at present) 
60 pieces.  New ideas form almost daily and the best way to form 
these ideas to best posible fruiton is to have feedback. The best 
place to do this for piecepack games is in this group.

I appologize to those who subscribe to a Email listing of these 
messages. I do not receive emails from this group. if I did perhaps 
I would shut up, so I would not see such a long email. However I 
know from personal experience that ideas not put down as soon as 
possible are lost forever. 

Eric