Microscope Paradox
When I explain microscope to someone or let them read the rules, the usual reaction is “ah, umm, okay” possibly with a polite “that’s looks interesting.”
But when we then sit down and play microscope, the usual reaction is “damn that was fun!” often with a side of “when can we play again?”
The conclusion is clear: I’m doing a bad job of describing microscope. The rules work and make a fun game, but you can’t see how until you play. Hardly a winning recipe.
So my new mission (in addition to playing microscope as much as possible) is to find a better way to explain the game. Of course two weeks ago I wasn’t even sure it was a viable game and now I think it rocks, so I can hardly complain.
Leave a reply
I have (and still have) that problem with Principia too. It’s maddening. When people read the rules, they can’t see how it could possibly work in play, but when they play it, they like it.
On the bright side you guys may have solved my problem describing the game. “Microscope: it’s quite maddening!”
I concur. You guys are the reason I wanted to play InSpace, and now I fear your hush-hush behavior is quite maddening!
The lack of solid information presented about the game, while completely understandable from multiple perspectives, is quite maddening. I’m afraid I may go cross-eyed.