I wasted my entire life playing chess. But so what.

Winning doesn’t prove anything, does it?

My pet peeve is when people discuss replayability after only a couple plays, to me that's the same as people talking about the strategy or value of a game based on just the rules! Play the game a tonne first, and then tell me why it is or isn't replayable.

Dollar for dollar, a roleplaying game is very nearly the most efficient entertainment you can buy.

I’m not of the school that a game should be short by principle. I like a deep game, I like a multi-layered game. As a player, if I play a game and crack it, get it from the get go, I’m probably not interested in playing it again. And that’s not what I want to offer to people who buy my games.

In other words, the important thing to ask is not What is painting? or What is game design? Instead, the real question is: What is gained and what is lost when we define it in a particular way?

The end of a game can be suspenseful, but your rules should not be.

A tie is what you get after ice cubes have wrestled with hot water.

Play nurtures a supple mind, a willingness to think in new categories, and an ability to make unexpected associations.

If people cannot make it through your rulebook, then they will not play your game, will not recommend to friends, or worse will publicly complain about your "mess of a game." Come to think of it, what is your game but a pile of components and a set of rules?