[ctdonath]

Maybe a key lesson is that the game is essentially playing itself, that in battle so many factors work independent of your intent that one must accept that there is little one can do to change the outcome, and how important it is to insightfully work that little one can do.

[smacktoward]

Yeah, it's possible to imagine a game whose objective is essentially pedagogical -- to teach the player that generals in war aren't really in control of much at all, that they're just trying the best they can to hang on to a bucking bronco.

Would anybody play that game, though? Is there a way to make a game fun (or at least tolerable), when its core mechanics are all designed to frustrate your intentions? I'm not sure.

[msandford]

That game is called Fluxx. A part of the game is that you can play cards that change the rules. So people draw cards and work on strategies that inevitably change before they can be finished. Eventually someone looks at the board and realizes that they've won. Usually completely by accident.

Personally I hate it, but there are plenty of people who like it too.