Originally Posted by noparlpf
Note that chess has comparatively few rules, and largely works on account of the emergent complexity those rules produce given the spatial configuration of the pieces. It's a highly elegant game in that regard. Your proposed rule, meanwhile, introduces a complicated to fix a minor problem that could be fixed by altering the rules causing it to emerge in the first place, which is about as inelegant as it gets short of outright allowing the problem.
You could, at any point make a process more obtuse through obfuscation without meaningfully changing the rules. You can model the exact same thing in a much more inefficient manner. Both of these increase the requirement to understand the rules, and absolutely nothing is gained. If anything, something is lost, as the rules now use up more focus that could have gone to the characters, or the setting, or interactions between the two. Sure, building the rules this way does remove some of the potential for people to proclaim their intellectual superiority for being able to understand them in the first place, but that isn't of any worth in the first place.