"Why do Yanks and Brits not play the same games?" Topic

I'm always fascinated that there is such a divide running down the middle of the Atlantic, with regard to wargames rules.

Pretty much nobody in the US plays Le Feu Sacré, or Huzzah, or Polemos, or General de Brigade. Virtually no one has even *heard* of games like "In the Grand Manner," which most British gamers cut their teeth on.

Meanwhile very few British gamers play Shako, or Age of Eagles, or Napoleon's Battles, or the one most Americans cut their teeth on: "Empire."

We just don't play the same games. I don't know why. Is it the Metric-vs-Imperial divide? Is the it very different style of writing (Yanks like things legalistically precise and enumerated like a technical manual… Brits prefer a narrative, and one that's vague enough to improvise…)? Is it the fact that most Americans have big houses with big tables and prefer historical scenarios; whereas most Brits have smaller houses with smaller tables and prefer points-based pickup games? Is it that most Americans play at home, and don't mind a longer game… whereas most Brits play in a club setting and want to be done in 2-3 hours?

Whatever it is, I've seen it for years; somebody shows up on TMP and asks for a Napoleonic rules recommendation, and the Yanks will all scratch their heads and say, "Huh?" at the recommendations of the Brits, and vice-versa.

(I wonder where the Aussies and Canadians fit into all of this? Not to mention the Continentals…)

I think that it stems from the dark days before the internet when stuff from overseas (either side) was hard to come by – or expensive to buy when shipping was factored in.

Even players who've started since the 1990's fall into this as they're being taught only the rulesets that others know.

Wyatt

That is an interesting observation. I would bet though that there is more usage of the various rules on both sides of the pond than one would assume from just the TMP chatter. But on the whole, I would agree with your assessment.

I actually know a fair number of people who play In The Grand Manner in the US, although it is not as popular as it once was after the passing of Mr. Gilder. At Historicon this year, I saw Napoleonic games using all of the rules (except for Empire) that you mentioned and maybe one General de Brigade game. It may be a matter of where the particular rules writer or publisher resides. The rules are promoted at the conventions in the home country and thus there are more adherants of the home grown rules in each country.

Wyatt is right that the internet has started to change things, and rules are now "crossing the pond" more than they used to.

Before the 'net, wargaming was basically a word-of-mouth-only hobby.

With the exception of the writing style, I think most of the differnce stems from the space issue. U.S. gamers tend to have more space to play, bigger tables to play on and seemingly, larger collections to use. This factor drives game style and scenario choice.

I disagree…I'm an American who's lived in Europe for the last 10 years, eight of those in the UK where I belonged to a very active club. Although I agree there are differences in approaches, I've played in Fire and Fury tournaments in the UK, played Napoleon's Battles and Age of Eagles, Flames of War, and Warhammer Ancients. Of course DBA/M are also played on both continents.

BTW there are many UK rules sets that use inches, for example WAB.

Now I believe the market is becoming more of a one world view thanks to the internet. Through sites such as TMP we are much more aware of rules produced in other countries and those rules sets are far more available than every.

Agreed Fritz,

Some UK games are big here DBM/FoG dominate Ancient and Mediveal.

Many people here played Bruce Quarries' rules.

As someone who has lived in both counties I think it comes from a difference in whee we get our rules. In the UK I got most of my stuff from mail order and a shows. Here most of my purchases are made at the gaming stores – we're luck with a population 1.2million people we've 3 or 4 gaming stores. People tend to play what get's onto the shelves and grabs peoples imagination.

Here I've played Shako, Napoleons Battles, Empire and Napoleonic Command. I know that the stores now carry LFS and GdB, but no one seems to pick up on them.

My reading of Napoleonic Rules (several of the sets mentioned here and WRG) seems that the size of the battle is the tipping point. UK rules seem to be about playing the smaller end of the battle, actions of Compainies and Battalions. Table sizes and force ratios seem to indicate less than a Division per side.

US rules do seem to favor battles and Corps as the "normal" player force. I think some of this might be driven by the texts that the rules writers were exposed to. Also Peninsula battles are on the smaller end of the spectrum.

Distribution may be a historic reason for these differences. In the past (more than 6 or 7 years ago) I bought most if not all of my wargaming goodies at conventions, this is also where I learned about rules systems. Now I buy most online and learn about new rules via websites like this one.

Ed G.

This is not a measure of what is being played, but I sell General de Brigade, Shako II, Age of Eagles and Grande Armee all pretty well.

Mark Severin
Owner, Scale Creep Miniatures
scalecreep.com

Curiously, despite the space issue, I believe that a larger percentage of UK gamers use 25/28 whereas a larger percentage of US gamers use 15 or smaller.

"Pretty much nobody in the US…"

I guess I'm pretty much nobody, then, Sam. But I believe that your question is based on a false assumption.

Allen

I am a Canadian in the USA. For some reason I seem to run games using British rulesets (Blitzkrieg-Commander, General de Brigade, Principles of War, and A&A Game Engineering naval rules). I have wondered if American rules tend to be more complex/detailed. I prefer less complex/detailed playing rules. I do enjoy Fire and Fury. I also focus on finishing a game in 4 hours.

Maybe someday I'll have to get in some gaming in the UK. I certainly enjoy the rules that come out of Britain.

'Imperial' measurements.

Think about it.

Sundance: I wouldn't agree and in fact I would have guessed it is the other way round. I regularly go to 4 UK clubs and it is years since I last saw a 25/28mm game at any of them. You see 25/28mm at shows but not for real games.

Its simple….Americans are statto's. This is not an insult but every American I have ever known when it comes to wargaming loves table after table in their rules. I mean, have you ever read the rules From Valmy to Waterloo. I have never read anything so over engineered, so complex and completely unplayable in all my life!! I think Brits tend to like rules that give flavour to games as opposed to be direct simulations. Empire, Age of Reason, Ancient Empires etc are all the same, total and complete simulations taking into account every possible event on the table top. Most British rules have a degree of greyness about them when it comes to morale and combat. Often the event is not important, what is more important is the result. American games seem to give importance to both aspects, sometimes to the detrimiment of the game in my opinion.

When I posted this I knew it would result in many people pointing out that they are exceptions.

But as a general rule, it sure does seem – particularly in horse-n-musket gaming, where no big "global" set (like Flames of War, Warhammer, FoG, etc.) has taken hold – that the Brits and Yanks are on different planets, game-wise.

By the way, that's a separate topic, but… why have Brits and New Zealanders been able to produce wargames rules that the whole world plays, but Americans haven't?

As a Gentleman Wargamer on the English side of "the pond" I've never played any of the rules that Guvion St Mango charcterises as being favoured by British gamers but I do swear by Shok and find Age of Eagles interesting.

And in terms of the 25/28mm to 15mm English-American preferences I only game in 15mm.

Oh yes. And I game at home rather than at a club.

And finally I'd throw a considerable number of heavy dice at anyone who dared to suggest I showed American tendencies.

I think all of your initial observations have some merit and Alte Fritz's point that the rules being promoted at shows by the designer has a lot to do with what gets played.

Your second question I think points to the tournament thing. Brit players seem to have a tournament mindset, so FoG, DBx, and FoW are all overwhelmingly tournament oriented games (yes you can play historical scenarios with them but who does?). American rules seem to be more scenario oriented.

Tournament games are a quick fix, scenario driven games require more prep time.

"By the way, that's a separate topic, but… why have Brits and New Zealanders been able to produce wargames rules that the whole world plays, but Americans haven't?"

RPG's, for the most part, have been an American invention, as are video games, but I can think of no major successes in massed wargames that had/have any longevity.

Dollars and cents. The postage rate. The exchange rate. The immediate availability all have bearing on what gamers play the game.

NB, for instance has a points system that works ok. So you could do a pickup game with, say a small corps per side and play it to conclusion in a few hours. So, while game size might be a consideration, it is probably not a deal breaker.

Game length is of huge concern to all folks who are married with children. We can't get a game in until after 8:00 and these usually occur during the week so we can't stay up much past midnight and expect to function in the AM. So rule that one out as a limiter, at least for the folks in my boat.

Back to my dollars and cents statement, gamers are cheap animals. They want to pay something for rules but not a lot of something.

Gamers want satisfaction. If the game is perceived to be too far away (not available in the UK for instance) they will take a pass.

With the exchange rate between the US and UK being what it is these days, I hear some folks in the US saying "now is the time to order from the other side!" TFL has a good model for their rules with PDF or Print. Folks here in the US can get them for a reasonable price if they would want.

One more thing, US gamers are far from chart happy. Most folks would rather keep the QRS concise and on 2 sides of a single sheet of paper in a font that an 80 year old can read.

John

Greenryth- what a complete load of .

You're bringing up examples from the 70s and 80s when all rules were very heavy into number crunching. A lot of the Table Top Games and WRG stuff out of the UK at the same time suffered from the same design problems. Bruce Quarrie's "Napoleon's Campaigns in Miniature" are mind-numbingly bottom up detailed.

And if you call "Warfare in the Age of Reason" overly complicated then you really do want simple games.

One broad generalization that may be relevant is the radically different response to GW games on either sides of the Atlantic.

Apparently, when they are designed and playtested in Britain, they work perfectly well for a culture with long traditions of sportsmanship and fairplay.

When the games get to North America they are ravaged by a culture that is more cultivated from a tradition of 'win at all costs' so army lists get skewed and broken. Min-Maxing is something that the British game developers don't seem capable of testing against.

Often, in British games like GW, rules and fluff and examples all get blended together. There is an assumption that the players will naturally come to a friendly agreement on rules interpretation differences. This does not work well in my neck of the woods (western Canada).

Look at something like Napoleon's Battles though, originally by Avalon Hill, with its very precise rules including precisely numbered paragraphs. It is designed for precision play on the assumption that its players will always be looking to push the rules. It tries to be airtight.

If one looks at war movies made by Americans, they are almost universally about a good side vs an evil side and the good side winning at all costs. British war films almost universally portray their enemies as honourable, almost equal, and often depict how victory is vague and sometimes even the losers in a conflict can claim a victory.

Some assertions here are so far out of kilter with my experience that I don't even know how to begin to comment.

I really can't comment on the core GW games. But when it comes to Warhammer Ancient Battles, I'd suggest that those US writers who have written or worked on WAB supplements have indeed worked rather hard to prevent abuse.

But in my experience, that's because the worst min-maxers and others seeking to obtain any possible advantage have come from the UK Warhammer scene, not the US. And so when recruiting playtesters to try and "break" the army lists and rules, the best candidates have come from the UK.

Sportsmanship and fairplay? Those can easily be found on the US WAB tournament scene.

Allen

Figure gaming has it's Featherstone roots here (UK).

On the other hand, as a boardgamer, I note that these games have American roots and consequently the centre of gravity for boardgamers and producers is still very strongly U.S. centred.

As a yank, i too see this general trend. My favorite WWII game is IABSM, which is very loose in the specifics but gives a very good feel to the table play. Most of my friends are in to FOW and other more itemized games. Infact, the only way I can usually get my IABSM fix is to host a game day at the house and provide both sides.

I do thing we may be a bit overcompetitive and have less enjpoyment in just playing the game. Now don't get upset guys, this is just my impressions based on our local metagame.

Having played at the Gettysburg club 'Bill Molyneux' as a Brit on vacation / holiday I can safely say the gamers are the same, we take the mickey out of the same type of people, the jokes are the same and the dice rolls are as bad at the critical time etc; rules though are different Brits like factors Americans prefer a simpler system etc;

That is why I have Minature Wargames in the UK and Minature Vault in the US pushing my rules in December and January, 'Eagles & Emperors' advertising both sides of the pond so to speak.

The pond is more a puddle these days, i'm looking forward to getting over there again in September, So if any American Cousins want a Brit for a game i'm up for it as we say, be goo to see the Gettysburg mob again.

"very few British gamers play Shako"

Shako was the only Napoleonic set I played for years. Perhaps I was an exception, but then so were all the other people I was playing wth I guess. It is still played at our club, just not every week.

I am not at all convinced by the basic premise. I do think there will be inevitable differences in the types and frequency of games played just due to the differences in geography and population distribution.

Jamesonsafari dont take it as an insult!! All of the wargames rules stated are not 70's and 80's sets. And compared to most British rules Warfare in the Age of Reason is table and modifcation heavy. Bruce Quarries Napoleons Campaigns in Miniature are very basic rule sets with in depth campaign information. The rules themselves are very, very simple. I defy you to find me anyone in the world who has played all 384 phases per turn of a Valmy to Waterloo game and come to a more satisfy and and realistic result than General de Brigade? Jonny Reb is another example of over complicated rules. At the heart of it Jonny Reb is a good ruleset once you get past the Rule 34 subparagraph 6.42 garbage that permeamtes through most American rulesets. It doesnt have to be that complicated. Rolling dice just gives us a random element of chance on a decision that modifications should in themselves decide. We do need to show the element of luck and chance but generally a decision can be made on the roll of a D6 plus or m inus a few mods. Its not a criticism it is an observation. I think it boils down to why americans like basketball compared to football (soccer). 1-1 is just not simple enough when you can 114-113. Again I am not criticising just observing….we are very different in some ways.

I have always suspected that rules are approached differently on either side of the pond. Most gamers here in a America, or at least those I have encountered, approach rules with the premise; that all that is not explicitly forbidden is permitted. The rules I have read and played from Britain seem to be written for the opposite approach; that which is not explicitly permitted is forbidden.

My experience playing games with Brits is limited to two large Napoleonic games played between miniature gamers from the BAOR and USAEUR at their respective Cons in the mid 70s. So I really can't say if this perception of differences of approach is valid or not.

Gross generality follows: I'd say US rules are more complicated but we tend to play the same game a lot either at home or at a local hobby shop (if we're lucky).

Brits tend to meet more often to play, and play a greater variety of games -- hence the need for short games that are easy to grasp.

Ray

Good point Raylev3. I do not belong to a club but we do organise big wargames weekends amongst friends generwlly where we play several games (and often board games). Going back to my earlier point…another example of elaboration and over complication has definitely permeated the board games market. Many American games, particularly from fantasy flight are very complicated indeed (although I love them). Compare this to games such 1630 something for example or some the German games that have been released recently and I think you will find most seem to have a simple pick up and play feel as opposed to reading rules for three hours before playing.

Bruce Quarries Napoleons Campaigns in Miniature are very basic rule sets with in depth campaign information. The rules themselves are very, very simple.

To someone who is familiar with double entry book-keeping maybe

I have a copy in front of me:

There's a table for artillery fire by type of shot/weight – the modifiers are given according to range. Following that, there's a list of additions and deductions again by weight of shot/type. The casualties caused after working all that out depend on how many guns are in the battery. There are six 'special artillery rules' that modify the above

That's enough complication for me, thanks. I'll stick with Grande Armee

It is just geographical. We play what our friends and fathers teach us. So unless your friend was from the other country you learned your local rules and once you learn a gaming style you tend to stick with it either out of conveniance, laziness or just tradition.

"Most gamers here in a America, or at least those I have encountered, approach rules with the premise; that all that is not explicitly forbidden is permitted. The rules I have read and played from Britain seem to be written for the opposite approach; that which is not explicitly permitted is forbidden."

That seems to come out of touneyment play – FoG has the statement that if a move is not explicitly permitted is forbidden. ;)

"I can safely say the gamers are the same, we take the mickey out of the same type of people, the jokes are the same and the dice rolls are as bad at the critical time etc;"
That's very true!

"Your second question I think points to the tournament thing. Brit players seem to have a tournament mindset, so FoG, DBx, and FoW are all overwhelmingly tournament oriented games (yes you can play historical scenarios with them but who does?). American rules seem to be more scenario oriented."

and

"Most gamers here in a America, or at least those I have encountered, approach rules with the premise; that all that is not explicitly forbidden is permitted. The rules I have read and played from Britain seem to be written for the opposite approach; that which is not explicitly permitted is forbidden."

are interesting. From a fantasy-gaming point of view, it seems to me like the opposite. Compare, say, GW's take on Tournaments, to say, Privateer Press'. Reading some articles by the likes of Jervis Johnson, Andy Chambers, etc, they seemed to treat the 2,000 points 'tournament' game as a necessary evil, and from 2nd ed 40K onwards, put a reasnonable amount of effort into making scenario play feasible out of the box. Compare Warmachine, where the preferred game type is 500 points, start opposite each other, first to kill the leader wins. It's an extension of the "sanctioned play" mindset provided by Wizkids and WotC.

I don't want to be picky but …

'Figure gaming has it's Featherstone roots here (UK).'

So what about Jack Scruby and Joseph Morschauser?

As a Brit, I think that there is no 'divide running down the middle of the Atlantic, with regard to wargames rules'. I have almost as many sets of American wargames rules on my shelves as I have British ones, and I have played games using rules from both sides of the Atlantic. There may be some cultural difference between the two nations with regard to their general attitude to the wargames they play, and no doubt we tend to favour rules that are 'home grown' … but mainly, I think, because of ease of availability rather than anything else.

A good set of wargames rules is a good set of wargames rules, regardless of where they come from … just like a good wargamer to play with or against is a good wargamer wherever they come from

PS. I am the membership secretary of Wargame Developments, and although it is based in the UK, our membership covers the globe (86% from the UK, 4% from Europe, 1% from Australia, and 8% from the USA) and all nationalities contribute to the content of the journal we publish 9 time per year.

"Your second question I think points to the tournament thing. Brit players seem to have a tournament mindset, so FoG, DBx, and FoW are all overwhelmingly tournament oriented games (yes you can play historical scenarios with them but who does?). American rules seem to be more scenario oriented."

That's a period or rules thing – I've played in the UK, US, South Africa and NZ. The gamers who were drawn to tourneyments and being rules lawyers play those types of game.

By the same token, in the same countries I found gamers who were not into tourneyment gaming peferred scenarios.

"Brit players seem to have a tournament mindset,"

I know quite a lot of UK gamers for whom that statement is totally untrue!

I hate tournament gaming…dont really see the point…I like the historical aspect.

I have never played in a tournament. Never will, doesn't appeal.

There are an awful lot of skewed perceptions in this thread, from both sides of the Atlantic

Brit players seem to have a tournament mindset

Some do, most don't,at least from my experience.

None of the people I play with do.

It might depend on the historical period we are talking about.

I'm thinking it has something to do with which group gets to play games in pubs.

- Bob

I think the "Brit vs. Yank" Divide over rules is a myth with a life of its own. I don't really have any proof to back this assertion up with, but I can point to my sales, which are split roughly 50% between the US and the UK (looking at only sales to those nations – my sales break down to something like 40% domestic and 60% European when I factor in sales to Spain, France, and Portugal – all good markets for me).

Just my 2 cents/pence.

I am an aussie,

We play "ALL" sets of rules with no preference from one side of the Atlantic to the other, its all to do with the flavour of the month more than anything else.

Shane

From Canada, I'll second what Mr. Devries has said.

However, the main divide is not style, or substance, but what the distributor can get in for a price his customers will pay and he can make money on. If the game system is easy to get and relatively popular, it'll get stocked. If the owner has to pay extra customs and duties, and the consumer's price point is exceeded, it won't be.

Based upon 5+ years working in stores that have sold games and gaming products.

SMc.

MalcomMcCallum said"When the games get to North America they are ravaged by a culture that is more cultivated from a tradition of 'win at all costs' so army lists get skewed and broken"

Isn't that what military commanders have tried to do for ages

As an American, I find this debate faintly amusing. Lately, I'm finding myself intrigued with Italian gaming: Impetus rules, and Testudo, Mirliton and Venexia miniatures.

I do understand the scenario arguement, however, as our group (and my friends since High School) never got into the points based army concept. And we've been gaming since the late 1970s.

I also think this discussion is based on anecdotes rather than facts. Our group tends to play what we like whereever it comes from. Did someone say Americans didn't create a rules set played worldwide? Um, what is The Sword and the Flame?

Thanks,

John