"Old Games vs. New Games: Why Gamers Tinker with Rules?" Topic

Today our group played an old (@1984) rule set, and it caused an epiphany. This will take a moment, so bear with me.

It's a fairly well-known rules writer and set from back in the day, and it has all the hallmarks of 1980s wargaming: tons and tons of tables, dice rolls, and modifiers:

"Okay, the Sneeches are charging the Vermicious Knids, so the Knids need to take a morale test to see if they stand: Base X, plus 3 for this, minus 2 for that, plus 1 for this, but down 2 for the other – Roll! Okay, you stand."

"Now the Knids get Defensive Fire: Plus 4 for this, minus 3 for that, plus 2 for this, minus 1 for the other – Roll! Okay, that's three hits."

"Now the Knids check to see the effect of each hit: plus 2 for this, minus 1 for that, plus 2 for… wait a second, I lost my place in the list of 18 modifiers… right, plus 2 for the other – Roll! Okay, two of those three hits are kills."

"Now the Sneeches get Saving Throws: plus 3 for this, minus 1 for that, plus 2 for the other – Roll! Okay, they saved one, so that leaves one kill. Mark that, because it will be a modifier on the Sneeches when we get to the Combat Resolution Phase."

"Okay, Sneeches, let's see if you charge home after taking that kill: plus 5 for this, minus 1 for that, plus 3….."

It seems that a LOT of wargames were designed that way for many, many years. No attempt to streamline, no real appreciation for the tedium of doing all those steps over and over and over again, every time anybody made any action or decision at all.

Wargame designs today are often a lot more elegant. A great many things are subsumed into single processes. Most actions require only one or two steps to resolve, and many things are decided arbitarily by a Yes/No question, rather than a series of rolls on a modified table. (The occasional grognard harrumphs that it's not "historically accurate" any more, but that's another issue.)

For as far back as I can remember, whenever a game comes out, people play it once, or perhaps just skim through the book and never play it at all, but immediately begin suggesting changes to "fix" this or that. I'd bet that at 50% of the online chatter about any game, in fact, is suggested house rules, changes, modifiers, etc.

Here's the epiphany part: The reason that wargamers are so ready to alter game designs is that most of us grew up on really complex, overly-processed game designs.

If your game requires seven steps, each with dice rolls and modifiers, to resolve a single charge combat, then Yes, you probably could change here or there, without massively altering the outcomes. But most modern game designs are written and tested a lot "tighter" than that, and in fact a casual change here or there would have a massive effect on the system, because there are fewer decision-points, less randomization, and fewer opportunities for modification.

For example: in the game we played today, there was a list of 18 modifiers for shooting; a list of 16 modifiers for morale checks, etc. And in fact it seemed as if we were all testing morale three or four times per turn for each engaged unit. And the results of the tests were rarely decisive; you might acquire various additional penalties (modifiers), but rarely just broke. Tinkering a bit here or there would not have as great an effect as tinkering with a game in which a morale test is rare, very important, and rarely modified.

One last point: in the past year or so, I've seen a lot of people on TMP grumbling that "kids today" prefer their games spoon-fed without any DIY or room for modification. The kids will just play the game as-written (Go Figure!) and not rip it to shreds like us True Grognards who are never satisfied. I can't help but wonder if that's part of that 1980s Gamer phenomenon. Kids today have grown up on simpler, more streamlined game designs. They don't see any need to alter every game they come across.

I don't know. I tend to believe that as gamers become more experienced they tend to tinker somewhat with the rules they use. They want to make them closer to what their vision is for the period at hand. Younger gamers tend to not tweak much of anything due to a complete lack of experience. Of course, these are generalizations and exceptions exist.

Thanks,

John

I think most clubs have used house rules.
Yes the 1980's had complex rule systems but that was a reaction to the simple rules of the 1970's

A rule set is not holy scripture, (unless it is GW) there is no heresy in changing things!

Wargamers devising local club or homegrown rules has been an important part of the gaming experience since the 1970s at least.

Most wargamers at that time were often veterans and/or college students/graduates with a lot of experience and/or 'smarts'. It was and still is a common fact that it will happen.

I am sure that some rules over the years have some of their basic concepts based in a homegrown or club rules alternate set of rules.

When I was doing a lot of traveling in the 1980s and 1990s, I used to have seminars/discussions with members of local clubs who wanted me to sharpshoot their local modifications to my rules that they were using. Sometimes I could make them see why I had some mechanics as I did and other times they left still prefering their alternative.

The suggestions that I always started each meeting with were that: 1. If it was a tournament or club vs club situation then the original set should be used as all players were familiar with that set. 2. All players in a club should agree on a modification. 3. Rule disagreements should be resolved as closely as possible with the original intent of that mechanic as given in the original set of rules.

Over the past 30 years of miniature gaming, I have found that the average gamer is highly intelligent Thus they often offer interesting tidbits or data or experience that can contribute to the design or improvement of a rules set. This is why good designers spend more time playtesting than the publisher or they themselves would like. Better to work out the kinks before publication than experience the bombardment of questions by rules lawyers and/or snipers.

It seems that a LOT of wargames were designed that way for many, many years. No attempt to streamline, no real appreciation for the tedium of doing all those steps over and over and over again, every time anybody made any action or decision at all.

Yebbut it was realistic wasn't it?

Yes the 1980's had complex rule systems but that was a reaction to the simple rules of the 1970's

I've got Grant's 'Battle' in front of me. I may be running a game or two with it. Using Airfix models. :)

"most of us grew up on really complex, overly-processed game designs."

I didn't. I started with Featherstone's rules from his books. hardly complex and definitely not "overly-processed"!

Ditto Mike

Though I must confess I was lured away by the 'accurate' rules of the 80s for a while.

At the risk of sounding like a fanboy/sock puppet/arse kisser, Sam's M&R are one of the best rule sets I've played in decades. I probably wouldn't have looked at them twice in the 80s because they don't have 8 pull out charts and a QRS that runs to a half dozen pages.

We haven't felt the need to fiddle with them either. Go figure.

Way back when, your rules choices were quite limited.

At present if your rules don't do it for you, often you can find rules that do get it done. No need to reinvent the wheel.

With WWI aircraft games, we got tired of guessing games, simplifications, and stuff that was just physically wrong -- so we wrote our own rules. You can only house rules an existing game so much. We wanted a 3D game that was truly 3D to include effects on the aircraft.

Any more I tell folks to put up a legitimate alternative if they don't like the rules or shut up and play the game as written. My time is precious and I refuse to spend it arguing about rules.

Don't do house rules any more.

mjc

It is the alternative to tinkering that I find troubling. I can't understand how every week the GW folks that play alongside us grognards refuse to even consider changing a rule that they all agree is problematic or changing the point cost on a unit that they all agree is underpriced.

Old school gamers take ownership of the games that they play. They will change whatever they like whenever they wish and that seems a healthy attitude to play.

I just realized that I don't do house rules anymore because I don't play with people who's gaming style necessitates house rules.

For example, I used to game with a guy who loved to mass his fastest units on the flanks in order to exploit the 1 – 2" gap on the flanks to the "end of the world" board edge. We played one rules set that incorporated a negative modifier if you were within "x" inches from the edge. This was to simulate that just because the board ended there in reality there would be other units off board you had to worry about. So we incorporated this rule into a bunch of other games we played.

Also, in some games we came up with a courier system to pass notes between players. In one respect this was implemented to limit the effect of the guy on one flank who wanted to affect the happenings on the other flank. You know, the guy who is on your side who knows all the rules and tactics and won't let you make a mistake so he moves your units for you.

I find the older wargames far superior to the newer waterd down stuff thats all geared to the endless drwoning about simplicity. But lots of the dta was not known or guessed. So room for tinkering even in these fine sets was there. Its as much a part of the hobby as the gaming. Like today the most of the hobby appears to be these foums where poeple complain about EVERYTHIHNG in the hobby the
"Enjoy"

Everbody bitching about "complexity" Grab Charles Grants "Battle" and be done with it. The next simplier to that is a coin toss.

For me, tinkering with and writing rules is a fundamental part of my hobby.

You might as well ask why I collect figures, paint them, buy/make terrain etc etc.

We encourage people to tinker with our rules. We put a lot of thought, effort, and testing time into getting them right, but our version of right might not be the same as that held near and dear by each and every one of our customers. What matters in the long run is that the game works for the folks playing it. If that means a group of players in Sandybottom, Arkansas want their Strykers to blow up less often and a grouop in Highdudgeon, UK think they should blow up more often, then more power to them both.

We're not tournement oriented, so there's no need to adhere to a strict orthodoxy as long as all players involved understand what changes have been made to the game before it starts.

We trust that players will notice if their tinkering has thrown the whole cart off balance and adjust as necessary. Sometimes by the act of tinkering with a rule and seeing the results, players realize why we did something the way we did and go back to the rule as originally written – sometimes they don't. Either way is fine with us.

I agree, though, that younger players seem to be used to rules that are more tightly integrated and tested and can't be modified as lightly as some of the old 80s games could be. It don't stop 'em trying, though, in my experience.

"most of us grew up on really complex, overly-processed game designs."

I didn't. I started with Featherstone's rules from his books. hardly complex and definitely not "overly-processed"!

I came in from boardgames, particularly SPI games. Those overly complex miniatures rules, like WRG Ancients with all the tables and modifiers, were actually simple compared to some SPI games.

Oddly, I have never played a Featherstome game.

I'm with you, John. I came in with SPI and AH. The first few miniatures games I played seemed a LOT simpler than most of the old counter based games.

My guess would be that most younger people got inttroduced to games through copmuter / video games. Most of these are for the most part non-tinkerable mediums (now I know that if you really want to you can change some things some of the time).

I think this means they are more likely to just either enjoy or not enjoy what they get out of the package. And if they don't like it they just buy another one.

No, we tinkered with Grant's Battle because it wasn't complex enough for us. Same with Dunn's ship rules from MAP. We tinkered with Angriff because it didn't have all te vehicles we liked and we were too stupid to understand the tray concept.

Other rules we've tinkered with because we found minor things about them that we didn't like. Other times our house rules evolved, simply because the process of adding house rules is very much like writing rules themselves.
--
Tim

I still think that the difference between "complex" and "simple" rules is more to do with what they are attempting to recreate than an attempt to complicate things.

Simple rules are Effect-based – they are trying to recreate the effect that a charge/shooting/close combat would have.

Complex rules are attempting to reproduce the same thing by modelling the process that the shooters/combatants go through – hence the 3 moral tests required before closing for combat.

In the end, the result should be the same and for that reason I prefer effect-based games as they are quicker and (for me) more fun to play.

Mike

Dunno about young gamers not tinkering with things- I'm a young gamer (16) and I've got quite a few house rules I've come up with to fix perceived problems with games I play. The hard part is getting other people to use them! Most of my gaming buddies are GW, or ex-GW gamers, and it show badly. Even if they agree a rule needs tweaking, they'll be very hesitant to change it.

I can't comment on the 70's or 80's (due to not being alive), but I think it's a generalisation to say that younger gamers all like simpler games. For instance, my mate Daniel revels in stupid levels of complexity for their own sakes- he doesn't play any historical games, so he cannot claim 'realism' as a defence. He just likes complex games. Then you get people like me who find even 'simple' games like Full Thrust too slow playing. Naturally, this can be the cause of much debate amongst our group.

I liked Featherstone and CS Grant, then I played WRG 5th and 6th and found it was complex initally until I became familiar with them and then there was no need to get bogged down unless you needed to clarify a rule. I liked TACTICA in some ways but not others, then got turned off by Empire IV. So I took a long sabbatical, played solo, tried and didn't like DBA (too simple). Now its house rules, which are simple but give me what I want. I guess thats all that counts; I enjoy the outcome/taking part in my games with my group using rules that are simple.

cheers
Jon.

We've always tinkered with rules, usually seeking a middle ground where we've simplified some needless complex mechanic or added a bit of chrome/flavor to a very simple system.

A few thoughts based on being around our strange hobby since 1970, when I was a naive 12 year old.

Wargamers do love to tinker. I suspect this is more to do with the nature of what we do – essentially recreating human behaviour using inanimate objects and mathematical mechanics – than the complexity of the rules.

I think those of us who do so would tinker under any circumstances. Both Sam and I do, and I look on his suggestions for changes in my own in-development rules to be worthy of careful consideration. Some other people – er, not usually so much!

Incidentally, I'd place the onset of hyper complex rules as far back as the early 1970s, with not only WRG but the fearsomely over-detailed Newbury rules, 'Shock of Impact' and – of course – the impenetrable works of Scott Bowden. By the 1980s a backlash was beginning to occur with Paddy Griffith's "Napoleonic Wargaming for Fun" and the formation of Wargames Developments.

Incidentally, I'd place the onset of hyper complex rules as far back as the early 1970s, with not only WRG but the fearsomely over-detailed Newbury rules, 'Shock of Impact'

Perhaps, but I must quibble with your timeline MJS. Newbury ancients arrived on a unsuspecting world in 1979, with SoI following in 1981. I've got the s in front of me, those are their copyright dates

I've been at it since 1970 too, and I've kept just about every set of rules I ever bought :)

Here's the epiphany part: The reason that wargamers are so ready to alter game designs is that most of us grew up on really complex, overly-processed game designs.

Nah, I haven't seen the desire to alter the rules shrink along with the complexity of games. I think the reason folks are so ready to alter the game designs is because they usually don't know what history the design was built on in the first place. They know what they've read, they don't know what the designer has. Also, gamers misinterpret the reasons for the rules.

You seldom hear gamers changing the rules because they want more dice throwing, or eliminating all the modifiers because they don't like them. It's almost always a perceived lack of historicity that motivates the changes.

One of my epiphanies: I learned recently that the command radius rule in Fire and Fury was not intended to portray the basic command system during the ACW. It was included to simulate any command support outside the normal command system. That is why there is a +1 for being 'in command', but no negative results for being 'out of command.'

I and everyone I have ever played with or spoken to about the design has assumed that rule is a bare-bones representation of a command system--ever since the rules came out more than a decade ago. That is the way it was played. I know more than one player who thought the rule was ridiculous and changed it to a negative modifier for being 'out-of-command' like so many other rules sets.

Unfortunately, because of a lack of information, any of the history Richard H. found supporting the rule and his intentions for game play were lost for that game mechanic. It also makes me wonder how many other game mechanics in F&F have been misunderstood, the designer's history and design intentions lost because of it. And how many spurred gamers to change the rules.

That's not counting the number of variants from SYW to FPW built on erroneous conclusions about just that one game design.

It makes sense: When players don't know the why of the rule or what historical information supports it, they change it to what they do know.

The same thing happened with the Zero and Wildcat combat rules Sam mentioned in another thread. The more complex, multi-role combat process wasn't questioned. The moment he changed the mechanics and subsumed all the processes into a single die-roll, the players began questioning the validity of the now more elegant game process--even though all the win/loss probabilities were the same as the more complex rules. That rule probably would be a prime target for a rule change if ever published.

Simple rules incite as many urges to change the rules as complex rules, and often for the same reasons.

Best Regards,

Bill H.

I do a fair bit of tinkering with some rule sets, but because I game in two different groups and sometimes and events and tournaments with people I meet once a year, its also nice to have rules that work "out of the box".

I wonder if the tinkerers are also the anti-points-ers?

I wonder if the tinkerers are also the anti-points-ers?

At least I am. Makes sense actually.

You seldom hear gamers changing the rules because they want more dice throwing, or eliminating all the modifiers because they don't like them. It's almost always a perceived lack of historicity that motivates the changes.

I was going to object, but on second thought that might actually be true. I'm doing some serious tinkering at the moment and though streamlining the system is one of my primary objectives, I also find myself questioning historical validity of the rules.

Anyway, I don't believe that complexity of the rules has much to do with the amount of tinkering done. I have probably tinkered Arty Conliffe's Crossfire more than Attack Vector Tactical. I'm pretty sure you all know which one of those games is more complex.

Holy cow! I got an epiphany too:
Only good (or at least promising) rules are tinkered with. Ease of modification is an aspect of good rules. Besides limiting the need for tinkering, good documentation (meaning designer notes and knowing what history the game is based on) actually makes tinkering easier!

What do you think of that?

I find all teh enw games over complicatred in there stummbling attempts to staisfiy the enver ending simplicity cries and exeragatiosn about complexity and time of play I read in bucket loads of posts daily on forums tpoday. Back in the heyday before wargamers only complained and crtiicsied everything. The attempt was to tinker to get realis, and depth out of a game. When done right, and it was done right more then most want to admidt. It was complexity. Complexity has many defintions. It can mean thers to many pages to read no matter how simple the rules.

Axis and Allies CCM was instresting because it was a boring and silly game, but it was simple. Al arge group of players that were eager for tis release, and where the common type to cite overbloated time of play claims, and incestently compain about complexity took the rules they finanly got and tinkered with them to make them more realistic and more detailed. The non stop rants about complexity have led designers to make flimsy rules with convulted schemes amnd mechanism just to make it "less complex" I found great joy in watching this alrge group do a 180 when given such cheap rules.

I think these conversations do one thing consttiantly, Point out oh many that claim they want minituares gams should really stick to PC, as anything less then a computer moving your minis is goign to get "complicated"

To quote my hero, Toki Wartooth: "WOWEEZ!"

All new games are over-complicated, stumbling attempts to placate a never-ending cry for simplicity?

I just can't agree with that at all – I know that we didn't consider any cries whatsoever when we designed AA, for instance. We sat down with a set of design goals (outlined in the designers' notes included in the game) and wrote a set of rules that WE wanted to play. We didn't do any market research, talk to any focus groups, or poll TMP for what people wanted to see in the game or how they wanted to see it.

No, sir. If my game design stumbles, it's because I dropped the ball. I'm not blaiming society for it. I imagine the same goes for other designers, too.

Never forget "Fast Play" rules. An oxymoron if ever there was one.

What TMP wants to see from reading these forums, Is a Miniatures game that is really a PC game. This place is flooded with the most bizarre and convoluted schemes to archive simplicity. Blitzkrieg commander, FOW, and Memoir 44 as examples.. I'll take Angriff(Z&M) for simplicity any day over that stuff. This screaming about complexity has overshadowed everything else. Its become a boring obsession that never goes away and its shaped modern games till we get something like A&A CCM.

The hordes that are manically obsessed with "simplicity" should either go to Something like Charles Grants Battle or get a PC and be done with it.

Back to tinkering: Because this place is 99 percent complaining about this kind of stuff, I don't know why there is anybody not tinkering. Make your own rules for the stuff YOU want to play. Then youll be happy and wont need to spend all your game time on the forum complaing about the rules.

For me, I have no interest in buying a game YOU want to play.

[All new games are over-complicated, stumbling attempts to placate a never-ending cry for simplicity? ]

Huh?

The constant cries for finding more "simplicity" have the exact opposite effect. They end be complicated especialy in design. Trying to find a way to do things just because somebody wont read a chart gets complicated. And there is noting complicated about reading the chart. Yet many call games with charts, complex. Its not really about complexity. Frankly its just laziness.

Uh oh, he's getting all wound up again!

Tick, tick, tick…

8)=

I think that one reason gamers tinker with some rules and not others is the level of effort, experience and time that have gone into some games vs others.

One may not personally care for 40K and Flames of War (which share a common system) but the core concepts have been around a long time, they make sense in most cases (eg big monsters are tougher than little humans) and yet the publishers have been willing to tweak the games over the years as gamers provide feedback. There's a strong market feedback loop intended to keep the game fresh and responsive to market requirements (and markets are composed of people like you and me and our tastes change as our lifestyles change!)

Compare that to so many other wargame companies in which the rules are designed for a small group of friends who then publish the rules. The typical reaction from such a publisher when a gamer suggests an improvement or notes something he doesn't like about the system is to attack the gamer! Talk about PR failure!

The former example is a company trying to meet market requirements to improve its product from the perspective of the market which constantly evolve.

The latter is a vanity publication by some friends who see their effort not as a product but as something deeply personal so they attack/become hostile when segments of the market reject their ideas.

If a game system is informed and tweaked based on gamer feedback over many years it's not surprising that it will see less tweaking. It's already experiencing market-driven tweaks implemented by the publisher!!!

If a game system is mostly a vanity publication intended to please the designer/publisher first and without regard for the market then even if popular for awhile its lifespan will be fairly short as market requirements inevitably change.

Graveyards are filled with indespensible men and the bargain bins at your FLGS are filled with formerly popular games unable (and unwilling!) to keep pace with the changing marketplace.

MB

Also Sprach Ron Jeremy – I was quoting Supergrover above my post, although I fixed the spelling a bit. I only use the spelling "teh" when I'm purposefully clowning around, after all.

I guess there's only room for one kind of miniature gaming in some people's world. Everyone has their comfort zone, I guess.

Again, "WOWEEZ!"

That is all.

;)

Has nothign to do with one kind of anything. Most of the people here are complinaing about everything. Staisifed with nothing. Im far form the narrowminded in these things.

I am pretty sure I disagree with Supergrover. However, his typo-to-word ratio is so high that I am uncertain.

yes some people that make games THEY want to play will have a small audience. I think there is allot of that with all this rules complaining. I think the sensible solution for many is to use there own rules instead of waiting for published ones that they will inevitably find fault with. That or they tinker with existing rules to get what they want. But lots of these days comes from the fanantic simnplicity thing. The true narrow minded.

Whats there to disagree with LMAO? Look at any thread about rules and they rife with, Simplicity, playability. Blah blah blah. It's everywhere.

For me, I have no interest in buying a game YOU want to play.

For me I have no interest in being anywhere near a game that you are playing in. The sound of toys hitting the floor as they are hurled from the pram must be deafening

Uh oh, he's getting all wound up again!

He's building up a fine head of steam.

It's BME all over again. Hell he even makes me seem calm and reasoned

Not sure about that, CS….;o)

I write my own rules because I like to.

I "tinker" with others rules because I'm smarter and better than they are. ;-)

No, really it's just what I like to do. Some like to design or alter rules, some don't.
Some like to make terrain, some like to buy it.
There's just a lot of aspects to the hobby and everyone likes something diffrent.

I "tinker" with others rules because I'm smarter and better than they are. ;-)

DS,

I know you're writing in jest but your point applies to the other side of the equation too: publishers.

Many publishers really do believe what you're joking about and thus are shocked, SHOCKED that not everyone shares their views. Thus they fail to tweak their products in response to market forces and become rather irate when a mere gamer mentions they don't like said product. Theirs is a vanity publishing effort to please themselves only (sort of like modern art).

So we members of the gaming public write our own homegrown rules, tweak published rules, and/or stick to "rules as written" by publishes who manages to listen to the market and evolve over time.

Just look at Phil Barker: the many editions of WRG ancients (now Warrior), DBA, DBM, and DBMM all come from the same designer who was able to respond to market forces over time. Thus you don't see a whole lot of house rules/tweaks for them and there's a healthy tourney circuit around those systems which demands playing to the rules as written (Phil even had the courage to allow others to evolve 7th when he no longer wished to do do.)

MB

[I was quoting Supergrover above my post, although I fixed the spelling a bit.]

Ah okay, that explains why I didn't see it the first time…

[Phil even had the courage to allow others to evolve 7th when he no longer wished to do so]

Courage maybe, probably more like simple fatigue. I know how he feels! After a couple of years, I get so sick of my own games that I never want to look at them again, much less answer the 1458th question about, "What do you think of changing Rule 14.742b to allow left-handed Aardvark cavalry to charge on Thursdays after dusk, but only if they have gerontology degrees?"

Also sprach wrote:

[…] Kids today have grown up on simpler, more streamlined game designs. They don't see any need to alter every game they come across.

I think there are also other influences. For one thing, "kids today" are subject to a lot more oppressive licensing and Intellectual Property nonsense than we ever were. Put up a fan page for something from a big name, and you're likely to have the IP lawyers sending you cease and desist letters, or suffering a DMCA take-down. Put on a game using a modified set of rules at a game store, and get chased off by the rep from the big name company who owns all the figures. (Seems you can buy 'em, but you don't really own 'em.)

There seems to have been a complete death of the 'hacker ethic' over the last 5 years, and I'm amazed at what kids (and their parents) are willing to pay for: DRM'ed music, ringtones, and all sorts of encumbering lock-down. There's little of the sense of ownership that I have when buying something. Everything they buy is only leased it seems. The copyright lawyers and big names have done a good job beating them down into being little consumer sucklings willing to pay a few bucks each month to do anything.

While this hasn't expanded to printed books (yet), with the increasing use of e-books and the like, I think that it's only a question of time. Your library will only exist as long as you use the manufacturer's monthly service.

It seems creativity is punished, or considered "piracy" these days, and I suspect some of that leads to an aversion to tinker… at least in public.

- Bob

"What do you think of changing Rule 14.742b to allow left-handed Aardvark cavalry to charge on Thursdays after dusk, but only if they have gerontology degrees?"

Right, the demands are so unreasonable and and spcefic theres no way to respond to "market forces" they are all ove the place. And so many are never satisifed it becomes a drain to even try. In one of the rare threads war no flamers show up to de rail the conversaion……

I had some great repsonces about trying to satisfy the market. DONT LOL. Make what you want and market to the like minds.

Tinkering with the rules is an essential part of why I enjoy wargaming. Every wargamer secretely has the wish to discover the holy grail of wargaming: the ultimate ruleset!

Of course, the enlightned among us know that such a beast does not exist, so one aims for finding the optimal rulest under a given set of constraints of conditions.

I always consider any rulest as being a point in a 4-dimensional space. A ruleset can be located anywhere along these 4 dimensions, at the same time; although there are a couple of interdependencies.

1. Are the rules simple or complex?
2. Are the procedures and mechanics used in the rules elegant to use, or are they very tedious?
3. Do the different possible outcomes of the rules correspond to what could have happened on a real battlefield?
4. Is the resulting game a fun game for all involved, or is the experience boring like hell?

Depending on your preferences, you might stress one dimension over the other. Even the same player might not want the same things in different games.

Sometimes I rank my rules along these different axes:
1. C--, C-, C+, C++ (simple … complex)
2. E++, E+, E-, E-- (elegant … tedious)
3. S++, S+, S-, S-- (simulation/plausible … no relation)
4 F++, F+, F-, F-- (fun vs no fun).

I prefer C--,E++,S++,F++ rules. That's my nirvana. But sometimes you have to make trade-offs.

Glad to see Supergrover's back. There hasn't been enough half-baked revisionism vomitted onto this lovely forum in some time.

Phil Dutre wrote:

[…]Sometimes I rank my rules along these different axes:
1. C--, C-, C+, C++ (simple … complex)
2. E++, E+, E-, E-- (elegant … tedious)
3. S++, S+, S-, S-- (simulation/plausible … no relation)
4 F++, F+, F-, F-- (fun vs no fun).

I prefer C--,E++,S++,F++ rules. That's my nirvana. But sometimes you have to make trade-offs.

Isn't there a "pick two" part of the instructions? :)

Part of the challenge with wargames is that there are many levels of representation. Something too abstract for a skirmish-level game is possibly too detailed for a brigade-level game, and vice-versa. Unless one is willing to adjust their expectations of "realism" or "detail" (simulation/plausible in your example, I think), then it's going to be tough to get two players to agree!

- Bob