"Would You Play the Game of a Designer Who 'Gets it Wrong'?" Topic

The designer of a popular set of wargames rules has made certain remarks which others have thought to cast doubt on his understanding and balanced judgement of the period in which his game is set, in this thread:

TMP link

And further discussed here:

TMP link

Inspired by, but not limited to, the above thread, have the comments of a rules writer on the history of a period outside of the actual rulebook dissuaded you from playing or continuing to play the writer's game?

I know, for example, that sometimes people have strongly disagreed with the 'takes' of Scott Bowden, Sam Mustafa and Phil Barker on certain periods of history.

Regards

Definitely; if the rules writer demonstrates either a poor grasp of the history of the period or a clear bias or appears to have plagiarised or fabricated some of what they have written (outside the rulebook), then it would make me wary of playing their rules.

depends on the period and the wrongness and the game style

its not a hard and fast rule, since I care more about getting it right for some periods than others, and I accept more lee-way for some styles of game than others.

Thinly veiled personal attack?

No, as long as his 'wrongness' is as regards History only and does not affect Gameplay.

An example is the 'Chariot Wars' army lists for WAB. The author decided to use the 'New Chronology' widely regarded as bunk*. The Army Lists are excellent.I have never heard anything other than praise for 'Chariot Wars'.

Now, if it was something like "French WWII Tank Turret Design was outstanding, and so all French AFV always get a +6 for shooting at German Tanks, especially on the move" then yes, It would put me off!

And yes, this, combined with the other thread you started on the same topic COULD be seen as a TVPA. I don't see it that way mind you.

Pat

* I have no opinion either way on that BTW.

Depends on what he has wrong; and I will still not refuse to try the first time and form my own opinion.

if I think it would be fun to play, I'd play it. Who can say who is "right or wrong" when it comes to history?

History is continuosly being revised and re-written, usually by people who had no hand in it.

ymmv,
R.

doubt it.

The answer to the OP is no, of course, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference what games I choose to play.

People are entitled to their own opinions, and Naploeon in particular has inspired thousands/millions of pages of ink to be spilled of wildy varying opinions.

If the rules they write have obvious glaring errors or misconceptions or ideas contrary to my own errors and misconceptions, in then I'll change them to suit. Often I'll just grit my teeth through the grating bits (like both Arty Conliffe and Frank Chadwicks treatment of carrier platoons) as they really don't make much difference.

"If the rules they write have obvious glaring errors or misconceptions or ideas contrary to my own errors and misconceptions, in then I'll change them to suit."

Great quote :-)

Not on the level of ignorance that the said gentleman concerned shows… If it's a bit of minor misinterpretation it would depend on the rule and the system as a whole.

Thinly veiled personal attack?

Looks that way

It's playing with toy soldiers. I've played a lot of rules that "get it wrong", but can be fun games.

I've tossed out or tweaked silly rules that hold up the game or similar.

Eric

How do they play?
Do they emphasise game play fo simutlation?
Are they balanced?
Are the flaws and misconceptions in the conception obvious in the game (eg French surrender easily? Look at the battle for Stonne for the most obvious example as to why that is a misconception).

certainly my own misconceptions are always evolving and changing as I learn to look at old tropes in new light.

Thinly veiled personal attack?

Absolutely not meant as such and I have tried hard not to just focus on one particular writer by mentioning other game designers, certain of whose rules I play myself.

Someone could have an inaccurate understanding of a period of history and still produce a decent game. Why not? For all the research that went into some games, like ASL for example, there were still historical inaccuracies. When questioned about it, the designers had reasonable explanations for ignoring those particular points. And, yes, I understand that "inaccurate understanding" and "historical inaccuracies" are not the same thing, but unless you sit down and talk with someone, you aren't going to know why they designed a game the way they did and really what their understanding is.

I try not to let the talent's views or personal life interfere with enjoyment of their work.

However I still can't watch Jane Fonda.

Depends.

If the rules give a fun game, don't give you a headache and ends with a reasonably historical result, then yes.

DM

Napoleon's Battles is a pretty good game.
Very personal attacks make you look bad not the intended target …

Mike B

Lighten up. Francis.

Napoleon's Battles is a fine game and is played and greatly enjoyed by players with widely different views on history.

Would you play any game against an opponent who 'got it wrong'?

Chariot Wars is IMO the best of the WAB supplements, despite its use of the ridiculous New Chronology.

I really don't care a whit about the personal or historical beliefs of. A game designer.

I care about whether or not the game they have written is fun to play and captures what I believe to be the essentials of the period.

My theories about WW2 infantry combat may be utter rubbish, but if a game produces results in agreement with my theories I will play it. Even. If the author holds a completely different view of the subject.

It's all about the play of the game.

"IMO the best of the WAB supplements"

IMO as well as IYO, when I think about it – a good list-to-fluff ratio.

Pat

I answer my own question in the negative – it probably wouldn't make the slightest difference to me, as the key structural elements to the game tend to be independent of any historical bias I might think the author had. I'd feel free to mess around with the factors and troop ratings and so on, but I always do that anyway.

@ Mike B – I have neither disparaged the writer, named him, disparaged his rules or made any attacks of a personal nature upon anyone. I think one statement the writer made is pretty jaw-dropping as a general attack upon British people, but I feel genuinely amazed rather than offended – since I don't feel the slightest bit of hatred or fear towards Napoleon, accusations that I do don't wound, they merely confuse. I do not harbour the slightest ill-feeling towards the man, his game (which I haven't yet played, simply because it hasn't "come up") or his opinions, which I generally find interesting (I was re-reading the VLB thread last night). This thread was inspired by the response of another poster in one of the threads, as a question I find interesting, and the responses above show a wide variation in attitudes.

But if you could show me where I have inadvertently made a personal attack on the writer, please do point it out to me and I will make an unreserved apology for unintentionally causing offence to someone on a toy soldier forum.

Regards

negative as well-I'll vote for ignoring the writers observations/opinions and basing my actual use of any rule sets strictly on their own merits and my own take on their abilty to produce a 'simulation' that works for me. Having said that, some authors offer better support and flexibility, and explain,update or modify with more clarity, knowledge and wisdom than others. N. Marsh and C&GII exemplfy this, as I'm sure others can verify, as do a few other authors. This is far more a determinant of my repeated use (or retirement) of napoleonic rules than the 'politics' of an authors historical perception.

It wouldn't stop me playing if someone was to set a game up, but if the author showed a lack of historical knowledge of the period or bias towards one side it would certainly put me off buying the rules.

My main reason for questioning the knowledge and judgement of the author was his statement that Wellington only fought one real battle. That was an astounding statement!

[H]ave the comments of a rules writer on the history of a period outside of the actual rulebook dissuaded you from playing or continuing to play the writer's game?

No.

The school teacher warned of intentional fallacy when a work was measured by the yardstick of the authorial intent. Works are best judged of their own merits.

Some of the best game designers have a casual understanding of history.

Don't play games where the rules 'Get it Wrong.' Don't worry about the designer. God and his wife will do enough judging.

Robert

One of the lessons from my Operations Research classes was that every model has simplifying assumptions, so every game will get some things wrong. If it looks right and feels right (and the big one) plays well, that's OK. My problem is when the designer just can't help but make assumptions to reinforce prejudices (eg, the Romans were just too good to actually have lost in Parthia).

Yes I would, if the rule mechanisims produced a game I felt was 'right'.

I might avoid products on the basis of some beliefs held by the vendor, but not in this case – daft historical interpretation doesnt preclude a good game or mean a person isnt allowed to try and make a living.

I play Flames of War, enough said.

I'd still play it, I might adjust some rules and remove any thing I think isn't fair but everyone tweaks rules right?

I still read Hofscroer books, even though I know he lays on the bs.

The only time I've refused to acknowledge anything is on the rabidly anglophobic Napoleonistyka site. Which is factually wrong and openly admits to being anglophobic ( in the prism of Napoleonics)

Two threads started about this?

Bob has a stalker….Bob has a stalker….

Would you play any game against an opponent who 'got it wrong'?

Absolutely, I'm more likely to win against them!

If the game is fun to play and gives reasonable results, then I don't have an issue with the game. If its not fun, I won't play it.

Yes

It's all fantasy anyway.

x42

I don't care how wrong he is, one of our esteemed experts will launch a 600 thread rebuttal, throw a tantrum, be Dawghoused and be disparaged by John the OFM. Except for a couple of other people we know, John the OFM is the absolutely bestest disparager on TMP. And the funniest I might add. So have at it. I'll get the popcorn.

To answer the original poster – I have played various wargames, yes.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Whirlwind – time to take a pill and chill out.

I dont know who you are sniping at and dont really want to know.

If you lined up all the folk who have disparaged the British it would be a pretty long line-up. But thats OK, we dont mind, mainly because we usually won!!! And we can sit down with a nice decent cuppa and chat about it over a cream tea scone – best tea in the world. :o)

You know the old-time motto of the British Tourist Office? – 'Visit Britain, before Britain visits YOU…..' Its natural for lesser nations to be jealous. After all, god IS an Englishman…

Rules? There is none that is head and shoulders over all others. Just some which are more playable than others, or more fashionable currently, or sometimes which are better written/produced etc.

Look how many sets are out for Naps at the moment?! And how many rules of previous or current years stand unplayed on bookshelves.

To say Wellington only fought one battle – well that's a perception or a value statement, not a factual stance, as clearly he has fought more than once in his career. I've no idea of the context in which this might have been said, and whether its true or not depends on how you define what a battle is, and what you mean by "fight". If he only means star studded spectacular Blockbusters like Austerlitz, Leipzig and Wagram, he might just have a point. Certainly if you ask the man in the street what was Wellington's battle, he'd probably say Waterloo. Not Vittoria, not Salamanca etc etc

If you are bringing NB rules into this, NB is a nice set of rules. It is a game. It has its design limits and it's good parts, but I can tell you that there will be more people playing Naps now, after having previously started the period with NB, than would be the case if NB had not been produced. there are a lot worse rules out there still being sold today. I especially hate the Column vs Line recidivists who go back to Oman's original lecture and replicate the errors in rulebook form.

You gotta get over this Whirly. Either that or engage your foe with handbags at ten paces. Life is far to short for this, and its all only a ferkin game…..

I lurve that you used a lower case g in God but uppercase E in Englishman.

Was that intentional? I do hope so : )

I do recall one set of Ancients rules that included quite a howler in the army lists. The comment was that the Sea Peoples generals must have all been tactical geniuses because they managed to defeat the Egyptians while possessing clearly inferior troops. No possibility that something is wrong with the game's modeling of the armies involved?

I've been on the wrong end of that……

DM

I appreciate the kind words regarding NBs.

What separates Napoleonic miniatures wargaming from wargaming in other eras is how many claim to be experts. What amazes is how few questions I or any other designer receive from these experts. Alas, today many would rather make uninformed statements than ask questions.

Yet, Socrates said, "Ask questions, get answers." So, before individuals make statements about NBs, the truth of which they don't have enough information to make, it would be nice were they to contact me.

My email is rratisbon@comcast.net. I am available to answer questions about Craig Taylor's and my interpretation of the history of Napoleonic warfare and the design of the rules.

Bob Coggins

A gracious response, Bob.

Well done.

I lurve that you used a lower case g in God but uppercase E in Englishman.

Was that intentional? I do hope so : )

Well, "Englishman" is supposed to be capitalized.

Yet, Socrates said, "Ask questions, get answers." So, before individuals make statements about NBs, the truth of which they don't have enough information to make, it would be nice were they to contact me.

Has anyone made anything other than positive statements regarding Napoleon's Battles on this thread?

Regards

Whirlwind,

You are correct, no one has made less than positive statements. I suppose I was being preemptive.

Bob Coggins

"have the comments of a rules writer on the history of a period outside of the actual rulebook dissuaded you from playing or continuing to play the writer's game?"

Isn't that like asking, would you play the rules of a person you don't agree with, like or get along with?

Or would you play the rules of a person who started a discussion topic about playing the rules of people of you don't agree with, like or get along with?

You guys are CRAZY ! :)

I honestly don't think that the thread is that mad, given the differences in opinion posters have expressed.

However, on reflection, it was needlessly provocative to ask this question now and link it specifically to the other threads. So I apologize to anyone who felt it was sniping or that they were being sniped at, it was honestly not my intention, I just think the subject is interesting.

Regards

To answer your question, Whirlwind, I think it would depend on how wrong the designer was. A few mods to tweak things to suit your understanding is definitely playable.