"Why do you not play certain rules?" Topic

I was wondering with all the hoopla over BF's latest and greatest whether there were reasons that people don't play rules other than just "I don't like them." I don't play FoW personally just because I don't care for some aspects of the rules. There are other games that I won't play or don't like to play for the same reason, but I also won't play one game because I find the title frankly offensive. I know what the title refers to, but it's too easy to extrapolate another reference from it. There are also rules I won't play because of ignorant posts and responses I've gotten from the publishers/authors. Some I just refuse to shell out the money for as I find them ridiculously expensive for what they are. So, are there reasons you won't play certain games beyond the normal "I don't like them"?

The only rules I don't play is for eras that I don't play.
Other than that, it's all good…
Except…
There is one set of rules where I REALLY don't like the author. Petty. I know.

For me it one of a few things–
1. Game flow is laborious
2. The period does not interest me
3. If I played the game I would have to play with…THOSE GUYS!

I don't play FoW personally just because I don't care for some aspects of the rules.

Isn't that just another way of saying "I don't like them"?

Lacking opponents to play against is high on my list… I sold off all my Warmachine/Hordes stuff due to no local interest…

Lacking opponents to play against is high on my list… I sold off all my Warmachine/Hordes stuff due to no local interest…

You didn't consider solo play then?

Sometimes the fans of a game can put me right off of even giving it a fair try… the same for the folks putting them out. I won't buy/play anything from Mongoose or Palladium.
Warmachine put me off with its macho posturing… I almost stopped reading 5150 when I first got it because the writer's opening comments about RPGs and general tone were irritating me (thankfully I managed to swallow my mustard on that one!).

Solo play is for PC games IMO. You play miniatures to have interaction with live and physically present people. Plus you get to be artistic if this is your bent as well.

Solo gaming for me is preparation for gaming agsinst an opponent. Besides when I solo game, I always win ;-)

Most often, the reason we don't use a certain set of rules is because we are already happily using a set we like. And we don't feel the need to bounce along to the next new shiny set that comes out this week.

It has nothing really to do with the new set of rules at all.

For some periods it is because we already have a set in use that does what we want, for others it is usually because the rules are either badly written or just plain BAD. Mechanics are clunky or the period feel is just wrong – usually more than one reason.

There are a few we have tried a second time after one lousy first outing and all but one have still been terrible. We are all fairly experienced and so can usually spot a turkey by the feathers and so avoid it.

Other rules game at the wrong scale – I like BIG battles so skirmish rules don't interest me and that cuts out a great deal.

When a ruleset feels as if you're better off taking few actions and doing nothing, that's when I wonder why I'm playing.

Mercifully, this has only happened a few times with friends who think they've just invented a fantastic game and need someone to try it out. I can play it, give my feedback, and not have spent a lot of money on accumulating a force to test it out.

Some I don't play as I feel they are too long winded or are unable to generate enough interesting decisions to be made. Some just degenerate into dice rolling contests. Fog of war is something I find constantly intriguing so the rules that I like have a good dose of that. I also look for slick game play, neat mechanics, not too much dice rolling but lots of decisions. Of course the period has to interest me.

I don't play certain rules either because I have no interest in the period they cover, or because I enjoy playing another rule set more.

If I think the rules are wonky I won't play them, even if the group I am with plays them. Only set this applies to off the top of my head is Cold War Commander – the armor combat system is too far gone for me. I won't buy rules that I think are too expensive, but I would happily play them. I would also not gravitate toward a tournament list based game – I prefer scenario games, but that has not stopped me from playing them from time to time.

I look for straight forward games that can be explained in less than 20 pages of actual rules. 10 pages is optimal but 20 is the drop off. not including intro, setup, army lists or authors notes.

So games with too many rules to remember are out.

Tommo UK Says:

I also look for slick game play, neat mechanics, not too much dice rolling but lots of decisions.

I here stuff like this bandied about a lot lately. The only thing I really care about in game mechanics is if they are quick and easy to understand. If stuff can be resolved with a single die roll, so much the better.

OTOH, the second part of the statement, is important to me. There should be lots of room for decision making that can greatly affect the game. Those decisions should greatly affect the probabilities one way or another. Everything in a very simple and straight foreward way please.

I use very few rules because I hate reading rule books for the most part.

It's not that there are rules I don't like an won't play (I'll play pretty much anything historical if there are people to play against), it's more that I have rules I prefer to play, so why play with others?

Overall, I tend to prefer games that can be played to the end in 3-4 hours. This is simply a matter of available time.

Because I don't want to?

Eric

I'm not sure that there are any rules that I "just won't pay" but lacking infinite money and time there are many that I probably won't get around to buying and building armies for.

But if I show up at a group and something even that I am not very fond of is up, it's still a game with some friends. First things first, and the rules are in 4th place at best.

I don't like rules that are painfully procedural. I don't want to feel like I'm running through the motions, I want to be immersed.
If there are loads of charts that require cross referencing with lots of exceptions, then to me that is an indication of too much focus on detail and the mechanical aspects of gaming rather than a focus on the experiential joy of playing.
If the game is mostly about list building and then pitting that list against others, I'm not interested.

There are several reasons I won't play a set of rules. Most are due to not finding them enjoyable. I play wargames to have fun, if it is not fun, why play them.

My points and examples below are not meant to put down any rules set. Each person has their own likes and dislikes, so what I don't enjoy, might be the reason another person enjoys the rules. If they like playing them, great! I hope you have many games full of fun. It is just not for me.

The two biggest turn offs for a rules set for me are:

1) Each turn take too long. Example: Seakrieg V – a great set of rules for seeing the accuate result of a gun hit on a warship, but……we played one game where it took over 10 minutes to go through all the charts to track the one hit. I need a fast moving game.

2) Rule gimicks. Example: Command Decision – the rule that prevents you from shooting at units that have plotted a "disengage" order. I remember an interview with a paratrooper from the Band of Brothers who said he shot most of the Germans in the back as they were running away. Can't do that in this rule set. I have other examples, but many people enjoy this rules set, so have fun playing. Just not for me.

Aside for the reason that the ruleset is for a period or genre that I am not interested in, the two reasons I don't play certain rules are;

1) I don't like the mechanisms
2) People around here don't play it.

Reason 1) is obvious. I don't play FOG because I don't like them. Simple. Personal choice.

Reason 2) is more complicated because it brings in agroup dynamics. You have to find like minded people. You have to compromise. Sometimes you have to proselytise.

Cheers,
JohnG

Mostly because I'm a narrow-minded simpleton, and partially because I'm cheap. But lets get back to the narrow-minded simpleton crap.

I use to be willing to play anything, but eventually realized that I particularly enjoyed a pretty narrow range of things when it came to miniatures gaming. So a lot of things went out the door. For example:

If the rules call for more than one dude per base (with one exception), or exclude time (though I actually really like one set of rules that does this), or don't really use 3-D terrain as WYSIWYG (okay, with a couple exceptions), involve a period pre-dating gunpowder (except for some skirmishes), or don't have tanks, ships, and/or aircraft (except for Colonials), or use alternating movement, card activation, or exclude dice, unless they have only one dude per base, consider time in the turn sequence, use detailed terrain, involve a pregunpowder skirmish, and/or involve tanks, ships, and/or aircraft unless the subject is colonials, I won't play them.

Now for the the cheap part:

Or, if the rules cost more than $30 USD, I won't buy them and therefore won't play them (unless they have only one dude per base, consider time in the turn sequence, use detailed terrain, involve a pre-gunpowder skirmish, and/or involve tanks, ship, and/or aircraft unless the subject is colonials).

I won't play rules that have no command and control, excepting skirmish (sometimes). Unnecessary detail is a pain too, for example worrying about vehicle hit locations in a game with multiple battalions on the table. Incomplete rules are a no-no as well, like ones with blank sections that are promised to be completed in a 2nd edition (haven't seen this in a long while but it happens).

I try to avoid games where the processes are tedious or boring. Working through multi-unit melees in FoG made me lose the will to live. The best games are the ones that are simple enough to play without constantly referring back to the rules/charts, but with enough subtleties to make every game interesting. Games in this category for me are Might of Arms, DBM, Piquet/Field of Battle, Maurice, Lasalle, FoW. In the 2nd league are DBMM (haven't learnt the mechanism well enough yet) and Principles of War (too many mental calculations)

For me there are no long, drawn-out philosophical
answers.

It just comes down to a lack of time.

"Not my period."
"Not with that guy. He cheats." (pointing)
"Not my scale."
"Not from that author/company."
and finally…

"Maybe when they finish writing it. Yes, I realize this is the fourth edition."

Most of the answers seem to be variations on "I don't like them." I don't feel comfortable gaming something that could be yesterdays, todays or tomorrows headline. Some have painful family associations like Viet Nam, others because people I care about have been forever changed by active duty. So no specific rules, but periods/genres that I don't play.

I use my own house rules for nearly everything, for every era. Sometimes my gaming friends play other rules and I wll play with them, but rarely. I will play anything that interests me and since it's just a game I don't care if we are playing terrorists in my neighborhood or anything that may be personal. It's a game afterall, but it may also provide insight into the era.

Over the years I have purchased lots of rule sets, but simply took an idea here or concept there and made it my own.

Mike "Bunkermeister" Creek
mediatealways.org
bunkermeister.blogspot.com
sgtsays.blogspot.com

Most of the answers seem to be variations on "I don't like them."

What are looking for, "I don't know if I like them or not but I won't play them because…"? On a second read, I suppose that is what the original post was about. In that case, there are plenty of rules I won't even bother reading, often just because the title is dumb. I can handle a good pun, but a bad one is insufferable. As far as periods I don't like, I don't bother to research rules for them so they're not even on my radar.

As the OP, I understand the 'I'm not interested in the period' and similar things. I was wondering how unique I was in the 'I won't play those rules because the author is a jerk' kind of things.

I refuse to read the works of a certain scifi writer (VERY FAMOUS!) because he treated me like at a conference where I was a gopher.
I have met one or two rules authors. Well, more than that, actually.

I mostly use rules I've written or modified. They are simple. I can teach them quickly at a convention. That's an interesting exercise, because regardless of the result, when you attempt to write your own rules you quickly see how needlessly complicated some commercially successful sets of rules are.
Worse still some commercial rule sets try to be incredibly generic so that they can be played in multiple scales and multiple time periods, with different basing, etc. The bigger the group that can use them, the bigger the sales. At some point you lose the flavor of the game you're trying to play.

Any tiny spark of interest I had in Warmachine has been killed off completely.

I tend to play the rules my regular gaming friends like to play.

Things which might stop me playing a set of rules (apart from 'I don't like them') are:

i) they send me to sleep within three pages of reading them Yes, I mean you FOG.

ii) they cost more than twenty pounds. They are rules, not War & Peace.

iii) they require me to rebase.

iv) they are a boring rehash of mechanics invented in the 1960s

otherwise I'm up for anything. (i) tends to preclude many/most commercial rules, but might come under the 'I don't like them' category as what is a snorefest for me may well be someone elses delight and joy.

ii) they cost more than twenty pounds. They are rules, not War & Peace.

I agree, expense is certainly a factor in whether or not I consider using rules. I feel sometimes like I am mainly paying for the author´s vanity.

iii) they require me to rebase.

This is definitely a deal breaker for me. But fortunately modern design has mostly done away with this problem. I hope.

I also really, really, really, hate buckets of dice. It is my opinion that there is nothing that a single roll of a d20 and d10 can´t settle :)

WRG 3rd-7th ed – stopped playing each when the bulk of players moved to new editions. Still have them all for old times sake.

DBA – got me back into ancients, liked it but DBM was much better in my eyes. Still have an old version I think.

DBM – played it to death, bored now. I still have the rules and supplements for old times sake.

DBMM – involved in the development, played it a bit, don't like the way the game has changed, for me it changes the perspective of the battle and fixes 'problems' with DBM that did not IMO exist in the first place. My set has been given away.

Impetus – eventually managed to get a game by dint of entering a tournament. It confirmed what I thought from reading the rules and added some more situations. I really see nothing good about the rules compared to other sets. My set is for sale.

Only two reasons for me:

(1)I don't like them.
(2)The people I game with don't like them.

Although I'll actually play rules I don't like if I don't actually HATE them, if everyone else wants to play them.
-Kle.

OFM – I can't stand Harlan Ellison, either.

Time, cost, and lack of interest. For ex, great interest in wwii but none for wwi.

Any rules that discourage historical tactics, formations and compositions but reward 'good game play' and armylist optimising.

I don't like the game play. I'm not interested in the subject. I can't stand playing with the local fans of the game.

That about covers it for me.

A few things that would stop me from purchasing:

Poor editing/proofreading – leads to confusion, and endless page flicking

Too many charts – slows the game right down

Overly excessive use of counters required – untidy clutter on my nice lookng battlefield

Need to re-base – im not prepared to rip my stuff apart

Only 1 company produces the required miniatures – I dont like being restricted in manufacturers

Overly complex maths – This is just the author showing off their maths degree

#1, if I dont "get" the rules after 2 read throughs, I aint playen 'em.

#2, if I dont like the basing, I wont play.

#3, if the combat mechanism is overly complicated, I wont play.

Wrong period/theatre – instant boredom

Points-Army games, not my cup of tea

Games that require a building full of supercomputers to do firing calculations – not interested in doing my day job play my game.

I don't play certain rules if:

1. They don't offer anything excitingly new compared to what I'm using now;

2. they are yet another boring variant of the move/fire/melee/morale cycle, with a heavy focus on combat resolution;

3. They do not have an appealing C&C mechanism;

4. The focus is on army building (lists, points, …). I couldn't care less.

5. The rules are written from the pov of a competitive game between two players, rather than as a passtime between gentlemen.

My preference for certain rules has evolved over they years. When I was young and innocent, I thought that all the good stuff of a wargame was in the combat resolution engine and the army lists (Yes, I was a GW junkie once).

Now, I want my rules to focus on C&C and the narrative aspect of the battle or campaign.
Quite often, I find myself developing my own set of rules. In my gaming group, when starting a new campaign/period/whatever, we often start with a very limited set, then add/remove stuff as we play the games. It's a quite organic process, and it works very well.

Also, since I have accumulated zillions of figures over the years, I tend not to think in terms of playing a specific ruleset, with figures to match; but rather I play with my figures, and I'm looking for a ruleset that will match my figures or the specific battles/campaign I have in mind.

My gaming is centered around my figure collection, not around a specific set of rules. My figures will stay with me for several more decades (I hope). Rulesets come and go.