"How many games does it take to "get the rules right?"" Topic

I have tried a lot of "new" rules for a lot of periods.
At one point I had over 10 AWI and Ancients rules.
The problem for me is that I tend to play a new set like it's what I am used to, but with different charts.
Then after the first game that has me feverishly looking up "Charge declaration opportunity fire" or some such thing, I find it 5 minutes after everyone goes home and I read ran it wrong.
As a glaring example, I ran 3 games of Patriots and Loyalists before I read the key part about taking morale tests each time you are shot at, and that the shooter rolls none. Did I get that right?

Again, if the game is done right, each part of the rules is bound to the others. Can I use the word "synergistic" here?

I tried British Grenadier and Black Powder with the same results, and abandoned them.

This is one reason we tend to stick with the old standbys. we KNOW and understand The Sword and the Flame, Age of Reason, and dare I say it? Empire.

I always have to laugh when I read a query on TMP "Does anyone still play Flames of Liberated Swords". In our group, if it is a good game and we all know it, the answer is YES.

I have no doubt that Black Powder is a good game, and ditto for British Grenadier.
However, I just get tired of running games that I know are not being done "right".

"We" wrote our own rules, and physically wrote them, so that we would not have to remember. Mostly we "get it right", but I am surprised to find out years later that "we" have been doing the games wrong. Our own rules condemn us….

If the rules have the right complexity then you should be able to be up and running in full by game 3 or less. I say this because by then the rules also will either seem fun to you or you will be ready to put them up on e-bay.

Can I use the word "synergistic" here?

Only if you want to be doomed to the life of a marketing professional.

Not only do we not "get" everything the first time through, but we are always tweaking rules every time we play them!

Jim

I think synergistic rules require a total paradigm shift to enable full agency.

There is something to be said for "comfort" in a set of rules.

Because we are Human, the answer is not a single number, and is complicated by another question: "Right for whom?"

(EDIT:Keep going, DFW, I have a Buzzword Bingo card that needs filling.)

Otto's law #18.

The possibility of EVER getting rules "right" is inversely proportional to the page count.

Why I write my own rules, and they have to be no more than 12 pages single side, 8 1/2 by 11, 12 pt Times Roman Bold, 3/4" margins all around, and everything, rules, illustrations, chartes, photos, designers drivel, have to fit into those 12 pages. If not, get out the red pen and start slashing.

Depends on rules complexity which goes from

ASL – NOBODY *EVER* plays it right…
Tic Tax Toe – Get it right the first time.

In general it takes 2 playthroughs to work out the kinks in a ruleset for my group, but we still manage to miss minor things every last time.

I have the same problem OFM. I always feel I am not playing the rules correctly.

But I always have fun regardless

Ashok

It depends on how often you play a set of rules. Our group tends to play a rule set in for a couple of weeks then we might not see it again for a year. By the time we re learn the rules again we are on to another rule set for a different period.

At least 3 times, and it helps if you are not the only one reading the rules.

It can take a while sometimes … the point is, as soon as you have, pretty much, 'got it right', it is time to move on …

Wargaming is only ever work in progress, and no rules set is ever perfect – so roll on the next great innovation (it'll be worth the effort, but will eventually be replaced by something better)

Phil

Why I write my own rules, and they have to be no more than 12 pages single side, 8 1/2 by 11, 12 pt Times Roman Bold, 3/4" margins all around, and everything, rules, illustrations, chartes, photos, designers drivel, have to fit into those 12 pages. If not, get out the red pen and start slashing.

Kinda what I do as well. 6 total pages if I can help it!

"Getting the rules right" would be simplified if the rules provide a good set of QRF charts accompanied by a comprehensive index. This way when a point comes up for discussion a quick index check will probably give a quick answer As John said finding an answer after everyone has gone home is frustrating.

I can make authoritative "Gamesmaster is God" rulings if I know what I am talking about. It's more difficult if I don't.
Thus when I ruled that a twice wounded leader in the Wyoming Massacre (using TSATF which we have been playing since 1980) had died heroically, the player was delighted, because now they could name a town after him.
You can't make ad hoc rulings like that if you can't find out what page the meaning of "Warband" is on.

Great observations. We've went to Stop Boxes in our rules. About every three pages we have a Stop Box that asks you to try the mechanic you just learned or review it with a couple of questions. By the the time you've done the 6 – 10 Stop Boxes (each takes about 2 minutes to do)you can play a complete scenario with confidence.

Thats a great Idea Ed!

Ashok

I miss 1970's era rules. Yes, they were simpler and broad brush, but the good ones caught the essence of a given era, could be mastered in a short time, AND MORE GAMES COULD BE PLAYED. So many games – table top, PC and others are too elaborate and groan under the weight of too much minutiae. They seem to be attempts to morph a simulation into a game, and ultimately fail at both.

depending on how many times you read them and do some test rolls and training fights anywhere from 1 to 10

It really varies by game…..but generally,

The first play through gives me the gist of the game and requires much looking up of rules afterwards. I generally keep a list of what I need to look up.

The second is much like the first, only now I'm listing the finer points. I find these first two times are really about learning intent and application.

From the third on, its all about fine tuning and finding the intricacies. We usually have the broad strokes down and are mastering technique.

A few games: Field of Glory being one of them, are so complex that even after 10-15 times playing, I'm still trying to master the basics. Sometimes its worth the effort, sometimes its not (depends on the period, local meta, and interest levels). I still like FOG, but it became to much like work for casual play (we only play ancients about 3-4 times a year)and therefore has been replaced by Hail Caesar. If we were playing regularly (2-4 times a month) I would stick with it.

Skipper

Well its PK for me these days POB and FOB and variants. Three games seems to do the trick so far as broad strokes go.

Generally agree on the problems with "new" wargame rules. For Black Powder found it worked OK with AWI and FIW once you decided it was a "game" and not a simulation. Not so for Napoleonics. Going to try it this weekend and in the first weekend in May. And yes Black Powder has "nuances" that escape me some time. Unit size for example is a bit too simplistic, however I have found various amendments by groups in Scotland, the UK and Australia that helped. May be moving to PA and am looking for wargamers in Luzerne County. I will probably bring some Pirates and a couple units of AWI with me. I see John the OPM is from that area would hope he would email me at Steeldavid2012 AT GMAIL DOT COM

Speaking of BP simplification on the Yahoo group I found a much better organized 2 page cheat sheet. Additionally adopted other modifications I found on line. The main problem I see with some game systems is delays that keep one side of players standing around doing nothing. Or Empire that you played for 10 hours without any actual result (enjoyed it as a reference guide but not necessarily as a gaming tool) Did play a modern game in March that had a activation reaction turn sequence that kept every player involved.

3 or so.

DM

My favorite ACW rules is still the old and venerable "Rally Round The Flag" rules of the 1970's. We are pretty sharp on it, however even after ALL of these years, we still pretty much keep flubbing up the section on "Charges". It's probably the most poorly written section of rules in the entire book, and very confusing.

Usually we just then "work it out amongst ourselves"….