"I have found the Ultimate Wargaming Rules!!!! Again!!!" Topic

I was just reading the OFM's excellent thread on the pitfalls and dangers of trying out new rules but as I was reading I began to realize that I may have slightly different problems than those that were mentioned there.

My problem is when I've discovered the "next ultimate wargaming rules" (because in my weak mind they always are) I'm inclined to devote a considerable amount of time reading the rules, setting up various situations in my head, which then move on to the table; this is in order to test out how realistic the effects are and what I imagine could be potential problems (because only I know how an elite fallschirmjäger reacts to a high explosive shell blowing up his Feldwebel…he uses the burning corpse to light up his cigarette…

This of course inevitably leads me down the lonely road of discovering a multitude of effects that don't feel right to me. At this point I apply some hastily created tweaks which create their own set of nasty problems that also need fixing. And since I'm so amazing at fixing things that are broken (or not broken but still need fixing) I'm usually left with a psychological gaming mess that literally pains my head to play…

After this, most reasonable people would make their excuses, admit they are beaten and move on with their life. Not I. I recall some really neat rules from previous "Ultimate Rules" that I used to play when I didn't know any better. With zealous enthusiasm I then proceed to amalgamate these completely inconsistent systems (something bordering on mixing hand gliding with rodeo riding) and end up with a complete gaming shambles, and I wander from my gaming room bereft of all sense and dignity.

Two questions: Am I alone in this madness and can anyone recommend a good shrink?

BTW if you excitably opened this thread in the hope of discovering the actual Ultimate Wargaming Rules and you're feeling just a little cheated after reading this please don't fret: If you actually believe they can really exist just PM me your credit card details and I'll send you a hardback copy written by me earlier this morning…free shipping

There is no easy solution for the problem you´re describing. I know the first part – finding something wrong that does not fit your personal impression or feeling about how things should be.

First part of the solution is to accept that there will never be "the ultimate rules" that fit your preferences 100%, rule mechanisms are always a compromise between the simulated result and procedure/process that leads to the result – compounded by the assumptions you put into your model.

Still, there are things that might be feeling plain wrong, are not just abberations or extremely unlikely results but either outright oversights or implemented with a design philosophy conflicting with your own views.

In such a case, houserules might be an option. In order to avoid the problem outlined above, you want to start with small tweaks – use the smallest deviation from the core rules possible to achieve the change you´re aiming for. Test thoroughly, look for likeminded people who might aid you with a fresh perspective both on the core rules and your additions – often they discover things and solutions you did not even think about.
Implement a limited set of changes at a time, working step by step can help avoiding an inconsistent system, even if you might have to take two corresponding changes at a time.

Have discipline and revert to an earlier version of your house rules if the latest change doesn´t work, and try a different solution. You´ll be coming up with all kinds of ideas, and the first one probably won´t be the best!

And most important of all: Have a clear vision!
Without knowing exactly what you want to achieve, your rule changes will most certainly amalgate into a mess ;)

Hope that helps a little, even though most of it is just abstract gibberish.

Cheers
BG

Guess that immunization I got worked…

LOL. Been there. Still good old fallbacks make the pain go away. I just re found Shangrila gaming wise , -I was pretty despondent about the ancient stuff out there (still like the basic version of Impetvs though) but the old standby of Warhammer old school (sixth ed fantasy for me although 3rd gives some rounding out to 6th ) and the WH Ancients do the 'get figures on the table, play a game, have fun, and finally enjoy a natter and a couple of beers for the after game lament/brag. So all is not lost,keep the good old standbys at hand and then break out the newer stuff if and when ready (remember these newer rules will become the standby for newer gamers so don't be a total fuddy duddy (John the OFM I feel your pain as well- these newer rules can melt what little is left in our old gourds we call heads ;). Cheers happy gaming and if its all too much throw bucks of D6 ;)

I have the ultimate set of rules. They work for any period. :-) Just completed them a while back and in play testing. They are skirmish rules but they work for biggish battles. I completed these after the 15 years to get to the ultimate star ship rules. Now completed and in play test.

Ultimate rules are the rules YOU like. My ultimate rules are now rules that I write. I think many gamers will come around to this notion eventually.

So here is the thing. We tend to buy the next shiny set because it has buzzwords of "innovative", "realistic" and "fast play" in the description. we then read through them and the warning bells already go off. We, before even trying a game, are already thinking up tweaks to fix perceived "faults" in the latest and greatest "ultimate rules." At this point, it is probably easier and considerably cheaper to write your own. You know what you want in a rules set so ultimately you can please yourself.

YMMV,

John

I am with John. I started blogging a few years ago on a quest to find the ultimate ancients rules and have ended up writing my own! I would still happily play with a fair number of the rules I did try out. I still prefer my rules as they match exactly my view on how ancient mass battles may have occurred :-)

I am about to start on testing out some ww2 rules I have collected over the years, but I have already moved to writing and playing with my own ww2 rules too!

I do tweak other rules when I play them to match my views, but I try really really hard to make them only minor changes, if at all.

I had the same problem for a while the (the eternal quest for the ultimate set of rules), but I snapped out of it by doing the following:

- I always write my own rules for any given period. I seldom use commercial rulesets, except for some inspiration and maybe as a starting point when starting a new period.

- After each gaming session, we have a small discussion about whether we should change the rules: what worked, what did not work, etc. Then the rules are changed. Sometimes, the rules remain static for a long time. Then suddenly, mostly due to a specific scenario setup, something shows up that is broken and we try to find a fix.

- The overall goal is not to have the ultimate set of rules, but to have the rules that provide the most fun. If we feel that some mechanic does not work, or deters us from having fun, we try to fix it. And since "having fun" is a moving target, influenced by past experiences, available time, changing notions of the period etc., the rules are adapted continuously. So, I am not aiming anymore for a perfect ruleset that I will use for the next 20 years. I am aiming for a ruleset that will give me fun games for the next 3 sessions or so.

In the end, I have a couple of rulesets that gets changed and adapted bit by bit after every session – adapting to our changing needs and preferences along the way.

My personal solution to this issue is to regard all/any rules as imperfect and fundamentally ephemeral. Like Phil Dutre, I don't expect to find a set of rules I shall use forever, but enjoy playing with one now, and put it to one side when I decide to try another one – though I may well return to it again at some point in the future.

I find free rules on the internet and adapt them to suit my purposes, or write my own. If a particular set doesn't work for me, I can drop it with a clear conscience and no money wasted. Time spent tinkering/experimenting with rules can be fun in itself.

Increasingly, I prefer short, simple, easy to learn rules to ones that may be more 'realistic' but require too steep a learning curve for the limited time I have available.

It's interesting to note that most of the commentators on this thread are European, and then, largely British. Allow me to propose the following generalisations:

This notion of a 'set of rules' has historically pervaded the hobby in Britain; the idea that wargames can and should somehow duplicate reality, and in order to achieve that end should be regulated by a collection of proscriptions, not unlike the legal systems that control our lives, and that there exists some ultimate, ideal combination of such rules.

Americans, on the other hand, envision a game, with its own unifying and coherent design logic, language and representational parameters, and understand that every game designer will make different design decisions when representing the same (un)real world phenomena. They recognise that we're playing a game that differs from a board game only in (usually) utilising free movement and flexible manoeuvre elements subordinated to a stipulated ground scale.

With the latter philosophy in mind, rather than pursuing some unachievable, never-ending quest for an imagined perfection, it's merely a matter of selecting the design that best matches your own recreational needs in terms of mechanics, focus, scale, degree of abstraction, game length, complexity, and so on. Of the two, I think it's by far the more sophisticated, satisfying, and time-efficient approach.

I feel cheated!!!

@Arthur1815,

Why constantly chop and change with rules if there is limited time available? Presumably this also comes at the expense of familiarity with the nuances of rules?

Regards

Dear John, Shaun, Phil, and Arthur,

Amen! The only rules you will find "ultimate" are those you write yourself. I'm happy to see so many people who are coming around to this rather than wasting time and money on the 100+/100+ club (over $100 USD and over 100 pages).

I remember back in 1962 Jack Scruby in his "All about
War Games" which back then was the gateway book for getting into the hobby (it was itself only about 12 pages) said, and I quote, "I can't tell you how many people write and ask me where they can get rules for war games. I have to tell them there are no such rules and each model general makes up his own set."

Would that we never had left those Halcyon days. Everone made up his rules, played his games, brought in new people to then took your rules and tweaked and modified them and used them with their add-on's and bandaids, till they tossed the whole thing over and wrote their own.

It's a large part of the fun of the hobby. Even when the absolutely wonderful, perfect, brilliant, charming, and clever rules you wrote turned out to be a perfect dog! You simply started over.

The game is playing with toy soldiers to have fun. Reality has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Oh to be sure, we give it a passing nod and profess our respect and reverence for it. Then we grab it by the neck and smack it around for a while until it's fun.

Believe me. History is NOT fun! History is simply the catalog of the crimes of humanity, a tale of pointless, meaningless, purposeless suffering. We want more than that. We want to emphasize the grandeur and glory, the sense of wonder and spirit of play, the virtues and triumphs of humanity and the excitement of great events.

As Jimmy Stuart said in "Who shot Liberty Valence?" "When you have a conflict between the truth and the legend… print the legend."

And OSchmidt takes it to the house!

"When you have a conflict between the truth and the legend… print the legend."

Make sure you read that in a Jimmy Stuart voice to get the full effect.

It wasn't Ransom Stoddard (James Stewart) who said that line in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, but the newspaper editor…

But the sentiment is one with which I wholeheartedly agree when playing toy soldier games.

Whirlwind, I actually enjoy playing the same scenario with different rules to discover their effect; it also helps me to decide which are worth pursuing further. Believe me, most of the rules I play these days are too simple to have nuances!

That's interesting. I have gone quite the other way at the moment – I am being quite firm about not trying out new rules, so I continue to concentrate on a few rulesets and enjoy the…fluency?…of gameplay which comes with knowing the rules almost by heart.

Regards