"Rick Priestley on Army Lists and Commerce" Topic

In the latest issue of WSS, Rick Priestley wrote:

When we are dealing with commercial rules and ranges of models, it is the duty of the army lists to structure forces in a way that enhances the commercial value of the range, whilst using the points values and the internal rules of the list itself to maintain a reasonable balance during game play. This is the most difficult aspect of list-writing for fantasy games. You have to respect the commerciality of the list (or livelihoods will be lost … starting with yours!) but the commercial value of the whole game relies entirely upon its appeal to the gaming public.

Is it just me, or does anyone else have an instinctive reaction to avoid playing any game which has army lists seen as having a duty to enhance the commercial value of an attached miniatures range? I somehow feel that game companies should simply rely on writing good rules and producing quality miniatures to make their money.

does anyone else have an instinctive reaction to avoid playing any game which has army lists seen as having a duty to enhance the commercial value of an attached miniatures range?

YES!

Use them to sell figures sure, but this goes too far. I am rapidly losing what respect I had for mister Priestley.

I somehow feel that game companies should simply rely on writing good rules and producing quality miniatures to make their money.

THIS for sure.

Absolutely astounding admission. Mind you, look at Bolt Action with artillery and Nebelwerfers on the table so Warlord can sell more models. Compare that with Chain of Command where artillery and even medium mortars are represented by a two man F.O. team.

One game tries to model warfare, the other tries to sell figures. But my guess is that Bolt Action is the more successful rule set as a result.

have to agree. this justifies codex creep, resculpting perfectly good figures and rewriting rules poorly every few years fostering the hope that this edition will get it right. not to mention kicking units to the curb when they are written out of a army list or codex.

overall I must call shenanigans.

-clark182

But of course, army lists existed long before they were tied to a rules system.

So what was Barker/WRG's motivation?

It's a good reason to buy rules from rules writers and figures from figure manufacturers. If one company does both, something is likely to be compromised.

Hmmm in two minds on this, assuming we are talking non-historical rules here ( where historical interpretation takes precedent in my view).

In my life as a hobby wargamer I have some unease at the thought of
Blatant manipulation to maximise profit. However in my life as a businessman I understand the project needs to be profitable.

Not having read the whole article just the snippet above it does seem to be saying you have to balance both profitability and the game appeal. In which case that is no different to any brand . You want the brand to be successful long term, tweaks to get extra margin are looked at, but you can't damage the brand. It's all a balancing act, and if it didn't happen we would all be moaning about how few new projects are coming out or being finished.

Then again once I have the rules I can do what I want with them. Codex creep, easy answer if I don't like it ignore the changes as we usually do both sides of a project for the club nights it's my choice.

We do live in a golden age of wargaming where more is produced than ever before.

Mind you I still miss the old photocopied rules which were not full of big colour pictures but we're cheap enough to buy on a whim and try out. I know I am a minority on that :-)

Don't really see any major revelation here. Codex creep is a standard. If you make an army that cannot win, who would buy it? Business suicide. GW and Warlord are in the business of selling miniatures. The rules and lists must promote this.

What Marshal Mark said ..

Of course Phil Barker always said WRG's motive for army lists (and back in the day theirs were always very cheap) was to improve trust between players (i.e. before lists made certain configurations 'official' players would put out historical armies based on their own research … and for some players that was – err .. rather too permissive)

Re the OP (and not being one of RPs general customers) it seems Rick is taking some flak basically for being candid: something we should respect even if we don't sympathise …

Phil
Ancients on the Move

This is why I tend to avoid list based games, the history has to take a back seat to sales. He is correct though, no profit = no product.

Last time I heard someone being this honest was the Star Fleet Battles owners in the eighties. They were asked why the SSD books (or something) had one really popular race (Klingon, Fed, Romulan) and a couple of the minor races for each book. The answered honestly – if they sold one book with Fed, Rom, and Klingons then they would not sell enough of the other books to be profitable.

I like and own several Fat Lardies games but TFL are also not making their coin by selling figures.

I don't understand why anyone would be upset that there is an admitted commercial value to the figures in relation to the rules when a mfr makes both.

Mr Priestly notes it's a balancing act. You want the game to be fun and balanced as possible while driving sales. If they don't sell enough plastic/metal they won't be around long enough to make better games.

If we are talking about a fantasy game, we know we have to respect the commerciality of the game, which means that we have to make appropriate room for everything we might want to include. If our game is historical, the list needs to reflect actual troop types and compositions, at least in so far as these are understood.

As far as I'm concerned, that means the list has to deal in an open and honest way with choice, points values, balance, and in-game value. The game has to come first and commercial opportunities have to work around the game, and not the otherway round. The moment publishers start to manipulate points values and choice-limitations to sell more ‘such and such', the whole thing is pretty much doomed. I call that the Dark Side of list design! Needless to say, players are no fools and will soon spot such cynical ploys; and once they do, the whole credibility of a games system will evaporate as rapidly as dawn mist.

A couple more quotes which give rather more context and explanation.

I've never been happy with the integration of the rules production and figure production sides on the hobby into one enterprise. Mister Priestly nices sums the commercial why behind this trend, but as a consumer, I've certainly felt like I get the short end when one of the business requirements built into a game is specifically there to sell more figures.

It's like saying we need to tweak The Sword and The Flame in order to sell more Zulu figures.

Given where Rick's longest running commercial gig was, I am hardly surprised. I don't bemoan that he is in it to make money either. His products are kind of pricey but they are not off the hook expensive like GW. He is in it to make a living and so far is doing a great job. Personally, I'm not all that fond of the rules sets he produces but to each his own.

I guess what I am saying is, if you like Warlord games and miniatures, then you should continue purchasing there products. If not, there are plenty of other options in the world. It really doesn't matter what the perceived underlying motive for lists is.

Thanks Fred12df, that makes things clearer for me, product and quality first, and don't treat your customers like they are stupid. Sounds like Rick is articulating how you should approach the project with your design and commercial heads on.

Just wish more businesses followed this in practice throughout society.

@ChargeSir

Agree about rules cheap enough to buy on a whim just to try. I check free rules sites, and eBay for this purpose.

Recently picked up 1st ed Fantasy Rules! and its supplement. While better quality than cheap photocopies, I was intrigued by how much was packed in to so little. Went ahead and bid on the Age of Gunpowder (Renaissance) version
as well.

Is anyone surprised by this? Or just surprised to see it discussed openly?

I have a big problem with companies that don't respect their customer base in this hobby.

That said, I don't think the OP's quote goes beyond the pale. Mr Priestley seems to be offering commercial rulesets on the market, without concealing the fact that they are indeed commercial. It is when companies start doing the smoke-and-mirrors routine to try to make customers "drink the kool-aid" that I feel disrespected as a customer. At that point I feel like the companies no longer care about anything but making money (and sure, they can do that all they like, but why should my objective in life be to supply some company with money?).

When Mr Priestley is being candid about the competing interests of game design, as he seems to be in the quoted article, I feel like he hasn't lost his bearings and is trying to balance these interests like a fair and honest man should.

Would I like for Rick Priestley's objective in life to be to make the hobby better for me, at his expense? Sure, I would. But maybe I'm the one not being respectful, fair and honest at that point.

Kudo's to Mr. Priestly for speaking the truth as he sees it.

As long as the core rulebook allows me to play the game I'm generally free to use whatever miniatures I like, and if I'm playing with friends – which I usually am, ignore the army lists or change them.

What is more of a blatant money grab, and will keep me from buying a game, is if necessary basic rules are hidden in supplements OR worse, if the stats for troops are only available on cards that come with the 'official' miniatures (as is common with the boutique skirmish games).

I'll happily jump on the splatbook treadmill as long as I feel it is my choice and I can jump off whenever I like… feeling like I HAVE to keep buying to play the game, I won't even start.

I buy the miniatures I like and play mostly with house rules.

That being said, I think you're missing the point. People play Bolt Action with the arty on the table because THE MINIATURES look cool and they want to play with them.

If I think something is too expensive, I do not buy it. I do not look at as some kind of plot against me.

I don't mind army lists and point values, they try to keep things even when dealing with tournament style games.

What I don't like, and what is kinda hinted at here, is when companies use their point values to control the (over) pricing of miniatures.

Not surprised. I remember a White Dwarf interview with one of their codex writers. He mentioned starting work on the new Eldar codex almost immediately after the prior one was released.

How do you update something that's just been updated, without knowing what needs to be changed, if anything. Wouldn't you need feedback from players and playtesters, or an updated/modified basic rules set before knowing what changes were needed or what new units to add to an army?

There in lies the problem with a miniature manufacturer that also authors rules. End result=distortion of period tactics for the sake of profit!
I started in the WW2 period using Disposable Heroes and when the group I was gaming with got involved with Bolt Action, I bought a copy. My mistake!!! I hate them!!! The rules are obviously designed to sell figures at the cost of playability and historical accuracy. The dice thing really chapped my butt.
Give me DH any day over BA!

Sure it is designed to sell figures, but you don't have to buy them from Warlord. Nor are they forcing you to use anything you don't already own. I think your butt hurt is more about yor friends switching games…and ummm liking it.

How does an organisation that sells both rules and the miniatures to go with those rules if the two don't match?

Howerver, I would put a slightly different slant on it. Instead of 'it is the duty of the army lists to structure forces in a way that enhances the commercial value of the range' I would say 'it is the duty of the miniatures range to to be composed in a way that enhances the commercial value of the rule set.'

Basically, rules first, then miniatures to match, rather than miniatures first then rules to match.

I am rapidly losing what respect I had for mister Priestley.

For what? For being honest about the business side of the hobby? For stating what was already obvious?

Good point Caesar. And Rick's second point quoted above puts his first comment posted into context of an honest approach – nothing to see here if you're looking to indulge in some self-righteous indignation I'm afraid!

Sorry any company that makes figures and commercial rules for those figures is only doing it as a rotating money siphon from those who buy their figures. Sorry wont be drinking that kool aid.

What is more of a blatant money grab, and will keep me from buying a game, is if necessary basic rules are hidden in supplements OR worse, if the stats for troops are only available on cards that come with the 'official' miniatures (as is common with the boutique skirmish games).

That is exactly why I don't play Clix games anymore.

@ all detractors on this thread: Read fred12df's post before posting!

Now, you can see that the OP quote was pulled out of context, and that what Rick was saying was not only honest, but also included specific criticisms of the very excesses some of you are howling about!

Now, wake up, people. Even if someone just wants to sell miniatures, it's utterly a waste of their time to create miniatures for which there is practically no in-game use. Indeed, it's foolish to go through the process and cost of producing something which only a handful of costumers might buy. The only viable business choice is to create figures that many customers will purchase in multiple quantities, or to price a single so high that the profit at least approaches a similar level-- which naturally provokes the same howls from the same crowd.

As Rick pointed out, the line the game company has to tread is creating a line with figures in demand enough to be each be reasonably profitable at an acceptable price, while also making all these figures viable army choices that still allow for creative yet balanced differences suited to a player's force preferences. The risk is that a company doesn't cross that line into maximizing figure sales at the cost of game viability and appeal, an action which Rick strongly criticizes. I note that in fact that very risk will in the long run be detrimental to a company, as a game which loses its viability and appeal will also lose customers.

So, I think those who have yelled have done so with little actual thought or discernment.

Three cheers for Saint Rick who contradicted himself about ripping us off, What a hero.

Lots of chest-thumping and howling over nothing.

If I run the company, I don't want my designer creating lists that call for lots of unique sculpts that have low appeal and/or little utility. That's just a lot of manufacturing cost for little return.

There's actually nothing wrong with people running their game business like, you know, a business. It's not some terribly deceitful practice, not does even the most egregious examples of "codex" abuse (looking at you, GW!) preclude the game from being enjoyable.

I think that Rick's comments weren't all that horrid.

1. If you are writing rules that the company will sell figures for, obviously it is to the company's benefit to structure army lists/figure requirements to support the figures in the line. What's wrong with that? As he says, the army lists 'have a duty' to cover the figures produced in the range.

2. This need to sell more figures certainly can lead some companies to create rules [not army lists, those come after] which include such nonsensical things as models as 155 artillery or Nebelwerfers on the table.

3. Fantasy and sci-fi miniature games have no such restrictions, so the codex creep and continual addition of 'new' figures is easy and obviously profitable. I believe this is Priestly's main focus, but maybe not. It looks far more rediculous when such figure manipulations are done with Historical rules sets, but FOW and Bolt Action have certainly proven that even rediculous can sell.

4. Having said that, you would think that companies selling historical sets of rules could find other ways to increase profits. But then, why go to all that thought, work and experimentation when Fantasy game companies have a proven method for profits?

@ all detractors on this thread: Read fred12df's post before posting!

Now, you can see that the OP quote was pulled out of context, and that what Rick was saying was not only honest, but also included specific criticisms of the very excesses some of you are howling about!

Thanks Parzival

It does seem a classic of taking a partial quote and building a a polemic from that.

I don't think my initial post is either a partial quote, one pulled out of context, or a polemic. I don't think the first quote you added changes anything at all. I don't think the second quote changes the essence of the first; of course a game designer will try and do it 'in keeping' with the spirit of the game and not just as an over-obvious ploy to grab more cash.

My post was about *my* reaction to this kind of messing about with army lists and wondering if other people share it – I'm not criticizing Rick Priestley for doing it (and they don't particularly feature in either Rogue Trader or Black Powder, the two sets of his rules I have, play and enjoy), he'll design games the way he wants to, or the way he is paid to. If particular game companies and designers want to do it, then fair enough. Obviously they think that they know what they are doing.

Well I do like to think the columns I write for WS&S encourage debate:)

But please read the article – it does talk about design in a specific context – I'd like to think it was worth reading in full.

Is WS&S in the shops yet? I checked WHSmiths today and no sign.

Asking people to read things before commenting on them is a novelty these days…

Asking people to start threads with the entire quote rather than one part deliberately pulled out of context in order to fire up readers is a novelty, too. And funnily enough the folks so upset above are mostly the same ones who are upset about… well, pretty much EVERYTHING. Look at other threads on TMP and you'll see… 8)=

Not sure how to reply with quotes but…

'Asking people to read things before commenting on them is a novelty these days…'

:) Good point – my mistake!

'I somehow feel that game companies should simply rely on writing good rules and producing quality miniatures to make their money.'

Of course – but what do you do if the army list/points values are constructed in such a way that nobody wants to buy the models? For example, because they are either too many points, or because the list designer has created a better alternative in the same slot, or because the games designer has decided to limit the number you can include in a way that is impractical (e.g. max 5 and they are sold as a set of 20 or min 5 and they are sold in 4s for that matter. In all those examples it doesn't matter how good the models are – the process of list building and point value construction mitigates sales and could potentially doom a small company or project. I believe these kinds of things also spoil the players' enjoyment of both the models and the game – 'I love the models but never get to field them'. So, points values and list building 'do' impact upon the commercial viability of a range and game, regardless of how good the game itself is and how good the models.

Bear in mind it's also a technical article specifically about the construction of points values and army lists – and it's a follow up to the previous issue's article on the role of points values in games. All well worth reading:)

One reason I said 'it is the duty of the miniatures range to to be composed in a way that enhances the commercial value of the rule set.'

If a games designer also produces the figures, then the onus is on the designer to produce figures packaged to fit the rules. The figures you buy will always follow the rules set. Sometimes it may be that, for completion, a rules set may include a figure or three that are not commercially viable in themselves – fine, there are ways round that – 'every pack includes a free Denobian rock-throwing marsh rat', or simply by accepting that the figure has to be in the range 'for completion.'

The point is, in this instance we're not talking about the commercial viability of individual figures, we're talking about the commercial viability of a package.

The problem would arise if there are too many non-viable figures needed. In that case, I would contend that the army lists are poorly designed and probably over complicated. Obviously, here I'm talking about army-scale lists – skirmish rules/lists/figure ranges follow a different path!

@Rick P,

Fair enough, although for myself I can't see that much difference between that and "manipulating points values and choice-limitations to sell more ‘such and such'". But I can see that it is a problem inherent in the genre if you are involved in a company selling non-historical/non-generic miniatures for a specific set of rules.

Bear in mind it's also a technical article specifically about the construction of points values and army lists – and it's a follow up to the previous issue's article on the role of points values in games. All well worth reading:)

Yes, they are both well worth reading!

Regards

Gentleman, rules have always effected the sales of miniatures, whether those rules are published by the company for whom the miniatures are made or by a company that is not in the miniature business at all.

There have been rules published that deal with a given historical period by individuals that have no interest in creating a miniature line. But, companies that deal specifically with that period have benefited greatly.

On the other hand, there was a time when Skirmish rules were the thing, with those publishing the rules also making the handful of figures needed to play the game. Those rules didn't do much for manufacturers that make similar figures for the skirmish game, for the simple reason that the skirmish rules didn't out line what an individual needed to expand the rules into a larger game.

Now, you say the gamer can do that himself, which is true. But, I have found that one thing GW and similar companies have done for the hobby is create a gamer that can't think outside of the box they have created.

The bigger companies like GW and it's clones have created a gamer that is very use to being told you need these specific boxes in order to play the game. Thus, majority of these gamers don't really look for alternatives to the system, nor do look for alternative miniature choices. They stay with company that has everything laid out for them.

Thus, Mr. Priestly is not being deceptive at all. From years working in market, where the gamer is dependent on the rules writer to guide them, not in the rules but also in what they will need to play the game. It is not a matter of being deceived, but an unwillingness of the gamer to expend any more effort than needed.

FirstBrigade: WSS 72 should be in shops at the end of the month/first of May.

Not surprised. Appreciate the honesty on something we all knew or suspected.

I'm not upset by it, and I don't mind if rules writers and manufacturers make a profit. I'd rather have them stay in business than not.

At the same time, I reserve the right to buy whatever miniatures I want for the games and scenarios I play.

companies have … create a gamer that can't think outside of the box

Or, what they have done is open the gaming experience to people that already existed who can't and/or don't want to think outside the box. This results is larger cash flows in the industry and the opportunity and flexibility for all participants to take greater and different risks than in a less liquid market.

Mainstreaming (in any venue) has its benefits – usually financial – and it drawbacks – usually cultural. The existence of a mainstreaming effort pretty much implies the preexistence of a (super?)majority of people who don't want to do the thinking for themselves. Very rarely does an individual or movement create a cultural motif; usually they find a way to leverage the immense potential that already exists.

Of course, from this point of view, it is easy to get arrogant about "us" who think for themselves and the dirty, unwashed masses. So it's good to remember that pretty much every social interaction includes some degree of working from something someone else has done. Very few things are genuinely created entirely from scratch. So, it's really a matter of degrees.

I feel what Rick P. has to say is his honest opinion of the industry. All of us have our opinions. I play exclusively historical games such as Armati and Shako. Neither of these rule sets have miniature manufactures behind the rule set. It makes good business sense to have a rule set, figures and terrain for the gamer.

His statement that figures produced should be tailored to the rule set and not the other way around, also keeps the gamer from spending unnecessarily. This being a hobby, most of us have only discretionary spending. That we can buy a rule set, purchase a minimum number of figures, paint them up and have some enjoyable evenings is what we are all looking for.
Designing a game with various armies, create lists which have play balance, then sculpt figures which gamers like is an expensive undertaking. I have friends and fellow gamers who write rules and scenario books, even simple sets and books can cost thousands.
However the bottom line for the gamer is if you don't like the game, Don't buy it. Which is why I play historicals and not fantasy.

The sense of self righteousness and entitlement in this thread is astounding!

I'd be more surprised if a manufacturer's army lists were not geared towards its own product range.
But having said that, the psychological shenanigans played by many firms in the industry are deplorable. Scroll down and read the Terror Management Theory on this link
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view
It is more or less is how some firms work.
There is a growing tendency for firms to manipulate gamers by creating a World View where their products are superior. A firm uses social media and magazine reviews and articles to promote its products. It's all about getting the dumb wargamer to buy their product by appealing to the gamer's self-esteem.
The stuff you need to be scared of is the "these rules portray xxx warfare better than other rulesets" without any supporting facts. These articles are just playing on your emotions (or they've been written by the village idiot).
Do you find new ranges of figures in a certain scale highly desirable when similar figures and rules have been on the market for decades? Is the reason marketing hype? If you do, you've been brain-washed and you just might be a wargames terrorist.

I'm surprised some people are still acting shocked.

Hasn't the mapping between army lists and commercial interests been a given since 1994 or so?

Anyway, some wargamers apparantly have trouble accepting that wargaming has become a very broad church. On the one hand, we have the pre-designed games, mostly very commercial: rules, army lists, miniatures, imaginary world … all provided in an attractive one-stop-shop formula. The convergence between army lists and miniature ranges is a symptom of this class of wargamers.
On the other hand, there is the amateur military historian, casting his own figures, writing his own rules, and following his own very idiosyncratic path in wargaming that branched off from where Featherstone once started.
The only thing these two groups have in common is that they both paint miniatures.

Most of us are somewhere in between, and over time, shift somewhat more to the left or to the right in an ever-oscillating movement governed by shiny new stuff available on the market..