"Why don't people "trust" spartan games?" Topic

I've seen numerous comments (on this board and others) where people imply that they don't trust Spartan Games based on their track record of not properly supporting their games.
I'm looking into Planetfall when it comes out later this year and I'm wondering what these concerns might be.

Why do games need to be "supported?"

I have the same question as Winston.
l don't, and never have, understood the entire "supported" idea.
I buy the game, I play the game. What the company does after I purchase has zero affect on me or my playing.

Rules errata and clarification, full range of miniatures representing units detailed in said rules, campaigns, scenarios… Product support is essential.

Write your own scenarios and campaigns. Use other miniatures.
Use your own imagination instead of having it handed to you.

Kids today. ….

I think the trust refers to the constant re-writing of the rule books across all their systems. Like GW & FOW.

Spartan Games produce lovely toys and have an excellent spares department – that is all I ask of them

I use their kit with FWC

Scenarios I can do myself

However I do appreciate that if you buy a set of rules then it is frustrating when the rules aren't supported ie queries either answered vaguely or not at all

Continue with the mistrust … it just means I'll be able to find Spartan minis in the clearance bin at my local game store!

Also has something to do with the number of broken, miscast, and mispacked minis in the earlier days. Uncharted Seas and the first Wave of Firestorm Armada were pretty bad for that, and for a lot of people that was all they saw because stores burned by returns and complaints refused to stock the later stuff from after they fixed their quality control issues. They're fine for that these days, but once bitten, twice shy applies.

I'm still waiting for rules for some of the Uncharted Seas ships. They pulled back from retail distribution for any Uncharted Seas, so I managed to pick up a load of ships cheap.

Poorly playtested rules with no clarifications as to how the game creator plays it makes it almost impossible to come to a new area and play a game without getting into a nasty argument over how one group isn't playing that rule the same way as the other group.

I think their minis are generally superb. If they aren't as solid on rules, I don't really care. With options like Wargame Vault (and zillions of self-published free rules sets), I find it hard to believe that dissatisfied gamers can't find (several) decent alternatives for Spartan Games' rules.

Figure packs don't conform to the rule. For example, I need four of this ship, but they come in packs of three, also redesigned ships don't have the same "footprint" of the original.

I think that until you've walked a few miles in the shoes of a wargames designer and publisher you might want to be careful with the criticism.
Before I was lucky enough to get IHMN published I was also happy to sling brickbats at mistakes in rules. I think the word 'pedant' was used against me a few times :)
But, now I have been through the process, and had to publish errata after the fact I am a lot more understanding.

I think personally a lot of people tar them and other companies with the GW brush. Most companies are tiny, little more than garage operations really so they do slip up. Most of us like to have someone to dislike (I am guilty of this too) so tend to throw stones at what we perceive as big companies screwing up when in fact they are small fry and are bound to make those mistakes we would forgive others.

Save for a couple generic rules-sets, I gave up following any single company/range decades ago.

Honestly, I've never purchased or played anything from Spartan Games, so I'm unfamiliar with this 'distrust' and any vitriol.

I get walking the proverbial mile before leveling criticism. I also understand growing pains and learning curves.

But a business – even a hobby business – needs to release a solid product and stand behind it. Support isn't an unreasonable expectation. Play-test the rules, clarify errata, manufacture consistently-scaled miniatures, fill out promised product lines, and so on…

It's not that much of a stretch.

I'm not bothered by the sizing issues – they aren't that bad – but releasing a model with special rules, then never explaining what those special rules are, even just in a post on their forum, is a royal PITA

G.

"now I have been through the process, and had to publish errata after the fact I am a lot more understanding."

Two year rules cycles, spending effort to rebalance with each edition then promptly blowing that balance out two model releases later, employing a points range that should allow a lot of variety then refusing to use it.

No issue with the models at this point, though the re-issue with larger footprints was annoying. Their rules practices are what get me. I fully and completely trust them to keep these practices up. Trust has nothing to do with it at this point. The roller coaster is what gets old.

Been playing Dystopian Wars for several years and could not be more pleased.

Great service, good online support and the new version 2.0 rules are really an great upgrade.

It sounds like a lot of those concerns are things inherent to the "official model+army list" model. Though packing figures in numbers that don't correspond to unit sizes is kind of silly.

I think the distrust comes from the fact that they casually dumped Uncharted Seas to focus on MORE Dystopian Wars instead of giving it the aid it needed. It brings to mind Gw's 'all our love is for 40k' attitude. Adding into that the wonky rules and AWFUL book layout (haven't checked the new one but the original DW rulebook was a bloody nightmare)leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

Write your own scenarios and campaigns. Use other miniatures.
Use your own imagination instead of having it handed to you.

Kids today. ….

So it ain't just me…

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

I have to call BS on the people complaining about, "kids today" as if they're somehow better.

I prefer supported games because my life does not revolve around gaming and the hobby.

I'm in my thirties, I've got my own business, my own freelance work, family, friends, and other activities that I want to do.

I do not want to spend my precious hobby and fun hours sitting around doing the job of the game designer. I want to go and have fun with friends first. Sure, sometimes I will do a little extra, but that's always in support of my chosen games, not as a replacement, and I will never do a game designer's work for him. Nor will I waste time digging through countless miniature sites to find appropriate miniatures to fit a line that shouldn't have been abandoned in the first place.

This is why I have little tolerance for poorly written, or "loose" rules writers or game designers that expect players to do their work for them. The same goes for miniature companies that jump from game to game to grab that initial burst of sales that something shiny and new gets.

It's one my big problems with GW games, where they've brainwashed an entire generation of gamers into doing their dirty work for them by pretending this whole gentlemanly hard working gamer ideal exists. Then turning around an imposing businesslike rules laywering on every other aspect of the hobby. Then, if you call them on it, a legion of stockholm syndrome gamers come out of the woodwork to call you lazy.

If I was going to write my own rules, scenarios, and campaigns, I'd damn well do it for my own profit. Oh hey, that's exactly what I'm doing, and when I release my game I'm not going to expect my players to do my work for me, like Spartan Games did with a lot of their games.

But a lot of us write our own rules,scenarios and campaigns because it's fun with no intention of publishing them..

GW games are exactly the kind of supported game that doesn't interest me – I'd rather run my own scenarios and tweak rules my way than follow things slavishly.

Martian Empires which I have published is a complete game and there is no "support" because it doesn't need it. I'm aware of a lot of other gamers who've tweaked the rules and made it their own…

Mike

I like Dystopian Wars, no complaints there, good game ad lovely models. I do like the new ships they've brought out for my nation (France)

Don't play any of their other games as the models don't do it for me..

"Game units are based on fours and the models are packed in threes."

Welcome to encouraging more sales. Also this is typical of almost every miniatures company. For years, at least a decade, Games Workshop offered minis in pack numbers that did not fit their army organizations.

Most "standard" pack sizes across the industry have little to do with rules. 15mm, 8 foot, 3 mounted, 6 command, 2 guns and 4 crew. Great if it fits your rules. Play something like DBA where you may need only two of a particular figure type for an army and the pile of "extra" figures can grow rapidly.

Now if a company is consistently selling miscast or mislabeled figures, or rules that are incomplete, self-contradictory or "revised" every year with a new issue then there is something to mistrust.

Two year rules cycles, spending effort to rebalance with each edition then promptly blowing that balance out two model releases later

And that's the killer.

If you're going to spend a lot of time working up a new/revised ruleset, don't waste all that time by releasing models that blow all that work you did!!!

My complaint about DP9s games is their too-small playtesting group, which manages to not find some pretty glaring things after every product cycle.

If you're using a points and army list mechanic, one of your playtesters (or playtest groups) should have the goal of attempting to break the system. That's his JOB, breaking the system.

Turtle – we just don't have the same views on what we do.

All you describe as being what you want has me shrinking away from a game in horror, can't imagine anything more boring – like going on holiday to Butlins or Marbella.

I had very limited time (and a lot less cash) when I was your age too, just had to limit the scope – but never the ambition or imagination.

Write your own scenarios and campaigns. Use other miniatures.
Use your own imagination instead of having it handed to you.

Kids today. ….

Scenarios and campaigns, sure.

Other miniatures? That can be tricky, depending on the game. I don't play any of Spartan's games, but from browsing their site it does seem like they have a fairly distinct style, and their minis aren't 15-28mm humanoids, so finding suitable minis can be much tougher. It's helpful to players (and just good business) if the company makes most of what you would want to play their own game.

Gildas, not sure what you're reading into my post, but I mainly describe what I'm not willing to let a sloppy designer/developer get away with anymore.

You should probably better define what it is that causes you to, "shrink away from a game in horror…"

Not trying to be snarky here, it's just that you haven't actually defined your own argument or desires.

Also, in response to Black Hat, I do write and create stuff for the games I like. However, it's always in addition to stuff that's there. Since we're talking about Spartan Games, their first and second rules releases were quite a mess, and it's taken them this long to get it right. I don't want to waste my time fixing it when there's a bunch of other games that took the time to do things right in the first place.

And by profit, I meant all forms of profit, both mental, physical, and monetary. If creating extra stuff makes you happy, then you profit. Just don't be like those other guys that look down their noses at people who would rather use their time for other pursuits.

Most "standard" pack sizes across the industry have little to do with rules. 15mm, 8 foot, 3 mounted, 6 command, 2 guns and 4 crew. Great if it fits your rules. Play something like DBA where you may need only two of a particular figure type for an army and the pile of "extra" figures can grow rapidly.

That's hardly fair. Historicals aren't, generally speaking, made for a particular rulesset, and to fit every possible match they have to come either in multiple pack sizes or be sold as singles, either of which is extra work for the manufacturer. Fantasy figures made for specific set OTOH easily can be in appropriate-sized packs for that game.

I still wonder why, say, WW2 minis aren't normally sold in a platoon pack (1:1 with however many troops are supposed to be there), though?

Sure, I get that the TO&E changed, but so did the uniforms!

Is it any simpler to have rifles, rifle grenadiers, LMG gunners, and officers all in separate packs than 1941 Pacific, 1943 North Africa, D-Day Assault, 1944-45, and Greatcoats? (Obviously, using Americans for this example)

I read Turtle, Gildas and Black Hat Minis' posts (as well as a few others in this thread. I agree with Blackhat (and I bought both a copy of his rules and more than a few of his figures)

I don't think I've ever bought a set of rules that I didn't tinker with. I don't expect rules I write and publish not to be tinkered with. For what amounts to a lone wolf in the gaming industry I try and put the best product I can out there.

When I buy a product I may purchase it for one good idea, a single nice mechanic or because it has good artwork. I don't expect, or desire, a miniatures game or a role playing game to spoon feed me everything I will ever need to play the game. A board game or card game is different. Those I expect to be able to play out of the package, (at least until I rewrite the rules).

Terry

I really dont get the spoonfed thing that many people use. when you buy a car do you really head down to the parts store and get a bunch of more parts so it will work? Or buy a computer and have to write your own operating system?

or how about some truth in packaging and put on the cover that it isnt really a game, just some half baked ideas that are going to need a lot of user input to work?

There are a lot of games out there, many more than I can afford to buy, and more than I can learn to play. I dont understand why it is spoonfeeding to want to buy a prooduct that does what it says it does. if it says game, then I expect a playable game. I am not a rules writer. Or designer either. Or a car manufacturer. Which is why I pay other people to do those things for me.

Is it spoonfeeding when you order a meal and they have the gall to actualy cook it? Maybe bring in a little charcoal burner to do it yourself? As it happens i can grow the wheat, and even mill iot, as well as grow the beef critter and butcher that sucker as well.

So even though I can still remember how to do all the things it takes to make all the components of a burger, wheni order a big Mac I really do expect it ready to eat. Just as I expect a thing that calls itself a game to be ready to play

owen

Badger
I think you have really hit the nail on the head. Some of us don't want Big Macs and some do. To use your food analogy some of us don't mind going out for fondue. We like going to a buffet where we serve ourselves exactly the portions and items we want, not what they will hand us. Some of us go to salad bars and shockingly assemble our own salad. We might even want to put our condements on our burger ourselves.

Gosh sometimes when I get take out I put a sauce on the food that isn't even offered by the place from which I bought the food.

It takes all kinds :-)

Terry

I don't think badger22's point is that there is any superiority in playing a fully developed game, rolling your own, or going in-between. I believe the original complaint was calling something a "game" when the players had to fill in gaps in the rules in order to play. As a consumer, I think the people on that side are just looking for some consistency in terminology (yes, but it is possible to be reasonably consistent on some terms) and truth in advertising.

I am pretty senstive to this because of the Quick Intermediate Level Skirmish (QILS) game I publish. It is a complete gaming system – i.e. you can play it with no additional rules beyond the free .pdf. The rules come with a few example scenarios, which play pretty well.

I publish lots of "supplements" or "modules" for the game that provide additional scenarios, set ups, and some "rules" that allow the game to take on other specific flavors like noir fiction, postapoc scifi, Bronze Age ancients and so on. All of these also provide "guidelines" for shifting to some other game system of your choosing.

Pretty much all of them come with (simple) terrain templates so you don't need to have tons of terrain (especially exotic or specific things) to play. A few of them come with paper minis, when I feel it isn't reasonable to expect someone to have or find specific minis that would be needed (and sometimes, I just like making and including paper minis).

I have a few other beer and pretzels "games" that are, again self enclosed. Download the .pdf, read it, grab some minis'n' dice, and play.

But the important thing for me is to ensure the customer knows what they are and what they aren't getting before they buy.

No one is saying roll your own is better than complete package, just you ought to know which one you're buying.

Sort of think this is why people should be careful trying to do the "Games Workshop but different" thing. People get really aggro if you goof it up somehow.

Sorry to all the "old people" here but if a company cant get the interests of "young people" who prefer much more structured wargames (via gateway games like warhammer, warmahordes, flames of war, xwing) then imo they're gonna be missing out on the majority of their sales. Like it or not, "young" (teen-30's) wargamers are usually the ones who are seeking to buy brand new wargames and miniatures.

Not to mention if you're using 3rd party minis and homebrew rules, that does mean less profits.

I think you have really hit the nail on the head. Some of us don't want Big Macs and some do. To use your food analogy some of us don't mind going out for fondue. We like going to a buffet where we serve ourselves exactly the portions and items we want, not what they will hand us. Some of us go to salad bars and shockingly assemble our own salad. We might even want to put our condements on our burger ourselves.

Gosh sometimes when I get take out I put a sauce on the food that isn't even offered by the place from which I bought the food.

IMO the food analogy doesn't work here

Buying different foods, sure anyone can do it. But you're still buying "Prepared Foods" already made by professional/specialists.

The Homebrewing Rules angle is more like "heres all the food ingredients, I hope you know how to cook". Not all of us have the time or money or talent to cook, no matter how many Rachael Ray shows there are. And then theres the problem of playing with random people. Yes, some people actually do enjoy playing with random people who likely won't know what homebrews you've made.

Its like saying to someone "you dont like playing vanilla Starcraft? Then make your own mod!" Yea not all of us are computer programmers.

Sorry for coming off as a jerk. I just feel that the divide between "old" and "new" players in TMP is becoming a huge headache. Almost as bad as D&D Edition Wars.

I don't know if its new and old as much as some people liking doing it themselves and some want a packaged experience.

Funny I've never had an issue playing with "random" people, or in games I didn't know before I started playing at a convention or a game shop. Or having people who never played a game I was running before and teaching them the rules.

I'll still stick with the food analogy. A Big Mac is a known thing. If you go and get a Big Mac it will, 99.9% of the time be exactly the same as 99.9% of all other Big Macs. The company that sells you the Big Mac, or by analogy the Big Mac type of game, isn't interested in you having a great experience, just in one just good enough that you will be willing to buy another Big Mac.

I for one don't eat Big Macs if I can help it. I also don't like the gaming business model that seems to provide the same level or experience as a Big Mac does.

I'll be quite frank here. I don't think it is a young versus older gamer issue.

The company that sells you the Big Mac, or by analogy the Big Mac type of game, isn't interested in you having a great experience, just in one just good enough that you will be willing to buy another Big Mac.

IMO, the silly food analogy really isn't especially accurate, and this is really where it breaks down.

It's a pretty poor and incomplete analogy if all you allow room for is a Big Mac vs. your favorite way to home-cook your own burger. DIY vs. prepared for you is an issue that is independent of quality considerations (or subjective taste, for that matter, which applies to food and gaming). You might have your "McDonald's" of the gaming world, but there are also the "Chez Panisse's" and such, that still offer a complete game that is also a very high quality game.

In my experience, it is easier to find opponents that are already familiar with a set of rules than to convince people to try something they've never heard of before, especially if they're home brew rules (which is a shame). Teaching and learning new games can be a lot of fun, but I don't want that to be the majority of my gaming time.

I like quirky, off-beat games, and I don't particularly care about having affiliated minis if there are readily available and suitable alternatives, but especially with non-Historicals and less generic sci-fi and fantasy that's just not always so easy, so I appreciate it when a company offers a miniature line that matches their setting, if it's the setting that I'm into.

I houserule things in my games all the time, too, but I recognize that not all of my opponents will like my houserules, so in that regard, I can appreciate having a complete set of rules that is known to us both. I tend to avoid playing games where lengthy rule debates are likely to arise, either as a result of lack of clarity in the rules and/or a nit-picky opponent, though.

I can see both sides if the coin, and I really don't think there's a right or wrong approach to gaming. It's a leisure activity, so do it however you enjoy it best.

jakethedog, I am a rather old gamer and also wqant a complete product. I am also not a good cook or a good programer. So I want complete products there most of the time. Sorry the food thing deosnt work for you, just trying to make the point that not everybody can make a doi it yourself project.

I agree that it is supposed to be a fun activity. I get to spend hours a day fighting with unclear company policys, and fill in the gaps, while coordinating my ideas with everybody else who is triying to do the same. So coming home and having to do the same woith a game is in no manner fun, it is just another job I dont want to do. So I wont. And after one experience with a game that is liethat, I wont buy from that company again. As i saoid before, to many other companys out there to try.

I get to spend hours a day fighting with unclear company policys, and fill in the gaps, while coordinating my ideas with everybody else who is triying to do the same. So coming home and having to do the same woith a game is in no manner fun, it is just another job I dont want to do. So I wont. And after one experience with a game that is liethat, I wont buy from that company again. As i saoid before, to many other companys out there to try.

Well said, sir!

I don't mind if there's some ambiguity, because the ruleset that defines every. single. possible. interaction just isn't much fun to play.

I want my rules to be sufficiently tightly written that how something is handled should be either obvious or explicit (but only explicit if needed).

For example, Infinity is actually coming out with their third edition specifically to tighten up the core rules. Almost all FAQs are how the core rules work, or how the rules added in later books interact with the core rules.

Or, how the Ambush Alley rules all have a sidebar about "the (nearly) Universal Rule" – aka Roll a 4+, or roll a 4+ and higher than your opponent.

That one sentence describes almost every single rule in the game. In fact, I can't remember off the top of my head what DOESN'T use the nealy universal mechanic.

I've got nothing against tinkerers, but to be honest, tinkerers are going to tinker with games regardless of how well they're written.

The people who say they they buy half baked rules to tinker with would probably tinker with with rules that were a 100% complete package. That's fine since for that type of person tinkering clearly is their primary pleasure, and it's not my place to dictate to anyone how they enjoy their hobby.

But to say that complete games, or ones that strive to be complete, are somehow shallow, boring, or inferior has always been silly to me. Wanting games to be incomplete, or worse putting up with lazy developers, seems like a losing strategy for all.

That's because, again, tinkerers would take them apart, or write all sorts of extra stuff anyway. So, might as well do a proper job of it.

I dont trust them because they leave the weaker babies out on hillsides to die.

Its a matter of principle really