"Line in the Sand" Topic

I do not normally get involved in rants or debates in TMP as it's pointless and I certainly don't give away much personal information on-line but a few stats may help understand where I'm coming from. I am 47, started gaming with plastic Airfix soldiers in the early 70's and have been wargaming since twelve years of age. I predominantly play with 28mm figures. Now to my query.

Is anyone sick of rules trends in wargaming? I mean, the seemingly endless cycle of fellow gamers who adopt yet another set of rules when you may have thought the last lot were perfectly fine?

If I look back, I've played (in Napoleonics for example) a Donald Featherstone set, a home grown set, WRG, Grand Manner and now Black Powder. I have gamed in others but these are the rules I have 'adopted'. Whilst an advocate for Grand Manner for over ten years, I've finally given up on mind-bending tables and exhausting calculations for the Black Powder set. With a background in WRG, I suppose I didn't know any better at the time – until now.

It may be an age thing and I also stress I play a damn site less than I research, collect, paint and build but I have reached a point where I do not believe I will shift from my current rule sets. Is anyone else in the same boat or have I missed something?

As a member of the Goulburn Valiant Stormers (an irregular attendee) my colleagues always express dissatisfaction with this rule set or that – sometimes for the most particular and oddest of reasons to my mind. SO, as you'd expect a group-think shift in rules happens from time to time. For example, I use WAB from Ancients through to WSS but my colleagues have since shifted through Hail Caesar to Impetus. I would bet a prized body part they will change again by 2020.

What are they looking for? Mind you, some people seem incapable of reaching gentlemen's agreements, flipping a coin, rolling a decision dice or developing a house-rule to get past technicalities in a printed rule-set.

They change rules like I change cars. BUT I only change cars because they wear out. I can think of some beloved vehicles which I'd keep if only they didn't break down and lose reliability over age. Obviously rules don't do that.

SO, I'm sticking to my guns. it's WAB, Black Powder, Rapid Fire and whatever other sets I have for the lesser played genres. Am I a dinosaur? Or are others easily bored?

I was happy with DBM version 3.1 but them DBM3.2 came out and it lost me. Them DBMM which was just too complicated.
FoG:A looked promising but nah, that fell away.
Then Impetus arrived and I love them.
My point is I have no issue with rules evolving, otherwise I'd be stuck with WRG 6th Edition,…. OH THE HUMANITY.
Same same for Napoleonics.
WRG 16somtheing to 18something sucked, but everyone was playing them.
I now play Sharp Practice, Lasalle and FoG:N. Im about to have a look at Black Powder.
I have no issue with 'Choice'.
That's just me and I've been gaming for over 55 years.

Think of the constant change in rules good for the brain. Exercises the neurons AND the pocketbook !

If you find a set of rules that you really enjoy, I see no reason to change. If you get tired of the game that those rules give, then I would look around for something else. In short, if it ain't broke, why fix it?

If I find a rule set I like, I generally stick with it. I may try a new system once, but mainly via the fast-play rules.

I find myself involved in the 'fashion' of current gaming due to a wish to game with physical opponents. So I play and often quite enjoy Bolt Action and 28mm figures.
The owner of the game store I frequent says a game that doesn't have it's own miniatures and is not currently supported, whatever that means, is broken. He's a business man and needs to fill his rice bowl. So I see his point. But I don't agree with him.
I've been playing The Sword And The Flame for some thirty years now. I enjoy the rules very much. I've progressed to the most recent edition. But That's the only upgrade I've done since 1984 for those rules.
I still enjoy playing WW2 games using Jagdpanzer rules. And I've been with those for as long as TSATF.
I guess that's a very long winded way of saying if you're a Dinosaur, then welcome to the herd.
Oh, and I've got figures older than many of my current opponents…

I think the 'ooh, shiny' principle plays a very large role here: it's newer, ipso-facto it must be 'better'.

The group I intermittently game with is like this, mainly driven by one personality who automatically buys every glossy new game that comes on the market, the others then following along sheep-like.

If I had a dollar for every time I've heard the virtues of the new holy writ being extolled at the expense of yesterday's canon I'd be moderately wealthy. Without a hint of irony, the same pejoratives are applied to the superseded text as had been applied to its predecessor when its shine wore off.

Same napoleonic rules since 1977. I guess I never heard the "change rules set message buzzer". Better yet, the group still follow those same rules since then too.

As for ancients… WAB started with then when WAB almost disappeared became COE (a close cousin). Still play WAB.

I've been gaming for ten years, and I like having choices now, especially since my choices when I started as a teenager were the few other games that other teenagers in my town played, since I didn't know of any gaming clubs outside of the public and private high schools in the county and what money I did earn left me with little flexibility and no transportation. Warhammer 40,000 mainly. Historical gaming consisted of tweaking the 40k and LotR rules for other genres. Now that I have funds, transportation and reliable access to the internet I appreciate being able to own more than one ruleset per genre and historical period, and having minis in scales other than 28mm and 1/72 scale.

Unlucky General
I agree with you. There are some gamers that seem to change to new sets of rules more often than they change their undies. Some wargamers are more faddish than a bunch of teenage school girls. It hardly encourages you to buy, paint and base figures for a particular rule set when those that you were proposing to game with are likely to have moved on to something completely different before you have got your army organised.

Gamers are, of course, free to game any rules that they want and that freedom has benefits, but there is a price that we pay for having the hobby all over the shop when it comes to rules, scales and basing, particularly if people make frequent changes. It would certainly make the hobby easier to sell to newcomers if there was a greater degree of uniformity and constancy, but that is a forlorn hope.

Regards

I'm completely on the other side of the fence here. Trying new rules and tweaking them and writing my own may be my favorite part of the hobby.

Now I tend to end up going back to my favorite rule sets. For WW2 skirmish I love Nuts (I call my version Cashews! because I have added a number of house rules etc.).

I tried Bolt Action and found it a total bore. But I was fascinated that the dice pull seemed to strike people as "a new and exciting concept" despite similar mechanisms being used in rules by Too Fat Lardies, and some classics like On to Richmond or The Sword and the Flame.

So my rules collection is closing on on 500 titles (99% historicals).

But I also find that basing seems to be a big obstacle. A lot of gamers don't seem willing or able to tweak a set of rules to prevent re-basing. I'm more than happy to do that so I can see how a new set of rules might feel.

But then some people could eat the same dinner every day of their lives, and others want something new every day.

Horses for courses.

Wouldn't disagree – however I also think one should also be ever ready to try new things too.

Saying that have yet to find rules that truly scratch the itch for me yet :)

Dear Unlucky General.

Welcome to the woods. I passed the point you were at twenty years ago. I got tired of the 100/100 rules (100 pages 100 bucks) years ago and people going from this set to that set just because they bought them. Got tired of new learning curves, and got tired of arguments and problems and endless charts.

Allow me to bore you with what happened to me.

One time, about 20 years ago I was in a game where I was given the "refused flank" facing the side edge of the table, where I was waiting to fend off another army bearing down on our flank. This army was going to come on, on turn 8. LITERAL TRANSLATION- "You are going to sit here and do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for 12 hours!" I knew this because under the rules we were using a single turn took about 2 hours and that mean't that by the time we all had to go home we would get to turn 6, two turns short of when the alleged enemy was due to come on.

So I decided that rather than sit around and watch or putter around the hosts library or painting table I would "IE" the game. That means industrial engineer, doing time and motion studies on a production line (which I once did) to determine productivity and Efficiency. So for the 12 hours I sat there and using the stopwatch in my wristwatch I carefully documented the productive time, which was when players were actually moving troops, talking about their choices in the battle (NOT reading rules of ferriting out what complex rules mean't), and rolling dice, and laughing and having fun. That was productive time. Everything else was non productive.

In my inimitable snarky manner when the game was done and everyone was congratulating everyone on a great game, I bleakly said "THIS GAME SUCKED!" Everyone assumed that it was because I had nothing to do. WRONG, then I explained what I had been doing and I said that "For the twelve hours you've been here only 8% of that time has been productive time. If you ran an industrial assembly line like you did this game you'd all be fired!" It was an eye-opener. What we then did over the next two years is toss out the rules and began writing our own, doing the same measurement. We even tossed out measuring for a move and used a grid. We did this till we got the sequence of action right and got it down to a barbones game which worked well and then we started adding back chrome, each time rigorously doing the time and motion studies. Well we saved so much time and waste that we could put back non-gridded surfaces and a lot of great chrome and came up with a game that suited everyone. Now the game is 12 pages, single spaced, two sides, with all charts, illustrations, notes, examples, and pictures and cover art in that, and that includes a primitive campaign system and the Game Designers drivel.

My point is that the rules work very well, there are no arguments, and we can get through a big battle with almost 800 minuatures in five hours and reach a clear decision without the umpire having to call the game. Granted a lot of the folderol of most rules has been pared out, but it's fun.

The point of this is that no one says you have to use any specific system. If you like a set of rules keep it.

I remember when Jack Scruby's "All About War Games" Came out in 1962. He had a famous quote where he apologized to most inquirers that there was no set of "rules" for wargames. "Each model general develops his own set of rules." This is the same today. Oh to be sure you will have people truck out their 100/100 rules but look carefully at the booklet and you will see half a dozen pages of hand-written or typed pages stuck in the back which are the "fixes," "house rules," "patches," and "special rules" the player has put in. THOSE are the real rules.

We're in this for fun. If it's not fun don't do it.

I have a sign in my wargame room. Very small very simple.

"When I'm at your house I play by your rules."

Otto

Dear Unlucky General,

Thank you for an interesting thread. I too have been invited to the GVS in the past so may have crossed swords with you – If not I look forward to doing so!

Having read your initial post, I agreed with almost every word, (my settings are currently Black Powder, Hail Caesar and BattleGroup) and shared very similar rules experiences. I am also familiar with the EMPIRE V experience that I think Otto is refering to.

However, I also agree with the posters that welcome change!

I think the key is to ask yourself what it is about the current rulesets you like, and assess newcomers for what they can add, apart from the 'shiny, new' aspect.

For what its worth, I like the 'Black Powder'/'Hail Caesar' stable because:

1. They somehow merge fast play with authentic outcomes, at the holistic – once the smoke has cleared – level. Surely this is the holy grail of wargames rules design! Certainly they meet Otto's productivity assessment in spades! Addicted as I am to large, multiplayer games, speed of play is a must for me, certainly at the cost of minor tactical chrome – cavalry had firearms, certainly, but why bother with carbine fire?

2. They are clear about what command level you are playing, and they model the 'friction' of war very well – sometimes too well! So you are definately not playing 'pretty chess', you are attempting to command 'real' armies of bitching, overenthusiastic, reluctant, scared, elated, out of control, soldiers, using staff officers and despatch riders of varying levels of competence according to the chrome you add before the game starts. (So outwith of Otto's productivity calculations!)

And until something else comes along that offers an even:

1. Faster
2. More authentic
3. Better C2 focussed

ruleset, I am sticking with this stable. (Although a second edition with a more coherent structure would be very welcome!)

I am sixty and have been gaming for around forty-five years.
I am also a regular at Goulburn VS.

I played WRG Ancients, Renaissance, Horse and Musket primarily. I left ancients before DBA although I played a couple of quite dull games with it.

I left ancients tournament gaming when I saw two grown men threatening to punch each other over a game of toy soldiers. That level of immature impulse control kills any game for me. I don't like spending holiday weekends in a state of tension and aggression.

I have returned to Ancients gaming after discovering Impetus. Its simple mechanics and abstract yet satisfying playing approach are a perfect fit for me. I am more interested in having an enjoyable time. Winning at all costs is not a priority.

A similar experience was Might and Reason. While I don't like any of Mustafa's other offerings (silly card games and predetermination) I found Might and Reason as satisfying as Impetus in its philosophy and structure.

I played Rapid Fire for a while but I don't enjoy it as it falls into the usual trap of this style. Whether conscious or not, most WW2 designers (and players) cannot help making the Germans perfect warriors. They weren't. I left Rapid Fire when I was presented with preset organisations for the Normandy campaign that included NO American artillery – surely the crowning jewel of the American theory of arms – and was always outgunned by surprisingly well-equipped German artillery and Tigers that never broke down (the most overrated tank of all time).

So that's it. Post WRG, I have only used three sets in three periods. I don't thinks that shows any flightiness or lack of concentration.

I watched a Bolt Action game once. It was as if Commando Comics was on the table. Ridiculous and ahistorical horse manure.

The problem can be summed up in 4 words.

Too Many Rivet Counters.

Plus there are always those who will go "But in the Battle of xxx it DID happen." not caring those events are remembered for because of rarity.

If I as divisional commander tell a brigade to get to 'x', then that is the Brigadiers problem. If the dice tellme the order is successful then I move the tiny unthinking figures- I don't have to worry about HOW the real men did it. As long as the result was likely in the real world I don't care.

Hi Starkadder,

I agree with much of what you say regarding tournaments, and Rapid Fire.

Concerning Bolt Action, I'm not going to defend its historical accuracy. But I do like the uncertainty of who's going next, a nd the emphasis it places on overwatch orders – fire and manoeuvre as its still called in the Manual of Infantry Training. It also engenders a great sense of fun, thus attracting fresh blood into the hobby from the 39KWarhampster brigade….

But, straying off topic, I have to challenge your views on the Tiger in Normandy. As with all myths and legends, there are layers within layers. Yes the Tiger wasn't a supertank. But by the Summer of '44 it was hardly an unreliable AFV – its percentage of runners if anything was higher than the heavily uparmoured and upgunned PzIVs in service at the time.

As to being overrated, its post war influence was huge, and directly resulted in the concept of 'battlefield mobility' – the idea that combat mobility is not a function of the engine or power to speed ratio, or MPH, but of armour – no point being fast if you can't survive. Hence the behemoths that modern MBTs were in the Cold War!

What are they looking for?

Likely, they don't know.

There is a branch of cognitive science dedicated to group behaviour that focuses on metacognition (which is studies in other contexts, as well) – an individual's ability to understand how they think. More specifically, related to your issue, "metacognitive blindness" or "change blindness blindness" (good terms to Google if this is interesting to you) which contains the idea that, largely, unless we really do some significant introspection and self-study, we generally aren't aware of the totality (or complexity) of even the "simplest" decisions we make. This includes preferences.

If we assume that most individuals playing a wargame are not aware of most of the drivers that influence their enjoyment of a wargame, then they also will not be able to manage their wargame experience to include those things. If significant numbers of those drivers are rooted in specific tactics, situations, or other things that change with the scenario rather than the game, then people can move a way from a game even if that is not the issue.

Generally, in this theory, preferences have large numbers of actual influences with different weightings, and dependencies among those weightings. An indicator of dependences among the weightings might be if someone had significantly different tastes in play on a large or small table – the size and scope of the board influence how the other factors relate for them.

A couple of the factors you mention are standard choices for drivers that an individual is unaware of, like novelty. If my enjoyment (unbeknownst to me) was significantly influenced by the fact that my brain had to work really hard (got some exercise) to take in all the new situations, contexts, and subtleties of a ruleset but was barely influenced by the nature of the ruleset itself, I might really, really like a game then all of the sudden decide I don't.

There is a parallel to this behaviour in young childrens' preferences for sports. If the kids mostly enjoy the exercise (physical and mental) involved in a new sport, but not necessarily the dynamics and challenge in it, then when their bodies and minds start to become more efficient at the sport, they start to loose interest.

This theory also includes a reflection of the individual's ego in a tendency to condition yourself to "like" something when you don't. If I am supposed to like something, I can convince (at least superficially) myself that I do like it. And even better than social pressure, if I enjoy my first game, then obviously this is a game I like because I liked it.

Thus, there is a tendency to hold on to things well beyond the point when you actually are being stimulated by them out of a desire to not have been "wrong" in your initial assessments that you like them. (No marriage jokes here, if you can resist.) Ironically, the less I like the thing now, the "wronger" my decision becomes and the more I tend to resist changing it. In this case, it could be attractive to me to latch on to an ever-changing (not necessarily improving, whatever that means) set of wargame rules, to recapture some of the novelty and entrench the justification of my initial positive assessment of the game.

In short, these points (and a couple dozen others) generally mean that people are mostly adequate judges of what they like and usually poor judges of why they like it.

At this point in any cognitive science discussion, it is probably worth saying YMMV. I think cognitive science invented that meme.

People will play new games as long as people write new games. I'm sort of grateful for that :)