"Writing rules - a hobby in itself? " Topic

I was thinking about this earlier… is writing wargames rules / the quest for the 'perfect' set of rules / constantly tinkering with rules a hobby in itself?

I cannot think of many other pass-times which do not have established rules – bridge / snooker / chess / tennis / backgammon etc. They have rules which (the occasional geographical anomaly aside) have pretty much been accepted by all, and (I would suggest) if you list 'snooker' as a hobby on your CV, that means that you play the game – rather than actually spending hours and hours of your life thinking of how to make the game better, and only rarely bothering to actually set up a frame.

Many wargamers (in my experience, at least, and very much including myself) spend only a small amount of time actually playing the game, and an enormous amount of time working out how to make playing it 'better'.

So is wargame rules writing almost a hobby in itself?

Not "almost." It is a hobby in itself. Or would that be a sub-part of a hobby (kind of like painting miniatures, or making terrain, or pushing lead across a table).

Rob

I'll go one step farther: with the advent of so many e-publishing sites, it becomes a career. (Says he who's sold multiple — I say, multiple! — copies of his spaceship rules to total strangers. Obligatory link: link )

Instead of working on minis painting, I've got four more rules sets in the pipeline, plus a scenario book for PFM Starships. When you get serious about it, it can take more time than minis.

I have written a couple of sets of rules. Wrote a set for the American War of Independence with a friend, A set for Napoleonics and one for late World War II for divisions and corp level with companies as the prime unit. I pull them out every couple of years and refine them. I'm sure they will never be played, but it is good mental exercise.

Not for me. I tried it once and found I was copying and not the best parts. I am slightly better at scenarios.
Not everybody enjoys everything about The Hobby™. I enjoy painting and playing. Others find painting a tedious chore at best and are glad to pay others. Me, I would rather buy rules, and then misunderstand them and play them badly.

For me no question. I get more enjoyment from writing and rewriting rules than I ever do from playing. My rules are never finished and it's always an ongoing process. That is the whole point.

For others I can understand that they prefer to play with rules that are more or less fixed. Witness the hysteria when a new edition comes out of a popular set and everyone has to re-adapt.

Yes, unless its your profession.

As is collecting the darn things too :(-;+)
From a rules collector er, addict?
Cheers and happy writing

I love writing rules, it is an intellectual challenge. Sadly, having developed something which works,I instantly get bored and move onto something else…. I think having worked out the problem I need a new challenge.

For actual gaming I usually end up playing other peoples rules!

It is for me.

Hobby and career yo.

Not so much a hobby for some as an addiction. For some their rules are a religion, praising theirs and damning others.

Me, I would rather buy rules, and then misunderstand them and play them badly.

I concur.

I tried to kick the habit once with my specialist area of Napoleonics. I took up Grande Armee. It lasted a few years, with only very modest house rules. Then the house rules got bigger and bigger. Now I spend more time writing rules than painting figures. Both outweigh time spent playing by a long way… though I'd like to play more!

Outside Napoleonics I tend to stick to established rules. Ga Pa for early 18th C, the 1870 series for later 19th.

There are no perfect rules, and certainly not ones that are perfect for more than a handful. But I understand people who don't want to spend so much time fiddling with rules.

I think rules writing can be a hobby, or it can be a profession. As others have said.
As for myself, I tend to tinker with other people's rules. I'd prefer to think I'm improving them. If that works for my opponents and I it's good enough.
In the end, whether it's a hobby or a profession would be all about if one made money at it. Being obsessed with a hobby is nothing new. Or all that unusual.

Wow, am I ever guilty on this one. When I was 17 I played Panzerblitz for hours and thoroughly enjoyed it. I'd never seen a picture of a tank and the silhouettes were really cool. However, after spending three years in the real infantry, experienced military war games at the command level and read dozens of historical books, research papers and manuals Panzerblitz does not hack it anymore. All I can say is a little knowledge is dangerous when applied to others game designs. I feel it's an art to get the right balance between detail and playability and you'll most likely never please the majority.

From my observation most designs are a rehash of other designs. It's kind of like the designer is saying, "My basic hit numbers and die roll modifiers are better than yours". It's just a variation on a theme. Almost anyone can design a detailed and unplayable game, I know I can. The best thing that has happened to gaming in the recent years is the break from IGYG to activations and interrupts. I'm not going to comment on the realism of those mechanics but from observing games it does add a dimension of suspense and unknown to players. While I'm not a big fan of BA the command dice do bring a level of realism and a risk-reward decision a player needs to make. The use of Blinds is a great innovation too. Rules that allow you two actions like move-move, move-fire, fire-move or fire-fire work well for new people and conventions. That's a step in the right direction as our entire hobby seems to be an eternal WIP.

I think players fall into two categories. Visual and realistic. The visuals play the game for the miniatures and terrain and the rules are just for moving things around, creating scenes to take pictures and blowing them up to put damage and smoke markers on them. My group has hundreds of "dead" figures to simulate causalities complete with detailed blown up body parts, strewn intestines and gore. They normally play with rules 10 year old could pick up right away. They have fun. The "realism" is visually recreating a battlefield scene. They do an excellent job of it.

I'm on the "realistic" (not trying to be a snob here) side and have no preference over board or miniature games and have mono-painted micro armor I use. Boring. I like doing the research and have had the luck to hang out with a number of commercially successful war game designers and been to military simulation symposiums sponsored by the USAF War College. I quit trying to refine other systems or redesign then and have gone off in another direction using military manuals, formulas and research papers as a basis for a 1:1 tank skirmish game. If you can tweak another system to your preferences and you feel the outcomes are realistic and playable enough and have fun I'd say stick with that – it's a winner. Don't worry about what others say about it. Me included.

Wolfhag

I enjoy the exercise of writing simple rules sets that can accomplish the tasks of the more involved commercial sets but in a more basic way.

For me, rule writing is a means to an end, I do it so me and my friends can have a game without too many arguments!
There are several advantages to home brew rules, they are easily modified if faults or disagreements occur, also, they can be tailored to the perspective of the group concerned about any particular period.

I am currently attempting to write a solo system for Sails of Glory, that is not too complex and tedious to use!
Its way more difficult than doing the solo's for Wings of Glory!!…but I have a few ideas….

If you expand "writing rules" to "tinkering with rules, I imagine it encompasses almost everybody in the hobby :)

I've authored one game(I prefer to frame the process thus over 'written a set of rules'; I think it bespeaks a different mindset), only because it was for a subject that didn't already have a dedicated game and was never likely to have one unless I concocted it myself. It remains unfinished, and may never be.

I've also adapted commercial sets designed to represent closely parallel events, to more or less the same subject, but at a different level of play.

With a vast number of games heavily developed and play tested by professional designers on the market for any given established period I see no reason to expend my time futilely trying to better their efforts.

I notice that most of the 'tinkerers' here are British. I think this comes from that national difference in mindsets: the traditionally loosely framed British design goal of producing a 'set of rules' – a collection of parts, if you will – whereas, in general, the US approach is one of designing a unified 'game'. The British way implies a less coherent, more fragmented product, which by its very nature invites meddling and modification.

I think this comes from that national difference in mindsets: the traditionally loosely framed British design goal of producing a 'set of rules' – a collection of parts, if you will – whereas, in general, the US approach is one of designing a unified 'game'. The British way implies a less coherent, more fragmented product, which by its very nature invites meddling and modification.

Really interested to understand you're point better here. Could you expand – or add an example that will help explain you're thinking ?

I think that view comes from the fact that UK rules tend to be a bit more haphazard. Square Bashing and AK47 are both thrown together with no two things working the same, Laserburn, Rogue Trader etc.

The US "strand" is more akin to SPI, Avalon Hill and TSR: Attempting to be more concise and precise, at the expense of "character".

Those are super-broad generalizations of course and there's plenty of exceptions.

(though for a hobby where we are content giving bonuses and penalties to every man in a given nations uniform based on our own generalizations, we're probably okay with that :-) )

Modifying rules and creating "Frankenstein" rules (assembled from bits and pieces of other rules) is definitely part of the hobby for me. I have been modifying the On To Richmond rules since they were issued, mostly to make it into a regimental set (each unit is a regiment or artillery battery). My current iteration is comparable to Regimental Fire & Fury. I find that as I play the rules, I find parts that don't work smoothly, or where there is something
gamey" about how it's working, and then I'm revising it again to try to reduce the clunkiness or to do away with "gaming the system." I enjoy doing this so I don't worry (too much) that maybe, just maybe, it's a sign of mild obsessive compulsive disorder.

"I was thinking about this earlier… is writing wargames rules / the quest for the 'perfect' set of rules / constantly tinkering with rules a hobby in itself? "

Yeah, I'd have to say so…..

Duck

Been tinkering and no playing for years….Changing that soon hopefully.

I've more or less just finished a SYW set.

I WON'T claim it as brilliantly original or wonderfully playable or incredibly commercial.

Indeed it's probably a set of rules "only a mother could love".

But as head-scratching difficult as it was at times, the process was enjoyable.

I may do it again one day.

Oh yeah, definitely. I love reading, writing and tinkering with rules…never met a set of rules I couldn't "improve" on. Ha! :-)

It's my favorite part.

In answer to the original question – Yes, I think it is one of the parts that make up the hobby – painting, terrain building, gaming. someone has to write the rules. It certainly appeals to me and since coming back to the hobby in 2009 I resisted briefly and now tinker to my hearts content and write rules. Not saying my are better or worse than any others, but I am having fun! I still prefer pushing the figures on the table over rules writing though.

I think that view comes from the fact that UK rules tend to be a bit more haphazard. Square Bashing and AK47 are both thrown together with no two things working the same, Laserburn, Rogue Trader etc.

The US "strand" is more akin to SPI, Avalon Hill and TSR: Attempting to be more concise and precise, at the expense of "character".

Is that akin to saying the UK 'scene' is more of a cottage industry where people will invent their own solution (or 'tinker') and then publish something perhaps without sufficient editorial rationalisation? And that everyone in the US only uses rules form the major few companies?

Not sure how that works if you consider Games Workshop – surely the ultimate corporate refined rule set. Or something like GdB a which Dave Brown has been finessing for 10 years or so.

I think what you suggest is that the average UK gamer might more inclined towards recreating a realistic / historical outcome whilst the U.S. gamer is looking for a competitive play experience regardless of realism ?

Then there are two parts of rule design. First getting the concepts to actually work out in game play. There is a lot of trial and error in that. Once it is done getting the concept into understandable words in another part. Often they breakdown there as the author is the only one who understands what they are trying to relay.

I think what you suggest is that the average UK gamer might more inclined towards recreating a realistic / historical outcome whilst the U.S. gamer is looking for a competitive play experience regardless of realism ?

Or as a US gamer might say. The average UK gamer is inclined to getting historical outcomes regardless of realistic play while the US player in more interested in a realistic play experience regardless of the final outcome.

Teppsta – GW started out in the "cottage" too though. Read through Rogue Trader and it's a mess, everything works differently, some things aren't explained at all and other things are weirdly over-detailed.

It's a glorious, lovely mess of course but still a mess :)

They grew big and the style had to change

I would say ruleswriting is a quintessential part of wargaming. Modeling and painting; developing rules; and gaming have always been integral pillars on which the hobby is built. Depending on commercial flavours, emphasis can shift over the years, but ruleswriting has and always wil be a fundamental activity.

I'd agree with this, based on personal experience. I sculpt figures and aside from the large amount of research needed to do so properly, I've been hashing out my own set of rules based on bio/physiologic processes…a sort of fight v flight from someone with a degree in medicine.

That said, total time spent on this has far exceeded my actual tabletop time, and is near on par with my sculpting time (going on 10
years of serious sculpting)…and with nothing to show beyond a few notebooks of scribble, sketches, and post-it's!

Cheers,
Bob

Bob – Journey not the destination :-)

I start 8 ideas for every 2 that work out.

Yes. In fact, once the rules are in print and no longer in a state of flux, the appeal wears thin. It is the quest of the "perfect game system" that powers the rules writing and development. In my case you could even say that this aspect is the hobby, and all other aspects are incidental to it….

Guilty! Been tweaking rules since my teens when there weren't nearly so many commercial sets to choose from, and it's become a habit.

On the US vs UK styles comment: I suggest the different convention cultures have something to do with it. In the UK, the real action happens at many small clubs, and conventions are about display games and trade stands. In the US, conventions are mainly about 4-hour+ participation games, which are virtually non-existent at UK events.

So the UK culture is perhaps akin to micro-breweries relying on serving the particular tastes of small bands of enthusiasts, whereas US game developers have better opportunities for market research because of access to a large pool of the gaming public at the cons and have to make their games acceptable to a broader spectrum.

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
link

Dear Green Leader

Agreed. I write my own rules. Nothing I have ever seen does as well for me as me doing it myself, and I refuse to even pick up the 100/100 (100plus pages, 100 plus dollars) monstrosities I've seen on dealer tables.

I can't spend that much money on rules, I have to spend money on serious things like wine,women, and song.

Besides all of those 100/100 things are dropped by people six weeks later and no one reads them anyway.

For actual gaming I usually end up playing other peoples rules!

Yeah, the problem is: if I wrote it, I can change it, so it isn't really a "rule." Other people's rules really are rules.

For me it certainly is.

I have always enjoyed writing of any sort, but I find writing material related to my wargainge hobby to be particularly rewarding. As you might imagine the researching is also enjoyable, as is the testing and "tweaking" process. As to the last point, deciding when to stop tinkering and call the work finished can be a difficult decision to make.

There is something quite rewarding to seeing something you wrote sitting on the shelf down at the local game shop. It's certainly more rewarding than the money made from writing game material. Make no mistake, extra hobby money is always nice. But I regard that as a "bonus" rather than the real reason I write.

I think this is probably broadly true of most who have written material for publication in the wargaming world, as with the exception of the really big names like Games Workshop and Battlefront, most wargame material is written by hobbyists rather than professionals.

Martin

I've been writing rules for about 20 years now. I enjoy trying to create a system that is clean and easy to understand but captures the complexities of the period. Balancing simplicity with a realistic feel is probably the most challenging part of creating rules.

Well said Murvihill. I believe it is a fools errand to attempt realism by piling in detail – certainly in the pre-modern era. It is a mistake that computer simulators are liable to make, I suspect. They put in detail and complexity because they can. They beauty with figure wargames is that it places severe constraints on complexity – and that forces clarity of design.

There is no substitute for going across the historical evidence and developing ideas about what was truly important – and representing these with clear, simple mechanisms geared to the level of command that you are trying to represent.

You can overdo the simplicity, of course, and my tolerance for detail may be higher than others – but the desire for simplicity and clarity is not incompatible with authenticity in my view.

I am totally agree with Martin Rapier – I have been writing rules since 1974 and I am never satisfied with the result after the first game. There is always something to tweak, some little thing that wasn't thought through properly or just didn't work right on the day and needs correction.

It has nothing to do with being a British or American thing. It has nothing to do with whether it is a cottage industry or a large scale commercial games company. It has much to do with personal growth and the fact that as we read deeper into our areas of interest we discover things we hadn't appreciated before. It has everything to do with creativity, fresh ideas and enjoying the company of the friends you really like mixing with. It has everything to do with human interaction – enjoying watching as one player rolls that impossible die score to win the melee that turns the game, the elation of the winner and the cries of despair of the loser (who invariably calls the result of your hours of rule writing "a stupid dice game"). It is all about sitting back at the end of the game, having a bit of a laugh at one another's expense and analysing just what what the result would have been if only you hadn't rolled that one on turn five….

It is right about this time that the need to tweak the rules becomes imperative. Its not that there is a need to try to change the result of the game you have just played, but the desire to sustain that sense of adventure, fun and camaraderie.

I think that view comes from the fact that UK rules tend to be a bit more haphazard. Square Bashing and AK47 are both thrown together with no two things working the same, Laserburn, Rogue Trader etc.

The US "strand" is more akin to SPI, Avalon Hill and TSR: Attempting to be more concise and precise, at the expense of "character".

I have been saying the same thing for years. You nailed it.The best example is "Black Powder" another is "Sharpe's Practice" just about anything from TFL and any number of ECW and Ancient games I have tried to read. There are a few exceptions but on the whole British rules leaves a lot for the players to figure out.

They tend to read more like a story than a set of rules. I have seen comments that this or that rules were okay rules but a great read. It is sometimes hard to find the rules within the narrative.

Go to a rules support group and ask questions like how many men in unit or terrain costs and you get answers like whatever you want it to.

Where as Americans grew up on SPI, AH, GDW etc. and we tend to write rules that have a defined sequence of play and are much more technical leaving as little doubt as possible.

The difference is dramatic when a set of Brit rules get re-written by Americans such as TDFG.

Nothing wrong with either they are just different styles with different goals.