"Are we 'sheep'?" Topic

Recent topics like this TMP link and TMP link made me ponder the question as to whether (the majority of) gamers are no more than lazy sheep (or lemmings) in their preference for easily accessible and pre-packaged products like BA rather than putting in the time and effort to research (and potentially buy) superior rules and products that are not as widely available.

How do we get the people who are playing BA into other underrated and undermarketed rules like CoC? Do we crash their little clubs and get them to play a few games of CoC so they'll realize what they're missing? Maybe start a counter-BA club with other rules at the local FLGS and hope that they'll be interested enough to join after watching or participating in a few games?

Play what you like, and don't worry that others are playing an 'inferior' game.

I don't necessarily think that because a game system is well marketed, it is bad, or that the players of such games are incapable of doing their own research.

Rules are varied and not to everyone's taste. While I'll ask people if they want to play 'my' games (and I personally prefer CoC over Bolt Action) I don't consider the BA players at my club in need of conversion. And most of them know more about WW2 than I do.

Let a thousand flowers bloom!

It isn't just about being sheep. It is also about choice and personal preference.

What makes a good set of rules?

Why go to all the effort of trying lots of rules if you are happy with the ones you already use?

What one player thinks is a good ruleset, another will detest.

Just look at WH40K… it has avid followers (many of whom have tried lots of different rule sets) and avid haters.

I'll finish by saying who are we to decide who should be playing what in their free time?

I personally prefer nice simple rules that are easy to grasp and not too cumbersome to play. The joy of the game (for me) is mastering the armies within the chosen ruleset.

Other people love to have tables and charts and in-depth rules that take ages to learn.

Baahhhhhh

Play what you like, and don't worry that others are playing an 'inferior' game.

Agree 100% with this. I play what I like, other folks play what they like, and there's no problem with that. If you want folks to play 'your' game then just show up and play it at the local shop. If they like it and play great, and if not then that's fine.

-Will

I think the answers here prove 28mm's suspicions. Which in turn proves that slick marketing and herd mentality is as much an issue with wargamers as with other consumers.
I've played bolt action. Is it fun? Sort of. But my "fun" is tamped down by it not feeling like WWII combat.

I take exception to the implied idea that because you like and play a well marketed and accessible rule system you are being sheep like. Or would it be sheepish.

Haters are going to hate and I do not have the time much less care about their feelings that I should be playing some set of home rules printed out on an eight and half by eleven sheet of paper sans any kind of editing or proof reading. As for those less known but more polished set of rules such as Chain of Command I have purchased the rules and played them once. It has not grabbed me like it has others both in my game group and many proponents here on TMP. That does not mean I think the rules are bad or that because I have not warmed to them that my choice to play Disposable Heroes or Battlegroup is a demonstration of my lack of appreciation. In fact I plan to give the rules at least a few more tries before I decide if they are a preference for me.

Here is the thing, there are lots, nay tons, a plethora of rules out there for just about every period, genre, and conflict. My number one issue/problem/concern is that I do not have the same amount of free time to try out all of these rules. I do not think I am alone in that regard. That means that if you want to get in time to play/paint/collect/research, etc. you sometimes go with what is most popular or prevalent with the folks you game with. That is not being a sheep, that is being pragmatic. In the end the number one concern at least for me is that I am enjoying the company of those I am gaming with and having overall a good time.

Your favorite flavor of "X" rules for the War of Jenkins Ear may be the definitive format and source but everyone else is invested in the "other" set of rules. Do you force your ideas on others or do you learn to enjoy what is on the table? I believe firmly that some here on TMP would state the latter.

"Superior" is a matter of opinion; they can play whatever they want. I am not a fan of FOW, nor, from what I have seen and read, does it look I would be a fan of BA however, without both, 15mm and 25mm WWII gaming would not be where they are at today in terms of both players and miniature availability. I was running a game of Volley and Bayonet and I was informed that I might as well be playing with boardgame counters. Well, you, buddy! If you don't like it, don't play, but don't tell me how to enjoy my toy soldiers in my little corner of the world.

You need to find players who find BA a little lacking, and offer them a chance to play your favorite rule set. Conventions are a great way to do this. When possible, I try to get into convention games that have rules I don't know/would like to try out so, I suggest you hit the conventions and run games with your favorite rules, if you are not doing so already. You can even market the sesssions to those who are looking for something other than BA.

Nah. Sheep are customers who always have to buy not only the rules but the miniatures and terrain for both sides of a conflict, knowing that likely nobody will play the game or buy the toy soldiers for it.

Baa-humbug!

I happen to like Bolt Action. I've been playing miniatures games for about 20 years now and have played a couple of dozen different systems for different genres and I happen to like the simplicity of the Bolt Action rules. It helps that I can actually FIND people to play Bolt Action. I could probably find a guy or two to try out CoC, maybe get a game in every now and then. But the club I just hooked up with has seven guys building armies for Bolt Action, and is growing. I can schedule three or four games on a Saturday and play different guys each time. I know ONE guy who is interested in playing CoC and he's two hours north of me. I'd rather be a sheep playing a game I enjoy than sitting alone in the corner grumbling about a 'superior' rules set. I have loads of 15mm sci-fi and I can't find anyone to play it outside of the monthly mini-conventions another club I belong to runs. I run Tomorrow's War 5-6 times a year there and I'll usually get a couple of guys signing up. I have to turn down several games of bolt action a week becuase I don't have the time to play as much as I want to.

wow. So, if I am to understand this correctly, anyone who plays Bolt Action or FoW (or perhaps any other WWII game) over Chain of Command is a benighted fool who must be shown the light of the messiah that is Richard Clark?

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I once read … "Jesus, save me from your followers."

In the end, we're all moving little toy soldiers across a table.

SidtheSingh for the score!

I should add that Whitphoto makes some excellent points as well.

We "wolves" enjoy the view…

I do not care what you play or why you play it. .
Why should I care what anyone thinks of what I play?

If it makes you happy to call me a sheep because I have not even considered playing what you like, knock yourself out.
Baaaaaaaah!

So my game of toy soldiers is superior to your game of toy soldiers?

I own and play Flames of War because I can get games in.

I would prefer to play Battlegroup XYZ rules, but nobody locally plays them right now. So I end up playing or trying to play Flames.

And I would much prefer slick, well researched and well marketed rules for when I'm brand new to a period (like LaSalle for Napoleonics).

The key point here, if we get away from silly name calling, is that people play what their local group is playing, or what they can get a game of at a Con. So maybe the answer is that no rules are superior, but some are more accessible than others?

The whole original message seems to smack of, "How dare people not like things that I like and not like the things I don't. They are not just wrong, they must be proven wrong."

Did I get that right?

Yep, to be frank, posts like this are the epitome of lone angry wargamer syndrome, who can't understand the concept that people both have different preferences, and different lifestyles than himself, both of which contribute to a person's choice of game or hobby.

Just because you force yourself to jump through hoops to do something, doesn't mean others should want to do the same.

If certain people are sheep, then the people complaining about them are little more than trained dogs that blindly do the game designer's work for him in exchange for a few scraps.

You can all say "play what you want", but choice is severely hampered when a very well funded ruleset captures a significant majority of those who play a certain period. One must either play what others want, or not play. To argue that such does not occur is to ignore reality. This is why folks argue about whether a particular set really deserves the attention it gets.

A good start for your mission would be to actually use real words.
I have no idea what "BA" is other than a member of the A-team, and I don't know what "CoC" is.
I would posit that knowing what you're talking about would be a required first step in deciding whether I would play it or not.

Hold on I have to get some more SUDS and POPCORN

This is just getting good!

Did I hear someone ask, "Who's that walking across my bridge?"?

I apologize if anyone took offense in this post. I am actually a BA player, not a CoC player at the moment (even though I'm tempted to try it out). If you look at some of my replies in the other threads you'll see that I'm not touting CoC over BA. If anything I defended BA.

The 'provocative' question as to whether we're sheep is a rhetorical one. If CoC was a Warlord product and BA was a TFL product, "the shoe would be on the other foot" so-to-speak.

The question whether consumer choice is driven as much, if not more so, by a product's marketing and availability as its own merits is a valid one. TFL does not have the budget or resources to market CoC that Warlord has in making BA the most popular WWII game in 28mm, so one will always wonder in such cases when the playing field isn't level. Is this an instance of "the best (or better) don't always win?"

Personally, no offense taken. The subject is way too subjective-everyone decides on a specific rule set that they enjoy for reasons of their own. 'Sheep' was simply a very poor word choice.

DS6151 wrote

and I don't know what "CoC" is.

"Call of Cthulhu", I think. Unless there just aren't enough three-letter acronyms to go around.

Our group was playing FOW but moved to Blitzkreig Commander 2 without either bleating or the wailing and knashing of teeth. We did not/do not cast aspersions on FOW, a lot of folks enjoy the heck out of it and good for them.

A number of folks in the area play Bolt Action and have put on some very impressive looking battles but the scale is really not one we would choose. If Chain of Command is truly the cats' pajamas then I would expect that over time, those looking for whatever that specific set offers will find it. If not and Bolt Action does nothing more than provide a satisfying game experience for lots of people, good on them.

Rules that work for gamers stand the test of time. Year in and year out, Johnny Reb, Fire and Fury, Sword and the Flame, Volley and Bayonet and General Quarters, to name just a few, get played at every Con I attend and have loyal followings. Good rules have staying power.

Totally agree with McKinstry – I tend to play what the other guys play, and also agree that there are some rule sets with incredible staying power – I still game using the original Fire & Fury rules, which are tattered, torn and very well used

I think it's silly to say because others play different games then they are therefore lazy sheep.

Many factors go into what people play like player availability, style of play, cost, time etc. and all of it is valid reasons, because there is no right or wrong way to play with toy soldiers.

Christopher

Marketing is over rated. Gone are the days when Marketing can overcome the vast number of shared experiences found on the net. Who doesn't explore end-user reviews to validate the claims of product designers? There are many reviews and bat-reps out there on both products to give even the laziest consumer all the information they need to make a well informed decision based on personal preference. Rule sets are now too expensive to be impulse buys.

….we are all just a bunch of lemmings with many cliffs to choose from.

What is CoC?

What is it with this strange need for us all to be playing and supporting the same rules? Where did that come from?

This is a hobby, its supposed to be fun. As long as we're all relaxing and having fun why do we care if we play different rules. Someone likes Bolt Action and someone else likes Chain of Command, great, let 'em play.

Where did that come from?

As far as I can tell, Nottingham

Naa-aa-aaah.

I was collecting and painting 28mm WWII before Bolt Action or Chain of Command came out. Finally found the ruleset I enjoy playing.

Sheep are customers who always have to buy not only the rules but the miniatures and terrain for both sides of a conflict, knowing that likely nobody will play the game or buy the toy soldiers for it.

Ouch. Then call me a sheep, after all.

thosmoss, I'm a sheep too. Frustrated that folks will barely play anything other than the 'hotness' as much as anyone.

Still, unless you wanna play solely, sometimes you have to play what the other kids on the playground are playing.

@28mm Fanatik

I wish you would have started the topic with your second post and not "sheep".

As to adding something worthwhile to the discussion I think marketing with a strong company helps get it going, but staying power is in the worthiness of the rules themselves.

Christopher

What is CoC?

Chain of Command: TMP link

Again, I'm not endorsing or touting CoC at all. I haven't even tried it yet. I just used it as an example of a 'less popular' game than BA (Bolt Action), Warlord Games' popular WWII skirmish rules.

@JSchutt:

I'm not sure marketing is overrated. GW marketed its WH and WH40K products aggressively and never lost its dominance. No other sci-fi or fantasy game, in any scale, will dislodge them. Is it because 40K and Fantasy are clearly better than other rules for the last 30 years? No, it's because they're the "only game in town" available in stores and people bought them. Then they got their buddies into gaming and GW made even more money, and so on and so on with a snow ball effect. Now people are afraid to play 'games other than X' because everybody plays X and they can't find players who play Y. If I want to get somebody to play (for instance) 'Infinity' instead of 40K, I have to get two armies in the hopes of enticing them to play 'Infinity' after trying it out with my figures. And even then they might say 'nah, I don't want to spend any more money. I have so many 40K figures already and I think there's nothing wrong with 40K.'

By the way, I've been a 40K player since 2nd edition who enjoys the game now and then. I'm not implying that I'm "held hostage" by 40K because nobody else I know plays 'Infinity' in my club but if I'm a new player who doesn't play 40K and wanted to play 'Infinity' I might have to pass on it and settle for 40K because I don't want to have to play 'Infinity' with myself.

Okay, I think I'll stop whining now.

I surmise that whether you play BA, FOW, DH, CoC or some other skirmish WW2 rule set is a matter of preference.

Deciding factors:
Game time, how long does it take to play?
How easy is it to learn?
Will it satisfy my personal idea of what WW2 combat is like?
How many players can play one game without it getting bogged down?
How many others in my immediate area/group/club play this rule set?
How easy is it to get a few figures, paint them up and play a game?

According to the owner of our large local hobby shop BA is flying off the shelves with lots of people buying figures.
Personally, I didn't like the simplistic armour rules. Also our group is large and we usually play larger multi-player games.

Possibly.

I mean.

Just look at tabletop rules reviews. They usually review the rulebook. Rarely these reviews are after multiple games, about game dynamics. Mostly just glossing over the rules, nice pics, etc. The board games review scene is way more critical, with actual playthrough *required*.

And most of the reviews are either positive or lukewarm. People are just buying into their interest, what's available, what other people plays. Thus, marketing and product polish *are* important aspects.

I started with simple, popular boardgames and now I play Europa series boardgames. Began with Angriff, Fletcher Pratt and Chainmail. Now Federation Commander, Harpoon and Dust series. This idea of 'dumbed down games' ruining the hobby is crappola. Everybody starts somewhere and no one knows where a hobby will take you.
You define your hobbies, not the other way around.

Just played Game of Thrones 2nd ed boardgame and am looking at Battles of Westorous and othe BattleLore games.

The Internet has widened the hobby so much your perception of a 'problem' is suspect.

Lighten up, play a game.

My experience has been that most wargamers enter the hobby through well-marketed (maybe) entry- level games. Some are happy to stick with those games (or maybe quit entirely), many will experiment with other rules and periods.

The readily availability of info on life outside of Brand X's Patented Offerings, and innovative new rulesets being released all the time, lead me to think that any group with the wherewithal to take advantage of such things WILL.

But I certainly don't feel the need to proselytize to anyone who is wargaming historicals. Certain S/F gamers, maybe.

Is it being "sheep" to choose a game and ruleset that's you're more likely to find an opponent for? As an example, I left 40k a long time ago, but I completely understand that the massive upcharge for GW product also buys you access to a huge opponent base. Some folks value that. I even wrote a blog post about it. link

In answer to your second question, if you want to play a game that's not popular, you just have to pound the pavement and gather around yourself a group of like-minded individuals who want to play more indie type of games. It's a long road, but a rewarding one. Then you do your thing, enjoy it and see who comes along looking for what you've got.

Lastly, many folks who might first be perceived as sheep chasing the popular game may just like a particular aspect of the game. Maybe they like the streamlined play of BA, the massive fluff of 40k, the easy to learn rules of Hail Caesar, etc, etc….

There will always be those who believe that a book with a thousand charts and one move every hour is a more 'historical' game. I don't.
I have no idea why this hobby attracts those who like to bash success. GW & FOW didn't make money because they sold crap to idiots. They sold what people wanted. I like to go to the mall because they have everything I need in one place, just like GW and FOW. The whole idea of trudging round a dozen manufacturers looking for compatibility, availability, and whether they can cast them this month because they 'aren't really a business and do it in their garage' gets really old really quick.
As a once avid WRG player my favorite games are Space Hulk, Zombiecide, and SoBH. Easy games, always fun. If I want to look through manuals I'll fix the washing machine for my fun.

As discussions go this one is particularly bizarre. If you want to discuss race relations you don't run into a bar full of coloured folk and shout the N word, which is a bit like what has happened here. All of which means this is a debate I may be best avoiding.

That said, Sid the Singh specifically said:

"So, if I am to understand this correctly, anyone who plays Bolt Action or FoW (or perhaps any other WWII game) over Chain of Command is a benighted fool who must be shown the light of the messiah that is Richard Clark?

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I once read … "Jesus, save me from your followers."

That's very interesting I am sure. However, you appear to be making the fundamental error in assuming that 28mm Fanatik is a Chain of Command gamer. he is not. He plays Bolt Action and, as he has stated, has never played Chain of Command.

As the author of Chain of Command, my position is unequivocal: I don't care what anyone plays, so long as they enjoy themselves. Rule sets do not compete with each other; people choose the set which best suits them for whatever reasons. That is one of the great strengths of the hobby and one which we should celebrate.

Richard Clarke
(with one 'e', like messiah)

Shouldn't people just play games because they enjoy them and not because they over or under rated?
Q: Who decides the rating?
A: The person who is playing them and enjoying them (or not, as the case may be)

TL;DR: haters gonna hate, word

I think it is natural for wargamers to want to feel that in choosing a particular game mechanism (and we can add period, genre, figure scale et al) they have made the right choice for a whole series of right reasons.

And so they should. We should be discerning in the face of choice and hopefully if we always pick the best the range of choices for wargamers will continue to improve.

Explaining and justifying your choices is therefore all part of the healthy exchange of ideas (and consequently takes up a good deal of space on forums such as this).

Sometimes that will include the implication – even direct accusation – that other people's choices are less good than your own … based on weaker reasoning, susceptibility to peer pressure, glossy adverts, lazy engagement, 'shop' culture etc. etc.

It should seem that way (otherwise your own decisions would be the poor ones … ) and sometimes, inevitably, you will be right.

Phil

As has been observed many times, this is a hobby not a job, so each to their own.

If other people don't want to play wargames my way and instead want to do it their way, then fine. It doesn't hurt me and it doesn't hurt them.

We all have our own reasons for doing the things we do.

Baaah.

> GW & FOW didn't make money because they sold crap to idiots. They sold what people wanted.

I feel I should point out that those two statements are not necessarily in contradiction…