"RULES or GUIDELINES?" Topic

I had what I regarded as an unfortunate or at least unsatisfactory wargaming experience half a year or so ago now and from time to time I've turned my mind to why I felt as I do. To wrap a little context, I started wargaming with toy soldiers in earnest since about 12 years old with Donald Featherstone's Napoleonic Set and that's now 36 years ago – GADS!

I've come to the conclusion after all these years that my negatiove experience and other like it was becasue I played with fellow gamers who approach wargames rules as just that – rules. At least twice during the game in question I recall agreeing on a point of the scenario being played that the particular set in use didn't properly anticipate the circumstances. My opponents inisted that there was nothing to be done as, "it's what the rules dictate."

I now understand that for me, all so-called wargames rules should be re-branded Wargames Guidelines. Normally, my usual friends with whom I game are more flexibly minded and approach games in a similar approach to myself. There's no point under question over which we can't dice the difference and many's the time I've challenged a 'ruling' event to my own detriment – it just has to make sense to me weather I benefit or not. If it becomes a conistent issue, we'll generate a writen House Rule as an addendum.

I suppose this is why I have only ever played one competition wargame at a convention – I'm just not wired that way. Is this why new sets are forever being released? Is this why there appears to be so many rule-buying junkies out there? Does anyone think that rules buyers and trend followers in rule systems are rigid adherents to systems and are chasing the perfect set?

I trend towards your line of thinking. I enjoy playing with folks I know and who are more interested in a good game than the final outcome. Not to say losing doesn't sting. But an example along your lines was a FFL game where the Legion was holding out in a mud brick pen at an oasis. They were totally surrounded and, finally, failed a morale check. We held, and I was on the Arab side, that in this situation they were not going to run away or cower in a big huddle in the middle of the pen. It was fight or die, so we let the French player fight on. Don't think that would fly in a tournament game. A reverse example was a WWII naval skirmish. We Germans had to get a damaged submarine started and off the board to win. We did that in our portion of turn X, IGOUGO type of game, and I left the board for a moment to tend to something. When I got back, the judge was congratulating the British on their victory. How did that come about? Well, the submarine wasn't really out of range, it was just off the board so the British were given one last round of fire to sink it, and did. Really? Ever hear of fog banks, squalls, whatever? Moving the goalposts in a convention game is not cool.

Ah, many a heated argument, mid-game, has been created by situations like this.

Generally, I come down on the "guidelines" side of things, when odd, unhistorical circumstance present themselves, but others frequently do so on the other side.

A friend of mine always says: "Winning is fun, but FUN is more fun !". I quite agree with you about the guidelines – I remember a rather early set of the Wargames Research group Ancient Rules (3rd ed ?) where having cataphracts dismounting made them unbeatable. Of course this was corrected later, but also of course there was a short hausse in cataphracts !
It all depends on what you are aiming for: a "game" or a "simulation" (and I do know that "simulation" is not the correct word). My wargaming is Hollywood (or perhaps Bollywood ? Although no one will listen to me sing ;-)). The figures are looking splendid without a spat of mud or (later) a drop of blood. And what happens on the table is the fulfillment of our own prejudices of the period. For me it is a way of understanding better what happened and why it happened.
What you experience is the same everywhere: some people just like to play games and some people are interested in history. A discussion often taken place here and this will not be the last. The first group indeed will say "but is says right here, on page…" and honestly does not understand your (our) problem. So I have limited the group of people who like to play with me to representatives of the second – the "historians" (which surely does not mean that what we do is historical correct, but that's an other story). In my view the best rules are those you do not need to read first. If you are interested enough in the period you like to know more about it and therefore understand the reasons for certain actions. Act thus and thou shall win ;-)).
I also am not too interested in house rules: since it is impossible to rule everything (and with a Ph.D. in law I pretend to have some experience ;-)) it is simply best just to ask yourself: what would have happened in reality ? A gentle conversation between lifelong friends can solve a lot – and if not you can always try to snatch a few of his horseguards when he is not looking and put them somewhere in a box where they will not be noticed immediately.

Whenever we hit something like this, we allow common sense to rule the day. It's a game after all, and no ruleset can take in every single situation on the table top. Most of our disputes can be simply solved by just rolling a dice, 1-3 we take my word, 4-6 his. For me and the guys I game with, it's all about the fun, none of us are particularly competitive, but winning is still fun, but not at the cost of friendship over a rule…

Guidelines.

Nothing more.

Anything more simply is madness and will ruin the game. I wrote OGABAS (Oh God! Anything but a Six!) as guidelines from the start.

It's all about the fun.

In my games we always override the rules if necessary, but do so quickly. Debating and arguing rules, tactics, and history is strictly for after the battle.

"Rules are made for the guidance of wise men and for the blind obedience of fools".

That is one thing i really liked in reading Black Powder. It pretty much explicitly states that they are guidelines and that history and fun should be the ultimate rules.

So we fudge a lot in the favour of reality and humour.

I like the idea of rules in principle…in practice, it's a different story.

Two games I like playing regularly are polar opposites when it comes to rules: Flames of War and Black Powder. I belong to two clubs, one ad hoc group that meets every 6-8 weeks for entire weekends and which mainly plays FoW. Most of the time we play the rules as we understand them, or as we remember them and our collective memories aren't that great. Nevertheless we have two in our number who always go head to head over the rules to the point that the game stops for long periods of time: Basically one guy remembers the rules all wrong but insists he's right and the other guy insists on looking at the book every time there's a query. If he can't find the answer from the book he gets out his ipad and logs onto the WWPD or Battlefront website forums and he won't resume the game until he's got an answer. "Best to be sure, we don't want to make a mistake" is his mantra. The other guy's is "I'm sure the rule is this, it's the way we've always played it". But they're mates; we can't throw them both out.

On the other extreme is Black Powder which is played quite often at my regular club. There the players, all veterans of many games and adept at designing their own, feel that BP hasn't got enough clear cut rules so they're almost constantly adding to the basics. The command phase is always being changed and I wish we'd go back to the looser definition of the rules.

Fretting about what the specific rules are saps the joy and energy out of a game. I prefer it if you play a game according to the rules that everyone understands at the time and if a mistake is made, just go with it instead of grinding the game to a halt. Next time, you can clarify the rules and go from there.

Ahh, the old rules debate. I started to fall for these faddy, commercially produced rules. Now I see the most popular sets as bland commercialism. Experienced wargamers, along with their similarly minded regular wargames companions, should be able to come up with a decent set of period/conflict specific guidelines between them and tweak them with additional house rules whilst enjoying their games. Add into this a well designed scenario and fun for all comes for free.

This saves you typically these days £30.00 GBP a pop not including the ridiculous and over priced supplements that a lot of modern rules have.

I am just getting back into war gaming after selling everything off that I owned wargames wise including a number of commercial and expensive rule sets. As well as many failed projects. My small spare bedroom is completely devoid of unfinished projects and I am now ready to start again, and for the first time in a long time, I am looking forward to painting, basing and most importantly playing with my armies and to hell with anyone daring to tell me I am doing it wrong.

Rhys

Guidelines, absolutely, even with those games I play that are generally considered "chrome" games designed to accommodate tournament junkies (notably Heavy Gear Blitz). I'm all about narrative gaming and simply treat competitive/tournament gaming, with all its categorical absolutism in regard to rules, as a non-issue.

But I don't see the connection between that and "why new sets are forever being released". I like that new sets are forever being released. Rules aren't to be treated as conclusive anyway, so why bunker down with one set for the rest of my years as a wargamer? I like the way new rulesets make the hobby feel alive and thriving, and I like how keeping track of what's new makes me feel I'm "in the flow". That doesn't necessarily reflect back on what I play, but there's always a kick to be had from discovering a new innovative game mechanic, seeing a "new" period/setting/theme or concept/style of wargaming get the spotlight for a while, seeing trends evolve, and simply taking in a new high-production-value rulebook with nice pictures (as long as it feels like it has a "soul", which isn't the case with some publications, notably the newer GW ones). It's all part of the casual fun of the hobby.

It seems that most posters are firmly on the side of guidelines here. For WW2 operational level games, Not Quite Mechanised may be of interest as it is celebrating its 30th birthday this year. It has been around since 1985 and is available as a free PDF here: link

Having guidelines does not stop all the arguments or sledging, so for folk that insist on going head to head, we have a "grumpy wargamer" award. I have won it a few times myself :O)

Guidelines and nothing more, ever. And spare us all from rules junkies (not collectors of many rules sets!) who must read every paragraph out loud to try out a new set of rules. BOREDOM incarnate ad infinitum!

I land very far over in the modeling camp as opposed to the gaming camp but, when I do play a game, I want the entire point to be about having a good time with friends and not about winning or losing and, ESPECIALLY, not about a debate over some rule mechanic. Roll a d6, 1,2,3 this way, 4,5,6 that way and move on. Games should be fair (as in each side, however many, has a realistic chance of 'winning' – read accomplish the scenario mission, include surprises that generally are unpleasant for one or more players, and include a strong dose of humor whether the game is historical or not.

Otherwise, I'll put a good movie in the DVD player.

I would simply have declared that the Legion wouldn't need to take morale tests for the duration of that scenario, Streitax; it's entirely reasonable in the circumstances.

If you stray to far into the RULES category the rules lawyers show up. For the record I say "hang the rules lawyers", they suck all the fun out of games. This is what our group does with the aforementioned.

Playing with a (pl)umpire solves many of the conflicts over rules.

In my gaming group, the guy who hosts the game and has prepared the scenario, also is the umpire, and has absolute power to run the game as he wishes.

Most of us have a background in roleplaying games before coming to wargamimg, I guess that helps.

I also tend to fall into the 'guidelines' camp, however if playing games with unusual mechanisms it can be best to stick with the rules as written at first or you may miss the point. This is particularly an issue with initiative based, semi-random or interactive activation/reaction systems which can be very hard to get your head around if trying to play the game intuitively.

Both.

I understand the "guidelines" approach, certainly, but that can lead to a slippery slope as well, which can lead to equal friction. One person interprets the situation differently than another and so manipulates the game (or is perceived to) to their advantage.

This can happen, of course, with rigid adherence to "rules" as well, I understand. However, at least under "rules" everyone is dealing with the same mechanisms.

Usually, if we find that a "rule" produces an unpalatable result, we set it aside and modify it before playing again. So, I guess that means "rules" are the model--but reviewable ones that aren't set in stone.

Best,
Ed M

Mostly guidelines for me. The rules have to be clear enough to at least signal the author's general intent. After that, it's about having fun and recreating a historical atmosphere for me. I game with "true gamers" sadly so it is all about the end result. The journey to that end means little.

More guidelines than actual rules…..

YouTube link

Hi John,

Sorry to hear about your gaming atmosphere nowadays. It sounds very different, I think, than our little basement group in Silver Spring. I still miss those gatherings.

Ed

Probably why Charles Grant favoured umpires in games. Rules can't cover every situation so a decision has to be made on the outcome. Most wargamers blame competition gamers for the ever complexity of rules but we are all capable of wanting our own way aren't we?

Rules with an umpire who sets up a scenario. Not really a problem because we are "The Gentlemen Wargamers".

Definitely guidelines HOWEVER, I think it's important to understand a rule before discarding it.

Sometimes the meaning and full impact of the rule isn't fully understood and changing it can cause knock-on effects that aren't anticipated.

Even with our more complicated rules of the 1980s and 1990s, we regarded them as guidelines. During the playtest period, it was clear that the intelligence level of our gamers was higher than the average person on the street. So we felt our rules were guideline and were never upset or surprised when we ran across club/house rules. If an entire group supported a specific mechanic then OK. Only in the case of inter-club competitions were house rules not recommended.
Hower when we looked at house rules we did not say no, never but tried to explain how and why the mechanic they wanted changed the play balance of the rules.

The main mechanic where rules adopted a similarity to other rules is in the area of basing. One of the main reasons players will not try other rules is the need to change basing. This is a common problem in all eras except single mounted castings.

Rules can't cover every situation? I've been reading this flawed assertion for decades, almost invariably originating with a Briton.

I think this comes from the old school, loose, British 'set of rules' approach to wargame 'design', that starts from the assumption that 'anything can happen that happens in real war', and which invariably used to produce an incoherent 'set' (or collection) of rules, rather than a coherent, focussed game design. If you start with the intention of making a salad you won't end up with a cake.

As the game designer, with total control over his design's modeling parameters, it's up to the rules author to decide what real-world phenomena and situations will be modeled in his design and precisely how they will be modeled. If he doesn't consider that a particular phenomenon was historically significant to his subject he doesn't represent it in the game – so it will never spontaneously arise, and consequently there will be no necessity to improvise a rule. Of course, very thorough play testing is required to achieve total game integrity.

Rules can't cover every situation? I've been reading this flawed assertion …

If flawed, then why do sports need umpires?

In theory, yes, rules can cover every situation. But you will end up with 45 volumes of 500 pages each written in legalese.
This has been discussed before, but much has to do with the starting condition that our gaming surfaces and playing pieces are not discretized in easily identifiable chunks.

Hence, in practice, we have a workable set of rules that cover 90% of all situations, and we interpret and discuss when any of the other 10% show up.