"Too Many Rules lead to no gaming?" Topic

Question: Has the vast amount of rule sets for any given period become an issue of polarization within your gaming group?

Basically, what I am asking is, with the vast amount of rules for any given period, has this lead to the group that you normally game with become divided. This is due in part because one person wants to play rule set A and someone else wants rule set C, and nobody is willing to either compromise or rotate the rules.

Nope.

I play what others want to play.

I suspect in some cases it has, though I'm usually willing to give just about any rules set a try.

Not really, we fall back on the old adage, "He who busteth hisown selfsame arse and setteth up thye game chooseth thye ruleth."

I am just happy to game when I can, which looks to be very little this year.

Nope, like the others have said, whatever someone's wants to go to the effort to bring to the club and run, we will play.

Maybe, but then again our group wrote our own rules back in 1976 and have been playing then, updated with modern game design, every since. Typically 8-12 gamers, on side teams, every 3rd Saturday of the month, come rain (So California rain that is) or shine (lots of shine in Los Angeles).

The modern age of gaming rule design has brought forth many new concepts and different levels or styles of gaming. From the large battalion (never can finish painting them) units to smaller unit sizes in all periods. Nothing wrong with that.

But…my take…Basing is the key… and issue. All these newer rules have developed three basing types over the last 50 years; a single large base for the entire unit, multiple basing of four or six miniatures each (BP for example), and individual based miniatures. The individual basing method tends for causality removal or skirmish level gaming. The other two methods generally use markers or tokens to dot the tabletop countryside. Recent trend has computer assisted gaming attaching "tags" or markers behind each unit to identify.

For gamers, these different basing methods cause the "rough" issues or the rules of play discussion become secondary if you don't like the basing methods. Visually the tabletop look doesn't appeal (too many markers , tags or tabletop clutter), the formations cannot represent the actual formation look due to the basing, or the basing method and tabletop terrain cannot co-exist. Some rules units become "representative of a group of units", not just a unit (battalion) for each unit. Taken too far and we have a board game cardboard marker on the tabletop with a miniature attached effect.

Then there is the subject of REBASING… which leads to the set mindset of rules to use. No player wants to rebase his miniatures once they have been perfectly based for his favorite rule set. There are some common "basing methods" developed in recent years (4x4 basing popular with 28mm gaming) but the problem still is changing from one basing method to a different method. They only group whom typically are unaffected are the single basing method folks. Single is still single based and the individual miniature base rarely causes issues.

My take… it's the basing issues. My two cents… if I haven't used them for basing.

No. If someone runs a game, they get to pick the rules.

I USED to chase the Holy Grail of AWI rules. It turns out that the learning curve of new rules when you get to play AWI every 4 months was just pointless.
So I fell back on Age of Reason. We play it all the time for 15mm SYW all the time and it works for AWI too.

I am goofing around on skirmish rules, "Flames of Liberty". Since I am making it up as I go along, no harm no foul.

As for basing, I have my own basing system for 25/28mm AWI. It's 3 figures on a 2"x1" base. It's not by the book in Age of Reason, but so what? Both sides are the same.
And individually mounted figures have no basing system to fight about.

The key is that I put on the 28mm games and Darrell and Roger do the 15mm AWI games.

We stick with one rules set until the campaign peters out then try something on the shelf we haven't payed yet, back and forth that way.

We always try at least one thing new between campaigns.

We will always try new sets,we have rules we standardly play,but like last nite we played Lillys Under the Banner,and they were easy to learn and play,had a riot.

I believe so…whereas in the past there were only a few rules sets, so you could always find players who knew a particular set of rules, today there are so many that it's harder to get a group of people to agree on a set to play routinely or even to find others who are familiar with a particular set.

One thing I won't do, though, is rebase my miniatures just because a rules set says so.

As above, we play whatever rules the person running the game has chosen. We plan what games we are doing a week or two in advance.

Definitely has in my group. Played together for years and now there's been a split because of rules…..real shame. Still get together occasionally for a beer and pretzel game ( normally means a skirmish type affair ) …but things have changed.

Skippys evaluation is a little flawed. We play something until he gets bored with it and then go on to something else. I'm not bitching though. I'm 67 years old and all the new stuff keeps my brain young. Now if I could just clone a new body….

For the group no but there are rules sets I refuse to play. The group goes merrily on without me though.

Maybe in some cases. Basing can be an issue as well. I try and conform to the group but the rules and basing can change, sometimes leaving a bit of a schism.

I used to travel a lot and one thing I noted across the US is the fragmentation of the hobby, especially as it pertained to clubs and gaming groups. Except in pretty rare circumstances, finding large groups where everyone provides troops towards a common ruleset is becoming increasingly uncommon. The norm is either for the player to provide their own troops in a game (e.g. the Flames of War, Warhammer 40K, etc.) or to provide troops for both sides.

When I lived in Houston, TX I found one group that played Napoleonics where members contributed troops, but over the years I found four separate groups playing Napoleonics, each with their own scales, basing schemes, and rules. This is the sort of pattern I have seen over and over across the country. Groups collecting at hobby shops are hardly immune either. That common meeting point seems no more conducive to people coming together for a collective project.

The "bring your own troops" seems to be the dominant model today. That is why I see most games being reduced down to player versus player as opposed to multiple players per side. Sure, games with multi-player sides do exist, especially as players' collections grow larger, but they are in decline.

I don't think it is the plethora of rules, however, that led to this fragmentation, but the mobility of our society in the US. If you want to game more you really need to do one of the following: 1) collect both sides; 2) choose a popular system that you can find played wherever you go (hence FoW, WH40K, etc.); or 3) play solo (which still requires collecting both sides, but does not require convincing others to use your system).

I think Dale nailed it.

Nah!

These rules don't last even 6 months before people get bored with them.

Everyone plays an amalgam of the rules they've played for the past 20 years. Most of them are content to simply sit there and have the umpire tell them their options and what to do.

I tried a couple of times, getting into the rools used by other clubs, many members of which had played at my house in years past, but wearied of somethingorother and set off by themselves. By trying to play "their way", and failing to find an interest sufficient to keep me coming back, I proved the point made by Dale: that one on one or solo have been or become the dominant kind of gaming setup. I didn't like the rools, so I didn't go back, and I suspect that the same was true of everyone who ended up no longer coming to my house to play. I know it wasn't a problem with me, because they invited me over.

Solo it is, if I am going to game here, since any gamers that still exist around the valley are likely just as hidebound as I am in wanting to play "my way", or the highway….

As most of us know, the hobby in it's post WW2 infancy had its few adherents in Britain meet irregularly for games.

The convention was the host would use his own personally written rules.

Seems like a fair system. And could I say that after all, wargames' rules all follow the pattern laid out by HG Wells' original rules. Everything else is just a variation on a theme.

I belonged to a gaming group for a great many years. It was a nice size group that tended to fall in the 10-15 person size range for most of its existence. We were really solid on rules (there weren't as many back then), and it was really enjoyable. Everyone built armies, and we all participated. Unfortunately, due to age, deaths, people moving away for work and the closing of most of our military bases the group fell apart.

About three years ago I periodically started gaming with some of the guys that were still around. I found that I could not keep up with their constantly changing rules. When I focused on a set that they were playing and I liked they would move on to something else. It became so frustrating trying to keep up that I just let it go. I haven't gamed in about a year, but I am trying to put together opposing armies for rules I like so that I can get some games in with other folks. Unfortunately I am a slow painter that doesn't get a lot of time to paint.

So yes in a roundabout way the proliferation of rules has in a way divided me out anyway.

I support the opinion, that sometimes it is not the rules that slow down a game, but the vast number of troops that players may try to field. A limited number of troops in play tends to result in a fast moving game.

I have read several opinions that indicate that a player who insists on fielding vast quantities of troops lack confidence in their ability to win. They hope that the troop mass covers up their tactical blunders.

The model in my gaming group:

- One person collects all troops for a period. Sometimes we "consolidate" our figures if they are spread out over different players, such that e.g. all ACW stuff ends up with one person.
- We play at each other's houses – not in the local store or common room.
- Host decides on the scenario and the rules.
- Rotating host.
- Guests bring beer, wine and spirits.

The model in which every players brings his own troops really only works for rules that have army lists and scenarios that are limited to the standard encounter-type stuff.

W.r.t. rebasing: I never rebase. If a ruleset really depends on a particular basing model, it is not even considered.

They hope that the troop mass covers up their tactical blunders.

Yes. When you have end-to-end troops with nary a gap between, there is no maneuver to make mistakes with….

Dear Great War Ace

Not good in "Oh God! Anything but a six! The table edges are never fixed we allow troops to just go around it. In fact, troops can leave from one edge in a turn and come on, depending on scenario, anywhere on the periphery of the table in the next.

It's actually worse than the OP suggests: fragmentation occurs chronologically as well as socially; what gets played is very often driven by the latest 'shiny' (some of which are admittedly good – even very good), which gets quickly superseded by the next 'shiny', so it's rare for a ruleset to get more than two or three outings, and therefore impossible to master, or reveal the full potential of, any of them – with the exception of WW2, which gets revisited for lengthy periods. Even then, the rules in use are the dominant 'shiny' of the moment.

It happens that for now some stability has been achieved in this period at least, with Bolt Action and Blitzkrieg Commander having had unusually long runs. Unfortunately, WW2 is a period that doesn't interest me.

I find that more games leads to more gaming, as we read something and get the urge to play it.

I answer a resounding yes to the OP. The, oh, look, shiny, phenomenon leads to too much dissipation. Accomplishment means focus and the "generally accepted approach" lacks focus. Is it wrong? Of course not, each to his own.

But I think the plethora of rules diminishes the hobby and the real casualty is newcomers. Who wants to join in when five discussions lead to being told about fifteen sets of rules, 3 or 4 different scales, etc. WH40K, ad infi-nauseum may not be my cup of tea but the one thing it, sort of, has going for it is a monolithic system (though I guess there have been variations – but I wouldn't know).

So, again, I, personally, believe excessive numbers of rules are terrible for the hobby. Variety? Yes, love it. But sensory overload is still overload.

It's gotten so bad that I'm tending to travel the road taken by Warin15mm, just build the collections for personal joy and share them via blogs and sites like this one.

But trying to game with what I call Windsocks, those who change rules sets just because a new one is released – as fickle as the wind, no thanks, can't be bothered. But, hey, if it doesn't bother you, you are entitled.

There is – and never will be – any Holy Grail of wargaming rules. All we need are a minor bit of choice, one to three for skirmish, grand skirmish, tactical, grand tactical, and strategic each and every thing after that is fracturing – in a naturally fractured hobby.

So, I say find a set of rules that work for you, settle in and learn 'em good, and play them for the fun of the event – not to learn something new. I'm not advocating be staid, just for consistency – and a more inviting hobby for the newcomers. Is that too much to ask?

Although I do understand the sentiment of having too many rules, the real solution lies with the social dynamics of the particular club or gaming group.

You will always have a few "leaders" who set the tone. And the "leader" is not the guy with the biggest mouth, but the guy who has a solid collection, a nice amount of scenery, and has the creativity to come up with good scenarios. If his games are fun and visually attractive, others will flock to his table and his style of play.

I can see the problem if you are not part of an established group, but when you are forced to play your games with a random collection of strangers that show up every week/month/year at the shop or the con. AND if everyone brings his own army and expects to find an opponent, then yes, the plethora of rules and scales is a burden.

But, if you are in a situation like that, I would advise to reorient your hobby. Do not focus on the "my army against yours" style of play, but build 2 armies + scenery for the period of your choice, and host games for others (either at the local shop, the local con, whatever). In other words, become a game designer rather than a game consumer.

It's all fine to say that your real passion is elephant polo. But if there are no players within a 1000kms, or even worse, no elephants, you have two choices: find a sport that everyone else like to play, or buy a set of elephants and start your own elephant polo team.

Ok, I don't know where I was going with the analogy above, but it made sense when I started typing it up :-)

Hmm, good question. I think if you have a lot of choice with skirmish games is not much of an issue as rules for these tend to be easier to absorb and remember plus basing is usually not an problem either. You can easily pick up and drop rules without as much impact on your collections and time.

The issue becomes more difficult for playing large armies where the rules become more complex and basing can be an issue sometimes. Standard army sizes can very quite bit from rules to rules plus scale of figures also becomes another issue that tends to be more pronounced here as well. Choices you make here have more of an impact on your time(painting,learning) and wallet. So, when using armies finding a rule set you and your friends like becomes more important. If everyone wants to do something different this becomes more problematic.

Personally I don't mind variety in my skirmish gaming as the entry level in time and money is low, but I would prefer a more consistent rule system for my large army gaming and keep the rule sets to a select few if possible. Not exactly easy with so many enticing rules out there.

Christopher