"In defence of...one 3"x5" card rules" Topic

Yes, one card, 3"x5", with hand written rules on both sides. Written in about five minutes and guided one of the most enjoyable games I've ever played.

We had terrain, we had troops, we had players, but we didn't have rules. So, a few moments of thought, we put down move and fire distances, I think we had a fire modifier and morale test and, bang, we were off and playing. And we PLAYED, no rules debates, no looking things up, just a fun game for the FUN of the game.

Isn't that what brought most of us to this hobby – the FUN of pushing figures around? Sure, nice paint jobs and decent terrain – it is a MODELING hobby, after all. But, really, the inceptual catalyst was having fun.

No, one, two, three here. Just a simple premise. The very simplest rules, bordering on non-existent, can lead to the greatest gaming joy.

Oh, the game was colonial, 10 mm, old Scruby range. So, it was "historical" in that sense but, again, it was more than anything else about having fun.

Sounds wonderful. Don't suppose you have those rules (or anything slightly similar) stashed away somewhere?

I think that the desire to go back to these type of simple, easy to remember rules is what has made Neil Thomas's rules popular.

After a few moves you can remember everything without having to look stuff up.

His 19th century rules fit on one side of A4 including all the army list details

Mike

I was looking at Charles Grant Wargame Scenarios recently and it brought back a flood of memories of simple wargaming years ago.

I know things have become regrettably more complicated but then I think that we have become more sophisticated too.

I think I have reached the top of the bell curve for complication (and maybe sophistication!) having passed my 50th birthday and I'm heading back down into the levels of simple, easy to remember rules that provide a fun game of toy soldiers…

Mike

I pretty much write and play simple rulesets. That doesn't mean I don't like serious, challenging, or historical games. For me the game is in … well … the game. The interplay between player decisions (allies and/or opponents), rather than in the rules themselves.

Generally, I break up the parts of a "game" into:

The Rules – Things that govern figure interactions
The Stats – Data that distinguishes figures/terrain from each other
The Scenario – The conditions that start and end the game and inform the players' mindset
The Artifacts – The stuff you manipulate on the table

While the stats are inherently dependent on the rules, the rules, scenario, and artifacts are ideally independent of each other. So when, I write a scenario, you should be able to plop in nearly any ruleset you want and play roughly the same "game". Also, I have found that separating the four things above tends to keep the rules compact and easy to play.

I always wanted to run a game that was more or less just narrated by the GM. So you'd take a shot, the GM would give you hte odds and you'd roll.

that's the way to do it.

I can do it, but I have a 4 x 6…

It's not that hard. And I've run this at Cons before too…

Eric

It's a good way to play – usually it's reliant on the players though as one needs to do a lot of pruning to get down to 2 sides of a file card. The basic assumption that nothing unhistorical or basically ridiculous will be attempted underwrites simple rules.

I'm headed the other way. Having played a bunch of games that felt like Milton Bradley boardgames – fun in a Yatzee kind of way – these days I'm beginning to look for rules with more meat to them…

Today I played the first game in over a year! My buddy and I got together with 10mm SYW and no idea what rules we would use. Since we both had Neil's One Hour book, we used it. We had afew questions, but together, we resolved the missing parts. It was a really great time! We look forward to the next game , now with a few added tweaks to suit our needs.

Yes, the "back to basics approach found that Neil's results oriented rules delivered exactly what we had spent a fortune on other sets for: That almost perfect mix of playability and believeable results!

Etotheipi is on target as far as I'm concerned. That outline cuts through the fog.

One of the most fun games I've played was a 'Giant Stompy Robot' game with my brother, friend and their sons and my grandson. I came up with rules and charts the night before. No rule look-ups…just smiles, Mechs, dice rolls and pizza.

Good times

Part of the attraction of "simpler" rules, like Featherstone's or Grant's, is that the participants know something of the historical tactics of the armies with which they are gaming. If neither player is going to try to game the system, because both players have some knowledge of the period, then the rules do not need to try to accommodate every eventuality, and so can be short.

"3x5 card" rules can be the best. You can tailor each one to the specific situation you are playing today. The combat values and weapons/tactical effects are harmonized by the subject-specific nature of the singular game. Without considering wider scope, a 3x5 card is more than enough to create the mechanics needed to move the miniatures and do combat with them….

Whilst I would agree for certain periods,

certain periods need much more detail to have a realistic and engaging game..

I enjoy games that are umpired, because I can ask, "can I?", and get a ruling.. and an explanation.. (the rules can be long and complicated or absent… I do not interact with them)

My goal for most games is to be able to print the QRS on both sides of a 3x5 – although they I have to admit that I do sometimes expand that to 5x5.

to paraphrase etotheipi: Rules, Artifacts, sTats, and Scenario. Or RATS – just remember, RATS rhymes with stats – and you've got your mnemonic device.

And he's right on with my original contention.

I agree with Eoschmitz. If both players know and respect the period then they can come up with a simple game very quickly. My own experience was a Lord of the Rings game where me and my opponent dreamt up the rules in about 10 minutes. Because we both knew the story we got the rules down quickly.

Back then it was IGOYGO. Now I'd do it with variable initiative.

Make the rules up games can be very enjoyable if they are between good sports.

"The Artifacts – The stuff you manipulate on the table"

I'm going to remember that one……

Duck

For what it's worth here is my 2 cents. Having played rules with countless phases and modifiers, all in the name of "Realism", I have happily gone back to Peter Young's CHARGE rules, Neil Thomas' rules, and a few select other one pagers like Der Alte Fritz's rules for SYW and AWI. These all produce a fun, realistic (at least in my view – to be successful requires the use of proper period tactics), and fast paced game that can reach a conclusion in a few hours without fail.