OSchmidt | 30 Jun 2015 5:44 a.m. PST |
NOTE! one "n" not two. We aren't talking about artillery here. After more than 100 years of formal existence, civilian FOR PLEASURE war games (I'm not talking about service or serious war games where men's lives and the fate of nations is in the balance) has developed a "Canon" of all the rules which fit a general pattern, in which people expect certain things to be included and certain things to happen. I'm not going to debate what is inside it or ought to be, but simply to note that it exists. Is this a good thing that game designers must give a nod to and use to help them in rules design rather than having to introduce novel concepts or is it a bad thing inhibiting innovation or new designs, or making it difficult for players to imbibe new concepts. In a shorter way in one sense the question is "Do we have to design the rules to the expectation of players as to what they will see and encounter? |
MajorB | 30 Jun 2015 5:47 a.m. PST |
I don't understand a word of this. As I see it, there is no "canon" of rules. Every so often, someone publishes a set of rules that does things completely diffeently to what has gone before. |
RavenscraftCybernetics | 30 Jun 2015 5:57 a.m. PST |
I enjoy new game mechanics… and pie! I dont enjoy rolling low for one situation and high for another. this is my favorite canon. YouTube link |
DS6151 | 30 Jun 2015 5:59 a.m. PST |
There is no canon of rules. This is a nonsense question. |
OSchmidt | 30 Jun 2015 6:00 a.m. PST |
Major B The "canon" is the general similarity of what rules deal with. That is, the compendium of all rules which exists only in our mind, but which is the expectation of players as to what they will deal with when they sit down to a game. |
Badgers | 30 Jun 2015 6:04 a.m. PST |
Assuming it's good will not lead to anything new. Assuming it's bad will probably lead to many bad game designs but some interesting new designs, so I would say canon is bad as I want to see those new game designs! |
Extra Crispy | 30 Jun 2015 6:17 a.m. PST |
Not how I would define "canon" but… Of course the answer to your short question is no, we don't. But game rules are a kind of language/culture. One of the purposes of these kinds of tropes is to make communication efficient. So using established tropes in new ways simply makes it easier to get players. |
Paint it Pink | 30 Jun 2015 6:27 a.m. PST |
Canon only exists within the mind of the player and is an assumption when extended to other players whose mind one cannot read. |
Who asked this joker | 30 Jun 2015 6:35 a.m. PST |
My canon is smaller than your canon. No really. I go for lighter weight rules and often extract out the minutiae that is not critical to play. Lighter faster rules so that gamers can socialize and still pay attention to the battle as it unfolds. Everybody has their own "canon" that they want to follow. Mine is almost certainly different from everyone else. |
Decebalus | 30 Jun 2015 6:45 a.m. PST |
Canon is good, because it makes small, unnecessary decisions redundant. You dont have to define for every rule set differently, what 90 degree fire arc means. Or how a turn is measured. Canon is bad, because it stops unusual ideas. Every rule set i know defines difficult terrain by reducing movement (except crossfire). Breaking that canon can give a new creative solution. |
Feet up now | 30 Jun 2015 7:11 a.m. PST |
I expect stats for units,weapons,vehicles etc.. I expect movement to be measured in cm,inches,zonal etc.. I expect a reason to fight and an end result . Others will expect different things,but any rules I look at get more interest from me if they include at least the top two above. I reckon everyone has their own go to '. Canon' can. |
olicana | 30 Jun 2015 7:32 a.m. PST |
'canon' shows it's ugly head in many sets of rules. My own bugbear, though not in a sphere of my major interest, is the rule that says artillery (WW2+) doesn't fall on target. Artillery "DRIFT" rules are rubbish. They have been canon for thirty plus years. They are still . |
Rudysnelson | 30 Jun 2015 8:37 a.m. PST |
Even when we did Guard du Corps back in 1979, it was clear that historical wargamers are different than other groups. A majority were college educated and had the ability to research. So the concept of absolutes became a nice discussion point at seminars on game design. Historical gamers in particular have the ability to provide reasonably constructed house rules. As such we did not mind in house modifications to our rules. The exception would be in tournaments where different groups would play against each other so a standard set of interpretations are needed. The one issue that seems to escape player's minds when they are doing house rules, is that the use modifications have to not upset play balance which they tend to do. This is easier in board games than miniatures but is an area of concern. |
skippy0001 | 30 Jun 2015 11:16 a.m. PST |
Canon is useful early in your gaming experience. However, as I've grown ancient I throw canon out the window more and more. Having played 16 differen boardgames on the Battle of the Bulge when I play it again I try every single non-historicle type move/tactic emphasis, whatever I can Because I've seen the same thing too much. Same in miniatures. Canon can be inhibiting in Star Trek/Star Wars game debates, WH40K etc. Ravenscraft I'm playing your canon now, thanks. Here's my canon: YouTube link |
OSchmidt | 30 Jun 2015 11:25 a.m. PST |
One can say "canon" is good because it means that many things are known and familiar to gamers even if not used. The fact that gamers know many many different ways of doing things through experience, means that while the details of new concepts can be prickly, the general concept can be internalized quickly. "Oh yeah, this is exactly like Napoleon's Buttocks" (or nearly so, or even not nearly so, but similar) means we can progress quickly without a lot of explaining. I used to be perturbed at the length of text given by Grant and Wells in their books, but then I realized that for the most part they had no "wargame savy" public to address. "The Canon" which here is very imprecise and in the broadest sense is the compendium of ALL wargame rules can also be fairly small, down to six or eight rule sets a player knows, which may not be the identical six or eight the next guy knows, but it is more than likely three or four that he does know. Thus the "canon is quite useful." It can be an inhibitor if someone rejects a new concept or idea out of hand, and someone insists that something is always done as the way "Umpires Egos and Liars" does it, but again, there is almost a common vocabulary you pick up from "the canon, and almost by photosynthesis by being around gamers. |
(Phil Dutre) | 30 Jun 2015 2:48 p.m. PST |
The canon can be useful, but it can indeed be a nuisance to introduce new concepts. 99% of all published wargames adhere to the canon (or what I understand the canon is): move figures in turns, roll dice to resolve combat, all troops have characteristics, use rulers to measure distances, one player controls one army, … even the turn sequence is for many very rigidly part of the canon: move-fire-melee-morale. Young gamers might even see army lists as part of the canon. The canon is strong when e.g. discussing grid-based games. Some players go as far as saying that is not proper miniature wargaming. I like experimenting with new concepts in my gaming groups: story-telling mechanics, discussion games, decoupling of players with specific sides, … but I notice that this is not to everyone's taste. Too many players wargamers lack the flexibility of mind to think outside the canon. |
Dan 055 | 30 Jun 2015 3:42 p.m. PST |
You seem to miss the fact that we are CURRENTLY in an era of innovative game advancement. |
platypus01au | 01 Jul 2015 1:46 a.m. PST |
How can you claim that a "Canon" for wargames rules exists, but not be able to define it? JohnG |
platypus01au | 01 Jul 2015 1:47 a.m. PST |
And Dan 055 is right. Innovation is everywhere. JohnG |