"Should Rules Authors be expert Historians?" Topic

I saw the announcement that Osprey will be publishing a new set of rules for the SYW. I don't know anything about the author, but it got me to thinking about what qualifications rules authors have or need. I suppose I always assume that anyone writing a set of rules has deep knowledge in the period.

How many rules authors consult original historical sources in informing themselves about a period before they write a set of rules? Is it even necessary, or is just relying David Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon, for example, ok?

For that matter, is it even necessary for a rules author to have a deep understanding of the period he's writing rules for? Or is it more important that they have good game design skills?

Considering the number of people that don't give a rip if their rules are historically accurate or not – I doubt it matters.

I write for things I've read a lot about and I'll research specific topics before writing something but not for weeks.

I try to avoid stuff that seems to demand a lot of in-depth knowledge.

I think though, as long as the game is fun, people don't really care THAT much.

If a game is good but has some dubious moments, people are pretty open to amending that, compared to a bad game.

If it's fun,if it's playable, I don't care about the authors background. I certain don't think that being a credible historian will make someone a better rules writer.

Frankly I would prefer a playable game. I don't want to get lost in the tall grass of what an "expert" thinks I need.

Define "Expert"?

Hard to do. Should they have an understanding of both game design and the period of which they are writing about? Yes…

That being said, my favourite rules system was written by a gent with a love for history, but who works for General Mills as a Sales Rep…

Eric

I'd prefer them to be literate.

I prefer games/scenarios where either side has a chance to win. History is not kind to this situation. I prefer the writer to be well versed in game mechanics, not History..
History has very little to do with miniature gaming; uniforms, flags, battlefield terrain, tactics of the time but little else.

I don't think many game designers are also professional historians. If you set the bar that high there won't be any games.

Besides, asking a historian to design games is like asking a football pro to sing. They should stick to what they're good at.

Besides, asking a historian to design games is like asking a football pro to sing. They should stick to what they're good at.

Perhaps you should take a look at the work of Phil Sabin:
link

and Paddy Griffith:
link

WRG rules……..nuff said

Yes, they were very good for their time.

I wrote Snappy Nappy after decades of reading (albeit secondary sources) Napoleonic histories and simultaneous decades of playing various Napoleonic rules that required more labor than the tabletop results warranted. Granted, I was looking for something in a larger scale than 1 figure = 10 or 20 men so I could try and duplicate all those map arrows in all those books. But it also meant more than history, it meant design mechanics.

I'm not a professional historian [ but I *can* say that Modern Marvels listed me as such on TV :) ], but playtesting may not be a historian's cup of tea. You need a gamer. Lots of gamers. Gamers love playing…and complaining…and praising…and pointing out things that would spin most historians' heads. As I found out by reading lots and lots of MagWeb articles, plenty of gamers know their stuff as well as academic historians.

Game designers are all gamers. I believe the mechanics, more than the history, make or break a game, but for a historical design, what you read should be in the mechanics.

Should they have a pretty good understanding of the subject at least. I don't expect them to regurgitate every fact about, say, the Roman Empire for example but they should have a grasp of the tactics of Rome and her enemies at least for the period the rules set covers.

Most gamers, whether they are expert historians or not, tend to exaggerate abilities of their historical counterparts anyway.

If they are writing a set of historical rules, I would rather that they be more familiar with the period other than having read a couple of Ospreys.

On the other hand, being an "Expert" historian does not automatically mean the rules will be good. Mechanisms and game play are important, layout, editing, etc, etc.

But rules are more like historical novels than History. Historians can sit on the fence on issues, but a set of rules needs to provide outcomes, so sometimes the rules have to come down on one side or the other of a hotly contested historical question. Roman "relieve the line" comes to mind, effectiveness of English longbows, etc, etc.

And like novels, some can be light fiction, others more literary…

Cheers,
JohnG

I think the rules writer should write the rules for a period then have a Historian of sorts look over the rules and the historian can throw some advice his way.

To me this is the best way to get a balance between accuracy and play ability.

If in doubt, give the nation your game is named after (French if Napoleonic, German for 20th century) a +1 bonus to hit, and nobody will complain.

If your rules are "realistic", make it +1 to Morale instead. :)

The rules writer should have made a concerted effort to understand in detail as best he can the military/combative facts that relate to his chosen subject, which for the most part comes down to reading all the applicable authoritative texts. Reading as widely as possible will gradually develop the writer's power to discern which texts qualify. If the authors of those texts have done their analyses adequately there should be no need to consult primary sources.

Of course, in some cases there are few/no topical secondary works, which requires the game designer to piece the picture together from fragmentary evidence wherever he can find it; mostly in non-topical secondary sources.

I think it's too much to expect a mere game designer to take on the job of historian and chase primary sources, especially if most of those sources are beyond easy reach. Unlike academic historians, whose subjects often require long journeys to distant cities, or very often overseas research trips, game designers should need to travel no further than the central library of their local metropolis.

Why play historical miniatures if there's not some history represented? A historical wargame designer needs to know his history, but not to the "expert" level, so he can design a game that represents history (as he interprets it, of course). At the same time he needs to be able to design a fun game (yes, we all define fun differently).

Well, I find that a case to case basis is the best approach for what makes a good designer. For instance, I wouldn't expect someone writing skirmish rules for the Crime pulp rules (Green Hornet, Spider, Untouchables, etc) to be an expert on the prohibition. I would however, expect him to know a thing or two about the flow of an Old Time Radio show, to get how fights went down in B serials and Golden age comics. By the same token, I'd want a man working on a set for the Renaissance to understand the push of pike, and the diminishing role of cavalry on the battlefield.

So I suppose I'm saying, expertise is not a handicap by any means, but rules are about fun and flavor, and if someone's done enough research that a Crusader army plays something like a band of Norman knights in a desert environment, or knows enough about Space Opera that a Star Wars skirmish feels like it's about thrilling heroics up and down winding corridors of space stations, than that's what matters. Do the homework, by all mean, but it's alright to pass on the extra credit assignment.

What exactly is an "expert" historian?

A man with more letters after his name than your or I, I suppose.

In all seriousness though, I assume it refers to one who has a degree in a relevant field and has homed in on the subject matter of the rules (period wise, perhaps with a military emphasis) as an area of focus.

If writing historical rules, it helps to know something about history. It also helps to know something about designing games, but we all have to start somewhere.

When I see words like "should" and "expert" applied to a hobby, I shudder.

As for consulting primary sources, well good luck with that. What next, academic footnotes on each page?

Reading a couple of history books and visiting a couple of history museums does not make someone a historian.
Having a history degree does not make someone an "expert historian" either.

I consider an "expert historian" someone who has contributed new knowledge to his field through academic research, unearthing new sources, writing original new material, field work etc.

In that sense, no, a rules writer should not be an expert historian. If he should be anything, he should be an expert games designer.

I think it harkens back to the simulation vs. non-simulation game arguement. Both can be enjoyable but the simulation has commonly held tangible boundaries and conventions to respect an "expert" should be knowledgable about. Even though Fantasy battles never existed common convention would expect some semblence to Medieval warfare.

In current parlance Warhammer Fantasy units had flanks while units in Age of Sigmar does not. One is paying homage to Medieval combat conventions while the other is not.

Non-wargame, non-simulation game designers stay away from terms that connote warfare and usually have screwy titles like othello, mahjong, shoots-and-ladders or Age of Sigmar.

Warhammer Fantasy units had flanks while units in Age of Sigmar does not

This is totally game vs simulation. Experts might create a good simulation, which results in a dull game.

The notion of a Fantasy Combat Simulation is amusing so we must concentrate on having a fun game. I don't recall there being much concern for flanks in all the Lord of the Rings movies. My memory is of a two sides clashing together and the heros kill swathes of rank and file before one defeats the other in single combat. If Age of Sigmar does that, it can make a fun game.

Likewise, Bolt Action is designed to recreate the battle scenes of movies like Saving Private Ryan. I think it does that very well.

In the end, rules are a bit like battles in that they have an objective. If they meet their objectives they are good rules.

There are a few bad games written by "historical" researchers or presumed to be experts as can be seen by the numerous lists found on this forum. On the other hand lots of people love "Black Powder" so how much of an expert do you need to be to get a game with reasonably few complaints.

I'm guessing if you have a clever mind with game mechanics a bit of TV binge watching is about all you need on any subject unless you want to include a lot of scenarios.

Even if there was a way to measure something as subjective as "expertise", I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be a dominant factor in historical game design. On the other hand, I think the designer of a historical wargame owes it to his audience to have respect for the history behind his chosen subject. If you're just going to ignore or contradict the history, why choose a historical subject in the first place? Pick a fictional or fantasy subject instead, and then make stuff up to your heart's content.

I'm surprised anybody still brings up the false dichotomy of balancing accuracy and playability; the two are clearly not mutually exclusive (although some lazy designers treat them that way to excuse themselves from having to make their playable games historically accurate). Playability depends on the amount of detail a game encompasses (with all the attendant systems, sub-systems and additional player functions that entails), but Accuracy depends only on how well the chosen details (be they few or many) conform to the history.

The "clever mechanics and a bit of TV" method of game design might produce a popular game (as some recent examples have more than adequately shown) but that kind of disrespect for my love of history will never get my money.

All rules authors and play testers should have multiple Phd's in everything regarding the period.

You can not give defence value to viking mail unless you can claim a phd in viking metallurgy and show extensive peer reviewed tests on viking mail.

Oh and you can't give attack values to sarissas unless you've seen 30 000 persans run through with them.

War Artisan – I think there's a huge gap between "Expert in the topic" and "ignore or contradict the history".

Most games exist at some point between those two intervals.

A game designer should know enough about the history (or genre conventions if writing about a fictional subject) to produce a game that accurately models it. A game designer should also know enough about about game design theory and practice to produce a game that plays well and enjoyably.

An English Civil War game that allows pikemen to charge across the table through dense woods at a rate faster than cavalry may or may not have mechanics that are fun to play with, but it will fail as a recreation of the English Civil War. An extreme example, but I did help playlets an ECW set that had no penalties for pikes in forest because it never ocured to the designer that anyone would take pikemen into the woods.

Sometimes too much historical knowledge can be a bad thing. The designer can forget that gamers who are not as well versed in the history may try any non-historical tactics that are permitted by the rules but would never have occured to their historical counterparts because that was not the way things were done.

No. Rules authors need to be good technical writers.

Well, of course most of them occupy the middle ground, Weasel. That was exactly my point; many games which boast a satisfying congruence with history have been produced by designers who, compared with degreed academics in the field, are mere dabblers and dilettantes. Wargame design is an open playground for amateurs, which is a good thing and has produced some interesting results. (I would submit that most "experts" probably lack the time and the inclination to indulge in wargame design.)

There is, however, a significant cluster of popular designs at the "ignore and contradict" end of the spectrum, and, since the overwhelming majority of the wargame-buying public (as survey after survey has shown) are not hardcore historical gamers, who either don't know the difference or don't care, that trend is likely to continue.

Rules authors need to be good technical writers.

Yes. That.

For historical wargames the authors need a thorough understanding of the period/warfare. Actually they don't need to be 'experts' (sometimes experts have hobbyhorses which get in the way of good and plausible design … so a well-read and perceptive generalist might be better).

I don't think they need to be good technical writers at all (reaching for my revolver now ) … all that is bad in wargames derives from the idea that the set of rules – a game – is a technical manual rather than a guidebook. IMO, of course …

Featherstone, Young et al didn't write technical manuals but the laid the foundations of one of life's greatest leisure pursuits …

Outside of historical wargames, of course, credentials matter not a jot – if people enjoy your game that is presumably enough (can't be bothered with them, myself, so don't know, really …)

Phil

It doesn't reAlly matter in the end, as long as the rule writer writes up some design notes so we as players can judge his line of thinking. Then we can agree or not, taking our own self-proclaimed expertise as a yardstick.

It also depends on what you emphasize in the game.

Most rules are good at one or two things (their "thing" as it were) and okay at the rest.

Crossfire is great at showcasing how seizing initiative can win battles and how important flanking is, but it's not exactly a great simulation of armoured combat.

So is that bit the most important part of a ww2 game? I don't know. You tell me?

A lot of people have a "pet peeve" that they look for in a game.
Some people refuse to play a game that doesn't have reaction fire. Some people want complex morale rules. Some people want limits on unit actions, etc.
The same game might be "realistic" and "not realistic" depending on who looks at it.

Phil,

Credentials shouldn't count for anything – the only thing that matters is results.

Don't be misled by the word "technical" in "technical writer": it in no way implies that the language employed would necessarily be technical or abstruse. A technical writer's art consists of constructing a user interface that is clear and concise. Most wargames rules, historical or otherwise, would benefit from more of that.

The background material, scenarios, fluff, and designer's commentary are all better with as much color and personality as the writer can muster, but the rules themselves (meaning just the parts that describe the actual mechanics) should be clear and concise.

Jeff

And before someone can successfully perform as a technical writer he/she needs to be fully functionally literate and able to wield the written word with confidence, clarity and precision. Sadly, too many of those writing for this hobby – whether rules or articles – don't qualify.

Absolutely YES and NO, God NO!

Its completely interchangable.
There have been brilliant rule systems which perfectly capture the period written by enthusiasts who have read a couple of books, and the dullest (or "fun"),inaccurate, god-awful rules written by people purporting to some degree (no pun intended) of expertise, and vice versa… But there seem to be a lot more good rules written by amateurs than there are good rules written by "experts"… However, real experts, as opposed to people who like to believe they are experts, rarely write wargame rules.