"Rules, a requirement to conform?" Topic

I was talking with a friend the other day and he made an interesting point. He likes one set of rules for WWII but plays another because the group he games with play that game. This is even though he really doesn't much like that set. I suggested he put on games with his preferred rules, but apparently there is serious resistance to change, even though the armies are completely interchangeable and can be used with both sets.

This surprised me as my local group are always open to new games. Are we becoming less open minded as a hobby? Is there now a demand to conform and play only what is popular when we would actually prefer something a bit different?

Yes, no, and maybe. The willingness to try new rule sets depends on the group or, in some cases, a vocal minority who has sway over others. I don't think you can extrapolate any information about the hobby as a whole from your friend's group.

It depends on people's willingness to try the unfamiliar over what they're comfortable with. Taking on something new can be a "chore" since it takes a bit of effort and has a learning curve.

Another factor may be the additional expense involved. If the majority in a group plays BA and someone wants to convert them to CoC, for instance, the BA players might resist the idea because then they'll all have to buy the CoC book.

The sad fact is that gamers often are sheep in that what they play is conditioned by the environment. I play 40K rather than Infinity because it's what my group plays and what my FLGS carries. We're held hostage to a certain degree by what's popular and readily available.

I find groups/friends pretty open to new stuff and happy to accommodate other people's favourites.

Equally I can't imagine wargaming with a group that didn't share my preferences. Like-minded is the key concept in groupings, I guess …

But I've always been fortunate when it comes to availability and opportunity … That can't be universal.

I think the commercial hobby has always been a bit conformist in its very nature, traditional wargaming less so (not sure that's changed much although the commercial hobby certainly has never been noisier … ) …

Phil

Some people refuse to play anything new, some people refuse to play the same game twice :-)

Sounds like everyone is having fun with game x, and probably just want to focus on that fun. They'll get over it eventually.

I'm afraid to love a game and invest heavily in it… no sooner did I become a Vor: the Maelstrom fanboy than FASA went under, and right after I started playing Confrontation 2.0, they shifted to the prepainted plastics and disappeared shortly thereafter. GW seems immune, as does anything historical.

It's more if a desire "to get it right".
Why play two or three different sets in the same period?

It sounds like the group are playing something that works for them. It might be interesting to know what game is being played currently played and what game was being proposed …… that might tell its own tale.

Rules, to me, are like food. You can eat the same meal every day of your life. But why?

I think it's down to people being people. The bunch that gather at my favorite game store have two groups that play Bolt Action. The group I belong to like to experiment with the rules. Fixing various bits we feel need fixing. The other group are firm in playing the rules by the book. Then there are those as play games with either group. Strange, in some ways, is the fact that our group seems to be the only group that tinkers with rules. It seems this has something to do with age and type of game. It seems none of the Sci Fi crowd are doing any tinkering with their game's rules at all. Maybe minds are narrowing. I don't know.

Forget wargaming: this is life.

You have choices & the "clever" choice is to do whatever you can live with.

So: someone else's rules? Play them, organise change or walk away. Your choice.

There are clubs where the dozen or so people in the club must conform to the wishes of three or four who form the clique. Everyone plays what they want, when they want and how they want, and if you try something different you are shunned and ignored and "the chosen" won't even show up for the game. The others go along to get along because they don't have anything else, and this is at a neutral clubhouse or store, not the "elect's" home.

"Rules, to me, are like food. You can eat the same meal every day of your life. But why?"

Because the time spent reading rules could be better spent reading history.

I would rather play the game I know than spend time looking up the new rules I only vaguely understand.

Dear Pictors Studio

Yes. Indubitably!

Unless you know intimately what is going on in your period of interest, you have no ability to evaluate any set of rules with regard to what they are supposed to depict, enact, portray, or mirror.

This goes to familiarity with the cultural, social, and intellectual history as well.

A few years ago, my group was somewhat…staid shall we say…in their ways. They knew what they liked, and that was it. Hell, when a new edition of one of our favourite rules came out, there was always a huge tempest in a teapot about staying with the previous edition or going with the new one. (And I'm not talking anything from GW here – it was DBA).

Now, I'm an unrepentant rules collector and luckily for me there was someone else in the club with the same sad affliction. So the two of us would be merrily trying other rules every other Sunday while the others looked at us in bemusement. I'm not sure whether they could understand our pleasure in playing battalion level Napoleonics for a couple of months in a row, but using a completely different ruleset every time, but the same scenario. We had a wonderful time comparing how the different rules handled the same battle.

The others benefited, since we were able to weed out rules that either were not to the group's tastes, or were not able to finish in time. (Sadly, we have a concrete window of only three hours of play at our venue). Staid they might be, but new rules were adopted upon occasion.

I'm constantly returning to the rules buffet like Pictors Studio, but talking with the others, they were much like Winston Smith. Good rules have subtleties and nuances that really can't be appreciated without playing numerous times.

I have the Man Cave in which to play, I have all the scenery, vehicles, and infantry, and I buy the rules as well. Only a few of our group spend anything on gaming at all. So generally I get to pick what we play every week. But if anybody else has models and wants to run a different game I am always up for it.

"Why play two or three different sets in the same period?"

Good question! In our group I run three different WW II systems-- Fireball Forward for intensely tactical company-level scenario driven games with 15mm figures, Battlegroup for 20mm company and platoon-level skirmish pick-up games with LOTS of stuff on the table, and Chain of Command for highly detailed platoon-level 20mm skirmish games. They all approach WW II in different ways and we all like them almost equally.

This is great topic/question.

There's something to be said about familiarity with a single/limited number of ruleset(s) that produces a quality all of its own – there tends to be fewer mistakes being made with them over time.

On the opposite side of the coin, there's perhaps more appealing rules that might be experienced, and sometimes change [and yes, for change sake] is a good thing, because endless repetition can lead to contempt over time, even from the best of us.

If one risks change ['ing rules], make 'em "accessible", and perhaps the buds won't go all glazed eyes on you.

We play lots of different rules for the same period.

In the interests of getting a game I am quite happy to go along with playing what other people want to do, rather than what I want to do. As long as we get to do what I want to do from time to time.

As Ochoin says, this is real life. If you have the luxury of walking away and finding new friends to play with, then go for it. Otherwise you make do with what you have.

@punkrabbitt returns
The situation you described is the biggest drawback of investing in a ruleset that requires a certain range of figures.At least you've got some really good figures. My plan is to use the VOR Growlers as aliens/monsters in more generic games. Players encounter a group of pups, open up on them and then meet an enraged Momma or Bull.

It can be hard getting people interested in playing a ruleset that isn't current.

"Rules, to me, are like food. You can eat the same meal every day of your life. But why?" This to me is a bizzare comment. To me a ruleset is not food its a means to an end which is a simulation. If you have found the ultimate simulation why oh why would you change?
Rules to me come in two diffrent flavours. Those which are principally just games and a perfectly acceptable excuse to push arround your latest models and admire them while amiably gamboling about without too much taxing thought. I suspect this former attacts the type that like to change rules with some regularly

The other is a strenious attempt to model specific aspects of specific periods. This is a simulation. Its not real but its results provide insights into the real world and give insights into the period you are simulation. In many cases this requires significant concentration and planning, understandig of basic tactics and capabilities of you army in an infinite range of terrain, scenarios and rules of engagement. This implies you have found rules Nevana. Me being an author of rules then obviouly I am likely to have found that place as your own rules do what you want them to do, no place for significant change.

Which is right – neither. My games tend to be serious battles of whit with no time for extensive small talk about tyhis or that or even off game topic. Certainly not some folks idea of a fun eveing. depending whre you stad one side or the other or betwix and between will shade you view of the world.

Rules, to me, are like food. You can eat the same meal every day of your life. But why?

Let me stand in line behind the others, Mark, like in Airplane. I'm the guy with the crowbar.
I can see your point if it's the same scenario all the time. That would be like they portray wargaming in the movies, where you play Waterloo or Gettysburg all the time.

The technique I use to allow everyone to play their favorite rules is simple: if you play in my game I will play in yours.

So anyone who comes to my Combat Command games and then wants to host a new system can count on me showing up (unless creek rises etc.)

Bear in mind that if you want to introduce complex rules you cannot count on anyone reading them ahead of time and you may to have to run system several times before anyone can figure out whats going on. Hard on players and gamemasters but its the nature of a complex game.

TomT

Back in the 1970s/80s when I was designing a lot for myself and other companies, I was often restricted in the mechanic design.

The most common isue was to design a system that used the same unit or casting basing of other popular rules of the time. The feeling was that people would reject rules where you had to re-base.

And the feeling that rules which require you to rebase would be rejected is quite correct.

I am baffled by the hostility to the idea that you can play several sets of rules for a particular period. It is almost as if there is only one correct way to play with toy soldiers.

I don't do rules where I have to rebase, unless I was sure they would be the only rules I was going to use. I try to keep bases generic, and to hell with Arty Conliff and his weird basing sizes. (1 1/8th by 7/8ths? Really. Tough- its going to be 30mm square). Same goes for rules where they tell you "for [sized] figures halve/double distance" – or worse .66. Nope. Same bases with more figures. the only time I don't is a straight swap for cm for inches.

I don't understand a refusal to try something new – especially for a silly reason like "I don't like the name".

Is there now a demand to conform and play only what is popular when we would actually prefer something a bit different?

Yes there is now, like always. Playing a game is an activity of social consensus. I wouldn't say that being restricted to a few rulesets within a group is any more or less an imperative to conform than playing a different ruleset every game.

BTW, one of the resistance factors to new rules not yet mentioned is the desire not to stand around while everybody figures out how the game plays. You can easily get two to three times the game play in the same evening with familiar rules.

We have to stick to one set of rules per period in general…

…cos otherwise we cant remember the bloody things. Amount of times we played one set of rules and mixed in rules from another set we had played the week before…

So one set of rules per period does help a group get used to a set and allow play to speed up as everyone becomes familiar with the mechanics.

Learning how to play a game? That is tantamount to cheating. How dare you pollute the purity of our amateurishness!

We just play very, very simple rules.

I am getting better at Command and Colours though. Sssh, best not tell the others….

Martin – I thought instead of learning to play, one guy finds the rules, reads a few pages the night before, sets it up, realizes he has no idea how initiative works, makes something up and then runs the game based on a hand-written note and some internet posts he saw a while back (which were probably for the right game) :-)

It might end up like one of the problems of democracy:
If a majority is wrong, they are right.

Dear Weasel

Very humorous. I laughed a deep and sardonic chuckle. I see you've been around a while.

Otto

I like playing lots of different rules and games. Heck, for scifi skirmish alone I play 3 of Nordic Weasel's rules and am working on my own. To each gamer their own.

It is possible to design a game that can be taught at the table and within a turn or two have everybuddy up to speed. (Game master may stiff have to run the charts but thats also OK if kept to one page and easy to use). It helps if players know the period (at least know what Tiger can do in general) and the game represents the period without a high level of abstraction.

Being able to teach the game at a convention and get the players quickly involved was one of my design prerequists when I did Combat Commmand (since I run a lot of games).

I don't mind playing different systems for the same period provide the game master follows the above suggestions. I like learning new rules – it does help if the gamemaster has mastered them in advance though…

TomT

Convincing people to try new rules isn't my problem… it's convincing new people to try gaming at all!

It is possible to design a game that can be taught at the table and within a turn or two have everybuddy up to speed.

QILS does this in spades. I've never had any problem with people picking up the game within a couple of turns at conventions. Two players brand new to the system have no problem playing on their own and usually don't need me standing there answering questions.

Knowledge of the period is not so important as understanding the equities of the sides for the scenario.

I'm with Thomas Thomas. I've been working on a system and play testing it at conventions. I do a 5 minute intro explaining the the main concepts of the game and go over a sample turn. Taking any longer is a waste of time because they are not going to remember much. Most of them don't want to hear long winded explanations either.

I tried to use terminology and nomenclature from military manuals to make it a little more realistic. Guys that had military experience as a tanker came up to speed quickly as did people that played on line tank video games. However, many had no exposure to the real thing and were stuck in the mind set of playing games with highly structured turn sequences and/or a lot of random stuff happening with the dice determining their fate with very little interaction or chances to respond to enemy activity.

It's a lower level tactical game and there are factors that determine action based on your tactical deployment, weapon platform, current unit posture and crew decisions. However, it does not use the typical base # plus modifiers to "activate" or "to hit" so it takes awhile for people to come up to speed. I keep telling the players to "think like a tank commander and do what you would do if you were commanding a tank of your own, don't wait for me to tell you to do something".

After a few turns I'd stand back and see how the players would try to run the game themselves or if some were picking it up quickly and helping others. If they were having a hard time with something or it did not make sense I figured that part needed work or to be rewritten. I originally developed it cramming in as much detail as I could and play testing lets me know what to cut out, abstract or change. I don't want to torture players just to satisfy me or validate my write up. At conventions you need to make it a playable and fun experience.

As far as conforming to the rules. I ask players to feel free to suggest actions to perform based on historic evidence or something they would like to try themselves when shooting, observing or moving. I've tried to develop it so players can think outside of the box and use their own smarts, take a chance or try something desperate (or stupid) based on the current situation. We've had some interesting things happen.

Wolfhag

Well, understandable to zero in on one rule set and exclude all others for the period -- one guy usually paints up lots of figures for the set, that's the set you use. Change is gradual, if at all, and never includes rebasing.

Part of this is the time factor. If you only get together once per month, playing a new -- and potentially disappointing -- set of rules eats up the idea that new rules will provide well-balanced, nail-biting, fast-paced, simple games with the utmost in realism…

We're currently playing an ancients FoG. I like some mechanics of it (the casualties saving roll, or what we call the death die is pretty clever within the combat system). I detest other mechanics (roll for 'complex' moves -- not the dopiest movement mechanic I've run across, but a close second).

I would prefer we play the modified DBA/M system we've come up with over the last 20 years…to my mind, same results with a lot less fiddling about…and we do from time to time, but the guys putting on the game like FoG, so FoG it is. We rarely play Warrior any more and Hail Caesar is banned from our group's tabletop by unanimous vote.

When we played twice a month, and not co-incidentally when we were all younger, we tried many more rule sets -- also because we were not deluged with new rule sets as we are today from the internet and print on demand. Many of our efforts were stinkers…some legendary that we talk about to this day.

Yet some were so good, yes, even legendary, that we not only still talk about them, we use the rules…

It also seems not to matter if the rules are $60 USD hardback, full-color, works of publishing art, mid-priced $30 USD softcover mostly black and white booklets, or downloaded printed out rule sets. Good rules are good rules. bad rules are bad rules. All up to the individual, of course, but consensus does happen.

We do, however, more often than not, balk at blowing $60 USD for fancy rules. We already have the painting reference materials, if not troops already painted and based, and don't need background material.

We DO want clear illustrations to supplement well-explained mechanics. It seems in general that when the art department runs the show with fancy rule books, the illustrations can cause more confusion than clarity. I never understood how our group can play a game for the first time and come up with so many mechanics questions that the rules don't address. No rule set is perfect, ALL will need errata, but we must be the only geniuses -- or idiots -- in wargaming to find these conundrums.

And that might be the pressure to conform -- the group's already come up with house explanations, modifications, and other solutions…no need to debug some other ruleset.

So long as your game involves other people then they are unlikely to have exactly the same opinions on everything as you do.
That means someone has to compromise.

Commands and colors!!!!!!