"Where does one get an unbiased review of rules in the US?" Topic

Gaming tastes in the UK and the US are very different it seems, and few US-written rules seem to do well in the UK. That's not a criticism, just an observation. There are, of course, exceptions, but in general it seems that in the UK, they prefer rules written by others in the UK who understand their style of gaming and their tastes.

There are a number of magazines in the UK where authors might send rules to be reviewed, but the US doesn't seem to be able to manage to maintain a gaming magazine that caters to US tastes. So where does someone in the US go to have someone with US sensibilities review a set of rules for a US audience?

Buck

P.S. If you are going to flame against this perception, please do it via PM, rather than hijacking this thread.

Well, first of all the hobby is a lot bigger than just the US and UK. If it's old-fashioned print magazines that you want, there are several fine options published in Europe, or Down Under.

Second, the physical location of the editor doesn't mean that all the reviewers and contributors are also located there, or represent his neighbors' gaming tastes. I can think of two British-edited magazines whose contributors and reviewers are often from the Continent.

Third, most "reviewing" is done now online. In fact, one of the advantages of that is that bloggers and "private citizen" sort of reviews are usually done as a result of playing the game. That's something I haven't often seen in magazines. Most magazine reviews of games are typically just a review of reading it.

Finally, I don't know what "US tastes" are in gaming, anymore than I could tell you what British or Canadian tastes are. I'd be very surprised if the differences in hobby preferences are as uniform and nationality-based as you seem to think.

Perhaps that's the place to start then: what are US tastes in wargaming? I've heard some mention of differences in convention style as well between the UK, the US – what are they?

I live in the US and have been wargaming for a few decades now….and I really can't tell you what the American "taste" is. I see wide age groups playing clicks miniatures games, war machine, the "hammer" games, all sorts of games on the tabletop. And with both the "hammer" games coming from the UK, I don't see how you can jump to the conclusion that US only likes US.

I have been to wargame cons that range from 5 tables all the way up to the massive Gencon, and I can not attribute any sort of demographic to any specific genre.

The one and only conclusion I have come up with all these years is this…..wargamers choose to spend their disposable income on wargames…and people play what they like

For myself, I play most every game put out by Mantic, not a US based company.

I'd love to know the names of the "several fine options published in…. Down Under."

Perhaps that's the place to start then: what are US tastes in wargaming?

From my UK perspective, it seems that US players prefer rules that "dot all the i's and cross all the t's" whereas UK gamers are quite happy with rules that require a bit of thought and common sense.

I've heard some mention of differences in convention style as well between the UK, the US – what are they?

A UK show is quite different to a US convention.

UK show – over 1 or 2 days at the most (Salute, our biggest is still only a 1 day show!), non- residential, emphasis on traders and "shopping" rather than gaming, games at shows fall into 3 flavours: demonstration game (we play, you watch and ask questions), participation game (aka "party" game, "come and join in", short simple rules, usually no more than an hour or so duration), diorama game (it looks like a game but nobody actually rolls any dice or moves any figures).

US convention – over a weekend, sometimes 3 or 4 days, residential, emphasis on gaming rather than shopping, pre-convention sign-up (via a PEL), 4 hour or so game slots, all are what UK gamers would call "participation" games.

(Ochoin, as Sgt Schulz would say "me too".)

I think there is a difference in gaming tastes but I don't know where to go for US-oriented content.

"I'd love to know the names of the "several fine options published in…. Down Under."

No, I wrote "published in Europe or Down Under." I was thinking of French and Italian magazines like Vae Victus or Dadi & Piombo, and isn't WS&S published in the Netherlands? And W.I. is owned by New Zealanders now, correct?

Anyway, the point is: there's more to gaming than just the US and UK.

I still don't know why one would be chasing after reviews in old-fashioned print media, anyway. Those reviews typically come many months or even years after a game's release and only reach the subscribers or people who happen to pick up a copy at a show. Online reviews can reach anybody, can appear very quickly, and are more likely to be based on playing the game, rather than just looking at it.

The print reviews I read are generally in WSS. I typically come here to see what others are saying about rules.

As long as people have different preferences objectivity doesn't exist.

That's not to say there aren't comparable facts but that's a quantitative assessment not qualitative.

And actually, that is a problem with most reviews today is the content list style is so prevelent: here's what it says, but I can't say how it plays not having played it.

I suppose that is a review to describe how it works but I'd much rather read an action report that identifies the biases and preferences the gamer has and measure it against that.

I agree with Major B on the demonstration vs participation point.

In the US even the demonstration games are available for participation. I see very few demo games where it is a question only format.

I tend to not agree with the point on traders and shopping. Maybe in the US there is a trend to over use the word convention--as I think many of the events I attend should just be called a game day as there are a number of tables to play but no retail offered--the larger conventions--Origins, Dragon Con, Gencon have rather large trade and retail areas

Having played in both the UK and US, I have found both sets of gamers have similar tastes- how else to explain the success of Games Workshop and Mantic in the US? I've had a lot of fun with both.

I would argue that the UK does tend to be more insular (mostly UK games played in the UK) while the US seems to play a wider gamut (there are popular rules sets from France, Italy and the UK in the US, and I've played sets from Spain, Russia and Poland at my FLGS as well).

These days, almost all reviews of worth are online.

"(mostly UK games played in the UK)"

We are just more patriotic!

It may be a gross generalisation, but as MajorB noted, US rules tend to be extremely…verbose, whereas as UK ones can be somewhat pithy and/or vague. I am sure there are lots of exceptions.

As noted above, the only reviews worth reading are online ones. I gave up on wargames magazines years ago, and I've even dumped all my journal subscriptions.

Unbiased review? They are kept in the barn with the Unicorns.

I am afraid you will be hard pressed to find unbiased reviews. I have long since given up on finding a game review that tells straight up whether a game is "good" or "bad."

The reviews I find far, far more valuable are the ones that step you through the game mechanics so you can decide for yourself if the game is for you or not. Extra Crispy has a rules directory with many reviews/overviews of games. They are often submitted by authors. link

Talking of residential games shows, there is one: UK Games Expo, at the NEC Birmingham, approximately the same size as Salute but more boardgame- and RPG-oriented. Lots of out-of-the-box wargaming goes on there, e.g. X-Wing.

My take on stereotypes: US rules are legalistic, with numbered paragraphs etc. UK rules are "breezy", making assumptions and leaving some loose ends. Rather like our respective constitutions.

It may be a gross generalisation, but as MajorB noted, US rules tend to be extremely…verbose, whereas as UK ones can be somewhat pithy and/or vague. I am sure there

DBA: Neither pithy nor precise, and I would argue more convoluted than vague.

Warhammer, et. al.: Verbosity reigns unchallenged.

So I don't think either side of the pond can claim to be either more pithy or more verbose, or more flexible or more restricted, or vice versa on either front.

DBA is both pithy and precise, it's just not very easy to parse some of the sentences. That's because it has exactly as many words as it needs, and no more (the latest version is quite a bit better in that regard).

The other issue is that there are very few negative reviews of rules to be found. If someone is going to take the time to learn a system, paint armies for it, and perhaps rebase as well, most gamers aren't going to spend a lot of time on something that they're not interested in. From my experience most gamers look through the rules, see things they don't like, then move on to something that they will play. Sure, you'll get negative comments about rules, but very few in depth negative reviews.

I should add that what TMP desperately needs is something that Boardgamegeek has where you can rate and comment on rules like you can for board war-games. On BGG you can pull up any game and go through the ratings/comments, which have both pro and con comments. The good thing is that by reading the positive ratings and comments, then down through the negative ones you get a pretty good idea about game length, development, problems, innovative ideas, etc. This has helped my purchases immensely over the years.

I should have known better than to ask this question here.

Unfortunately I find that BBG's reviews by members lead to many partisan trashing of games by those who don't get or understand the genre. It also tends to get skewered by the new n' shiny = good, old school = bad attitude. It's too easy to click a numerical rating, it's better to have reviewers explain what they liked and didn't like.

It's too easy to click a numerical rating, it's better to have reviewers explain what they liked and didn't like.

Which is why numeric systems fail.

Buck,

First, I think the respondents are correct that most of the useful reviews of wargames rules now days are on line; those are inevitably among the most popular (in terms of hits) of my blog posts. I too haven't had a wargames magazine subscription since MWAN and the Courier ceased publication, and without meaning any offense, when I do read an issue of the UK publications, their focus is different and they usually just don't do much for me.

Now as to the question that you actually ASKED, it seems to have been very hard for US Wargames rules to get much press in the UK or Europe. For example, Bob Jones came out with Die Fighting 2 about a year ago. Regardless of whether you like the rules (or Bob!) or not, like yourself, he is a well established rules author with a publication history dating back 30 years. The DF2 rules, again, like them or not, are a very innovative, both by rule mechanisms, and by being published on CD with an hour long video illustrating the key points of play included. Yolu would think that would be enough to get a review published in at least one of the major magazines! As far as I know, he sent out CD copies for review to the UK magazines, Vae Victus, Dadi y Piombo, etc, and almost a year later, not even a peep that I am aware of to date.

Similarly, Field of Battle, a reasonably widely played set of horse and musket era rules by Brent Oman that has been in use for 10 years including several award winning games at various Historicons wasn't even mentioned in passing in a UK review of such titles.

Bring back The Courier!!

An e-magazine format would seem to me to be viable, as it eliminates postage and publishing costs, waylaid copies by the "Post Offal", as Dick used to refer to it. Of course, it still needs a "Man on Horseback" to take up the banner. Meanwhile, I'll keep publishing my own reviews!

Other than that, enlist the aid of some bloggers in the US and abroad.

List of my review type blog posts

link

(To the Strongest!, Die Fighting, Die Fighting 2, Star Navy 5150, Close Action, Pulse of Battle, and Field of Battle are among the reviews, as well as comments on much older sets, such as Legion!, Vive L'Empereur, and Charlie Sweet's Ancient rules)

Peter Anderson

I've loved this approach and one doesn't see it all that frequently: play an identical scenario with competing rule sets. In writing it up, if done well, one's biases become apparent.

One of the print mothlies used to do this on occasion but can't remember which, it's been too long.

Bring back The Courier!!

An e-magazine format would seem to me to be viable, as it eliminates postage and publishing costs, waylaid copies by the "Post Offal", as Dick used to refer to it. Of course, it still needs a "Man on Horseback" to take up the banner.

The old adage comes to mind: "If you want something done, do it yourself" …

Flash,

I agree, the comparative review format is a useful one. Hardly the only one, but useful. See Jon Freitag's recent comparative review of some ECW rules by play through (Palouse Wargaming Journal):

link

MajorB,

Would if I could, not realistic with a 60 hr a week profession!

Would if I could, not realistic with a 60 hr a week profession!

60hr/week? Man, you're working too hard!!

About average for a self employed Family Physician, but my wife would agree with you!

Gonsalvo / Peter Anderson:

Thanks for the informative and thoughtful answer -- and the link to your list of review sites.

Buck

Other than that, enlist the aid of some bloggers in the US and abroad.

That always seemed underhanded somehow. I have no confirmation that such an accusation is true, but I know that some folks have been accused of using sock puppets and other techniques to push their rules. I don't even ask my friends and play testers to post reviews.

The one time I did ask folks to publish reviews, positive or negative, on Board Game Geek about GASLIGHT, the one post accused me of trying to troll the GASLIGHT YahooGroups page for compliments. So I don't ask anyone to say anything any more.

Buck

By asking a blogger, what I'm suggesting is that you consider approaching some bloggers, who you may not know personally, and asking them if they'd be interested in writing a review of rules "X", preferably after playing them at least once. The only consideration offered MIGHT be a free copy or PDF of the rules.

All the reviews I've written, I wrote because I wanted to, not because anyone asked me to. In some case I know the author, and in others not at all.

And of course, those who write print reviews are completely free of bias, have no friends in the hobby, and so forth. Yeah, right! Impossible even if it were desirable. The best one can do is to state any bias up front – for example, I consider Bob Jones and Brent Oman both to be friends, and I've written publications for related products for each of them – I make no secret of that. In some cases, it may even make a review better because the writer may understand the design intent behind the rules, which makes a big difference in assessing what the objective of the author was, and how well they accomplished it.

As for accusations and so forth – worth the electrons used to form them and little else. After all, nothing prevents THEM from trying the rules and writing their own review, preferably consisting of more substance than "I don't like X or their rules", which is worse than worthless to anyone else. Most rules authors have plenty of horror stories about over the top commentators.

BTW, another blogger/rules reviewer came to mind as I was writing this – my "e-freind" from Oz, James Fisher and the Avon Napoleonic Fellowship. A list of their reviews:

link

it may even make a review better because the writer may understand the design intent behind the rules, which makes a big difference in assessing what the objective of the author was, and how well they accomplished it.

It might also not reveal how "opaque" the rules might be to an uninitiated user.