Editor in Chief Bill | 03 Nov 2015 6:24 p.m. PST |
What are the top five criteria by which you judge a new ruleset? |
zoneofcontrol | 03 Nov 2015 6:59 p.m. PST |
In no particular order: - it makes money for the writer - it is enjoyed by those that use it - it is roundly panned by critics - it is roundly lauded by critics - it gets a new board request on TMP |
Aladdin | 03 Nov 2015 7:23 p.m. PST |
|
coopman | 03 Nov 2015 7:33 p.m. PST |
|
Winston Smith | 03 Nov 2015 7:33 p.m. PST |
If I enjoy playing it and can translate the words into on table action without looking like an illiterate idiot. |
DisasterWargamer | 03 Nov 2015 7:34 p.m. PST |
1. Easily teachable to friends 2. In the period after 1300 – 1900 3. Reasonably fits my view of history and actions that can be taken given the period 4. Compatible with 15mm and quantities of figures I already have either painted or in the lead pile (can be changed when I am inspired) 5. Will I play it again |
Rich Bliss | 03 Nov 2015 7:56 p.m. PST |
It does what the author intends. |
Who asked this joker | 03 Nov 2015 8:02 p.m. PST |
If the actual rules can be explained in 10 pages or under. |
Mako11 | 03 Nov 2015 9:00 p.m. PST |
Much of the above. Isn't overly long, or complex, but covers the subject well. Has a page numbered index. Is put together in a logical, and orderly manner. Provides game play examples. Identifies clearly which dice to use (you'd be surprised how many people omit that), whether rolling high or low is good, and how modifiers to the die rolls work (sometimes that isn't clear). It includes a quick reference sheet to aid gameplay. |
normsmith | 03 Nov 2015 11:03 p.m. PST |
1 – they look and sound interesting enough for me to want to buy 2 – they look nicely presented and short enough for me to want to read 3 – after the first reading I feel confident enough to put a game up 4 – on my first few games they are friendly enough that I can refer to the rules constantly in the first game if I wish and can always find the answer to my questions with ease. 5 – after playing, I want to play again with the same set. |
evilgong | 03 Nov 2015 11:49 p.m. PST |
If having read them I decide to play them, if having played them, I decide to play with them again. David F Brown |
MajorB | 04 Nov 2015 2:18 a.m. PST |
A ruleset is successful if people play the rules. There are no other criteria. |
IUsedToBeSomeone | 04 Nov 2015 2:37 a.m. PST |
Agree with MajorB. Of the rules I've published I am happy if someone buys them, plays them and enjoys them… Seeing the amazing games of Martian Empires that Mike puts on at Treefort Games makes the work in putting out the rules (and figures) worthwhile. Mike |
Lt Col Pedant | 04 Nov 2015 2:51 a.m. PST |
…if it's not published by Osprey. |
MajorB | 04 Nov 2015 3:04 a.m. PST |
…if it's not published by Osprey. I disagree. Lion Rampant seems to be doing fine. |
etotheipi | 04 Nov 2015 3:34 a.m. PST |
Players spend their time at the table discussing the scenario instead of the rules. |
Dexter Ward | 04 Nov 2015 4:17 a.m. PST |
It has its own board on TMP :-) |
Who asked this joker | 04 Nov 2015 6:06 a.m. PST |
|
Mute Bystander | 04 Nov 2015 6:27 a.m. PST |
Historical: 1) it reasonably well simulates the history and the rules (as part of the design) brings disaster on using anachronistic tactics during the game. 2) it plays smoothly and flows logically. 3) along with quasi-realistic choices for the players, it is fun to play. 4) a basic scenario, using appropriate level of forces, plays out in 2 hours; in a larger scenario it is finished in three hours. This allows time during cleanup and after to eat/drink, discuss the game plus the history and the player interactions. 5) It is figure size/scale independent. Non-historical: 1) it reasonably well simulates the background/fluff without egregiously violating physics in the quasi-real world and the rules (as part of the design) brings disaster on using anachronistic tactics during the game. 2) it plays smoothly and the flow seems natural for player interaction. 3) along with quasi-realistic choices for the players, it is fun to play. 4) a basic scenario, using appropriate level of forces, it plays out in 2 hours; in a larger scenario it is finished in three hours. This allows time during cleanup and after to discuss the game, the history, and the player interactions. 5) It is figure size/scale independent. |
MajorB | 04 Nov 2015 7:26 a.m. PST |
Historical:1) it reasonably well simulates the history and the rules (as part of the design) brings disaster on using anachronistic tactics during the game. 2) it plays smoothly and flows logically. 3) along with quasi-realistic choices for the players, it is fun to play. 4) a basic scenario, using appropriate level of forces, plays out in 2 hours; in a larger scenario it is finished in three hours. This allows time during cleanup and after to eat/drink, discuss the game plus the history and the player interactions. 5) It is figure size/scale independent. All good points, but if nobody is playing it, it could hardly be described as successful, could it? |
Garth in the Park | 04 Nov 2015 7:28 a.m. PST |
A person in a position to know once told me that the Foundry "Napoleon" book sold very, very well and made a lot of money. He judged it a success. The fact that nobody could read it, much less play it, didn't seem to trouble him. I suppose the worst-case outcome for an author would the opposite: if the game has a lot of adherents, who then demand his time with questions, support, suggestions, and so on; and yet he didn't make any money. Seen that way, it's hard not to agree that Foundry's "Napoleon" was a smashing success. The publishers made a lot of money and then never had to worry about any pesky players, because there weren't any! PS – And then you could do that old Jethro Tull trick, where you change your name after each performance, so that the audience doesn't realize that you were the guy who sucked so badly last weekend. |
Rudysnelson | 04 Nov 2015 7:43 a.m. PST |
It is successful if you, the designer, enjoyed the process and is happy with the final product in regards to accomplishing what you wanted. It is not a matter of sales or popularity. If you start a project for these reasons, the odds are you will be disappointed. Enjoy the process including the research, the development of mechanic and the play test. Designers will never get rich due to games. Feel good with the outcome. |
(Phil Dutre) | 04 Nov 2015 7:47 a.m. PST |
It has some new and clever ideas. If it's another rehash of the classic move-fire-melee-morale, with buckets of dice, all the classic modifiers etc., I can't be bothered. Absence of army lists is a big plus for me, since it is an indication the author is most likely a scenario-gamer, not an equal-points-gamer. |
MajorB | 04 Nov 2015 7:54 a.m. PST |
A person in a position to know once told me that the Foundry "Napoleon" book sold very, very well and made a lot of money. He judged it a success. The fact that nobody could read it, much less play it, didn't seem to trouble him. It is successful if you, the designer, enjoyed the process and is happy with the final product in regards to accomplishing what you wanted. Depends how you define "success" doesn't it? |
MajorB | 04 Nov 2015 8:00 a.m. PST |
But then I've just realised that the OP asked for "the top five criteria by which you judge a new ruleset". - so it's not about "success" (however you define it) but about personal judgement. Thus in no particular order for me that means: - Short enough for me to be able to play them with a playsheet that is at most 2 x A4 pages. I often dismiss rules as "too complicated" if they have a page count of (say) over 50. - Not too many stats - I prefer rules where units are units not collections of individuals - I want rules that don't get ranges hopelessly wrong. When an infantry battalion with muskets can fire many times the width of their own frontage I despair of the rules writer. … That'll do for starters. I'm sure there's more… |
Jcfrog | 04 Nov 2015 8:23 a.m. PST |
Successful is not synonymous with " to my taste" The title is different from the question. dF Brown summed it up well: read= like= play( or not but then not because I would not want to), play = like still to play more. Fits my understanding of history / the subject Is fun Does not have lazy pushing aside of scales/ time effects to fit author's bias. Also makes my players happy… |
Frederick | 04 Nov 2015 8:28 a.m. PST |
Plays well, not too many stats, is fun – and doesn't require rebasing any figs (which is a biggie for me)! |
Bashytubits | 04 Nov 2015 10:38 a.m. PST |
The author makes enough money to buy his own personal island. If this first is met the other four don't matter as much. |
Jcfrog | 04 Nov 2015 10:53 a.m. PST |
Niet. He needs more. Being a gamer, he needs to be able to take with him at least another wargamer to that island. |
Gunfreak | 04 Nov 2015 11:20 a.m. PST |
It has to cure HIV, cancer and the common cold. Edit thst was 3. 4. Lots of nude women 5. Lots of picturws of colorful miniatures. |
RavenscraftCybernetics | 04 Nov 2015 11:40 a.m. PST |
if anyone not involved with the development plays them, the rules are a success. |
Mute Bystander | 04 Nov 2015 12:28 p.m. PST |
All good points, but if nobody is playing it, it could hardly be described as successful, could it? If I am playing it, it successful for me, right? I run games using rules I like, that is all that matters in measuring success for me. YMMV, and probably should… |
Weasel | 04 Nov 2015 1:20 p.m. PST |
For me to play? Pretty clear to figure out. Easy to get support. Some tools to stat up your own troops. Some sort of scenario generator or a few packaged scenarios. Campaign rules. |
Plasticviking3 | 04 Nov 2015 3:59 p.m. PST |
1. NEW rules set so economy of its production or success must be irrelevant apart from the fact it should not cost an arm and a leg. 2. If presentation and suplementary information exceeds the kernel of the rules by an order of magnitude. 3. If it is hardback – this means it is intended to be read, not played-with. 4. The blurb / intro must give a credible pitch that it has something novel.SOS jargon is a turn-off. 5. If I can flick through it in the shop and get an idea of what it is all about then it is probably worth looking at in more detail- i.e. structure, layout and principles are well presented. |
Who asked this joker | 04 Nov 2015 5:24 p.m. PST |
1 If the actual rules can be explained in 10 pages or under and must be clearly explained in those 10 pages 2 Little in the way of extra markers, cards and specialized gizmos to play the game. 3 Must have army lists or at least sample units so you can make your own 4 Must be played to conclusion in 3 hours or less of game time…not including setup 5 Game mechanics must be straight forward and sensible. No "novel", "engaging" or "innovative" mechanics. Quite frankly, those terms just words that often mean "fiddly" when you could have gotten it done in a roll or two. |
MajorB | 05 Nov 2015 3:31 a.m. PST |
If I am playing it, it successful for me, right? winkI run games using rules I like, that is all that matters in measuring success for me. YMMV, and probably should… Absolutely agree, but we have now realised that this is not what the OP was actually asking about. |
Ney Ney | 05 Nov 2015 4:07 a.m. PST |
1. If people have heard of them 2. If people have heard positive things about them 3. If I know other people who own and play them 4. If they are not just plugged ceaselessly by fan boys whether relevant or not. It's tacky to write your own buzz. 5. If you can walk into your flags and pick them up or buy figures and accessories for that rules |
Ney Ney | 05 Nov 2015 4:08 a.m. PST |
Which begs the question……. What rules sets have been SUCCESSFUL in recent times? I will start a new thread. |
snurl1 | 05 Nov 2015 4:18 a.m. PST |
If they are popular enough that I don't have to wait for a convention to find someone else who plays them. |