Winston Smith | 22 Feb 2016 1:48 p.m. PST |
Eccliastes 1:9 says that there are no new ideas in wargaming rules. What is old is new, what is new is old, and it has all been done before. Or as "Fig" Newton said, "If I see so much further, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants". Discuss. Show your work. |
Veteran Cosmic Rocker | 22 Feb 2016 2:02 p.m. PST |
"So much has gone and little is new" |
wminsing | 22 Feb 2016 2:37 p.m. PST |
This might be true of individual mechanics, but games still manage put them together in ways that are novel and 'new'. And if it's been done before, it might have been done in some game that has dropped into obscurity. Everything old is new again. :) -Will |
Texas Jack | 22 Feb 2016 2:42 p.m. PST |
I imagine it has all been done, but if there really is something new, we certainly won΄t know it until it is upon us. |
Weasel | 22 Feb 2016 3:02 p.m. PST |
New to all of us or new to you? :-) I think it's more about trends that come and go. Right now, simple, abstract and solo-friendly games seem to be in vogue, so you get a lot of rules elaborating on those ideas. |
Winston Smith | 22 Feb 2016 4:32 p.m. PST |
Archaeologists have dug up Roman D20, so… |
JSchutt | 22 Feb 2016 4:34 p.m. PST |
It would be nice if "new" had something….or anything to do with "improved." Without getting into the quantum physics of wargaming…nothing is new, just…. different. Trends in complexity give way to simplicity…then back to complexity. Mechanics waver from simulation to abstraction in between and back again. Dice, tables, cards, computer algorithms or chicken bones determine results…take your pick. Armies, war bands, wooden cubes or cardboard chits. Playing pieces can be pewter, plastic, resin, wooden blocks, computer graphics or holograms. We are awash in choice as never before. Nothing new, just different. |
Old Glory | 22 Feb 2016 4:39 p.m. PST |
You move so far, you fire so far, you resolve combat a certain way, charge\route, figure morale a certain way???? I find the shear amount of rules on the market silly,repetitive,and with very little real difference. Regards Russ Dunawsy |
Leadpusher | 22 Feb 2016 4:40 p.m. PST |
When will we have holographic game boards? I would imagine that someone somewhere has already developed one and is waiting for a Kickstarter program to roll it out. |
Weasel | 22 Feb 2016 5:17 p.m. PST |
Rules are like 15mm ww2 Germans or 20mm imperial Romans. Everyone says the market doesn't any more, but that doesn't anyone from making or buying them :-) |
Wretched Peasant Scum | 22 Feb 2016 6:50 p.m. PST |
I'm pretty sure the expression is, "…I stood on the shoulder's of Prussian Grenadiers." |
Extra Crispy | 22 Feb 2016 6:56 p.m. PST |
Rules are like recipes. I make a pumpkin chipotle soup. Tonight I added carrots. Pumpkin not new. Neither is chipotle or carrot. But it was new, at least to me. We write new rules for the same reason we write new recipes. I'll disagree with Russ in this regard. Different rules create *very* different game experiences, like different dishes. Some I like and play again (Flames of War) some I don't (DBA). I like the bolognese some places but not others…. |
Old Glory | 22 Feb 2016 9:59 p.m. PST |
Yes extra crispy some you like some you don't -others like the ones you don't and dislike the ones you like. We still "move, measure, and roll" and come to some form of end result and have some kind of experience with the same methodology. Move the figures by sequence or simultaneously is just a varient of the same action. None of it is really rocket science. I have used the same rules for 40 years making alterations all along the way and yet at the Corp they are still the same. Regards Russ Dunaway |
Navy Fower Wun Seven | 23 Feb 2016 12:22 a.m. PST |
Of course different things will resonate with different folks depending on what period and scale of game you are into, but a real watershed in wargaming rules that rocked my world was Black Powder rules, in the context of Napoleonic 28mm games played 'in the grand manner' with lots of big battalions. First of all the rules are so streamlined you can have your cake and eat it unfeasibly large games finished in a day! Mainly though, with the command mechanism the ability of a smaller army to outmarch and outfight a less well lead army seems to capture the essence of Napoleonic warfare, so elusive on the tabletop… Much more recently, Team Yankee appear to be a workmanlike set of rules which have popularised Cold War gone hot to a huge extent so have really impacted my wargaming to a huge extent. However with Team Yankee I think the change has been evolutionary rather than revolutionary, building on their experience with Flames. They seem to work well, but probably haven't brought anything new in terms of rules design… |
(Phil Dutre) | 23 Feb 2016 12:28 a.m. PST |
If you are really interested in new rule mechanisms and game designs, go to places where you can find them. Go to games design forums. Browse through independent products on wargamevault. Follow blogs of diy gamers. TMP, at least in my experience, is not the place to discuss new ideas in wargaming. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that the TMP ecosystem is not sympathetic towards those types of topics. This thread (starting with the title) illustrates that perfectly. Any good hobby has thinkers, tinkerers, producers, consumers. 50 years ago this was all one group w.r.t. wargaming. Not anymore. So it's also natural they hang out in different places. |
IainAF | 23 Feb 2016 12:45 a.m. PST |
Well to answer the OP. How about the patrol phase in Chain of Command, new to me and a brilliant way of starting a game. |
Northern Monkey | 23 Feb 2016 12:50 a.m. PST |
There seems to me to be lots if new ideas coming through from the independent rules sector, less so from those rule sets which are designed to just sell rules. However, most developments in rules design seem to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary, incremental changes and developments which improve on ideas already established, but isn't that true of most developments in any sectors, look at automobile design or airplane design. Are we really overwhelmed with choices of rule sets? A bit like the music industry, there are thousands of bands producing records but only a few of them are really hits. Look at questions about WWII rules on this site. Every time you ask what game to play you get told Bolt Action, Chain of Command, FOW, Nuts. The rest are just nowhere near as popular. That said, surely it's good that other sets are being released as it puts pressure on the top designers like Priestley and Clarke to maintain their quality. |
Northern Monkey | 23 Feb 2016 12:55 a.m. PST |
Iain AF. Great example. I was thinking about that too as I've not seen it anywhere else. Maybe that's why Chain of Command gets the publicity it does. I noted a poll in one if the wargame magazines said that gamers do like and look for new ideas, so clearly some if us think they are out there. Maybe Winston, you're playing the wrong games? Have you tried Chain of Command? |
Fish | 23 Feb 2016 4:32 a.m. PST |
I really dig the campaign system, as well as the card-driven rule system, of Sam Mustafa's Longstreet. |
Norman D Landings | 23 Feb 2016 5:30 a.m. PST |
Last really impressive new game mechanic ( new to me at any rate ) were the wonderfully simple and effective manoeuvre cards in 'Wings of War' – just inspired. On the other hand, I am unsure whether "innovations" like AoS's '+1 if you have a moustache' and 'Re-roll if you bellow like a beastman' are actually moving game design forward. |
Lucius | 23 Feb 2016 10:35 a.m. PST |
When Crimson Skies came out with a clix-based air combat game, it was genuinely new. It was the first time that I actually went back to the store on the same day that I bought a game to get some expansions. It felt that revolutionary to me. And an older air combat game that was genuinely new was the old Ace of Aces game, in which each player had a picture book with the pilot's perspective relative to the other player. You would each choose a maneuver, announce it simultaneously, and a double-blind look-up that insured honestly would take both players to a new page that showed where both pilots now were relative to each other. |
Garth in the Park | 23 Feb 2016 1:40 p.m. PST |
A bit like the music industry, there are thousands of bands producing records but only a few of them are really hits. A good analogy. And most people who complain that they don't like any new music (which often means anything since the 1970s), haven't actually listened to anything more than a few bits of those hits, anyway. But all those thousands of other bands nonetheless fill the clubs every night and make people happy. That's why they do it. Discovering a great new game is for me like discovering a great new band or restaurant or indie film. I couldn't imagine ever complaining about the existence of "too many" new things. I complain only that life is too short to try them all. |
surdu2005 | 23 Feb 2016 2:21 p.m. PST |
I think there is a lot of innovation going on if you look beyond the "cool rules" as determined by sock puppets, large marketing organizations, and pundits. Are there common elements to all war-games? Of course. In many cases those common elements are what attracted me to the hobby in the first place. Are new mechanics or combinations of mechanics being developed that change the feel and flow of a game? Certainly. Sometimes, however, I feel like the innovative ideas don't get noticed, and sometimes when it is noticed it is discard as being odd or "too different." I see something innovative, if not revolutionary, every time I go to a convention. Many rules are not innovative, just different. But to assert that there is no innovation going on is incorrect. In just about every field of endeavor most innovation is evolutionary, not revolutionary. Recently getting involved in the patent process has reinforced that notion in my mind. |
The Virtual Armchair General | 23 Feb 2016 3:25 p.m. PST |
I think there may be an over emphasis in the very large majority of responses to the OP on the "How" of games (mechanics, rules procedures, components, etc) rather than the far more fundamental "Why." Not ephemeral, high sounding nonsense like "Why war games?," or "Why toy soldiers?," but truly basic questions asked and answered so long ago, hardly anyone questions them now, e.g: "Why 'Morale'?", "Why 'Movement Rates'?" Understand, the questions are not, "Should Units ever refuse to do what the players want them to do, or should Units ever behave as if they had minds of their own?" Nor is there a suggestion that Units should have no limits as to how far or fast they can move whenever their Players choose. But there are more ways to assign psychological factors to our notional Units of toy soldiers than an arbitrarily chosen number which when called into play must be equaled or exceeded by dice roll (with or without modifiers either to the number or to the dice). This system is commonly called "Morale," and while the particulars can vary widely either in the sheer number of modifiers, or in application by addition, multiplication, division, and subtraction, and the modifiers can be situational and vary from turn to turn, the original number ("Morale Point") remains the same. Similarly, "Movement Rates" in war games began as arbitrarily set distances that figures could move each turn. These did not vary, save perhaps by terrain, though these reductions were also without variety and equally predictable. In time, these rates began to vary by troop types and periods, and were based on parade ground rates set in drill manuals, creating the remarkable notion that all battles are fought on parade grounds rather than "real" terrain. While there may indeed be nothing new under the war games table lights, notions that "Morale Points" and "Movement Rates" need always be "fixed" have been challenged for years, but are not yet mainstream enough to be recognized by… the mainstream. To them, therefore, these, and so many more questions of basic assumptions, might well be "something new under the sun," and unless they've finally fossilized to new ideas altogether (and we all reach such a point), they might find parts of the hobby refreshed when seen in the new light. TVAG |
Old Glory | 23 Feb 2016 5:18 p.m. PST |
Buck, I could not agree with you more -- I probably overstated my thoughts out of frustration and over acting. When Bob Naismith and myself released Cobalt we were hammered out of the box because we tried to be innovative and make the game diceless. The danger in being innovative is rejection from the start. You are correct that if it is to work it should probably be evolutionary (slower) to gain some acceptance and not revolutionary (fast) and face rejection? Also, well stated Virtual Arm Chair General Regards Russ Dunaway |
etotheipi | 23 Feb 2016 6:08 p.m. PST |
I felt and still feel QILS is innovative. I felt that because there really wasn't anything else with a similar mechanic. Still isn't. I still feel it's innovative since most players don't have a ready-made frame of reference building their own scenarios or varying the provided ones based on their previous wargaming experiences. This might hit the "too different" chord above. In the sense that Ecclesiastes means it, there is no new thing under the sun. In the sense of human experience, rather than diving comprehension, there's a lot of things that are already out there for us to discover. A lot as in infinite. Bigger than the biggest anything anywhere. And then some. [Douglas Adams] |
arthur1815 | 24 Feb 2016 3:03 a.m. PST |
New or 'innovative' is not necessarily 'better', which is perhaps why so many of the original wargame methods and rules structures worth continue to be used, albeit with changes of detail. It is always worth examining/experimenting with new ideas, but they often prove not to be better than those that preceded them and are not adopted. |
Hafen von Schlockenberg | 24 Feb 2016 3:52 p.m. PST |
Norman D: Yes, Wings was a great innovation,and a great beer – drinking convention game! Garth, you've reminded me of an occasion many,many years ago,when I was asking a girl at a party if she had heard various different bands. Guess I was annoying her, cause she finally snapped "I only listen to music I've already heard!". I was taken aback at the time,but on reflection,maybe she was just trying to get rid of me! I think Wiz kids Pirates cards was one of the great innovations,not just in rules,but in packaging and marketing. |
Great War Ace | 25 Feb 2016 8:01 a.m. PST |
Ecclesiastes needs updating each generation. And besides, "nothing new under the sun" was referring to the vanity of nude sun bathing. He was absolutely correct about that one! |
Old Contemptibles | 25 Feb 2016 2:18 p.m. PST |
Why does there have to be something new all the time? I wish designers/authors would stop trying to differentiate themselves from the pack by including gimmicks and such. Sometimes the old ways are best. |
Weasel | 25 Feb 2016 2:33 p.m. PST |
Release a game with a new mechanic: It's gimmicky and weird. Release a game with an old mechanic: It's tired and boring. It's no coincidence that the games that sell well are generally traditional IGOUGO fire by stand saving throw affairs but with one or two twists thrown in.
|