Editor in Chief Bill | 20 Aug 2016 1:45 p.m. PST |
Is it time for new people with fresh ideas to design the next generation of wargaming rulesets? |
normsmith | 20 Aug 2016 1:55 p.m. PST |
The evolution of designers is an ongoing process. Kickstarter has accelerated the process by allowing funding for people with ideas that otherwise might have not been realised and so the market is having an increasing say in the direction that designers go. |
Mako11 | 20 Aug 2016 2:03 p.m. PST |
Probably…… It'd be nice to pin down, and figure out what we really want/need, and document that. Then see, what rules come closest to meeting that, and/or design rules that do fit those wants and needs. |
Extra Crispy | 20 Aug 2016 2:45 p.m. PST |
|
rmaker | 20 Aug 2016 3:03 p.m. PST |
Yes. Because old game designers retire and die. |
Texas Jack | 20 Aug 2016 3:06 p.m. PST |
I think new people with new ideas are always welcome, although those new ideas may not always work. |
McLaddie | 20 Aug 2016 3:07 p.m. PST |
Yes. Because old game designers retire and die. Game designers never die…they just get a casualty marker. |
nnascati | 20 Aug 2016 4:46 p.m. PST |
How many new ideas can there be? |
John Armatys | 20 Aug 2016 4:54 p.m. PST |
|
miniMo | 20 Aug 2016 5:22 p.m. PST |
|
Grignotage | 20 Aug 2016 6:34 p.m. PST |
With the plethora of stuff being published on Wargame Vault, not to mention new rules by new people being traditionally published, aren't there tons of new people designing new games? |
Weasel | 20 Aug 2016 7:02 p.m. PST |
|
Mako11 | 20 Aug 2016 8:29 p.m. PST |
Today new – last 2 hours. |
Weasel | 20 Aug 2016 10:06 p.m. PST |
Well, i didn't see anything released in the past 2 hours so yeah, we're definitely due for something new! |
wrgmr1 | 20 Aug 2016 10:40 p.m. PST |
I feel some designers think that they can do no wrong and put out the same old garbage, thinking that we…..the gaming punters will just buy them. |
14th Brooklyn | 20 Aug 2016 11:07 p.m. PST |
Do not think we need new designers, there are plenty out there that do a real good job. Players just need to make use of their work instead of following the mainstream. I think one fine example is Warlord Games. Their models are nice and they offer a truly great array of them. But the rules are essentially just recycled ideas from 40K. Lots of dice rolling and little historical feel. Still people go for them because it is a one stop shop and the rules were written by the big names. At the same time there are lots of historical rules that are just as easy, fun and fast to play yet people shy away, since they are not be Warlord. I am experiencing that in one of the group I play in. 20+ People, all of them unhappy with the rules, but when the two of us, that are not this fixed, say let's try something else the answer is "But I am so used to Black Powder / Bolt Action". |
jwebster | 20 Aug 2016 11:07 p.m. PST |
The definition of a completely new idea is that we don't know what it is yet :) So something original that works would be wonderful, but there are so many similar rule sets out there already that I don't know where to start. I run and hide from most people who have great ideas, that for some reason, no one will take seriously ….. John |
daler240D | 21 Aug 2016 2:51 a.m. PST |
I think there are 2 things that are related to this. First there is a perception that unless a set of rules is printed in a book that you have to pay a noticeable amount of money for, then it is not really good or worse, not even worth being looked at or considered. I find it hard to believe that someone has not made an amazing set of rules that are free or just cost 5-10 bucks for a pdf download. A corollary to this observation is that there are SO MANY RULES to sift through (commercial and free). I know most people think it is great that there are so many rule out there to choose from, but I find it to be staggering and overwhelming. I am primarily an historical gamer and find it bad, but the fantasy RPG world is even worse by an order of magnitude. Anyway, my point about this is that we have so much to sort through that we can't even really begin to have a discussion about the core elements and mechanics and abstractions about rules, because we are spending so much time floating in this sea of paper (so much of which is dross). The other thing is that rules writers in general (i know there are some great exceptions) don't always give commentary, or at least it is lacking and could be much better, about their design decisions, rationalizations, abstraction choices etc. I would love to read more about this in almost every set of rules that I come across. I come from a technical background and sort of view it as how a computer programmer is supposed to "comment" in their code. This allows a programmer in the future that might be charged with maintaining the code or modifying it to know what the original intent and algorithmic structure was. This make it easier to CHANGE and ADVANCE the technology. I believe if game designers did more of this, then we could all have a better understanding and common way of discussing gaming ideas. In my opinion, this would focus us to ultimately maybe be able to have 3 or 4 different rule sets per period/genre/scope that we all agreed were the best, depending on our preferences. Some would be free and open source some would be expensive and polished and people would have no problem paying for them and some would be middle of the road. I think of things like computer operating systems again. I would love if there were a Mac OS, Linus and Window version of Naps for each scale, 18th Century etc.More people playing fewer rules sets. Of COURSE for it to be vital and evolving, some people would always still play new and developing rules that eventually might over take a current favorite. We need to always have our bleeding edge community of people that are the outsiders criticizing the staus quo. ; ) |
Ewan Hoosami | 21 Aug 2016 3:37 a.m. PST |
I'm hearing you 14th Brooklyn got the same problem in my corner of the planet. I suggested Chain of Command as a better historical set, instead of 40KWW2 and got harangued by an evangelist about it. He made comments in his argument like "looked for those rules (CoC) and it took ten minutes to find on Google, who's ever going to find them to buy, let alone play. If you can't buy them in your local games store nobody then knows they exist" and "why play a game that nobody else does, you end up spending your game time trying to find another player". This is a gamer that has obviously graduated from playing 40K and expects to be able to walk into a GW style specialty shop to play historical too and that's what Warlord Games allows. Similar high profile marketing of a one stop shop, and a set of rules that's so familiar to what he is used to playing, that's what the masses seem to want or what they are told they want by clever marketers. I don't think it matters to most people whether a set of rules is new or ground breaking in design and concept, what seems to matter most is how good the after purchase support from the designer and manufacturer. How well the marketing dept can string you along and keep you salivating between release waves. It also seems that over charging is acceptable too. So unless you package up the new design or next generation rules in that fashion you are probably wasting your time and creative talents |
VVV reply | 21 Aug 2016 3:41 a.m. PST |
Well I know I just recycle old ideas if they work and why not? But there is an awful lot of real rubbish out there that is still being bought. As an example when GW release new versions of their rules, there are often howls of protest that the old rules were better. My response is, why not keep playing with your old set then. |
Mr Elmo | 21 Aug 2016 5:36 a.m. PST |
Some of the best rules have come out of the GW talent bleed. Once gone they were free to innovate. Alessio created Bolt Action, probably the greatest ruleset to bring WWII mainstream. Rick Priestly with Antates and to a lesser degree Black Powder Warwick Kinrade and the Battlegruop Series Let us not forget Studio Tomahawk and Sam Mustafa, excellent work there as well. |
Winston Smith | 21 Aug 2016 9:32 a.m. PST |
No. I've given up looking for the next new thing. What I have now is good enough. |
The Virtual Armchair General | 21 Aug 2016 12:34 p.m. PST |
In answer to the original question, the answer is an unequivocal, "Yes!" That said, the major problem with new ideas--whether they pan out or not--is how can anyone know about them if not 1)Promoted by a company with deep pockets, or 2) Widely demonstrated before crowds at conventions? Surely, the quality of an idea, or product, is not determined just by having the name of a well known Publisher? Or the amount of money raised by a Kickstarter? Having the name of well known and respected game designer is invaluable, but this thread raises the question of how DOES one become a "well known and respected game designer" when the new idea is from someone you don't know from Adam? First class games and ideas, I believe, abound outside the "Box" of the usual publishers and game companies, but assuming their authors even wish to have their ideas seen and tried, where can others, in effect, pass judgment on them? New good ideas prove themselves only when others than the designer try them, and if they provide something either lacking from preexisting choices, or something simply more fun, then, for those players, the ideas are "good." Obviously, if the ideas don't represent something "better," then why change to them from what does work? I could wish there was a "matching service" providing a nice, long list of clubs/small groups/individuals where a game designer could send his work for play testing, AND where their critiques would then published in a common forum. Mind, these must provide specifics of what worked and what didn't--no just "It sucks," and "It rules." This ideal "matching service" would indicate not merely those willing to try something new, but be organized by their specific interests (Napoleonics, WW II, War of Winston's Ear, etc). The ambitious designer should be allowed to send his ideas to more than one listed play tester, though probably no more than, say, three. Finally, and at least as important as anything else, being allowed to remain on the list of play testers would be entirely dependent on providing the published, detailed critique within a reasonable--though set--time period. No response to someone's best efforts means you lose the privilege of being among the first to see what's new in your area(s) of special interest in the hobby. Could such a service be provided here on TMP? Is there sufficient interest for such an idea? I presume response to this--especially to The Dear Editor--would settle it. As a publisher of games, each with unique systems designed for their specific subject, rather than taking one game model and hammering it to fit over all others, I stipulate that I would be a beneficiary of such a service. And a grateful one, at that! TVAG |
(Phil Dutre) | 21 Aug 2016 12:39 p.m. PST |
There is a lot of innovative design work in wargaming being done. Just follow the right blogs and discussion groups. But that's something different from a published game with a major market share. That type of publication tends to be more conservative, slowly evolving, rather than disruptive. Nothing wrong with that, that's they way the hobby works. Really innovative ideas will bubble to the surface sooner or later. It's the same in scientific research. Lots of wild and crazy ideas in university labs, but only a small fraction of that makes it into consumer products. It also depends what you consider innovative. "D&D innovative"? Once every 20 years or so. "D6 vs D10 innovative"? Almost every day. |
Northern Monkey | 21 Aug 2016 7:03 p.m. PST |
"Alessio created Bolt Action, probably the greatest ruleset to bring WWII mainstream." Are we seriously saying that WWII gaming was not mainstream before Bolt Action came along? Really? Honestly? |
UshCha | 22 Aug 2016 1:54 a.m. PST |
There is some humor in this post. "If its not stocked in the local game store". This is fummy, most places in the UK have no local gamestore that is independant "They that shall not be named" is the only one. two quite frankly a bad habit of our Americam cosins is to favor style over substance" Far to may rules are poorly written on a tight commecial budget much of which goes on excessive are work of no relevance. Phil Barker had it right simple papaer and card covers. Commecial rules may not be the wat to go they look for proffet both from the game and too often succour folk into buying minis that the game is written round at the expence of credibility. An ultra modern game with helicopers (min range typicaly 4k if they wish to survive and deployed troops in a syametic combat situation is pure fantasy. So do we need more of those NOOOOO! Most look like re vamped Featherstone with pointless expensive playing gards wher a simple paper download would be more than adequate. Inovation will be found by enthusisatic amatures looking for a small fee as an ego trip or no fee at all. We took 2000 hrsro write hours and we are wll paid in our day jobs, none into pointless pictures. I am sure we are not alone. Do we need such folk yes. If its needs a kik starter walk away. You will only get a standard system re-vamped it wiull; not be inovative but it may well sell. That is not innovatove game design it is excellent maketing. There is a diffrence. Look at rules that do not require a manufactures models and maybe you will be supprised at the quality in some cases. Substance not stye is lacking. |
Ottoathome | 22 Aug 2016 4:38 a.m. PST |
No. Virtual Armchair General, Phil Dutre and UshCha pretty much all said it all. When you look at the basics there really hasn't been anything new under the war gaming sun since Wells, Freatherstone, and Moreschauser. Oh to be sure, people always say they want "innovative, new creative ideas" but when you actually give them new, innovative creative ideas, they carp "Why didn't you make it like Umpires Ego's and Liars" or "On to Poughkeepsie," or "Tigers and Panthers and Hetzers Oh My." They want innovation but they're too lazy to internalize it and want the same old thing. A good game can be made in a few pages of rules not 100+ but of course THAT can't be sold for over $80. USD |
Wolfhag | 22 Aug 2016 11:57 a.m. PST |
Ottoathome makes a good point. Many people have their bias for their favorite rules and have a chunk of $$ sunk into them and don't want to be bothered by new and innovative. Then there is the NIH crowd and the "I only play using a D6" group. There is also that group that suffers from chart-a-phobia, poor blokes. Some people just want to roll dice and blow things up. I'm sure they'd like something innovative like live pyrotechnics on the playing table. Maybe an aerosal bottle spraying diesel fuel or burning off some black powder would enhance their enjoymnet – but not both at the same time! Burning some raw hamburger would add to the ambiance, especially when you get a hit with your flame thrower or a tank brews up. The ultimate innovation for a real life gaming experience would be to require all players to not have bathed for the last week. The other option would be to invite the D&D players to stand around as spectaors to supply the olfactory experience. I would say the "innovations" that have kept the hobby moving along as a WIP has been different techniques to get away from the old IGOUGO turn system and unit reactions. But now it seems to be evolving into a race to come up with some spiffy technique to enhance that that seems to be variations on a theme and not innovative. I'm talking about the card and order dice activation. I've been following new rules for a few decades. Lately it seems to be variations on a theme or some over simplification. Some call using a new abstracted activation technique, card or die for unit activation innovative. I don't. That's variations on a theme. What would I like to see as innovation for 1:1 tank-infantry games? Graphical play aids that helps determine reactions for first shots using more historical performance than random abstractions and activations. Simulating timing between all units is almost impossible using rule systems I'm familiar with. Small arms fire that realistically enables ambushing, reactions and simulates multi-turn sustained firing. I see small arms fire results being determined by the volume over a period of time. Having each figure roll a die and fire at a specific target every turn is appropriate in some cases but I think the mechanics really end up taking too much time. I think some system using binomial tables would give a faster and a more realistic result as you could tweak them to give historic outcomes. Compare your favorite rule set to a military infantry or tank operation manual. Are there very many similarities in the way tactics are used? Does the rule set use military terminology and nomenclature? I think this is important for the overall experience. I think an innovation would be immersing the player more into the risk-reward decision making small unit leaders needed to make and why would be better than playing within an abstracted game sequence. Can totally abstracted game mechanics that have nothing to do with military science or reality bring about historic results while being fun and entertaining? Yes, there are many examples. Mainly because the vast majority of players have no real military experience or knowledge. In miniatures games it's more the eye candy than the rules. Set up a beautiful terrain table and parade your finest 28mm figures and vehicles and no one is going to care what rules you use. At least that's what I've seen at conventions, your specific group probably has a favorite system. However, some of these same rule sets could use their game mechanics and firing system to play cowboys & aliens, cavemen throwing stones, refight Agincourt, squad level WWII and modern day Special Ops scenarios. There is even one popular WWII rule set that could be used to play future science fiction battles with Marines fighting Orks using lasers and energy weapons using the same mechanics just change the names of the units. When I'm playing a 1:1 WWII game using a system like that I play for the social interaction, not gaming enjoyment. I know some people are going to say specific rule sets allow some of what I stated above. I'm not intimately famillar with all of the popular sets so I can't claim to be fully informed. From the ones I am familiar with I think Nuts! would qualify as innovative compared to most others. Panzer War would qualify as innovative because their firing and penetration system is based on historical results, not an abstracted to hit die roll. Bolt Action would qualify for their use of order dice as an improvement over other structured turn systems. I think the best innovation would be for a real tank commander or squad leader to take a quick read through your rule set and examples and say, "Yes, I get it, no explanation is needed. Been there done that. Lets play". Wolfhag |
Old Contemptibles | 22 Aug 2016 12:53 p.m. PST |
I guess anyone of any age can design a game or write rules. Who exactly is preventing new people from doing that? |
UshCha | 22 Aug 2016 1:24 p.m. PST |
Wolfgang there is another issue. I was going to put elsewhere but here it may be appropriate to discuss. There appears to be a very distinct difference between fast play and easy play. Chess is to my mind technical fast play as the rules are simple and clear. It is not easy play as a lot of thought is required to play it. Our rules are in this vain fast play. However they do require much more thought. The questions are simple. Where to turn the turret, how far to go vs risk level, again one of 3 level, slow, fast and road March type speeds. Buttoned vs unbuttoned (simpel yes, no). This already puts a lot of folk off, they want to move a minimal distance and throw some die. All else intrudes on chatting and drinking time. In effect they want snakes and ladders cos it's easy to play a nd fast play. This limits in innovation and plausibility. In effect you get Featherstone now with pretty cards. As few wish take the next step. Supprisingly our rules seem to appeal only to folk who play a lot and want to genuinely think about a small section of what a company commander does. In reality he has far mor to think about. Logistics being a knight are issue of itself. For the reason innovation is no t lacking supply but an audience at wants to think harder. |
Anthropicus | 22 Aug 2016 1:36 p.m. PST |
Yes. There's a lot of well-trod ground in wargaming, but what's been done is only a fraction of what's possible. History itself is a mobile target. Our historiography is getting better, so why shouldn't our games? |
Zephyr1 | 22 Aug 2016 2:42 p.m. PST |
Unfortunately, there seemed to be (at least a few years ago) a dismissive attitude of "That game is just a rip-off of WHFB/WH40K! We're not going to play that!" and "That game isn't anything like WHFB/WH40K, so it's not worth playing!" (sometimes amusingly from the same people. ;-) Not saying it was a widespread attitude, but it certainly could discourage people from trying new games… |
Ottoathome | 22 Aug 2016 5:21 p.m. PST |
UshCha makes a valid observation. If you look carefully at people in games what they really want is a few hours of diversion, where they can immerse themselves in a bit of fancy and make believe, think they are actually a general or Sgt. Rock of Steiner. One person who attended "The Weekend" Convention was ecstatic. "In two days I got to play SIX games!" I played as a commander in a British Colonial Game, as an intelligent raptor in a Dinosaur Game, as a leader of a culture in a History of the World Game, as a General fighting Germans and Arachnids in a WWII game, as a Spanish Commander in a game with Leonardo Da Vinci, and in a Civil War Game." His enthusiasm was because he had a whopping great time and played lots of things and got to forget all about his ailments, his wife, his family (not his son, who was helping thrash him in several games) and his job and everything else and enjoy himself in the two pillars of interest of war games. That is "The Sense of Wonder" which is the OH WOW! NEAT!!!" factor and the Spirit of Play, which is the "Let's Make Believe" Factor. These have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH RULES! It's the imagination and willingness of the person to have fun. This person in particular was going to throw himself into whatever game came along and was determined to have a good time. And he got it. another guy was playing one guys game called "Axis and Allies and Arachnids" which pitted the bugs from Starship troopers showing up in 1945 at a town being contended over by the Americans and the Germans, the bugs opened up a breach right below another commander's Panther tank. The guy started driving the thing through the tunnels spewing out every hackneyed line from Battle of the Bulge. After the Axis and Allies had turned and was splattering the bugs all over the scenery. (one guy remarked. HEY! Want to kill bugs! Not so hard, get Nazi's and Gi's." Panzerfuasts, bazookas and 88's work much better than ray guns! The point is that in the riot of games, everyone had a good time playing and no one knew any of the rules. That's what people want in games, and admit it, what to do you want to do, make high level thoughtful decisions in grand strategy, or perch on the top of your tiger tank with a half dead bug on the bridge ahead and bark out in your worst German accent!"Blow zat junk off der road!" All we want is a few hours of playing with neat toys and make believe. |
Wolfhag | 22 Aug 2016 8:07 p.m. PST |
I think the crux of what UshCha and Ottoathome are saying is that games should meet the expectations of the players and not the designer? A company would go broke designing and printing games I'd want to play as I'm in the minority. I have to think the success of Bolt Action is that the marketing department drove the product and not some knowledgeable and technical person with "professional" experience in designing games. It's a success because it meets or exceeds the expectations of the good % of players. It does a well enough job of immersing the player into a fantasy world for a few hours. Since it is what people are playing people like myself and others that want a more detailed experience and representation are more or less forced to go along and play BA. I have a good friend that games every Wednesday night and is "forced" to play Flames of War because that's what the club is playing. Wolfhag |
UshCha | 23 Aug 2016 1:32 a.m. PST |
Given (too me) the poor quality of commecial games faced with either Ottoathomes convention or Wolfhags situation I would regrettabley have to retire and accelerate my model railway interests. Pure fantasy that is littl improved on snakes and ladders is not where I want to be. This is clearly out of sysnch wih most. Hence the topic is answered, there is no demand for true inovation to move forward the plausibity of games. As more thought is unavoidable these are unacceptable to the genral public. Featherstone re-dressed is all we can expect. "New" mechanisms, new hit rates, but an absolute minimal thought/planning requirement. Kill me now! ;-). I will not give in there are sane folk out there, just not many, I will play on ;-). |
Ottoathome | 23 Aug 2016 4:08 a.m. PST |
Criticize you may UshCha, but in all my years of wargaming at home and at conventions I never saw one gamer come up to the table with a desire to do anything but be entertained for a few hours. They were not into intellectual challenges, were not into historical veracity, were not into new innovative game systems. Every one of them came to roll dice and kill things and approached the game with an eagerness and unsophistication literally unchanged since their sand-box days and the demands of chutes and ladders. A good friend of mine, Norbert Brunnhuber, once did several years of games at conventions based on the Successors of Alexander and spared no effort at historical research of their wars and set up completely historical and accurate scenarios, and explained the why and wherefore of the set up with a HUGE and most beautifully painted set of armies. The players couldn't have cared less and were impatient to the point of rudeness as Norbert attempted to explain the subtle strategies and options. All they wanted to do was charge the elephants against something. Since you also are a model railroader, as I, I will explain it also that way. It was as if Norbert had made the most beautiful, detailed, in-scale reproduction of a prototype railroad, complete with operation schedules, problems, and all the impedimentia of a prototype as opposed to a free-baser. Didn't matter. The people he was letting play with his layout only wanted, Adams family-like to construct train crashes. In all my years of gaming I have never once heard or seen ANYONE trying to use historic tactics, or pay the slightest attention to the victory conditions. In fact the ONLY time I ever saw it was in a game where I introduced a whole family to gaming and converted them, mother, father, son, and daughter to gaming. The 15 year old daughter, when countering a suggestion of her mothers to move troops forward said "MOM! Pay attention to the victory conditions, we have to prevent the other side from getting off through this part of the board. So the decisive fight is there. There they were, first war game in their life and the Newbies paid attention to the rules . It didn't last. The next year when they visited and had gone to Hurricon and other games, they completely threw tactics and thinking out the window and it was back to the sandbox. I think you misunderstand my previous post. My point was that the player in question came tot he convention DETERMINED to have a good time. It wouldn't have mattered if you gave him a Command and General Staff School game OR Chutes and Ladders. He was going to have fun because he was determined to have fun and was not going to rate, grade, or critique the rules. If you walk into a game with that open mindedness you can't NOT have fun! He wasn't there to prove he was a nascent military genius, he was there to have fun. What is important in games is not the rules, but the toy soldiers and the player attitudes. |
Mr Elmo | 23 Aug 2016 4:23 a.m. PST |
Are we seriously saying that WWII gaming was not mainstream before Bolt Action came along? In 28mm certainly. There are thriving tounament scenes on multiple continents. |
CATenWolde | 23 Aug 2016 7:49 a.m. PST |
"In all my years of gaming I have never once heard or seen ANYONE trying to use historic tactics, or pay the slightest attention to the victory conditions." If this is true, Otto, then you live in a strange pocket dimension of the wargaming universe. I'm not judging your methods or games, it's just that my experience is almost exactly the opposite – most players I know (in person, and at conventions) would prefer to "play the period" at the expense of the rules. Perhaps the lesson is that we tend to live in self-fulfilling hobby universes. ;) Cheers, Christopher |
Weasel | 23 Aug 2016 9:10 a.m. PST |
I do sometimes wish we were as well organized as the RPG crowd. There's entire forums dedicated purely to game design and theory, people have analysed pretty much every line of the original D&D in light of many years of gaming experience, heck the entire OSR phenomenom, can you even imagine something like this in wargaming terms where hundreds of people create related and compatible product surrounding one common core? Maybe its because they don't have to paint their characters before using them :-) |
CATenWolde | 23 Aug 2016 10:20 a.m. PST |
I've often made that comparison too, Weasel. While it's true that rpg's are (amazingly) a much bigger market than wargaming, we also don't have either as effective a core discussion forum (compare TMP to rpg.net, or even ENWorld) or as active a blog presence in terms of discussion of rules. However, wargamers also have to talk about and incorporate history into our discussions (although rpg'ers also talk a lot about world crafting), and inevitably – as you made an allusion to – we have to talk a lot about the miniatures and terrain and everything else that goes into actually presenting a game. This side of the hobby dominates discussion and rules crafting to a great degree, and is almost entirely absent from rpg discussions, which are free to concentrate on rules crafting. However, it does seem to me that the internet was used much more in the 90's to discuss rules theory and crafting than is done today. Wargames discussion has become very balkanized, most of it along the lines of rules-specific groups, which development thus tends to discourage rules theory questions. |
Weasel | 23 Aug 2016 3:45 p.m. PST |
Yeah, the "craft" aspect of wargaming is significant and of course, many (most?) people spend more time painting than they do gaming :-) (while some of us spend more time putting off painting than we do gaming :) ) The lack of "theory" discussion as you say, is pretty symptomatic of the balkanized state. I think often we tend to fall into discussing things from the perspective of "if this was in MY game" which limits discussion. A lot of the "SIMULATION!?" debate pretty much boils down to that, I think. |
Scorpio | 23 Aug 2016 9:25 p.m. PST |
New people with fresh ideas are always out there designing new games. Maybe the problem is that you're not out there looking for them? |
Ottoathome | 24 Aug 2016 1:59 a.m. PST |
Dear Scorpio Nor, for the most part, do we need them. Otto |
etotheipi | 24 Aug 2016 4:23 a.m. PST |
I assume Otto is speaking of the "royal we". |
McLaddie | 24 Aug 2016 7:43 a.m. PST |
Criticize you may UshCha, but in all my years of wargaming at home and at conventions I never saw one gamer come up to the table with a desire to do anything but be entertained for a few hours. They were not into intellectual challenges, were not into historical veracity, were not into new innovative game systems. Every one of them came to roll dice and kill things and approached the game with an eagerness and unsophistication literally unchanged since their sand-box days and the demands of chutes and ladders. From my experience…in which I act the same way at conventions--playing as many games as possible and blowing things up--isn't that the nature of conventions and attendee expectations? I go to play lots of games. If I find a game I like more than the others, then I might buy the rules and 'get into the game'. I think it is a gross simplification of the hobby to say that all players always approach the hobby the way many do at conventions. |
McLaddie | 24 Aug 2016 8:14 a.m. PST |
Wargames discussion has become very balkanized, most of it along the lines of rules-specific groups, which development thus tends to discourage rules theory questions.Yeah, the "craft" aspect of wargaming is significant and of course, many (most?) people spend more time painting than they do gaming :-) (while some of us spend more time putting off painting than we do gaming :) ) I think the thing that I find most frustrating about the issues and opinions expressed is that they aren't unique to our hobby--at all. However, other hobbies deal with them differently. As I have in the past, I'll use the RC Airplane hobby as an example. In that pastime you don't see active participants insisting that they know what ALL members of the hobby like or want. The craft of building and flying model airplanes is divided up into types of models addressing what different participants want from their hobby experience. They don't expect all members to want the same things or do the same things. There are the 'free flight' group. They buy generic planes or kits simply to fly on Saturdays. The planes generally are built to fly and don't model any real planes. There are 'semi-scale' planes that are meant to resemble actual aircraft with some fuselage characteristics and paint jobs but are still primarily built to be easy to fly. Then there are 'scale' models, where the plane dimensions match the real plane. They are more demanding to fly and often will have retractable landing gear, or other details. The historical/architectural details start to matter. Finally there is 'True Scale' where every rivet and guy-wire is in place, the framework is accurate, as well as the interior of the plane. Engines are miniatures of the real thing. Air speed is to scale, etc. etc. Now, the design requirements behind each type of plane is different to varying degrees, the planes built for different purposes. And of course, what planes do the majority of the RC modelers build and fly? "Free Flight." Where does a real minority of the hobby spend their time? "True Scale". As a person 'gets into the hobby', where is the growth pattern? From True Scale to Free Flight? Of course not. Do a good many flyers stay at the 'free flight' stage their entire hobby careers? Sure. Do the free flighters insist that anyone that spends a year building a True Scale plane isn't part of the hobby? No. It never enters their mind. Our hobby tends to balkanize because it hasn't organized enough to provide the distinctions in game types to avoid it. <q?The lack of "theory" discussion as you say, is pretty symptomatic of the balkanized state. I think often we tend to fall into discussing things from the perspective of "if this was in MY game" which limits discussion. When there is only 'one kind of wargame', unlike RC modeling, you have all needs having to be answered by 'one design', so each design is picked apart because of the wide variation in the desired gaming experiences. Sort of like the free flight, semi-scale, scale and true scale modelers only having one type of RC design to chose from. They'd balkanize around 'what they like', but have no shared concepts or categories for the entire hobby. They'd start insisting that They're view is the only view for the hobby--what everyone wants… and of course because most are at the free flight level, that's where the hobby would pretty much stay… along with any innovations. I think it is easy to see that we have a similar set of game expectations: game, semi-scale game, scale, and 'True scale'. However, many designers will actively fight that natural progression because it would demand a greater sophistication in game design [on all levels] and would automatically reduce the possible number of buyers. |
Russ Lockwood | 24 Aug 2016 8:57 a.m. PST |
As the fellow who edits the Secrets of Wargame Design series (which cherry picks Wally Simon articles in PW Review newsletter from the 70s to the early 2000s), the 'new' that folks seek has been the same 'new' that gamers have been seeking for 50 years. I see small arms fire results being determined by the volume over a period of time. Having each figure roll a die and fire at a specific target every turn is appropriate in some cases but I think the mechanics really end up taking too much time. I think some system using binomial tables would give a faster and a more realistic result as you could tweak them to give historic outcomes. This caught my eye because the latest volume (#6: Skirmish Secrets of Wargame Design) contains an article titled: Swath Fire: Volley Fire Variation -- For Muskets Through Lasers. It's an interesting game design mechanic that played around with area effect small arms. It uses a simple formula of Number of Units x Firepower Factor x d10, with some Firepower factor modifiers. Yet he adds a simple Assault Group 'data sheet' of three lines (Total Hits, Morale, and Strength) with columns being marked off ('tic' in Wally terms) when units are hit or destroyed. That's just one example, but when it comes to analyzing how to battle troops across a tabletop, the same restrictions occur today that were there yesterday. It's hard to come up with something 'new' that hasn't been tried before -- certainly anyone who subscribed to MWAN found a treasure trove of ideas. Maybe, like PW Review, not as well publicized or disseminated, but 50+ years (100+ if you count HG Wells and 200+ if you count original kriegspiel) of clever folks banging around stands and dice yields only so much. Yet it's those nuances that keep us on the lookout for that 'perfect' system, even if we have to tinker with it to make it 'perfect.' Play any system long enough and you'll eventually find parts that don't quite keep up with your reading of history, or perception of history, or game flow, or whatever else that drives us to create or find rules that play faster, smarter, or more nuanced. |
McLaddie | 24 Aug 2016 12:40 p.m. PST |
That's just one example, but when it comes to analyzing how to battle troops across a tabletop, the same restrictions occur today that were there yesterday. It's hard to come up with something 'new' that hasn't been tried before -- certainly anyone who subscribed to MWAN found a treasure trove of ideas. Maybe, like PW Review, not as well publicized or disseminated, but 50+ years (100+ if you count HG Wells and 200+ if you count original kriegspiel) of clever folks banging around stands and dice yields only so much. All creative mediums from music to painting to ball room dancing and car designs have 'limitations'. Those limitations don't curtail or end innovation. Innovation is a product of community and communication as well as being open to outside innovation and development. Walley enjoyed innovating, he just never took it further, but instead just kept generating ideas because he enjoyed it. Nor did anyone else. The place to start is where Walley left off, not shrug and say "clever folks banging around stands and dice yields only so much." If anything kills innovation, those kind of beliefs are it. |
UshCha2 | 24 Aug 2016 1:08 p.m. PST |
MacLaddie may have it. If your experience is of US type conventions, their is to my knowledge no equivalent in the UK. Then you are playing in a different class to where I play. In some cases multi evening games where the story and plausibility compared to accounts we read are paramount. They are almost by definition just two players in a game as the co-ordination of mutiple players, some of whom would have a boring evening and nowhere near enough experience of planning and tactics, never mind about rules to make a worth while contribution, just does not make sense. We do have new players but you need to teach them one to one. Teaching somebody to play chess is little about the rules and most about tactics. Innovation is there but for some today is already perfect, they may not want improvement. When faced with more "credible rules" some folk decide they really did not want that as it demands more than a "snakes and ladders" approach even if the rules are very simple. Perhaps a useful thread would be to set up what practically can be defined as a perfect set of games. |
McLaddie | 24 Aug 2016 1:55 p.m. PST |
If many are happy with what they have If many believe that anything different requires too much effort in time and money to play If many believe the limitations of the table top preclude anything really new If there is no feeling of "NEED" [i.e. the title of this thread] If there is little real communication between game designers and game communities If the hobby community is fairly small None of which is "Bad" or "Wrong", but you don't have fertile ground for innovation. |