"Rules, Gaming and History" Topic

Had a conversation with a friend the other day who said they were looking for rules that skipped the history and got right to the game play…

Would you agree?

Did you point them at Games Workshop?

And, no, I do not agree with the concept.

Not something I'm interested in.

I guess it depends on what they mean?

A book that just focuses on the rules and doesn't include any history lessons?

Zero interest. GW or Bolt Action fit the bill, but not for me.

False dichotomy.

As a player, you can ignore the history (or background) represented in most games, whether that be Empire, DBA or 40K.

As a designer, ignoring the history (or background) doesn't mean you are going to create a more fun game.

I also think it depends on what they mean. Do they want to eschew the fluff that games like 40K have? If so, I agree.

I like the history or at least some presented. I more likely want designer notes.

War gammer vs. gamer playing game.

If you are asking if I play games with no interest of learning any of the associated history, then no, I don't agree with that approach.

For me the hobby is a passionate experience. When I sit down at the table with someone who doesn't share any of that passion, it is an empty experience. Insulting even. To them, the spirit of the game is no more important than reading a label on a can at the supermarket, and I am investing a piece of my soul. Quite honestly, get away from my table.

A part of playing the game, is to embrace the essence of the army, or at least try to, to play the army in context. To do otherwise is essentially the same as violating the rules from my vantage point.

I guess that if all participants approach the game as simply being a way to kill time, that it is fine. They should do as they wish. But I don't want to play that game.

No.

If you're playing historical games, but don't want to know the history behind them…what's the point?

Chess?

I like history. I like games.

The two may be mutually exclusive. I play a Napoleonic wargame with an opponent who could care less about history but is a very good competitive gamer. Ultimately wargames are about applying mathematical probabilities properly. The painted lead figures are just a veneer, and could be replaced by generic objects that have no symbolism. Games have no basis in any historical reality, but are fun abstractions.

I don't agree. A game without context is reduced to revolving only around winning or losing. I don't find that interesting or fun.

I have a buddy who comes over mostly for the social experience. That's OK but I want to learn something from my games, not just how to stack modifiers in my favor. That's why my bookshelves groan.

I have to agree with your friend. It's pretty obvious that is what they were looking for.

Generally speaking, I can do without the historical essay common in many historical wargaming rules sets---I can read up on the war on my own.

Now, historical aspects woven into a good design notes section, and historical background to scenarios, are great.

No!

I prefer the rules to be the rules. Lots of historical fluff (of varying quality) is not what I buy games for, I have history books for the history part.

Most board war games do not have a lot of historical information in them and they do just fine.