"Too Many New Rule Sets" Topic

Curious, I found myself looking for reviews of Simon Hall's new ancients rule set, Mortem et Glorium, which superficially appeals because of some novel and interesting mechanisms.

In their critiques reviewers naturally often make comparisons to 'the competition'. This brought home to me how many ancients sets of rules have been released onto this limited market in the last couple of years. There's Sword and Spear, To The Strongest, Swordpoint, Art de La Guerre, and now Triumph. Going back a little we also had Hail Caesar, Clash of Empires, War and Conquest, Impetus, and of course Field of Glory. The same phenomenon seems to afflict other periods, with endless new releases for the most popular: Napoleonics, ACW, and WW2, and a continuous stream of new games for more exotic subjects.

Threads on TMP about these shiny new releases are full of froths from gamers uncritically lauding the newborn game, often based on nothing more than its aesthetic values as perceived from online promotional material or someone's 'unboxing', and salivating at the prospect of opening their wallets to add it to their collections.

Invariably, after enough people have actually bought and played the game the critical comments start to appear and the shine soon wears off, and the rules become just another denizen among many on the gamer's bookshelf.

I'm wondering how many budding rules authors take into account the small size and inevitable shrinkage of the market they're trying to sell to, and the limited time and energy the diminishing number of historical wargamers has to commit to learning rules and gaming with them. I really think we long ago reached saturation point. I know the group I play with can no longer keep up with new rule sets hitting the market. Many just have to be allowed to slip by, and even then there seems to be a new game to learn every second week – which of course means that only the shallowest familiarity with and understanding of any particular set of rules is possible.

Choice is nice, but I believe that rather than just randomly publishing their work as soon as they can get it to market, it's time rules writers and publishers started pacing their releases to the slowing pulse of an aging hobby so that gamers have a chance to focus on a rule set for long enough to master it, and maybe even asking themselves whether all the work involved in writing and publishing is worthwhile in the first place in such a limited and intensely competitive market.

What if the hobby isnt diminishing and aging?

What if its growing and thriving on choice and diversity?

Ive never seen the hobby to be so widespread and that drives choice, variety and creativity.

I dont see a dying hobby. I see a growing one.

So no… more the better please, in both rules and figures.

We have a solution to the problem. It's called "capitalism." If there are fewer historical players with less need for new rules sets, they buy fewer rules sets. As the sales of new rules diminish, writers decide to do something which pays better. This simple principle explains why you no longer find dozens of makes of typewriters in office supply stores.

So far, on the face of it, publishing new rules continues to be a rewarding business. I suspect some of it is rules junkies, but you can hardly blame publishers for that, and as you note,the junkies themselves are happy.

Anyway, when fewer people buy the rules, fewer rules will be published. In the meantime, what harm does it do you? No one can make you play a new set, which is better than can be said for Windows upgrades.

Choice is nice, but I believe that rather than just randomly publishing their work as soon as they can get it to market, it's time rules writers and publishers started pacing their releases to the slowing pulse of an aging hobby so that gamers have a chance to focus on a rule set for long enough to master it, and maybe even asking themselves whether all the work involved in writing and publishing is worthwhile in the first place in such a limited and intensely competitive market.

Whenever I see this, I'm always compelled to ask "Who is enforcing this?"
Is there a Panel of Experts?
Elderly panel of wargaming sages?
Everybody thinks they are writing and publishing the Best Set of Ancients Rules Ever. Why should they wait their turn?

Piers-

Hear! Hear!

"… and maybe even asking themselves whether all the work involved in writing and publishing is worthwhile in the first place in such a limited and intensely competitive market"

I suspect that the vast majority of rules writers write for the satisfaction and joy of it – for me it is an important part of my hobby. Very few will make any significant money out of writing, and the thought of delaying launching a new set of rules seems to me to be odd – how does on judge the right moment (even if one accepts the idea of a "slowing pulse"), and how can an author know if other writers are about to launch their latest creation and thus pre-empt their own launch.

In the 1980s there was one dominant set of ancient rules – I'm far happier in a world where diversity rules.

As was pointed out above, there was a time in the 70's and 80's where there was only one "acceptable" rules set in ancients.

Nobody looks at that time as the Golden Age of ancients miniatures gaming. That title goes to, well, today, in all its disorganized glory.

"… and maybe even asking themselves whether all the work involved in writing and publishing is worthwhile in the first place in such a limited and intensely competitive market"

Many of the writers I have known over the years have written their rules because they wanted a set that did things the way THEY wanted them to. It was always a labor of love and in the end they had a fine game to play with their friends. The fact that others wanted to play it as well and the author could make some money were both pleasant bonuses.

+1 Piers

I miss the "Golden Age" of the '70s and '80s. Fewer rules, fewer figures, brick and mortar shops, more energy and enthusiasm!

Shagnasty, I wouldn't mind being 40 years younger myself, which would take care of the energy and enthusiasm, but I don't think fewer and clunkier castings and badly laid-out rules will do that.

But Henry, I have taken your concerns to heart. I pulled in a few favors, and you now have a Rules Exemption: no matter how many new rules are printed, you don't have to buy or play with ANY of them. Tell the dealers I said so.

In fact, while I was at it, I had a word with the Casting Board, and no matter what new figures come on the market, you're allowed to play with the ones you already have--even 30mm if you want. I do myself, sometimes. (Don't tell anyone, but sometimes I play with 5mm Heroics & Ros instead of 6mm.)

Freedom! Isn't it glorious!!

There's a plethora of new rules in all era and genres, no doubt about it. I think much of it is due to the simple fact that publishing rules is much easier than it was many years ago (be they digital versions, print-on-demand, selling printed rulebooks online, via Kickstarter, etc). So there are simply more opportunities for folks to share their work to a wider audience.

And yes, it can all be overwhelming to choose "the right rules" for your game group. But as many others have said, I would much rather have too many choices than be starved with too few. Nobody is forcing you to try and play them all. Trying too hard to keep up with the Joneses is a quick path to lunacy.

ADLG is ten years old, I believe.

Most of the rules published follow a trend. The trend these days is lots of simple game mechanics across multiple steps making a fairly complex game. Games don't usually get looked at unless there is also plenty of eye-candy. Finally, there are those who stick to a single author or maybe two. I'm certainly guilty of liking Neil Thomas' work.

+1 Piers

Taking writers of rules out of the topic, how have groups handled the choices now available to us gamers. If you played a day every week, that gives you a limited number of games and those then get divided up between the different periods and rules. Do people settle on a specific set for a type of game by consensus or do they go with what someone has in their library of rules? I've got a bunch of modern rules but will probably settle on 2, one for faster, quick learn games, and then one for more gritty/detailed games. Has anyone had this topic come up in their group?

Henry does have a point, however, and I've seen these same things. Our group can hardly agree on any set of rules for any period anymore, plus everyone keeps buying more and more rules, but then finds out that no one else is interested in either painting armies for them or learning them. The glass half full side of me says that this is a good thing as there are lots of choices, incredible ranges of figures, terrain, etc. The glass half empty side of me says that if no one is playing or buying all of these we've probably reached the saturation point.

As to Shagnasty's point I'm not sure I want to go back to the old figures in the same poses, lack of choice, etc. However, I do miss the all day games and enthusiasm from that era!

OP is dead on target, naysayers notwithstanding. While I don't advocate the "good old days" I do perceive a surfeit of rules resulting in a form of indigestion for the hobby as a whole and the real victims are not any of us who've enjoyed the hobby for a long time but those who are on the periphery looking in.

If the current situation of a bazillion sets of rules for each of the predominant periods existed I – and a huge number of others – would have walked away to something more cohesive and turned to books for our history. And this tiny hobby would be a fraction of its size and there wouldn't be the trade to support its current size.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, choice, choice, choice, freedom, freedom, freedom. Tell me that when the best option for you collection of painted figures and terrain – and those 'precious' rules – is a trash bin because no one cares. Or are we there already? Might be, might be. Ponder that before you defend yet another set of rules for, say, the ACW where there are already at least 75 different sets and probably a LOT more than that. Sorry, folks, but that is patently crazy. By and and all measures. Like it, don't like it. Any rational perspective lands there. Of course, in this hobby, rational views are indefensible to too many of you.

I love my little bit of this hobby and I'd love to find the 'perfect' set of rules but it isn't going to happen because perfect to whom? I'd rather settle for a successful set of rules that is common enough that I know I can find people who are enthusiastic about playing it. And that only happens with a few sets of rules as options – no way does that happen with 75 plus and counting. Zip, zero, zilch on the odds.

And the tired argument that it can only happen with 75 + rules until we find the right one just doesn't wash. Yes, more than one may need to be sampled before getting there – but not 75 and probably not 25 or even 15. Too many. Five, maybe ten but even that is probably too many.

Just for myself, I see more rules options as a good thing, but I have a checklist I go through.

Do people whose opinion you respect like the rules? Have you seen game reports on blogs and liked what you saw? Have you heard negative comments and decided that those negatives probably wouldn't compromise your enjoyment of the set? Does the price and cost of shipping seem fair to you?

If the answer to these is yes then move to stage two.

Is it only the author, using a pseudonym, that is posting glowing reviews and information about the rules on wargaming sites?

Do the rules *require* you to purchase specialist templates, dice or cards while not providing options for making these yourself?

If the answer to one or both of these questions is yes, then stay away until you hear enough to satisfy you that they are legit.

That's my rules-purchase flowchart, anyway.

Mind you, there is a time when having a large selection to choose from is not so good, and that's when you're first trying to get into a period and have no clue what kind of rules you might like!

Cheers,
Aaron

Last time I was at the supermarket I counted 34(!) different toothpastes for sale. I only need one. Which one to pick? I end up with the one I have been buying for the past 25 years.

But back to games.
At Essen 2016, 1200 *new* games were launched or presented. 1200!

But back to miniature wargames:
I don't see this as a problem. You just have to get rid of your obsession of buying new rulesets all the time. For some periods, my group has been using the same sets for over 5, 10, 15 or in some cases even 20 years. Why changing if things are good? Of course, now and then someone buys a new ruleset, we try it out, then decide whether this set is going to replace the old one, or we stick to the old one.

A few things can help:
- rulesets which require specific basing of figures, or even very specific army lists, are a no-go area. If we can't use it with our current range of figures, forget it.
- golden rule: host/umpire/… provides the armies, scenario, and the rules. No more "Let's meet for 2000pts". This is possible because many of us have been in wargaming for many years. Each wargamer in my group focuses on a few periods (also providing multiple armies for that period), not a single army within a period that then has to be matched with other armies owned by other players. It takes a shared wargaming philosophy to reach that modus operandi, but for us, it works.
- A stronger formulation of the above: "The guy who does the work, picks the rules". Often the loudest shouters for new rules are the ones that never setup a game.
- get rid of the assumption that there is some "holy grail" of rules, that will settle all debates once and for all. There is no such thing. Rules are like books, or movies, or music. There are many interpretations possible of the same theme or story. Wargames rules are not scientific truths, they are subjective interpretations of history transformed into a game, and each ruleset is a unique recipe. Pick the ones you like and stick to it – unless you do like exploring the multiverse of rulesets.
- write your own rules. This is what I've been doing for many years. I do buy many new rulesets, but more as inspiration rather than to play.
- there is no "right" or "wrong" choice in picking a ruleset. If your group likes it and has fun with it, even if it's an antiquated ugly gnome limping on one leg, what's the problem?

But yes, you have to follow a different approach compared to the 70s when every wargamer would buy every new ruleset at the FLGS. A new ruleset was a major event, that caused huge disturbances in the wargaming force. Now, rulesets are published almost on a daily basis. So, if you still follow the 70s approach, you are lost in the jungle. You have to be more selective, and not assume that any new ruleset is a major new invention, or even worthy of exploration, or even deserves attention.

Choice is all well and good but critical mass amongst wargamers is more important. Consider these situations:

[1] Market/Numbers static
More product means less time dedicated to each product and an increasingly difficult search for people using the same rules.

[2] Market/Numbers declining
As above with knobs on plus authors are less likely to make any money.

[3] Market/Numbers growing
More products are viable but more authors are encouraged to enter the market. Each product still struggles to gain a long term foothold.

Of course I'm assuming that people buy rules to play games and not just to read & look at the pretty pictures.

I wonder if there has been a major change in the business model(s) behind set of rules? I perceive a change from enthusiasts, turned authors, looking to spread the word to a simple publishing model based on making a profit from each print run.

--
Martin Stephenson
The Waving Flag | Twitter | eBay

I have reached a point where I have stopped playing most new rules in that I am happy with the rules I have and would like to play the same set of rules more than once a year!

I have started playing To the Strongest recently but that has been the first set of new rules for a while…

Mike

What is the objective of the hobby?

That will vary from person to person.

If (like me) it's enjoyment, buy as many – or as few – rule sets as you want.

Or write your own!

John Treadaway

Early Morning Gamer, I have actually reached the point you describe with some armies so out of fashion they have no market value. Fortunately, I did not regard money spent on wargaming as savings for my old age.

And Winston Smith is quite right. If there are too many rules or periods, who decides? Should there be a Rules Board, and who gets a seat on it? I've seen ruling committees, and I am much, MUCH happier with people publishing rules I simply ignore.

It seems to me that this site attest to a hobby that is thriving.

And yet I still haven't found an ancients set I really like.

What are you looking for in a game, Nochules, and what have you tried?

(On second thoughts, probably better to start a new thread to avoid derailing this one…)

Cheers,
Aaron

We may be beating this to death. But Early--don't "bin" your stuff. If you can't get serious money for it, set up a flea market table and get walking-around money. My rule is that if I haven't sold something at a cheap price in two or three flea markets, it goes to a "free to good home" table. Some wargamer will always take it at that price, and I hope make good use of it.

Or donate it to a charity auction. I don't know what there is in California, but Moe the Great of HMGS East does an outstanding job of turning surplus wargame stuff into Toys for Tots donations. Surely there's something in the Great Recycling State?

Oh. And the complaint that with more rules in common use, it can be harder to find a stranger who plays the same one is perfectly valid: I just don't know how you'd "fix" that problem without a Rules Board to limit/censor rules writers. I would note, though,that the problem gets worse as the rules get longer. You can swot up a two-page set while the host is setting up the game, but a 64-page commercial monster is another matter. Perhaps there is a lesson in this?

The point about 1200 games being released at Essen this year is relevant because a set of miniatures rules isn't any more complex than a board game. And if it is, then it may not be all that fun to play.

Every week, people crack open a new board game, play it a few times, then move on if they don't like it. These games almost always cost more than a set of miniatures rules. I've got a closet full of games that I played 4-5 times, and never got back to.

Completely with Piers on this one! I mean, damn! First it's "The Graying Of The Hobby"!!! Then it's "What About The Children?"! Next it's "The Golden Age Of Wargaming"! Now, don't tell me, "There's Too Much S#!t Out There To Buy"! I MEAN, REALLY???!!! Jesus…

OP is spot on. Balkanization, splintering and descent into madness is my prediction for the future of the hobby if it keeps on like this. Pretty soon TMP will have a board for every single rule set. Most of those boards will be dead and unvisited for years and only 4 percent will be active but only frequented by about 6 people regularly posting and commenting on it. They will hate each other passionately as they rehash the same arguments and accusations of apostasy.

I do understand the point the original poster is making. How many times can you reinvent the wheel? I can recall many years ago how, for example, at Historicon there was always a new hot rules system that everyone seemed interested in. However, in a few years that was replaced by another new hot rules system and the former was rarely played anymore and could be found on the discount rack.
I used to be a rules junkie, but that was when I could pick them up for 10 bucks a set. Not many have hundreds to just try out every new rules that come out.

Yes, too many choices are bad…

Honestly, back in the time of 'Just One Set of Ancient Rules' there were more than one set of ancient rules. And the group I was (and still am) in ended up making our own. Having 'too many choices' would have just given us more options and maybe, just maybe, the elusive set of 'perfect for us' rules.

As has been pointed out by many above; variety and choices are a sign of growth not a sign of chaos or The Dark Times.

"- rulesets which require specific basing of figures, or even very specific army lists, are a no-go area. If we can't use it with our current range of figures, forget it."

I absolutely agree. The problem is not some new rule system, the problems are players, who want to play a rule set and not a battle. you have to collect an army, not some game counters for a special rule system.

BTW that is one of the joy of napoleonic wargaming. It is so fractioned, that nobody would even think about a ruleset, that can unite them all. So i have my armies, build over ten years and play, what ever comes to mind.

Mr. Smith:
There is a council. But we are in full favor of more, better, frequent releases of new war games.
Thank You.
Tacitus
High Jabberwock, 7th degree.
Supreme Panel of Expert Wargaming Sages (SPEWS)

I understand where Henry is coming from.

I consider myself pretty well informed in the periods I play, keep up with new figures, new rules, study the history, uniforms, tactics etc..

Two of my friends are more "casual" miniatures gamers moving from fantasy or sci fi gaming to historical miniatures games and have mentioned several times that they are put off of trying out a new period due to the over abundance of rules, complexity of the different "factions" etc…

I guess I'm more cautious and less likely to make an impulse purchase of rules now than when I was younger. Still, I appreciate all the choices we have, even though I buy very few rules sets these days.

There might be a zillion rule sets out there, but the iron law of marketing still seems to govern: the rule sets with the biggest effective marketing efforts always seem to end up dominating their respective wargaming category. I'd say it probably started with WRG's dominance of Ancients, but the WarHammer/FoW phenomenon is what really caught my attention. It reminds me of the Microsoft phenomenon – passable but essentially mediocre software that, through a huge marketing program, came to dominate the IT industry.

We might have 10 zillion sets of rules out there now, but I'll bet half the gamer community is playing a mere handful of rule sets while a lot of potentially interesting rules never really get to see the light of day.

Strictly my opinion, of course.

B

Like choices, but do wish that more authors would show up at conventions and support their own rules. Only speaking for HMGS conventions, but I see very few authors running games to generate interest in their rules. Even fewer do it multiple conventions in a row.

Thirty-seven responses! I have to admit that I was quite taken aback by the debate my humble pontifications have stirred up. There are many very interesting and well-reasoned comments here.

Big Dan's experience bears-out my concerns about one of the probable side-effects of excessive rules proliferation. It's bad enough that it's having a detrimental effect on many practising historical wargamers' enthusiasm for the hobby; worse still is its propensity to deter new entrants.

IMHO Phil Dutre's system offers the best hope for a way to survive the rules deluge, and in fact to a certain extent it already happens in our group; but formalising it as the SOP is probably the answer to avoiding all the gaming dead-ends and hardly-played rules that currently beset us. It means that the responsibility for the selection of rules for any particular period is more likely to fall upon one individual, allowing a group to avoid acrimony, arguments, and resentment over rejected favourites, and time wasted learning rules that won't stay the course. That person is then free to buy as many or as few sets as he likes for his chosen period(s), as long as in the end he selects one to regulate games with.

And the moral of the story? Once upon a time a local group had a very popular (locally) set of rules and most of the group was building armies to play the period vis-a-vis the rules. Then along came a 'well-marketed' set of rules introduced by a key individual. And, flop-o-rama, the rules sucked (locally) and the period died and the armies got sold or traded off and the period rarely sees the light of day (locally).

Were the original rules perfect? No. But really, really playable and sucked people in. The change for the 'better set of rules' turned out to be the death of interest. This is what is happening, mostly, with the new rules onslaught. You may not see it yet but it is happening.

Yet, sometimes, a new set of rules might ignite interest in a particular period. And there is the hazard. We all seek that 'holy grail' and every once and a while something genuinely shining keeps us on the hunt – but we forget to look over our shoulders at the pack of wolves at our heels.

And here's a question sure to give Winston gale force wind, what happens to The Sword and the Flame's popularity now that the author is dead and other sets are all abuzz for the colonials era (Victorian era colonials but others, too, over the years). Will TSATF die an 'unnatural' death now? Only time will tell.

All the kids in the stores happily playing X Wing would seem to be unaware that it's a grey, dying hobby ;)

A long time ago on this site, someone raised the question "why does everyone make imperial romans and ww2 germans" and a guy from one of the mid-tier mini's manufacturers said simply "because you keep buying them".

Apologies Early Morning Writer, but someone who is interested in a period because of a set of rules is perhaps the lowest possible level of interest. If you are truly interested in a period then you are interested in the period and rules be damned!

Phil Dutre said it all.

I'm happy with the immense choice we gamers have. Lots of rules sets, lots of minis.

Other hobbies have immense variety, too, and they don't suffer because thousands of types of fishing rods are available, or hundreds of kinds of golf clubs are for sale.

I cannot fathom how it's a bad thing that if you want to play a WWII game, you can choose from super complex milimeter counting simulators and beer and pretzel dice-chuckathons, clever activation systems and simple I Go You Go line-up-and-fight games, and division-level mass battles or small unit skirmishes, and have a wide variety of options for each. Or…if you want easier entry, or a faster set up for newcomers, we have boxed up games, with army lists and point costs, so that players can just jump in and play. And even within that field, WWII, for example, has options: Flames of War, Bolt Action, Battlegroup.

Wargaming is not necessarily a pick-up-one-box and play hobby, for many of us at least---it's a deep rabbit hole of variety, and I think that's a good thing.

This brought home to me how many ancients sets of rules have been released onto this limited market in the last couple of years.

Editor Julia, by the way, has now broken the 1,500 mark! That's how many rulesets are listed in the Rules Directory so far, with many more to come. Yes, a lot of choices!

TMP link

There should only be one rules set for each period, and shoes should come in only one size.

Richard Clarke has a column in the latest Wargames Soldiers and Strategy that touches on this subject. Perhaps we are returning to a time where various different clubs play different rules that suit them but for different reasons than in the past. A return to the 'Golden Age' as it were…

X Wing isn't an historical rule set, Weasel (see title of board).

The markets for sporting goods and footwear are slightly larger than that for historical wargaming rule sets.

Eh, substitute Bolt Action and Flames of War, which seem to do just fine as well.

I liked the days of 'One [WRG] Rules to rule them all' – it meant i could travel anywhere in the world, get a game and now what I could expect.

I also like diversity. Let a 1000 flowers bloom. But at the end of the day, I will play with a group of friends, we have preferences, we normally play set X, but every so often for variety, someone will suggest Y, or Z. We all have fun. None of us needs to change radically. We all ignored Black Powder, Warhammer Caesar's Battles, FoW etc, because no-one in the group wanted to play them. On the other hand we will happily play 'Songs of..' any variant on the BKC series, DBSA, and so on.