"Writing Your Own Rules" Topic

Writing your own wargaming rules is part of being in this hobby. True or false?

True, but like many other parts of being in this hobby you don't have to do it.

As a frequently encountered thing? Yes.
As a condition? No.

Since the early years this has been true. Most gamers like to tinker with commercial games they own and therefore write there own rules without considering that they are writing their own rules. Others, of course, simply like to write their own rules from scratch. Not required, as john mentions above, but it is there.

One of the many branches of the hobby.

Yes.

Only if you have the ability to do it well enough for yourself and or others!

Of course…almost a well, duh. I can't think of a rule set where one of my first thoughts was, "oh, no, we're not playing it that way." The new Rogue Stars from Osprey is outstanding, but there's a prohibition against having all robot squads--oh no, not gonna follow that one because my grand daughters want robotzes, and they'll get them.

I mostly steal. I have stood on the shoulders of giants.

One of many aspects of gaming

For me, yes. Not required, but I personally enjoy it.

Probably goes back to junior high school, when I could not afford rules or games and started making my own hex and counter wargames.

I do.

Keep in mind that "writing your own rules" is a continuum: at one end is making a few minor modifications to a current set of publish rules, on the other end is getting a high profile publisher to release an extensive set of rules that you have written.

Almost everybody in the life has done the former but only a few of the latter. I like to differentiate between Wargame players and wargamers. The players just show up and play the game. Wargamers are people "in the life" who do all components of the hobby, they live the life.

Not for me! But I seriously respect those who put the time and effort, and then put up with the criticism.

Dear Bob

Ah… "In the Life.." Another gamer who understands. You are correct in all points.

What Weasel said. I must say that I am in the camp of the "frequently encountered".

Certainly not a requirement but I think many of us like to tinker with rules, even if we don't create them from whole cloth.

Definitely one of my favorite parts of the hobby. But I also know gamers who never write their own rules or even tinker with games they own. So it is by no means a requirement.

I have tried writing my own rules for in-house games and I have tried modifying rules already written. With all the rules available, I have not tried very hard.

True.

True.

It's part of the hobby. I used to do it, but discovered it's not my strong suit. Now I rely on those with more skill in the area.

If not writing a set of rules, then at least making up home rules to modify a set of rules you play.

I don't think it has to be – I suspect most people start with commercial rules or used 'Charge', Grant or Featherstone to get into the hobby. I personally writ e my own rules but I don't think you have to do that to be part of the hobby…

Only if you have the ability to do it well enough for yourself and or others!

But how will you know unless you try?

We did it because the rules we bought were for us badly designed relative to our requirements. Would we do it again, no! By the time we published it we reckon it took 2000 hrs. The main parameters were set in a few hundred hours, the rest was testing/validation and getting the written word correct. Not all fun.
Tinkering and house rules for a scenario me (we stir do that sometimes) is not rule writing, but can be fun and not too demanding. This is to me a genuine part of the game and is really just part of scenario creation not rule writing.

I wrote a set once and sent it off for publication – it deservedly died a horrible death.

Certainly a part of the hobby but not a universal part, the vast majority of players do not appear to write their own rules.

True

Wargamers are people "in the life" who do all components of the hobby, they live the life.

Wow…

So much wrong with this statement, that I ….

No…just no…

I'll say it simply.

"You are wrong".

link

+1 Murphy.
Not all of us do EVERYTHING "in the life".
I know quite a few who do not paint figures.
I know quite a few who do not run games.
I know quite a few who do not write rules.
Some do all. Some do a little of each. Some only play. Some do not play but do other things.

Do you have to pass a checklist and score at least 90% to be considered a wargamer?

I have designed my own rules. They sucked. I think I can steal someone else's rules and "improve" or modify them.

+1 Winston.
Bad eyes and working overseas means I can no longer paint figures or make terrain. Family (when home) and work take up all my time. Rules writing? As part of Paragon Wargames yeah, I was part of a rules writing gaming group but that was, jeez, 40 years ago.

These days I find a decent set I like and play them straight.

Except FoW. That got gutted like a fish. House rules abound.

I have friends who have no intention of painting a figure in their life times but they will foot the bill for pizza if I put on the game.

S'all good.

Technically taking a blowtorch to a bad rolling die is part of the hobby.

Or throwing them out the window.

Or so I've heard.

True. It's part of being in the hobby, but not a necessary part.

What is a necessary part of being in the hobby? Doing one or more of the following: playing games, running games, painting miniatures, making terrain, helping set up a game, writing rules, etc.

It's pretty inclusive. Except of course for those darned fantasy and scientific fiction types: we all know they're not REAL gamers.

(No I don't believe this – I've killed and been killed by many an Orc, and had more than one starship destroyed by Romulans and Gorns – but I just couldn't resist throwing out bait to see what's biting.)

Now those "SCIENCE fiction" types are fine. Those "SCIENTIFIC fiction" types, on the other hand, they're the scum of the earth!

Phil:

Tiny Men's comments on the linked Blog you provided are well taken.

I like writing my own rules …

… because I think that wargaming as a hobby is about designing your own game, not playing someone else's game.

Just as we hunt for the perfect figures to use, paint them ourselves and engage in building scenery, I feel that constructing your own rules is part of the wargaming experience. A wargamer should design and build the entire game himself. But of course, one should not be too dogmatic about this philosophy. After all, I don't sculpt and cast my own figures, nor do I carve my own dice out of wood.

It is true. You are buying someone else's idea of a good game. It may match yours, or it may not.

… because published rules also contain quite a lot of arbitrary design choices.

This is only because most of the design choices a designer makes are simply unknown, so can only appear arbitrary and contradictory.

… because wargaming is about telling stories, not simulating war.

Although I know that some wargamers see a wargame as something that should recreate the commander's experience, I see a wargame more as a tool to tell stories inspired by military history…In that sense, the rules should support storytelling, and should not support the idea of running a simulation. This provides much more freedom in writing rules and injecting elements that are not aimed for historical recreation, but are aimed at providing drama at the gaming table. As such, one should not be too worried about the historical validity of wargaming rules. As long as the rules provides an exciting game, it's ok.

Can't go with this one. Simulation games are just as much narratives/stories as any other kind of game design. It's all about how it's done. What "elements" that are not historical do you stick into a historical wargame for the excitement? What, military history isn't exciting? Or is it just the way a particular simulation fails to provide it? [Just as any number of historical books and ahistorical wargames do.]

… because developing rules is fun.

I certainly agree with this. Why else would you do it?

I'm always writing rules for my games. But finishing writing a game, however… ;-)

I've certainly read history books that failed to entertain :-)

Can't go with this one. Simulation games are just as much narratives/stories as any other kind of game design. It's all about how it's done. What "elements" that are not historical do you stick into a historical wargame for the excitement? What, military history isn't exciting? Or is it just the way a particular simulation fails to provide it?

I am not saying simulationist games have no value – but for me, that's not (anymore) the core a good wargame. Much of the dicussions about rules are about how reality can be represented as accurately as possible, whether it be the hardware (does calibre such and so penetrate armor such and so?) or software (how exactly do orders work in a Napoleonic setting).
But I feel there's an important aspect that's very often ignored – whether a wargame tells a good story. I like to insert storytelling elements in my games, and that indeed means you do not emphasize the hardware or software.

Because I like storytelling elements in my games, and because many current wargames do not have those (or not to the extent I like), I prefer writing my own rules.

As an example, I take liberty with the traditional position identification of the player being a single commander (or a staff) in command of an army. If you write rules that put the player in the position of storyteller of the battle, it opens up new mechanics and perspectives.

This is orthogonal to the historical value of the events portrayed in the game.

true but full of pain