"How much effort will you go through to try a new ruleset?" Topic

This discussion doesn't need to be specific to my scenario, it applies to trying out any ruleset. But I can provide my personal example:

I am getting ready to publish my rules for free. The only hitch is that the system relies on having a few dice with custom labels on them. My question is, how many wargamers could be bothered to print labels to put on a few dice?

Another option is to use a print on demand website to mail them out to you. But how likely are you to pay $5 USD for stickers to try a ruleset from a new designer?

I'll use minimum effort to try out a new rules set, since there are too many in the world and most offer at most 1 or 2 new ideas. Applying labels is a pretty minimal effort. Much less than, say, rebasing, or getting a hex grid in a size I don't already have, or making special markers or terrain items.

- Ix

If I was trying something out, I wouldn't bother with labels, just do a conversion table for a D6. 1 = flag, 2 = grenade, 3 = star or whatever. (Which is exactly what I did when I needed more Memoir 44 and Command and Colours dice).

For me it depends if I think the rules can scratch an itch.

If I want to try something that appears simpler/faster or interesting and lets me use my toys, I will give it a go. I love Mortem et Glorium which uses cards and custom dice because I was open to trying it. A decade ago it would have put me off, but the MeG system works so well it seems silly now to let that be a factor. Saga did extremely well with custom dice.

Plus, it's not hard to use normal dice and say 6=x, 5=y. Then, if the rules stick, the effort and small cost of changing the dice will be justified.

PS. I stuck my rules on Wargames Vault on pay what you want a few days ago and it has about 100 downloads already. A few kind people have given me some beer money.

Same as Martin Rapier.

Hmm, it sounds like the way to go is to provide a simple conversion table for what the die faces are, and then suggest printing the labels if they plan on playing again.

Yes, ditto Martin. Unless you are rolling handfuls of dice, a conversion is easy.

Same as Martin Rapier

Aren't C&C dice pretty much everything gets hit on a 6 except infantry who get a +1?

@Gauntlet -- if I liked your rules, I probably would not buy special dice or stickers.

@Bandolier-- what's the name of your rules?

Have no problem putting stickers on some older dice to try a ruleset out

NONE!! 00000 !! ZILCH !!!
Have used the same rules for many year's.
Very happy with them.
We all know and understand the mechanics and nuances.
We have made small edits to them through the years to our pleasure.
What would be the purpose for the change?

Russ Dunaway

Not much effort at all. There are so many rules sets available, and I already have quite a few, that I'm not going to put out much effort. The rules would have to provide a unique perspective on the battle or history, not gaming mechanism, to cause me to make an effort.

And forget about ever rebasing anything!!! (This doesn't apply in your case.)

Russ what are your favorite rules?

And… I dunno, what period are we discussing?

@Schogun – Blaze Away WWII

@Gauntlet – I am interested to check out your rules when you are ready to publish on WV.

Thanks Bandolier, it's also good to hear that you had so much interest in only a few days!

I'm not looking to make money, I just want to share what I've been working on. WV seems like a great way to do it.

The only hitch is that the system relies on having a few dice with custom labels on them. My question is, how many wargamers could be bothered to print labels to put on a few dice?

I don't think this is an issue, provide a guide on how to make the labels or even a utube video if you are worried.
The only real issue with rules is "how easy is it to learn the rules" from the rules book.

Kriegspiel uses speciality dice (x5). I find them incomprehensible – they do too much – I cannot fathom the probability distributions.

Rules – don't know where they came from or who did them – NB no Shrapnel Spherical Case: Dice on page 9-10 and in the appendix

British army kriegspiel – Pdf

Notes on re-tabulation of musketry results:

Ed MM's – Von Reisswitz Kriegspiel: Shooting some numbers

Complete dump of rules with comments:

Armchairdragoons – History of Wargaming – Lieutenant von Reisswitz's Kriegsspiel

I detest learning new rulesets, once I find one I like I stay with it forever

I am quite happy to put a lot of effort into a new rule set.
When DBA first came out I built two armies and scenery tiles.
I got about 900 games out of it so far.
But then I do a lot of gaming.

If players have a set of rules they are satisfied with then that is great.

I am always on the lookout for better ways to do things.
I like progress.

To phrase a popular wargamer trope.
"The model T Ford gets one from A to B . If it ain't broken why fix it? Stay with the model T. "

martin

Martin, glad to hear your positive perspective.

Sure there are very detailed well researched ruleset out there but they could definitely be improved.

If we can create rules that are smoother to play but still offer a similar level strategy and tactics..why not? This is where I think there is room for innovation.

I agree G.
There is always space for improvement.

martin

I have had the same wife for over 50 years, the same house for over 40 years, the same truck for over 20 years -- don't see much point in changen what is working just fine.
WRG ancient and musket and ball -- heavily amended.

Russ Dunaway

I mean, I'm not saying you need a new wife, that comparison is a bit of a stretch.

When I was a kid I played wargames with symbols drawn on pieces of cereal boxes. Now I have painted miniatures, always something to improve.

I must admit when i find a set of rules i like, with opponents who also like them, i tend to stay. I spent years playing the same ancients rules and then Cold War rules and finally WW2 rules. But these days i am mainly dealing with new players so i tend to use different rules, main focus being simple rules which can be taught easily. It all depends on the circumstance.

Got me to thinking. My tendency is to look for rules to fill specific gaps--largely stuff I don't have, or where the rules I last used can't be amended into shape. Right now, the gaps are SF skirmish, Medieval/fantasy skirmish--in both cases meaning small numbers of individually-mounted figures--and WWII with area movement and stands representing platoons. Anything else would be a very hard sell.

That's not because I think everything I currently use is perfect, but because of the high cost in time of mastering replacements and the uncertainty of improvement. The lost time is certain and the benefits less so. Naturally, part of this comes from disagreement over what constitutes an improvement. Let me know when we get that worked out.

New rules are just fine, just not for me and as I was attempting to humorously point out, I am not given to change easily.
I only do Napoleonics and ancients – dark ages.
It is the same group of guys for over 45 years so we have refined these to out liking and not just jumped on every " new thing" that came along.
Nonetheless- good luck in your efforts.
That is when I even get a chance to play. !!

Russ Dunaway

My tendency is to look for rules to fill specific gaps

This is valid. Most of my new rules interest has been to cover a new period or a new scale. I am current refighting Napoleonic battles using BBNB and a figure game version of SPI's NAW. In addition a new player wants to explore historical ancients battles, so I have been using Lost battles, Legion and a figure game versions of SPI's PRESTAGS for that. All my previous Napoleonic's used WRG and Empire 3rd and for ancients DBM, DBMM and a little bit of DBA.

Want to get really depressed? Take your best guess at probable lifespan and games per year to get the total remaining games you're going to fight. Then divide by the number of armies you have. On two very optimistic assumptions and by resolutely ignoring my 2mm forces, I wind up at 75 games per army. The honest answer is probably more like 20. How many of your games are you prepared to spend mastering a new rules set which may or may not be an improvement once you have?

So, as I say, gap-filling. "Oh, this looks cute!" should have ended for me 20 or 30 years ago.

One of the very reasons I speak of.
TIME!!
We play, we understand, we adapted to our thoughts, we have fun.
What else is there ?

Russ Dunaway

I play the same rules often because my regular partners like them. Poor Bloody Infantry, for example, we play twice as much as any other ruleset. We wrote our fantasy rules to reflect our needs, the others are off-the-shelf, and if we start modding too much, we look for a better fit.
Still, I convince them to try different once in a while, so to take WW2 as an example, we have tried a dozen or so rulesets over the years, still play several of them on occasion. Meanwhile, I own dozens of rulesets that we've never played.

I appreciate the variety of responses.

I think it is reasonable to stick with the rules you know since table time is limited, especially if you are in the evening years of life.

Of course there will be new generations of generals and a more engaging, smoother first few battles will definitely be more likely to keep them in the hobby.

"WRG ancient and musket and ball -- heavily amended."

You are not kidding when you say that you are not willing to easily change. That is just bloody stubborn!

WRG -- Great rules. Move so far, shoot so far, melee, reactions, etc.
Small amendments and of course fixing the British habit of no commas and one sentence paragraphs.
Why fix something that is not really broken?
To much effort trying to turn rules into some type of academic and intellectual excrcise.

Russ Dunaway