"Most Overrated Ruleset?" Topic

Which wargaming ruleset do you consider to be the most overrated?

The Sword and the Flame.

I don't resent it's cult-like status, I just note it.

DBA

Piquet

General Quarters

Piquet

Whatever is the most recent rule set that has everyone ranting. :)

WH40K

Empire
Black Powder
Fire & Fury
Piquet
DBA
Bolt Action

DBA
Bolt Action
WH40K

I guess the rules which I have little interest in playing….

DBA

Flames of War

ALDG

The Sword and the Flame. I really don't see the appeal.

All Two Fat Lardies rules

A good list from those posted above I agree with all of them.

Warhammer Fantasy and Wh40K.
Bolt Action.
Hail Caesar.

Grattan54 +1

All Two Fat Lardies rules

Johannes55, do you include 'What a Tanker' in that? – I love it!

I, too, however, find the other 2FL sets a bit difficult to enjoy!

None. I think this was a question for old grumpy men.

WRG

British Grenadier.
DBA
DBM
DBMM
DBR

Any rules that require you to spend randomly rolled "command points" to see what you are allowed to do. The "realism" of this tedious task simply evades me. 🤷
I previously mentioned Piquet. Any rules that require you to draw specific cards to perform a task is not a wargame. It's a card game.

huron725 +1

The "realism" of this tedious task simply evades me.

Since the reality of firefighting or the reality of knowing who has filed lawsuits against whom evades you, not surprising.

The idea comes from the modeling of complex systems. There are natural ebbs and flows in activity at the micro level. Such a system seeks to capture those ebbs and flows. The most common expression of these ideas is called Wood's Theorum.

PDF link

snafucatchers.github.io
link
link
jstor.org/stable/27274555

The MOR Journal has tons of info on this.

Anything DBA+….

I only like games that are out of print, games that people used to play in the 70's, have bland b/w pictures, even better, no pictures at all, use 20mm miniatures, and are so obscure, people never heard of it.

huron725 +2

Any game that people like to play is a good game, even if I'm not one of them!

Since the reality of firefighting or the reality of knowing who has filed lawsuits against whom evades you, not surprising.

Bless your heart.

Chain of Command – great ideas, just becomes a bit of a slog in practice.
Saga – zzzzzzz……

good response, ofm

miniMo is right. All these rulesets, including several I wouldn't play unless paid (cash in advance, please) bring pleasure to some among my fellow miniatures gamers, which is good in itself and results in bigger conventions and larger markets for figures and terrain.

Try me again when there's some sort of official rating system, like figure skating. Otherwise, we're just saying "other people like these rules which I don't." Discussing WHY we like or dislike a system moves us forward a little, so credit to OFM, though I'm not entirely in agreement.

What I actually look for is
Rules short enough to be read and understood.
Outcomes within what I believe to be a realistic range.
Players get to make decisions.
Moves at a reasonable pace.
No book-keeping.
Minimal markers on the table.
As few opportunities for dispute as possible. ("They're in the woods/on the hill!" "No, they're just off! Anyway, his hand is under the red part of the drift stick!")

Rules I dislike are the opposite of this. But I think there may be more bad scenarios & game masters than actual bad rules.

But I think there may be more bad scenarios & game masters than actual bad rules.

This is a key distinction.

"But I think there may be more bad scenarios & game masters than actual bad rules."

Obviously this has to be true because any set has at least 2 scenarios and players. In reality there are many more bad rules than good in my experience but there are degrees of both bad& good.

Good are : well written, clear and unambiguous, using consistent terminology in a logically organised manner. Mechanics are well explained and relatively straightforward with a comprehensive QRS.

I can tolerate lack of perfect adherence to the above but only to a limited extent before just rejecting them.

Bad are : Poor/incorrect/inappropriate use of language & layout, ambiguous or lacking clarity or consistent terminology. Incomplete QRS.

I don't mind simple (even simplistic) and I can cope with complex but only if the methodology is appropriate. A mix of simplistic bits with complex doesn't sit well with me(usual excuse is – 'We abstracted that' – reasons are usually very weak). If the rules are historical I do demand an element of realism; outcomes & decisions must be appropriate to the era at the very least, relative strengths & weaknesses should also match historical reality (where we know them).

Good v Bad is ALWAYS subjective, there are no rules to decide unless you set them, as I have done. Arguing over it may be fun for a short time but is still pretty pointless. I can see why people don't like DBX rules (I quite like them) but the popularity of card driven rules mystifies me too.

Thank you, eto.

A good friend of mine--dead now, of course: almost everyone is--was a better painter, collector and host than I will ever be. But I'm not sure he ever wrote a scenario which didn't have a turn limit so short that the attacker could not possibly win. I remember one in which I could not have marched my forces to the objective in the number of turns allowed even if there had been no opponent. Nothing you can do with rules makes up for scenario design of that sort.

There is, of course what I call dysergy. It's the opposite of synergy, and you get it when the scenario design aggravates a weakness in the rules. Most card-draw activations play to this. They're great for solo, good for two players, and steadily worse the more players you have waiting for their card to be drawn. I once saw a dozen TSATF players sitting around a table unable to move while the GM complained that the game was running late. Nothing wrong with TSATF, but it's not the right game for 12 players and one deck.

Collectively, we ought to know better.

Black Powder and its derivatives.

Yeah, that is why I push for some standards in terminology. Not to assert authority over the wargaming endeavour, but to have (1) a common set of Terms of Reference, which leads to (2) treating like with like, then (3) using the apropriate tools on different parts of the activity.

Fixing your cited scenario problem with rules can be done, by changing how units move. But that probably breaks other, more important things like the relationship between moving and firing. So as you point out, it should be fixed with scenario design.

Meta-governance (restricitons on things outside the behaviour of entities in the game), rules (that govern dynamics inside the simulation), stats (characteristics of units, etc.), and scenarios (specific conditions for an event) are the starting point I use to separate the concepts.

Even if rules, stats, and scenarios are in the same book, they are not all "rules".

The scenario (and its parts) are the things closest to the players, and IMHO the bit that needs the most attention.

I am more familiar with the term "negative emergent behaviour" than dysergy/disergy. My favourite one in that vein is "Perverse Synergy", but that is mostly specific to collaboration efforts amoung people. My favourite Demotivation poster (are those still a thing?) is "Meetings: None of us is ad dumb as all of us!"

I once saw a dozen TSATF players sitting around a table unable to move while the GM complained that the game was running late. Nothing wrong with TSATF, but it's not the right game for 12 players and one deck.

And how many units did each player have? 🙄

I've tried that back in the day with 8 players, and each having 4-5 units. Madness, but we had hours to play. The GM has to be proactive with card draw, etc. He also has to forbid the self appointed C-in-C from ordering the players around, and penalize slow players.

Ah, demotivators! Someone stuck one right above the fob-in point to the office with a photo of pyramids and the statement "Leadership: you can accomplish great things with vision, determination and an unlimited supply of expendable manpower!" Quite true, but the poster didn't last long.

I view the whole thing as command responsibility, if you will. The host chose the rules. In some cases, he wrote the rules. And he certainly wrote the scenario. But in any event, it is the host's job to ensure that the rules and scenario together result in a game either side can win and playable in the available time. He can modify one or the other, or replace either or both. But by the time his players have arrived, the host should be satisfied that he's got a viable game. If the rules are no good--and some aren't--it's still the host's fault for choosing them. But I think rules are often blamed for misinterpretations and for inappropriate scenarios.

OFM, I've a hazy memory of 3-4 units each, and madness is the word. I was supposed to be the next game, and I finally gave up and drove 500 miles home.

Warhammer 40k is a russet that has no real value as a simulation. Too hyped, forced product purchase. And a poor narrative for its universe.

It wasn't at a convention. It was at a game store that was very loose with closing time.
It was also loose with a few other things that I won't get into. 🙄

DBA after version 1.1

no real value as a simulation

Too general a statement. The value of a simulation is a function of the sponsor's intent.

forced product purchase

Once again, I am confused about how a corporation forces you to purchase a product.

poor narrative for its universe.

Actually, this is the only part I like about 40K, though admittedly, I only know top-level stuff. A sprawling dystopia where the over-the-top technology is dwarfed by the lack of compassion for anyone, anywhere.

That and the model. Nice minis.

Poor narrative meant that for me I could not find a race that I could command with a morale sense of duty. Even the humans demanded thousands of souls a day to feed the emperor. It did not peak my interest.

Forced product purchases. Clearly they forced players to purchase their products to play the game. They deleted armies to the can not field list. This left many players with 100s and 1000s of dollars in unusable and unsalable armies. Simple as a store in 1984, their policy made me not to be interested in any Warhammer 40k.

I thought "forced product purchase" was GW's nickname.
Pretty obvious how this works for anyone who has any contact with them.

The idea comes from the modeling of complex systems. There are natural ebbs and flows in activity at the micro level. Such a system seeks to capture those ebbs and flows. The most common expression of these ideas is called Wood's Theorum.

Are we conducting a Physics expeiment or playing a game?

+1 OFM

I once saw a dozen TSATF players sitting around a table unable to move while the GM complained that the game was running late. Nothing wrong with TSATF, but it's not the right game for 12 players and one deck.

No set of rules will work if the guy running the game dosen't know what he's doing. I run TSATF games with 10 to 12 players all the time. With very few problems.

My large TSATF Games.
link

I should have added "British Grenadier" to my list. But I do love the scenario books.

There is an art to running succseful TSTAF games. You only learn it through experience and hopefully an "old hand" to guide you which I was fortunate to have. It also helps if the players are experienced and know the rules. Runing a game at a convention is different than running one at home. I would not do a really large game at a convention.

Agree with Old Contemptible about British Grenadier and the scenario books.

Tried the rules a few times but it never really clicked with our club. Compared to other AWI sets it always seemed over-complicated just to move units across the table and also take account of any Disruption Points. The scenario books are really good though and can probably be easily converted over to other AWI rule sets.

Ezza