Home Forums General Game Design A new version….

Viewing 24 posts - 1 through 24 (of 24 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #49947
    Deleted User
    Member

    The ability to cope with change is an important part of functioning in the real world but does this have to manifest itself in the Wargaming world with constant revisions of rule sets?

    I’ve just noticed Field of Glory-A are going to be receiving their third update:
    <!– m –>http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop … 20&t=72417<!– m –>

    I can appreciate Slitherine’s Borg-like pursuit of Perfection but when is enough, enough?
    There are several problems when rule sets update.

    Firstly, I think the rule set loses its integrity. It’s hard to have faith in something that needed revising & may well need more in the future.

    Secondly, it becomes a nuisance to remember *which* specific rules you’re using. Half way through a game of #7, you suddenly realise you’re using a redundant rule from #4.

    Thirdly, no matter which version you’re using, you will experience difficulties when you game against someone using a different version ( a lot like when the Scottish Shinty team meets the Irish Hurling mob).

    So, despite any potential benefits, my reaction is AAARGGHHH!

    Your feelings on amending rule sets?

    donald

    #49950
    Guy Farrish
    Participant

    First – your link doesn’ work – Page Not Found

    I don’t mind if playing the first edition reveals some major problem that needs fixing (But why wasn’t it noticed in play testing?).

    But most of the time it is either an over reaction to groups of gamers who didn’t really want to buy THOSE rules; they wanted to buy another set that doesn’t exist and they then spend hours on the internet trying to cajole the poor designer into giving in and changing the whole idea behind the game.

    Or, it is a cosmetic action to refresh the cash stream.

    Neither of which seem a good reason for me to revisit the bank for them.

    I’ve tried loads of 2nd editions and mostly found them a lot worse than the first edition.

    Volley and Bayonet was a great rule set that rigorously stuck to the level of command – no interest in modelling skirmish lines, internal brigade formations etc. Then the lobbyists got in and Roads to Glory put in loads of the very things Frank said he didn’t want in his initial designer notes. Result: a weird compromise between levels of player focus, fiddling about with skirmish bases and low level artillery shenanigans. Ah well. (To be fair it did tidy up a few bits and pieces like the artillery charge but the trade off wasn’t worth it in my book).

    #49959
    Steve Johnson
    Participant

    “I don’t mind if playing the first edition reveals some major problem that needs fixing (But why wasn’t it noticed in play testing?).”

    I agree with this Guy.

    #49963
    Deleted User
    Member

    Apologies, Guy:

    http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=72417

    One of the issues is to try to minimise “killer armies” & bolster those that never win. It *is* a tournament set after all.

    Now I don’t game competitively & some of the disparity I think #3 seems to address have been settled via gentlemen’s agreement between my pals & I.

    So, yes, why weren’t these issues solved in preliminary testing?

     

    donald

    #49970
    Angel Barracks
    Moderator

    What is the motivation/intent behind the update?

    My free rules are on the second edition.

    The changes include, more images to clarify mechanics, additional rules for things such as drones, medics, walkers, a campaign system was added and a rough points value mechanic also included.
    The core engine is unchanged, but it is now a bit prettier with more ‘official’ optional rules..

    Given they are free I doubt anyone objects, but if you had to pay…?

    #49985
    Bandit
    Participant

    FULL DISCLOSURE: I own and operate a game design and publishing firm.

    Your feelings on amending rule sets?

    I think that wargamers, aka, “the market” hold two contrary positions at the same time:

    1) Nothing should ever change.

    2) OOOOH NEW AND SHINY, WANT!

    These two things put anyone releasing a game in a tight box that can be hard to navigate.

    Upon releasing our first title: Et sans résultat! in early 2015, we didn’t know what we’d have. Play testing had gone on for about 3+ years, the play testers were commonly interested in the game doing very divergent things, and truth be told the game had started as a hobby project and ended as a commercial product. Compromises were made between vision and feedback, many built on play tester feedback and others based on market perception.

    Once we published and released ESR Original Edition three things were realized: 1) The compromises didn’t enhance things, they got in the way, 2) despite the long play testing period with diverse testers from multiple countries (US local, US remote, England, Canada), things that were clear to play testers troubled customers and things that were demanded by play testers provided unnecessary to players, 3) people really liked what we were trying to do in general.

    This caused us to respond rapidly to the feedback and we heavily reworked specific mechanics, formalized the text and presentation substantially, and released Second Edition in spring 2016. We also offer (i.e. we *still offer*) 1/4 to 1/3 off of Second Edition if you own ESR Original Edition.

    For the most part we received very positive feedback about how we handled this, I believe we have received three (? might have only been two) negative responses to the release of Second Edition and our pricing break. On the positive side we received a tremendous number of upgrade requests from owners of ESR Original Edition who took advantage of the discount we offered them. We don’t have any plans for a 3rd edition because we don’t want to alienate people and because we tried to be really holistic when we addressed things from version one to version two.

    Editor Mike and I – I suspect – see this topic a little differently, as he notes, he gives away his rules for free. Frankly, I would say that from my perspective this is because Mike is a producer of figures and terrain. Mike’s product isn’t rules, Mike’s product is figures and terrain. Conversely, TWC is a game design and publishing company, if we give away our rules, we have no product. TWC giving away rules would be like if Mike started giving away his figures. I would also suspect that the resources we put into our publications more closely resembles what Mike puts into his figures than into his game system – which makes perfect sense.

    So that is our experience with this topic on the commercial side.

    On the wargamer side:

    I don’t understand the massive desire of wargamers to always buy new stuff. What I observe personally as a wargamer is that it is radically easier to find people who have abandoned a system because they didn’t like the new version, than to find people who stuck with the old version after the new one was released.

    A working example is Johnny Reb. One of our local gaming groups was very big into JR2. They participated in play testing JR3 and gave substantial feedback which was integrated into the published release. Then, due to internal disagreement, the group decided they did not like JR3. Did they go back to playing version 2? No, they moved to Regimental Fire & Fury. Fast forward several *years* and we have since dropped RF&F and play the occasional JR2 game – but that took over 10 years and a lot of hair pulling to accomplish.

    Why do we do that? This is observable with most game systems. Once a new version is published, players either move to the new version or quit. *Some* but a minority to be sure will stick with the earlier version they like.

    I also observed this with the local Empire Napoleonics group decades ago. Not being part of the group but knowing most of the membership, every time a new Empire release came out, they moved, eventually the group decided they didn’t like the new release, but reversion to an earlier version everyone liked was not seen as an option. A portion moved away to Napoleon’s Battles while another chunk quit playing, while a last chunk looked at home-brew solutions.

    It is an odd thing.

    The last thing:

    The last thing I want to touch on is “market relevance”. Because of the “OOOH NEW SHINY!” response of the wargamer market, publishers are incentivized to put out new stuff. An initial release of a new game can get a lot of attention, but then interest [sales] commonly dries up immediately. This is true even with systems that seem quite popular. Sam Mustafa has a strong core customer base. Each time he releases a new system there is a lot of buzz and interest voiced, commonly from or supported by his core customers. That is a real milestone for a game designer and certainly an asset. However, even with this organic support, it is observable that adoption is front end loaded and that leads to products having short lifespans from the perspective of the publisher.

    Games Workshop gets ragged on a lot for putting out a million different books and editions “you must buy”. I was never a 40K player so I frankly have no idea. But as a business model their system works – they are able to continue producing product and existing. Battlefront also constantly releases new books for Flames of War, however, in the case of FoW, once you buy the rulebook, you are not very behind the curve if you never buy a source book, you aren’t dropped out of the ecosystem, you can keep playing. Thus, you don’t “have to” buy more, you simply can buy more.

    At TWC we are trying to address that by aggressively releasing supporting supplements which do not expand the rules of ESR Second Edition but instead provide supporting materials – scenarios, campaign frameworks, uniform plates, etc… In this way we are trying to keep the buzz going about our products but actively working to prevent our customers from feeling like they are forced to buy. It seems to be working as ESR Second Edition continues to sell well and our Campaign Guides are getting a lot of positive feedback and steady interest. Our Campaign Guides are also compatible with both ESR Original Edition and many 3rd-party Napoleonic games, so we aren’t locking you in or forcing you to upgrade. That is a gamble on our part, hoping that a good impression of one product will generate interest in our other products. A more tried-and-true method is the “walled garden” that 40K and FoW use where their supplements are really only useful with their rules.

    My conclusion is that balancing all the involved factors that cause new editions of games to be published is hard, many do it poorly, and the market makes it difficult, but it is a needle that I believe can be threaded.

    Cheers,

    The Bandit

    PS

    Most game designers to it as a side hobby, not as real work, thus a big factor in new releases is that they want to take the game in a new direction, or the vocal portion of the game’s following has convinced them it needs a “refresh”, i.e. it is a personal, not market driven decision.

    #49987
    PatG
    Participant

    ….
    So, yes, why weren’t these issues solved in preliminary testing?

    donald

    Any group of play testers is going to be a very small sub-set of the eventual player base. Even they can only cover what they think of. Experience helps of course but you still can’t possibly cover every situation, every edge case that comes up. There’s a certain set of tournament WWII rules set I do not play where in one iteration the most cost effective use of one’s LMGs was to sell them and use the points to buy something else. It’s not a case you would expect to come in play testing since LMGs are such an integral and important part of the historical section. In the tournament environment especially, what is effective is far more important than what is accurate.

    Similarly, DBx wound up falling prey to oddly angled formations and of course the buttocks of death. Any rational player with any understanding of and respect for the period simply wouldn’t do these sorts of things, so it slipped past testing and only became an issue when the rules were released into the wild.

    #49988
    Mike
    Keymaster

    Also worth noting is that once sales of a first edition plateau or even slump, what better than a nice new improved set to re-kindle sales.

    Sometimes it is just about getting cash, the first edition rules may have been fine.
    Second edition is often about bettering sales, not the product.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Mike.
    #49991
    Bandit
    Participant

    Also worth noting is that once sales of a first edition plateau or even slump, what better than a nice new improved set to re-kindle sales.

    Sometimes it is just about getting cash, the first edition rules may have been fine.
    Second edition is often about bettering sales, not the product.

    Sometimes, though I would argue less than it is perceived. Most games are published by small shops or individuals, they aren’t releasing new versions often enough to drive much terms of net revenue.

    There is a conflicting relationship between the market and the business.

    Wargamers buy a set of rules, if they adopt using it, they use it for years and years. Maybe 1-2 other people in their group of 10 also buys it. Then, after those years pass, there may be frustration that the company that produced them no longer exists.

    The problem is – in my mind – the expectations wargaming businesses have of customers is unrealistic. That and the market is ridiculously fractured both product-wise and social-wise.

    Typical marketing problem is convincing people to buy your stuff. TWC doesn’t seem to have that problem, people seem to like our stuff – *once they see it*. Reaching customers is that hard part for us. And to compound that, the feedback we receive from other companies is, “Wow you guys are good at marketing”. If that is true, that is terrifying.

    Cheers,

    The Bandit

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Bandit. Reason: typo corrected
    #49996
    Rhoderic
    Participant

    Personally I have more difficulty understanding the “nothing should ever change” camp than the “ooh shiny!” camp. I see this hobby as a flow, not a fastness, and I love it that way. I love learning about what’s new in the hobby as much as I do reminiscing about what’s old. The sense of being “in the flow” is part of what makes it all enjoyable. It does, admittedly, mean some things lose their charm once they’ve changed too much from what they used to be, but when that happens there’s always something new to jump over to, and that’s usually fine by me. It’s an adventure.

    Given this tendency for “flow” in the hobby, it’s not surprising that rules publishers feel the need to assert a certain vigour in their own products by releasing new versions from time to time in the face of self-replenishing competition. To be clear, this is not ideal – these new versions may turn out better, but it’s not the case that they always will – but the alternatives are frankly worse (not to mention impossible). Should the competition cease to be self-replenishing so that established rulesets and rules writers may treat the domains they’ve carved out for themselves as permanent? No. Never. There’s always going to be new people bursting with enthusiasm to create, to bring something new of their own to the market. Let them. Every single rules writer has been one of them, once. Blessed are those who will join their ranks in the future.

    TLDR: Releasing new versions for the sake of releasing new versions is an unfortunate but ultimately concessible drawback of a ballgame which, in the broader perspective, is the best possible one.

    #50013
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Why wasn’t discovered in testing?

    People like me…

    An example – playing an RPG module (Veiled Society I believe) I was the lead for a small party and after following a would be assassain we ended up seeing him go up a ladder, there was a thump, then he came down the ladder and went on his way.  We ended up climbing the ladder into a locked room where there was a freshly killed NPC.  The DM asked, “Are you going to leave and follow the Assassain or return to your room in the Inn,” – courses we had discussed in whispers through the alleys and sewers the assassain traveled on his round about course.)

     

    To his surprise my Dwarf Street Fighter began shouting, “Murder! Assassain!  Send for the watch!”  Startled the Other players and the GM.  After some clerical questioning under spells we were released and the DM called it a night so he could figure what would happen next.  He had not expected an out of town ne’er do well slum district dwarf “entrepreneur ” to give the alarm and call for the watch.

     

    War gamers do unexpected things all the time.  I DM’ed enough to see that RPG’ers do the same.

    #50020
    irishserb
    Participant

    I don’t like reading or learning rules, there is no joy or fun in it for me.  The fun begins when I know the rules and can focus on playing the game.  So, I don’t really like new editions of rules. Learning new rules is like reading tax law.  Ick.  I’m okay with updates or expansions that include corrections to typos or maybe oversights, as long as it doesn’t cost too much.  I don’t want and simply will not buy 93% of the same rules at $55 a copy every three years.  I’m going to just write my own and leave the rules publisher to starve.

    I understand, respect, and appreciate the work that goes into creating a set of rules, but I expect the author and publisher to get it mostly right (and complete) the first time.    Buying 16 armies gives me options on the game table; while, buying 16 sets of WWII rules only gives me one option on the game table.  Sorry to sound so short about it, but this is the honest truth.

    I don’t want to spend time and money learning (mostly) the same (or even different) rules over and over.  I just want to play the game.

    #50024
    Deleted User
    Member

    Personally I have more difficulty understanding the “nothing should ever change” camp

     

    I don’t think I’m a GOM*. Repair problems by all means but a good rule set is, after all, a good rule set & needn’t be changed for no good reason.

    Interestingly, when we noticed the pending #3, one of my pals wrote, “I have been looking at Sword and Spear …..”.

    This tendency was noted (above).

     

     

    donald

     

    • Grumpy Old Man
    • This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Deleted User.
    #50027
    Norm S
    Participant

    Well here are my rather jumbled thoughts in no particular order.

    Johnny Reb is in three versions, version 3 did not carry everyone with it. THe differences between the versions are great enough for individuals to prefer one of the 3 sets. To my mind updating is OK to refresh a reprint, take the opportunity to clear up errata and ambiguity, introduce some optional rules and tweak some of the process to give better, cleaner, faster or more accurate results. To jump so far that something becomes different enough to be well ……. different starts to feel less like a new edition and more like a different product.

    Designers by nature are creative people and it is not surprising that over time their views on some aspects change and they would prefer to do things in different ways and yes this might mean fundamental change. Like Mike, I do some home produced rules that I am happy to make free and I do look at them with a revisionist eye and that has more to do with revisionism rather than having done multiples plays and realising that something isn’t working that perhaps should have been picked up in the first version.

    Something like Bolt Action that has been around for 4 – 5 years as a first edition and is massively popular and therefore has had every aspect tested to death in the real world, can benefit from sustained and constant feedback on particular points – such as machine guns should be more powerful or leaders should lead more!  being included in the new edition and this being generally well accepted. Though the original rule was not broken and this could have been highlighted as a recommended optional rul on their website instead.

    What you can’t cover as a designer (say for example Bolt Action) is that every British section should have a bren gun (period), but in the competitive nature of the game, players can / will actually swap the bren out to spend the points on something else. A designer designing from a say a simulation point of view may have taken it for granted that a player will always include the bren with the section, may be aghast that players might actually take it out and go for something not historical simply to build a winning force.

    We have now truly reached the age of the internet, so it seems companies and individuals can reasonably expect that their average customer will be able to go on line and visit their website. With that in mind, I feel a rule set should have absolutely full internet support with upgrade changes explained in detail like App’s do and a very current Q&A page and a player feedback box that others can participate in, so that rules can evolve in a more connected way with Those  customers who have actually plonked their money down, though of course the last word should rest with the designer as their design ethos will be central to and embedded in the product.

    Print on demand and PDF allow relatively small numbers of a rule set to be ‘out there’, choice is good, but at the moment, many of our leading established big selling rule sets are codex based, this commercial dimension is a choking point for me. I really only want to buy a single well supported rule book, with everything in it that is relevant and that later perhaps a compendium with optional rules, campaign, new scenarios etc can follow and that simply becomes a voluntary choice for the buyer who may well be excited by the product. Osprey seem to have discovered this with their well priced, nicely presented playable rule sets.

    All said some new editions really do generate a buzz and can revitalise a line or even personal interest in a period or gaming, the latest Sharp Practice 3 being a prime example, there must be others. People generally see DBA 3 as being an overall improvement.

    If we look at a rule book today compared to say 15 years ago, the new stuff regardless of your view about marketing and price etc is generally simply nicer to own and handle and for the most part the home computer (tablet!) and internet have allowed an exchange of ideas and high production values that have really moved our hobby on – the downside is that these same things that can produce all sizzle and no beef and obvious under-development. The line that divides the two I think still falls in favour of the good, but it is certainly something to keep an eye on.

    #50047
    Rhoderic
    Participant

    Personally I have more difficulty understanding the “nothing should ever change” camp

    I don’t think I’m a GOM*. Repair problems by all means but a good rule set is, after all, a good rule set & needn’t be changed for no good reason. Interestingly, when we noticed the pending #3, one of my pals wrote, “I have been looking at Sword and Spear …..”. This tendency was noted (above). donald

    • Grumpy Old Man

    No accusations of GOM-ery against anyone here from me. Frankly I don’t think there are that many true GOMs in the hobby, excepting those few individuals (none here) who seem to revel in the role for the sheer provocativeness of it.

    Anyway, I’m going to waffle on a bit on some quasi-philosophical, quasi-OT matters now, for which I beg your indulgence 

    I think it’s perfectly natural for someone in a group using ruleset X to say “I’ve been looking at ruleset Y”, for no other reason than the fact that ruleset Y came along. It is the product of someone’s creative drive and that makes it interesting as a possible alternative to the status quo. Our hobby inherently celebrates the human creative drive and that goes for rules design as much as it does painting, sculpting, converting, scratchbuilding, terrain-building, illustrating, writing fluff/background, scenario design and whatever other creative aspects of the hobby I may have overlooked just now.

    (On top of those we have the non-creative, but likewise enjoyable, aspects such as the researching of military history, but that’s beside the point, and anyway those aspects still intermesh with the creative ones, such as whenever a military history guru reckons he can write a more accurately representational ruleset than all the ones already on the market).

    So I think it’s right and proper that there’s a steady stream of new rulesets coming along. Established rules designers feeling the need to reinvigorate their own products is a side-effect of that – a negative side-effect, but an unavoidable one in this, the best possible of worlds (as far as concerns the hobby).

    I suspect that had there been no FoG revisions, there would still be FoG players saying “I’ve been looking at Sword & Spear…”, only for the opposite reason, or for no reason to do with discontent with FoG at all. And I’d sooner be living in a world where Sword & Spear did come along than one where it didn’t. The latter might be a world where FoG also never came along. Maybe also no Hail Caesar, Warmaster Ancients, WAB, WRG or the rest of it. We might all be playing Little Wars, and I choose to believe even HG Wells wouldn’t have wanted that 

    #50054
    Piyan Glupak
    Participant

    People generally see DBA 3 as being an overall improvement.

    Not everyone.  For instance, I have reverted to using version 1.1 (which was the first version that I played). A significant set of people based particularly in the NE of the USA did a rival for version 3 as a set of house rules for version 2.2 called 2.2+, and used it for tournaments. Elsewhere in the world, there are still tournaments using version 2.2 running in parallel with tournaments for version 3.

     

    #50062
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    Get off my lawn.

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #50073
    PatG
    Participant

    Get off my lawn.

    No you get off my lawn!

    #50074
    Deleted User
    Member

    A very interesting thread. Overall, wargamers must be one of the more difficult markets. I also have written a set (of SYW rules) for myself & my pals & even this very finite “market” were a challenge to satisfy.

    BTW an observation on free rules. I believe there is a fairly common tendency to value something according to its ticket price. Hence the diamond market. Anything “free” is often regarded as worthless. I hasten to add this is a perception rather than reality but with regard to this topic, it may well be easier to sell a glossy but flawed rule set than to give away a sterling set of free rules. That’s humans for you!

     

    donald

    #50076
    Rhoderic
    Participant

    BTW an observation on free rules. I believe there is a fairly common tendency to value something according to its ticket price. Hence the diamond market. Anything “free” is often regarded as worthless. I hasten to add this is a perception rather than reality but with regard to this topic, it may well be easier to sell a glossy but flawed rule set than to give away a sterling set of free rules. That’s humans for you! donald

    For my part, I’ll admit to being a herd animal in this respect. The rulesets I use and the rulesets I pay attention to are mostly ones that get at least a modest amount of respect and recognition in “the herd” (a migrating herd, as the case may be – even occasionally a stampeding one). Those are mostly titles that sell for money (or free ones that are ancillary to other commercial products from the same company, such as Infinity and the Spartan Games titles which have gone with the “free rules, expensive miniatures” business model), and most of those are of the glossier variety. I don’t often see free rulesets receive much hype, so it’s quite natural that they don’t show up much on my radar. There are a few exceptions, like the GZG rules, but only a few.

    Of course, it’s also true that I don’t often see writers of free rulesets try to draw much attention to their titles, whereas a lot of writers of paid-for rulesets go out of their way to engage with the community, even to be pillars of said community, thus fostering a sense of trust and confidence in the product. That matters.

    On the subject of gloss, as it happens I’m principally in favour of it, within reason (I’m going to be terribly naive here by saying that in a hobby as visual as this, isn’t eye candy generally a good thing?). That’s also a rationale (if perhaps only a minor one) for releasing new versions of established rulesets. Many game developers and publishers have – I believe – a genuine creative urge to make rulebooks that are inspirational visually as well as inspirational in terms of text and rules design, and at least some of us consumers do also desire that aspect in a rulebook. Developers and publishers may not have had the resources to do all that in the first go, so a new version can be a chance to gussy up the product, in a positive way. Of course it can also be a negative thing, if the ruleset turns out too superficial as a result, but isn’t necessarily one. To be perfectly honest I find it a rare occurrence to come across a ruleset that genuinely compromises on substance in favour of photos, artwork, graphic design or other visual production values, so I consider that particular fear to be an exaggerated one.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by Rhoderic.
    #50078
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    To be perfectly honest I find it a rare occurrence to come across a ruleset that genuinely compromises on substance in favour of photos, artwork, graphic design or other visual production values, so I consider that particular fear to be an exaggerated one.

     

    I’ll just leave this here.

     

    It didn’t go to a second edition…

     

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #50082
    Angel Barracks
    Moderator

    Of course, it’s also true that I don’t often see writers of free rulesets try to draw much attention to their titles, whereas a lot of writers of paid-for rulesets go out of their way to engage with the community, even to be pillars of said community, thus fostering a sense of trust and confidence in the product. That matters.

    PLAY KR 16!!!

    PLAY KR 16!!!

    I AM A NICE GUY.

    🙂

    #50092
    Rhoderic
    Participant

    To be perfectly honest I find it a rare occurrence to come across a ruleset that genuinely compromises on substance in favour of photos, artwork, graphic design or other visual production values, so I consider that particular fear to be an exaggerated one.

    I’ll just leave this here. It didn’t go to a second edition…

     

    That one did come to mind as I recall discussing it with you before. Beyond that one rulebook, though, I can’t think of many.

     

    Of course, it’s also true that I don’t often see writers of free rulesets try to draw much attention to their titles, whereas a lot of writers of paid-for rulesets go out of their way to engage with the community, even to be pillars of said community, thus fostering a sense of trust and confidence in the product. That matters.

    PLAY KR 16!!! PLAY KR 16!!! I AM A NICE GUY. 🙂

     

    I think it’s fair to say you’re an exception, at least for those of us who frequent TWW and/or your social media places 

    But when I browse the list at the Free Wargames Rules wiki, it’s a “wall of text” of ruleset titles I’ve never heard of before (or more to the point, titles I’ve never heard anyone praise or support), at least once I discount the ones that are ancillary to proprietary miniatures ranges. It’s difficult to have confidence in something unknown, picked out from a pile of unknown things.

    Don’t mistake what I just wrote for a lack of appreciation for the Free Wargames Rules wiki. In and of itself I think it’s a great resource and a valuable service to the community.

    #50607
    Phil Dutré
    Participant

    One aspect that has been overlooked is that many rulesets are not bought to be played for a long time, but to be read and to played at most 1 or 2 times.

    The frequency of playing actual games vs the frequency at which new rules are published is out of sync for many groups. Once a gaming group has tried out a new ruleset for the first or second time, a new shiny ruleset is already available. That makes that many players feel as if they’re always having to catch up. Most players therefore don’t have the time to play a game for a significant number of sessions in order to really appreciate the finesses (or flaws) of any ruleset.

    I bought Frostgrave in August 2015. Our gaming group still hasn’t managed to play a game, although there is interest. By now, a number of supplements have already been published, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a 2nd edition will already be available before we play our first game.

    I bought Maurice 3 or so years ago. Managed to play 1 game so far. Etc.

    It’s one of the reasons we switched to house rules. We develop our own rules, which we develop at our own pace, in sync with our gaming schedule. We look at new rulesets for inspiration, but we don’t feel the need anymore to slavishly follow whatever ruleset is hot this month.

    Tiny Tin Men Blog: http://snv-ttm.blogspot.com/
    Wargaming Mechanics Blog: http://wargaming-mechanics.blogspot.com/

Viewing 24 posts - 1 through 24 (of 24 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.