*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 11:16:35 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Donate

We Appreciate Your Support

Recent

Author Topic: "Generic" rulesets vs "complete games"  (Read 4099 times)

Offline fred

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4360
    • Miniature Gaming
Re: "Generic" rulesets vs "complete games"
« Reply #30 on: October 21, 2019, 11:38:49 AM »
Balance is not achieved by the system, but by the players. Any rules system is susceptible of being broken. It is only a matter of how hard powergamers try to break it. "Open" systems have, usually, smaller followings than "closed" systems —which have the support of dedicated miniatures and a company that cares to expand their system as much as they can. In "open" systems the critical mass of powergamers devoted to break the system is insufficient to achieve that goal, except if the system itself has such a glaring potholes that even a blind man can find them! And even if they do, it is locally —in a gaming club— and the word rarely spread (see exception above, though.

To be more clear: few, if any, players that select Beneath the Lily Banners as their rules of choice would bother to read the rules so thoroughly as to find any hole in the rules that they can use in their benefit. On the other hand, for example, Warhammer 40.000 has a mass of followers that it is big enough to create the critical mass of powergamers that will squeeze the rules until they reveal their point of rupture, and then will proceed to diseminate the information in the Internet.

It is about scale, not internal balance. In my opinion.

This is certainly true - but I don’t think its the whole story.

Within a closed system game like WH or 40k, the “broken” choices tend to come from the interaction of multiple special rules - and it is these that part of the player base is looking for. It’s rarely due to problems with the core rules. And I think this is where the differences really show between the two game methodologies. With a closed manufacturer driven set of rules, creating new stuff is really important, and this leads to the new stuff having new rules, and generally being a bit better (otherwise who would want to buy the new stuff if its no different to the old stuff you already have). But with an open system, its generally simpler there are far fewer interactions to deal with - so there is much less chance for a broken combo.

There can certainly be an interest in looking through the army books and picking your troops and their special abilities and options and thinking how they will play out in the game, and how they will work together. This is something GW games are very good at. On a more open game, this is typically much less of a thing, troops tend to have fewer options, and there tends to be fewer special rules to a unit. You can even see this in the rule books - take Kill Team the game rules run to a small fraction fo the game, most of the rule book is in detailing the many factions and troops you can take. In a open game like TTS most of the rule book is around the rules, with some details of special rules, and the rules for factions are basic really around what proportions of troop types you can take.


Gabbi

  • Guest
Re: "Generic" rulesets vs "complete games"
« Reply #31 on: October 21, 2019, 12:25:36 PM »
Quote from: Hobgoblin
This is the bit I'm struggling to grasp. I mean, real Napoleon-era troops fought armies armed with primitive weapons, so having imaginary beings in pseudo-Napoleonic gear fighting monsters with primitive weapons seems fine to me. I think it would be easy to cook up an interesting scenario background for the game - and games that pit different technology levels against each other are lots of fun.
Didn't know that. So orcs with chainmail and bone or flint weapons would not look out of place in a quasi-Napoleonic setting? If so, my bad, wrong example.
I also love games with armies with different technology levels, by the way.

Quote
As for Middle Earth games, I was thinking a while back about creating some HotT armies for the Battle of the Five Armies. If you were to restrict yourself purely to the descriptions in The Hobbit, there's absolutely no reason why you couldn't use AoS orcs for that - and keep it 100% accurate to the book. The only real descriptions of the orcs there are "big" and "ugly", so the AoS orcs could work out fine. I'd enjoy seeing it done.
Maybe another wrong example? Not a big fan of JRRT works myself, but I'd think that the goofy look of GW orcs would look out of place in LotR setting, which -it seems to me- sets for a very different mood.

Quote
I haven't ever played Infinity (though I have read through the rules), but surely the "telling apart" aspect is no different from any "open" system where you clarify what units are before the game: "These are spears and these are warband" or "these are heavy foot and these are bellicose foot with shiny armour" or "the ones with bolters count as auto-rifles and the shuriken catapults count as laser rifles". I don't think any real difficulty is likely to arise.
I mean, I've played MDRG, Rogue Stars, Fubar, Kill Team and Galactic Heroes doing exactly that, with no problems.
So I can't see it's a practical objection rather than an aesthetic one. And if it's purely aesthetic, it's not really any different from preferring nicely painted miniatures to indifferently painted ones.

If we play a "generic" ruleset, I see no problem in using an eldar with shuriken pistol as a mutant with a laser gun, but if we play 40K the shuriken pistol has a distinctive look (so do boltguns, lasguns, plasma weapons, etcetera) and I can see how people appreciate that models are wysiwig. I don't think any historical player would accept zulus in place of greek oplites (unless exceptional circumstances are in play) even if both are armed with throwing sticks and shields.
I mean, look here, please: https://boardgamegeek.com/image/1939310/saga
I got caught using javelins in place of spears (at the time I could not tell them apart) and people pointed it out, so I don't think the "these are spears" statement is always valid.
One could argue that Vikings really existed and they used spears, while eldars using shuriken pistols are fictional characters. How a shuriken pistol is supposed to work in fist place, right? But if you buy in a closed game (or better worded: a game with accompanying background) you usually buy into the fiction as much as you buy into the rules. So it seems fair to me if people expect that you respect the background with your models. How would feel a Star Wars themed game with jedis armed with steel broadswords?

Quote
I don't know how you'd quantify this, but is it really true? Certainly, my experience is that the best-balanced games are the ones where everyone has access to the same troop types. There are lots of those games: HotT, Dragon Rampant, Saga, Sword & Spear, Battlesworn, FUBAR and Frostgrave, to name a few. Saga and Frostgrave have some differentiation through the battleboards and magic schools, but 'special effects'/magic aside, everyone chooses from the same troop types.
I agree, but it's not a positive-only characteristic. It's a trade. You're trading an easier and more stable balance in the game for the variety of troops. I got that HotT allows for very different builds (and many hundreds of them) but still you're limited to these 20 kind of troops. Also, while it's true that you can build two orcs warbands with no sharing troops type and both feel "orky" enough, it's also true that you could build the very same list (i.e. composed by the same troop types in the same quantity) and one could be orcs, the other undeads. It's just a "reskin", and this is something that bugs the hell out of me :D
Regarding Frostgrave, rules are so swingy that it balance itself out ^^ Love the game, don't get me wrong. Frostgrave is fine as is, and I'm willing to play a campaign whenever I have the chance, but it is very luck-driven. The average combat is an opposed D20 roll with modifiers that range between +1 and +3, +4 most of the times. I would not take as a game that tries to be balanced. Also: same stuff for everyone (even spells, albeit with modified casting values). So the same considerations of HotT applies.

Quote
I'd say the defining feature of those games, relative to the 'closed' ones, is that their rulesets are very stable. I don't think there are any plans for new editions of any of the Rampant series, and HotT has had just two editions (with almost no rule changes) in its lifespan of nearly 30 years. Saga has a second edition, and Frostgrave is getting one, but they're still considerably more stable than their 'closed' competitors. I think that's because the closed systems are driven by the commercial imperative and almost inevitably mutate and 'break' under the weight of (commercially driven) add-ons.
Besides the fact that Saga is an historical game, and unless some unexpected archaeological discovery kicks in, it's hard historical games will get new releases (intended as new troop types) I agree these games are more stable, and sure it is a great bonus. If I stop playing Warmachine for some time, when I go back to the game I have to check all cards versions (i.e. models' stats) to check if some have been updated.
But again, it's a trade. You're trading stability for the opportunity to have new releases for the game. Because while "feeling forced to buy the new shiny" bugs everyone, I also have to admit to appreciate to have periodically new models with new abilities to try out and to play against. After all, me (but I suspect every single people who complain being forced to buy new stuff for a game) if releases for a game would stop, will keep spending the same amount of money on models and stuff, it will just be a new faction or an entirely new game. I suspect most of them will not be happy of the game not getting new releases in first place.

Quote
Now, I'd agree with you that certain build-your-own-profile skirmish games with lots of abilities can have balance issues. An entirely Savage warband in SoBH can be hard to deal with, for example, which is why that trait was limited to personalities in ASoBH. But I think that's less an 'open vs closed' thing than down to the difficulty of accurately accounting for possibilities in a 'build-your-own' system. The number of potential profiles in SoBH must run into the hundreds of thousands at least (certainly if you include the extensions), so it shouldn't be a surprise that some combinations can be more value for points than others.
Same is for "closed game" or, we could call them "games with continuous releases"(?). You get new models to play with, but you can't expect everything is balanced. The same as for the build possibilities of SBH. It's a trade. The more stability of HotT or the more variety of SBH.
You can't expect the same stability and balance of HotT (20 troop profiles good for all) in Warmachine, where a single faction has more that twice, new models are periodically released and every new release can potentially unbalance something, thus requiring an amendment.
Also, for one of HotT we have plenty of FoL, SoBH or Goalsystem games where balance is very briefly taken into account.

Quote
But I'd make two points about that. First, SoBH and FoL and the like are designed for fun. They're not tournament games (in the way that HotT can be). So the fact that their points systems can be gamed is neither here nor there. When I play those games, I typically design all the warbands and let my opponent(s) choose which one they want to play. I think that's what Andrea Sfiligoi does too. It works really well. So the fact that they allow for an almost infinite range of unit types is a strength, not the weakness it could be in a competitive game.
I have already partially reply to this. The fact I, you, a group of people, does feel the need of something (i.e. a more balanced point system) doesn't make it worthless. It's still a feature of the game and something the publisher struggles with and puts efforts in.
This said, if this is the approach, you could do the same with Warmachine or Infinity: create two warbands/teams as balanced and fun as you see fit and let your opponent choose one. But you also have rules for building forces that (try to) take into account that players would try to maximize builds and exploit loopholes, so offer (imho) some more resistance to being abused.

Quote
Second, the real test of open vs closed is with games that are designed to be watertight rulesets suitable for tournament play. And here, I think, the open games (like HotT) tend to do better. I don't think I've ever seen people complain about combinations that 'break' HotT, and armies fielded in tournament tend to be highly
heterogenous. If there's a winning combination, no one's worked it out in 28 years. But in the 'closed' games, there seems to be lots of complaining about 'game-breaking' combos or 'overpowered' troop types. And there do seem to be optimal choices from certain army lists. And I assume that's why those games seem to be in constant flux (as others have said above).
True. But the cause is not the "closed" game as much as "the game getting constant new releases". The fact that the two aspects are usually (always?) found together makes the distinction trivial, though ^^

I'm the one who wants to say thank you :)
« Last Edit: October 21, 2019, 01:24:21 PM by Gabbi »

Gabbi

  • Guest
Re: "Generic" rulesets vs "complete games"
« Reply #32 on: October 21, 2019, 01:00:12 PM »
I don't agree. I think there are more variables at play than that. A lot about a game can depend upon who you play, what group you play with.
I have already replied to this a couple times. The fact you play only educated gentlemen (as I try to do. I think nobody would deliberately try to play a**holes :D ) does not make efforts in trying to balance army building worthless.
Could be subjectively less worthy to people who plays exclusively home/club games with nice people, that's it. But efforts put on revising and keeping (or try to) a game balanced are still a feature of a game, in my opinion.

Quote
For example, my Necromunda group has several house rules we all discussed and agreed on. That said, where does Necrmunda fall within these two 'camps'? Is it closed or is it open? I would say it's bang in the middle. It's an RPG wargame so it is intended to be a starting point you can create stuff from.
Necromunda, or Blood Bowl, are among those great example of communities taking care of loved games even once the company that released them stops supporting them. They're born as closed games (and technically still are, since GW pulled the free rulebooks) but are now open. Once you opened the gates, it's not easy to close them again.
It also seems to me that GW is acting in a surprising "respectful" way toward the two games. Bloodbowl has been re-published almost unchanged, and while I have no direct experience with Necromunda 2016, I am in the Fb group and don't remember any major complain.

Quote
Then there is SAGA. It's open. You can use any miniatures you like
It's an historical game. Bolt Action has its own line of models, but I don't see any chance for Warlord to stop people using kits from different manufacturers ^^
Love SAGA, by the way. It's the only historical I'm interested into, I think. I've read it plays quite differently from the average historical game, though. Whatever it means...

Quote
I think the variable I think is missing more than anything else in this discussion is the intent of the game. 'Balancing' only really matters if you are wanting 'competitive' games rather than narrative driven games.
Yes. And no. A very one sided and unbalanced game is simply not fun. It's not a matter or winning or losing. I am utterly sincere when I say that I widely prefer to lose a close and tense game than to win a very one-sided one. And it could happen out of naivety, or a bad match-up, not just malice.
Let's say I have the brilliant idea to create a zombie horde in SBH. Everything has Q6. Once I'm too close to use the free move, I'm stuck in rolling one die per model and hoping in the eventual result of 6 once in a while. Doesn't sound very fun, isn't it?
« Last Edit: October 21, 2019, 01:02:20 PM by Gabbi »

Offline mcfonz

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1602
    • Poison Spurs - blog and reviews
Re: "Generic" rulesets vs "complete games"
« Reply #33 on: October 21, 2019, 01:23:11 PM »
Yes, but then you see, what you are describing is the players, not the game.

And that is precisely what I mean.

I like to play fluffy armies, and have done ever since I started playing games. I had a WHFB Orc army and largely refused to use night goblins, because fluff wise, Orcs tended to look down on Goblins and treat them as inferior cannon fodder. Night Goblins are more powerful and cunning than most other goblins, so to me, it didn't make sense that they'd happily take a subservient role in an army.

The same as in your example.

SBH is arguably really nice balanced. But at the same time, it is not designed to be a tournament win at all costs game system. It's another system that aims to find a sweet spot between RPG and Skirmish. Therefore it relies heavily upon the players to create and enjoy the narrative.

40k and AoS and a lot of games workshop games these days have moved away from that to an extent. And they do have a very heavy tournament scene.

It really does depend what you want out of a rule set. If you want a rule set which is very prescribed, does everything for you as you like tournaments and heavily competitive games then often, I find at least, the 'fun for all' element typically comes secondary in the sense that games are not aimed at being fun unless your fun is found in 'competing'. That in itself is fine, but the players that are heavily into that, IMHO can be less open to playing more fluffy driven narrative games.

It's a huge part of why people prefer open or closed systems.

Our hobby is a broad church. You have two ends of the spectrum IMHO. On one end you have the boardgame aspect, on the other you have the model makers and large scale display piece painters etc.

Wargaming tends to be everything in between. Some folks like the building aspect of it, some like the painting, some like the collecting rarer models part, some like the tournaments, some like chilling with friends and less competitive games, some like more narrative driven games rich in story with more RPG elements. There is room for all.

But GW in of itself is a great example of how competitive players can push rules sets to breaking point leading to developing new editions to counter that.

2nd Ed 40k was relatively open in force composition. Back then you have 'beardy' players who min-maxed the % requisites for army building. Typically working out the character points limit and maxing out on those first. The fact the term 'Beardy' was even used in this sense suggested that it wasn't liked by all.

3rd ed introduced the force organisation charts which meant folks had to include certain numbers of troops and couldn't get away with giving squads grenades just to push them over a % boundary. I prefer the organisation charts because it made people consider actually using a fluff driven force, or at least the fluff was what inspired the basic framework.

It's just the way of the world, and who you know you are playing against.
RP Tabletop Blog:


RP vlog channel: https://www.youtube.com/@RandomPlatypus

Gabbi

  • Guest
Re: "Generic" rulesets vs "complete games"
« Reply #34 on: October 21, 2019, 02:00:55 PM »
I agree with almost everything. But my point is that you can take tournament oriented games (i.e. Warmachine) and play them for fluff (lots of characters, rivalities and events to exploit and reenact) and, you can play them in a competitive environment relatively safe (once you've educated yourself on what the meta is about now and what likely you will face. Drawbacks of having so many choices. As said: it's a trade).
It seems to me to read in some of the replies the idea that "generic" rulesets don't need balance because people would usually use them for casual or story-driven play, so they're better for the purpose. But it's something that's possible with "closed" and "competitive" games, too. With the latter you just have more options.

40k and AoS and a lot of games workshop games these days have moved away from that to an extent. And they do have a very heavy tournament scene.
I don't agree with this. It seems to me that GW "attitude" leans towards "story-driven" play. They have now these three ways of play (AoS, but I think 40K too) and just one is competitive (they call it matched play). The other two are open play and narrative play. They have lots of cool and weird scenarios in General's Handbook(s) and release battle generators in form of decks that generate a battle with random battlefield setups, weather and victory conditions. There are scenarios with wandering monsters, wild spells, and other unusual stuff. Lots of asymmetrical battles. Various ways to play "campaign" games (quite simple, to be fair, nothing Mordheim-level of depth). It seems to me that it's just people that stress about matched play. I mean, when AoS first released there were no point costs system. Something the interned found outrageous, but I think it was quite "brave" and a clear indication of what's GW intentions were. Then the customers made clear what they wanted and the company acted accordingly. But even now, 4(?) General Handbook editions later, we still have the majority of the pages dedicated to open and narrative play. And many many times among these pages, the reader is encouraged to play whatever way he likes.

Quote
That in itself is fine, but the players that are heavily into that, IMHO can be less open to playing more fluffy driven narrative games.
I agree. But as you said, it's an issue with players more than with the ruleset.
I actually struggle to have casual games of Warmachine. But with the one and only similar minded player I have near me, Warmachine is a great ruleset for narrative games as much as is for tournaments play. Even more, I'd dare to say, as even the stuff that is currently in a bad position in the 'meta' can be great fun to play.


Quote
2nd Ed 40k was relatively open in force composition. Back then you have 'beardy' players who min-maxed the % requisites for army building. Typically working out the character points limit and maxing out on those first. The fact the term 'Beardy' was even used in this sense suggested that it wasn't liked by all.
Language class now. What beardy is meant to mean? I also have encountered many times the word neckbearded. Is it related? ^^
« Last Edit: October 21, 2019, 02:06:52 PM by Gabbi »

Offline Elbows

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 9452
Re: "Generic" rulesets vs "complete games"
« Reply #35 on: October 21, 2019, 02:31:11 PM »
When given a choice, I prefer rules sets which are not tied to miniature lines, 100%.  To me that is a serious strength of a game design.  I think the term "miniature agnostic" is often used.

The second sales are tied to game performance (as they inevitably are) you get into trouble.  I don't mind if it's a historical game of course, as the company is often aware they're not the only option...so if they're making miniatures alongside their game it's often simply to compete in the market vs. running a proprietary IP.

Given a choice though, I'd almost always prefer to buy a rulebook separate and figure out the miniatures part on my own. 
2024 Painted Miniatures: 166
('23: 159, '22: 214, '21: 148, '20: 207, '19: 123, '18: 98, '17: 226, '16: 233, '15: 32, '14: 116)

https://myminiaturemischief.blogspot.com
Find us at TurnStyle Games on Facebook!

Offline Hobgoblin

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4912
    • Hobgoblinry
Re: "Generic" rulesets vs "complete games"
« Reply #36 on: October 22, 2019, 10:07:40 AM »
Just musing on the terms used in this discussion: it occurs to me that in some senses, it's games like HotT and the Rampant games that are "closed" and "complete", in that you draw from a strictly defined set of troop types. Yet they're miniature-agnostic systems, even down to the number of figures used per unit (your HotT ogres might be single-figure warband elements whereas orcs might have three or four figures per element, just as Dragon Rampant might use three or four ogres to represent a 12-strength-point element of heavy infantry.

In contrast, the commercially driven games tend to be "open", in that they're the ones that often add new troop types and new element, and thus (in many cases at least) require frequent rebalancing or new editions

I think it's also true, as mcfonz pointed out earlier in the thread, that systems tied to a miniatures line aren't really "closed" as far as miniatures go - it's just that the manufacturers would prefer you to think that they are. In this regard, it's interesting to see how Warhammer went from an explicitly "open" (miniatures-wise) system to a "closed" one. Even Warhammer's second edition, there were suggestions about using 54mm medievals to play the game (if I remember correctly). And if you look at Bryan Ansell's famous chaos army (featured in the original Ravening Hordes), it's got lots of non-Citadel miniatures in it:



(from the Realms of Chaos 80s blog)

The 'official' attitude changed, of course - but it does reinforce mcfonz's argument about "closedness" being essentially an illusion.

There's also a point about "completeness". Hordes of the Things is a complete game, in that all you need is the rulebook and some miniatures (you could play it with base-sized cardboard or wooden rectangles if you really wanted; I can imagine someone with some artistic flair creating an attractive travel set in this way). But so too are Blood Bowl and Space Hulk (even more so: you get everything you need to play in the box). I think it's interesting that those games - both excellent from a rules point of view - have gone through long periods of no support from GW. Most would agree that they're among the best games GW ever published, but because they're "complete", there's less commercial benefit to keeping them going. Obviously, there's money to be made by reviving them periodically.

I think that's interesting because it shows the difference between design success and commercial success. Blood Bowl and Space Hulk are great feats of game design and are (largely) perfect in a way that Warhammer or 40K never were. But the latter two, as "closed" (in Gabbi's sense) but "incomplete/open" games, offer much greater commercial opportunities.

Or to put it another way: few would argue that 40K is the epitome of sleek sci-fi skirmish design, but many would agree that Blood Bowl is a brilliantly designed sports game. But which one is the cash cow?

Gabbi

  • Guest
Re: "Generic" rulesets vs "complete games"
« Reply #37 on: October 22, 2019, 01:25:15 PM »
Yeah, I just needed a brief name to address the games in the discussion. "Complete" was meant in a commercial point of view (i.e. games with a "complete" offer: rules and models). It's not important to me, as long as the two approaches at publishing a game are clear, feel free to propose better terms.

Just musing on the terms used in this discussion: it occurs to me that in some senses, it's games like HotT and the Rampant games that are "closed" and "complete", in that you draw from a strictly defined set of troop types. Yet they're miniature-agnostic systems, even down to the number of figures used per unit (your HotT ogres might be single-figure warband elements whereas orcs might have three or four figures per element, just as Dragon Rampant might use three or four ogres to represent a 12-strength-point element of heavy infantry.
As said, this is something I really do not like. I like when in games rules are more representative of the model and the equipment.
In Frosgrave, no one stops me (and I'm also pretty sure Mr McCullough himself would encourage it) to create an orc warband. Or an undead one. But rule-wise they would be the same as if I'd created a human one. It's just a cosmetic choice.
In Warmachine to the other hand, a Warjack (the big robots) it's not just a bigger, tankier and more armed grunt. Warjacks have a whole set of dedicated rules, can make multiple attacks, can do special attacks (like grabbing and throwing opponents) that are foreclosed to other model types, they also have weaknesses that other models don't have, like needing to be fueled with "Focus" (one of the game's "magic currencies") to prperly fight. This is something I like.
I like Gaslands, because it's a ruleset that reflects what you re-enact: vehicular combat. You wouldn't be able to use it to fight a fantasy skirmish. In Battlefleet Gothic (a game I love) I don't like the fact that space combat isn't three dimensional at all. Instead of hundred meters long cathedral-ships I could have steamboats and the game would play the same. This bugs me, notwithstanding how much I like the game.


Quote
I think it's also true, as mcfonz pointed out earlier in the thread, that systems tied to a miniatures line aren't really "closed" as far as miniatures go - it's just that the manufacturers would prefer you to think that they are. In this regard, it's interesting to see how Warhammer went from an explicitly "open" (miniatures-wise) system to a "closed" one.
Well, it depends. In some cases it is very true, in other cases game setting is so well defined that's hard to find models that would fit the setting.

In case of AoS it's obvious how GW is trying to put some distance from its models and the "generic Tolkien-derived fantasy", something people would praise if someone else would be the one doing it. But since it's GW, they're to be blamed because they're doing it just to rip more money from their customers.
This said, I'm old enough to remember the good ol' days GW and yes, I miss it. But as already said, the current attitude isn't as bad as some years ago.

To the other hand, some settings are very characteristic and it's difficult to find something matching their mood and aesthetics without feeling out of place. But it seems to me I'm repeating myself. Did you read the example about Star Wars jedis? That's not just FF trying to convince you its game is "closed". Star Wars has a very well defined aesthetic (so 40K, Warmachine or Malifaux) and (atm, in production) there aren't other source of models. Of course you can find the occasional 3rd party model that fits the setting, or source some older Starwars models from other manufacturers, but generally speaking, people are going to use "official" models.

Back to Warhammer, AoS it isn't actually as closed as GW would make you think it is, I agree with you. Besides maybe some specific model, people could still play it with 3rd party models. Fyreslayers are still dwarves, and Stormcast could be a mix of paladins and angels.
Rules are nothing to write home about, but way better (imho) to many "open" rulesets people seem to appreciate a lot. They're free, warscrolls (models stats) are free too. You can play AoS with models you already own. It's fun, a bit silly and very aimed to narrative play. Being willing to spend a few quids, a General's Handbook and a deck of battle generating cards would provide hours of fun. Both of them, could be purchased in one of their previous editions that are dirt cheap on eBay (major selling point of the current GH edition is the updated point costs, something the narrative player isn't interested into).
But again, it's GW, so it has to be a bad game (Again, not a fantastic one, for sure, but not the worst, either. I'm surprised it is not played very much here, where users have proven to be inventive and able to think "out of the box").

Quote
There's also a point about "completeness". Hordes of the Things is a complete game, in that all you need is the rulebook and some miniatures (you could play it with base-sized cardboard or wooden rectangles if you really wanted; I can imagine someone with some artistic flair creating an attractive travel set in this way).
Well, that's true for every game (bar the ones that use tabletop-level LoS). Also I think you're stretching a bit the discussion, here. We're talking about miniature games, here. I assume people are interested in model painting as much as they're into gaming.

This said, there's a game (and a good one actually) that uses the concept you're suggesting.
It's called Battlegorund:
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/18985/battleground
Too bad it never managed to become popular.
Also, you can find a repository of top-downs here:
https://juniorgeneral.org/index.php/figure/figureList/topdowns
It's dedicated to DBA, mostly, but maybe you can find something useful.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2019, 01:42:53 PM by Gabbi »

Offline Hobgoblin

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4912
    • Hobgoblinry
Re: "Generic" rulesets vs "complete games"
« Reply #38 on: October 22, 2019, 10:01:29 PM »

As said, this is something I really do not like. I like when in games rules are more representative of the model and the equipment.
In Frosgrave, no one stops me (and I'm also pretty sure Mr McCullough himself would encourage it) to create an orc warband. Or an undead one. But rule-wise they would be the same as if I'd created a human one. It's just a cosmetic choice.

This is interesting. I wonder if this actually has little to do with 'closed' and 'open' games, but more to do with a preference for detailed rules - 'enhanced WYSIWYG', if you will.

These things seem to be broadly true:

1. 'Limited-profile' rulesets, in which all players choose from the same roster of troop types, tend to produce well-balanced games. This makes them the best choice for competitive or tournament play, as they're more chess-like. HotT, Saga, Frostrgrave, Battlesworn, DBA and the Rampant family all fall into this category. All of these rules make little differentiation between (say) orcish heavy infantry and human heavy infantry. Armies or warbands are defined and flavoured more by the combination of units than the individual profiles of those units.

2. 'Unlimited-profile' rulesets, in which the choice of unit characteristics is very extensive, offer much greater scope for individualising units. So one unit of orcish heavy infantry (whether an individual or a group) might differ markedly from the next, let alone from a unit of human heavy infantry. But this individualisation often comes at the expense of game balance, because the combinations are so varied that even the best points system will sometimes fail to reflect their potency (or, conversely, overprice them). Mayhem, SoBH, Rogue Planet, Rogue Stars, Fistful of Lead and many other games fall into this category. They offer plenty of detail, but are less suited to competitive or tournament play, because someone will always find a 'killer' combination or a 'game-breaking' design.

3. Most commercial games that are supported with continuous model releases are more like 2 than 1. The potential profiles are limitless; the only difference is that it's the company, rather than the players, that designs the new profiles. So, like the games in 2 above, they tend to be less suited for competitive play - either initially or in time, as new profiles and unit types start to unbalance them. Consequently, those games tend to require multiple editions and are generally less stable than 1 above. Warhammer/AoS and 40K certainly fall into this category.

That's not to say that big companies can't produce games in category 1. I'd argue that Space Hulk and Blood Bowl are exactly that - and Warmaster too. Kings of War probably falls into that category too.

Now, your preference for detailed rules probably means that you prefer games in categories 2 and 3. Those categories are better suited to providing that level of detail and individualisation (I'd argue that they're essentially the same, apart from the respective roles of players and companies in generating profiles). I generally prefer games in category 1 or 2; I prefer 2 to 3, because I prefer designing interesting or amusing profiles to fit the miniatures I have rather than buying a miniature for a specific gaming role. I like all my miniatures to be multi-purpose.

But then there's another factor: aesthetics.

To the other hand, some settings are very characteristic and it's difficult to find something matching their mood and aesthetics without feeling out of place. But it seems to me I'm repeating myself. Did you read the example about Star Wars jedis? That's not just FF trying to convince you its game is "closed". Star Wars has a very well defined aesthetic (so 40K, Warmachine or Malifaux) and (atm, in production) there aren't other source of models. Of course you can find the occasional 3rd party model that fits the setting, or source some older Starwars models from other manufacturers, but generally speaking, people are going to use "official" models.
.
If you're basing a game on a film (e.g. Star Wars), then I can see that non-film models might look out of place. But then, if it's just a one-off game, and all the figures look good, why not? I mean, stormtroopers fighting my kit-bashed aliens (including converted ratmen, lizardmen and gnolls) could conceivably take place in some corner of the Star Wars universe.

I don't see it's very different from the same aliens fighting space marines when I play a game of Kill Team or MRDG or Galactic Heroes against my friend's amazingly painted 40K figures. The game looks pretty good, and we can cook up a good rationale for it if it's not just a straight fight. We don't need much more than "the forces of order raid some hive of scum and villainy to capture droids/drugs/fugitives/etc.".

Games in category 3 tend to lean heavily on aesthetics in their marketing. But I don't really see how that makes a game that breaches the aesthetic harmony any less fun.

Here's an example. In a few weeks' time, I'll be fielding Mantic orcs and Veermyn (plus converted skaven) against my friend's GW space marines in a four-player game. Sure, there's a breach of 'purist' 4OK aesthetics, but I'm hoping to have a strong narrative scenario that will result in plenty of fun (double-crossing, conflicting objectives on the same side, etc.).

Now, this game will be played using the Xenos Rampant take on Dragon Rampant rather than 40K. But we could play it using 40K. Which ruleset would give a better game? Well, I know we'll actually get the game finished using the Rampant rules; I'm not sure we could be sure of that using 40K. And although we all used to play 40K when we were kids, three of us no longer do. And, honestly, my growing instinct is that fast and smooth rules (like the Rampant games) just produce a better experience than more detailed rules. When we played Kill Team and MDRG on the same table earlier this year, I noted that MDRG gives you far more potential outcomes from one opposed die roll in combat than Kill Team does from four individual rolls. And the game was hugely faster and more dynamic - and more exciting as a result.

Back to Warhammer, AoS it isn't actually as closed as GW would make you think it is, I agree with you. Besides maybe some specific model, people could still play it with 3rd party models. Fyreslayers are still dwarves, and Stormcast could be a mix of paladins and angels.
Rules are nothing to write home about, but way better (imho) to many "open" rulesets people seem to appreciate a lot 
...

But again, it's GW, so it has to be a bad game (Again, not a fantastic one, for sure, but not the worst, either. I'm surprised it is not played very much here, where users have proven to be inventive and able to think "out of the box").

I don't have anything against GW games; I played Blood Bowl for the first time this year and really liked it. My son loves it. But with AoS, I don't really see what it offers that Dragon Rampant or Saga don't. I could play a game of it tomorrow, as I have dozens of Citadel orcs, goblins and chaos creatures. But I don't see what makes it better than many of the "open" rulesets.

Would you consider it a better designed game than Saga, for example? That hits the 'unit-based skirmish' spot for me very nicely, so I'd take a bit of persuading that AoS is better. You seem to be damning the game with faint praise somewhat ("not fantastic but not the worst"; "nothing to write home about").

Thanks very much for the links on the flat armies, by the way. It's not something I'm considering doing at the moment, but I can see a place for a very abstract element-based game at some point in the future (better for discreet play in the office, for example!). I wouldn't go with overhead views, but perhaps just illustrated bases.

Offline mcfonz

  • Mastermind
  • Posts: 1602
    • Poison Spurs - blog and reviews
Re: "Generic" rulesets vs "complete games"
« Reply #39 on: October 22, 2019, 10:44:08 PM »
I would say SAGA sort of does both.

SAGA Age of Magic is very much pick an archetype and build your army to it. It really is open to interpretation and you can play one army using different lists.

However, the historical lists are a bit different and more prescribed. Age of Vikings, for example, has more factions and that is because they are more limited in how they can be played. They tend to have more specific options, like less or no cavalry options etc.

Otherwise I agree. And actually, it is exactly why it is one of my favourite rule sets currently. Because it allows me to do historical nicely and to be a bit more free and ready with fantasy (which also feels like playing older editions of WHFB).

Offline Hobgoblin

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4912
    • Hobgoblinry
Re: "Generic" rulesets vs "complete games"
« Reply #40 on: October 22, 2019, 10:56:56 PM »
That's a good point. I've only got Age of Vikings - but the kids and I use it to play fantasy games. Vikings might be orcs one day and lizardmen the next. We've got plenty of humanoid monsters with essentially Dark Age gear, so we can mould them to the various lists as required (and we use the mercenaries quite a bit - e.g. Pechenegs as wolfriders). My son does, however, insist that we speak in battleboard-appropriate accents throughout the game!

I suppose the distinction you're drawing is a little like that between DBA and HotT; DBA (I've never played it and only viewed it through the prism of HotT) has set lists for each army with a few options, whereas HotT just gives example lists and has only the 50% restriction on 3AP+ troops as a constraint.

Gabbi

  • Guest
Re: "Generic" rulesets vs "complete games"
« Reply #41 on: October 23, 2019, 08:17:19 AM »
These things seem to be broadly true:

1. 'Limited-profile' rulesets, in which all players choose from the same roster of troop types, tend to produce well-balanced games. This makes them the best choice for competitive or tournament play, as they're more chess-like. HotT, Saga, Frostrgrave, Battlesworn, DBA and the Rampant family all fall into this category. All of these rules make little differentiation between (say) orcish heavy infantry and human heavy infantry. Armies or warbands are defined and flavoured more by the combination of units than the individual profiles of those units.

2. 'Unlimited-profile' rulesets, in which the choice of unit characteristics is very extensive, offer much greater scope for individualising units. So one unit of orcish heavy infantry (whether an individual or a group) might differ markedly from the next, let alone from a unit of human heavy infantry. But this individualisation often comes at the expense of game balance, because the combinations are so varied that even the best points system will sometimes fail to reflect their potency (or, conversely, overprice them). Mayhem, SoBH, Rogue Planet, Rogue Stars, Fistful of Lead and many other games fall into this category. They offer plenty of detail, but are less suited to competitive or tournament play, because someone will always find a 'killer' combination or a 'game-breaking' design.

3. Most commercial games that are supported with continuous model releases are more like 2 than 1. The potential profiles are limitless; the only difference is that it's the company, rather than the players, that designs the new profiles. So, like the games in 2 above, they tend to be less suited for competitive play - either initially or in time, as new profiles and unit types start to unbalance them. Consequently, those games tend to require multiple editions and are generally less stable than 1 above. Warhammer/AoS and 40K certainly fall into this category.
Besides the fact that I'd hardly define Rogue Planet of FoL as games that offer "plenty of detail", and that I don't see Frostgrave as a game suited to tournaments (too swingy: where its unpredictability is great for narrative play it makes the game unsuitable for competitive play, imho)... this pretty nails it.
Regarding Warmachine, for example, while it is a game that (limited to the top tier lists) is very balanced and well suited to competitive play, I openly dislike the community ant its waac attitude, while I greatly enjoy the game when played in a more relaxed context (that does not mean I expect both players will fight with a knife between their theeth).

Quote
That's not to say that big companies can't produce games in category 1. I'd argue that Space Hulk and Blood Bowl are exactly that
Unless both are very unbalanced games, to the point that there's the open suggestion to play Space Hulk missions twice switching roles, and attributing victory to the player who lost less badly with the terminators :D
Regarding Blood Bowl, no much experience with the current edition, but in the "NAF years" it was openly accepted that teams were not all equally strong, they were roughly divided in three or four "tiers". It was common consensus that Halflings for example were bottom tier, but that was not seen as an issue. Just an aspect of the game. If you want a bigger challange, or you're playing an inexperienced player, you could deliberatley choose one underperforming team.
None the less, I would not put SH or BB in your group 1.

Quote
Now, your preference for detailed rules probably means that you prefer games in categories 2 and 3.
This is not true. I found myself in the uncomfortable role of "defending" group 3 games just because all the replies that I got were in favor of type 1 and 2 games and somewhat "bashing" type 3 ones. But I do appreciate all kinds. Not just in gaming, I like variety in my life. If forced to play the same 2-3 rulesets forever I will quickly lose interest.
I like to play Warmachine or Infinity, with their detailed and crunchy rules, but I love a multiplayer game of FoL or a campaign of Frostgrave.
Also, as already said I am in the process of adding more type 1 and 2 games to my gaming nights, leaving behind some type 3 game. Unless "being forced" to explain what's good about Warmachine in this thread made me aware once more of how much I love the game. So the past weekend I painted two Protectorate models :D


Quote
But then there's another factor: aesthetics.
[...]
I would argue that Mantic stuff is a very similar style of GW's so no issue in mixmatching them.
But generally I would not like (there could be exceptions, of course) GW stuff on an Infinity table. Different models style: GW models are 'heroic', Infinity ones are more realistically proportioned, and in setting style: Infinity has a japanese anime vibe that's hard to find in GW models (well, Tau are a thing, but generally speaking the two model lines don't match).

Plus there's the fact that some games, with lots of rules associated to each model (yes, Warmachine again) are better played when the "picture" (the model) people associate to that character/unit/etc is respected. Each player has an easier time playing the game (that has a lot of rules and lives on the interactions between them and the synergies between models) if can identify each model at a glance.

This said, I do love sourcing models from different lines and manufacturers to build a thematic warband for SBH or any other "open" ruleset.

Quote
I don't have anything against GW games; I played Blood Bowl for the first time this year and really liked it. My son loves it. But with AoS, I don't really see what it offers that Dragon Rampant or Saga don't. I could play a game of it tomorrow, as I have dozens of Citadel orcs, goblins and chaos creatures. But I don't see what makes it better than many of the "open" rulesets.
It's not "better". There could be games that are  overall better than others, but usually is more that a game has a better aspect than another that conversely is better under another aspect.
AoS has a fun ruleset, more defined troops and factions, and a great amount of ready written material dedicated to narrative play.

Quote
Would you consider it a better designed game than Saga, for example?
Absolutely not. Love the game, great ruleset. Battleboards and fatigue tokens are very interesting and original mechanics.
But I refuse to use it as a fantasy game. That's cause I am an almost exclusively "fantastic" (fantasy, sci-fy, steampunk, etc) gamer. So I want to keep it for historical gaming as it's the only historical game I play (that comes to mind). For this, has some "exotic" feel to me :D

« Last Edit: October 23, 2019, 08:24:35 AM by Gabbi »