Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: Norm on July 29, 2022, 06:43:08 PM
-
Of late, I have tended to go for lower complexity type rules and just thought this was an age / cycle thing.
But the more I have considered this, the more I feel that low complexity games are reached for because they provide an easy path to the gaming table against the background that we simply have too many rule sets and games that compete for our time and grey cells.
Has over collecting caused a dumbing down of the complexity that is needed to deliver period flavour and militaristic aspects of the subject.I have put up a blog post that expands on those thoughts. LINK
http://battlefieldswarriors.blogspot.com/2022/07/too-much-stuff.html
-
For me the main driver is probably the complexity of real life (spouse, kid, mid-career) taking up a lot of the mental bandwidth I have available. I just don’t find highly complex games to be what I’m looking for at the moment. I do buy some of them and I enjoy reading them, but actual games I play need to be streamlined enough to be relaxing without demanding too much mental work. Basically, I want my mental work to go into game play, rather than figuring out the rules.
-
To answer the OP question....
No.
It is being driven more by the growth of the hobby to a more diverse audience, and not just old, well-off, white guys* with time on their hands.
* = I am firmly included in this stereotype.
-
Basically, I want my mental work to go into game play, rather than figuring out the rules.
This is the crux of the matter. And, there is actually a lot of potential for better rulesets that are both more realistic and detailed while also being easier to play than what is on the market today.
You can actually hide a lot of complexity behind an easy to play game by innovative mechanics.
-
Interesting post.
When it comes to complexity, though, I think that there are very strong arguments for elegance and simplicity over fiddliness - especially as many games contain needless complexity.
For example, if we compare HOTT (or DBA) with Warhammer, the simplicity of the former seems (to me at least) to be the result of better design: it presents more interesting challenges and decision points with greater distillation of random elements (so fewer but more consequential dice rolls).
Or, to take a skirmish example, compare Song of Blades and Heroes/Mutants and Death Ray Guns with Kill Team. I once played a game of each back to back on the same table with the same figures. The Kill Team game involved multiple dice rolls in close combat for a very small number of outcomes (three, I think - defender is unhurt, wounded or dead); the MRDG game involved a single opposed roll in combat for nine outcomes (nothing happens; defender is pushed back; defender is knocked down; defender is killed; defender is gruesomely killed; attacker is pushed back; attacker is knocked down; attacker is killed; and attacker is gruesomely killed).
So which is the more 'complex' game? When it comes to close combat, the KT game has much more for the players to remember (initiative, number to hit, number to wound, number to save), but the MDRG game has more decisions for the player to take (engage but don't attack; attack; attack with a power blow) and three times as many outcomes.
The difference, I think, is that a well-designed game can have a lot of complexity 'under the hood' so that it doesn't make it difficult for the players but also gives them lots of decisions to take.
Saga is another case in point. It's an extremely complex game if you consider the number of variables with the battleboards, yet it plays extremely smoothly - because the design is elegant.
I think part of this is how much a game requires you to commit to memory. I never need to remind myself how to play DBA or Song of Blades and Heroes (or MDRG or the other variants): the activation and combat systems are very simple and intuitive, even thought they produce complex decision-making points and widely varying outcomes.
Some complexity of certain games is just poor design, I think - the morale system in Chainmail, for example (the rest of the game is quite elegant). There are odd cases, though; Brent Spivey's Bombshell rulesets are pretty much uniformly excellent, but are hard to parse until you get them on the table - at which point they're some of the most fluent, fast-moving and intuitive games out there (Mayhem, Rogue Planet, The Battlefield).
-
You can actually hide a lot of complexity behind an easy to play game by innovative mechanics.
Yes, exactly! (Hadn't read this when I posted.)
-
> Daft things like having 12 different Napoleonic rule sets
I'm playing two generic fantasy games, Lasting Tales and Song of Blade and Heroes, and it's driving me nuts when I switch from one game system to another. While you need complexity to better simulate something, sometimes complexity doesn't add game value, especially when it's semi-abstract mechanic (eg. "Roll 1d6 except if you roll a 1, you may spent a Fatigue token to roll 1d3+1 instead"). However, complexity is subjective, so that's why we have all these different rule sets that *should* all be simulating the same thing!
Should mention that in the non-historical gamespace, including plasticrack boardgames, you pretty much need a rules system to help sell those fancy miniatures. That, of course, means even more rulesets on the market, quite a change from the old days when model companies made the army men, and your buddy stapled together a wargame ruleset.
Are rules become less complex? Well, hobby games are still more complicated than mainstream ones. And, with more games on the market, gamers who don't play a "lifestyle" game (eg. Magic, Age of Sigmar), end up learning or being exposed to more rulesets, as well as having more "first impression" games than "thorough play" ones, and spending less time to play each game. Perhaps that's also led to simpler game systems as well.
-
I've always preferred faster playing games, even since the 1970s when they were hard to come by!
Back then, I began collecting and painting miniatures, but largely stuck with boardgames because they were so much more playable.
Own Tractics (never played), Angriff (played once), WRG whatever armour game it was (played once or twice), stuck with Panzer Leader until Command Decision came out, and then Blitzkrieg Commander.
Own Chainmail (played a few times), Newbury Fast Play Ancients (quite mis-titled, never played), WRG 6th (played once), stuck with SPI's PRESTAGS until DBA came out.
Played some Empire III with half the rules thrown out, then some Napoleon's Battles, now happily playing DBN or Snappy Nappy.
I've never associated endless modifiers and charts with 'realism' or a fun game.
The one game from 1977 that I am still playing is Ogre — Sci-Fi Panzer Leader that looks really cool when played with minis.
: 3
-
Remember that fiddlier systems with a great deal of tedious complexity tend to be the sort which would be better suited to be computerized - they often tend to look like a logic flowchart, with many branches and conditional. While that might have been acceptable, even well-regarded for a couple blokes playing an Avalon Hill game in 1975, nowadays, there's less tolerance for players to act as human computers.
I think that's actually led to a renaissance in wargame rules design myself, where designers have been challenged to produce something elegant which retains a wide number of outcomes and greater emphasis on player choices.
-
Remember that fiddlier systems with a great deal of tedious complexity tend to be the sort which would be better suited to be computerized - they often tend to look like a logic flowchart, with many branches and conditional.
Empire III Napoleonics literally had fold-out flow charts to work through each phase of the game turn.
: P
-
Seems to me, as has been said already, that rules have got more elegant and streamlined rather than less complex.
I play computer games, board games, tabletop miniature games and pen and paper RPGs and buy every set that is both affordable and sounds interesting. Not necessarily to play, though I play most, but certainly to read and pillage ideas from.
I've always said that my ideal game is easy to learn, hard to master, has enough skill that I win because I am brilliant and enough chance that I lose because I was unlucky ... unless it's multiple players a side where I lose because my allies let me down lol
There can never be too many rules nor too many figures IMHO ... only too little time!
-
I shouldn’t have read this topic on the day I decided that I need to have a game of WRG 5th Edition Ancients for the first time in about 40 years!
Doug
-
Over-Collecting?
Might be a factor but I've preferred simple, fast-play games for decades. If anything, that fueled some *ahem* excess purchases.
I'll get these on the table in no time! (Bwahahahahaha. poor fool)
In my experience, Time is more a factor. Juggling multiple obligations, it's a question of bandwidth. With a full schedule, it's much easier to get folks to the game table for a fast, fun game. No investment, no homework. Just snacks & drinks, minis and terrain, a few rules with a cool backstory, and start rolling.
-
I would agree with an earlier comment that "easier" rules don't necessarily hide layers of tactical complexity. However asking myself why I prefer today's rules I would offer the following thoughts;
I research and play multiple periods from ancients to moderns. I don't have the mental bandwidth to learn multiple sets of "complex" rules.
I rarely have more than 3-4 hours to set up, play and take down a game. "Complex" rules usually assumed a longer playing time
I think innovative mechanisms have reduced the need for complexity whilst making games faster moving and leaving the players to think tactics not tables. Of course this means some rules match how you think the period worked.....others don't!
-
I try not to over collect in rules by just keeping a few gaming rules in each genres Sci Fi, Pulp, Apocalypse, and Horror. Only because I don't want to get a set of rules only play them once and never play it again.
Collecting figures on the other hand well that is just a whole other category on its own.
-
Not the first to say it, but I agree the best rules are immeasurably better designed these days. In my beginner days, nigh on five decades ago, we spent all day on a game that today would take at most three hours (and more often two) and still give a better game and a better result, frequently without referring to the rules for several turns.
Thanks to those who saw the way forward lay in using multiple bases, not needing to record minor percentages of casualties, recognising that three or four weapon classes for a troop type would cover it all, and the way morale and combat outcomes could often be realistically spliced together in a single roll. Small advances, but with an accumulative effect comparable to retractable undercarriage and new alloys in aircraft.
-
Nice thoughtful post, thanks, Norm. I've added my comments directly to your blog.
-
Thanks all for comments and thoughts. Norm.
-
One thing that's been on my mind - related to this - is the steady increase in the quality of technical writing done on miniature wargames. This hobby has always lagged behind the hex-and-counter boys.
Chainmail consists of a nice, easy system with a large amount of optional flavor rules bolted onto it, but you wouldn't know that from reading the rules. The De Bellis Multitudinous/Antiquitatis titles suffer from the same affliction. And don't get me started on 'Tomorrow's War'. These aren't complicated games, they are just presented in a complicated way that leaves the reader wondering what he missed, and wondering if he missed an important step somewhere along the way.
For all my own complaints about the odd structure and "missed it by that much" complaints about Osprey's Blue Book rule sets - QRS's seem to be kryptonite to them - those rules are MUCH easier to read than most of their forebears. The Rampant series of rules is considerably more complex than Chainmail, but they don't feel like it in part because the rulebooks aren't a scattering of thoughts, but rather flow from army-building to set-up to table so well. But the Rampant series feels a lot more streamlined in part because of its presentation in the book.
-
Very interesting question Norm. I am not sure I can answer it even for my own self. But I am sure the amount of "stuff" I have does exert a pressure to get stuff on the table so the simpler the rules the better.
-
For me the main driver is probably the complexity of real life (spouse, kid, mid-career) taking up a lot of the mental bandwidth I have available. I just don’t find highly complex games to be what I’m looking for at the moment. I do buy some of them and I enjoy reading them, but actual games I play need to be streamlined enough to be relaxing without demanding too much mental work. Basically, I want my mental work to go into game play, rather than figuring out the rules.
I can completely relate to this comment as well. Additionally, I would add that I find the social side of gaming ito be just as important as the game. For many of the reasons above, a gaming session is the only chance we get to meet up in person. As a result, we tend to favour rules that aren't overly complex and lend themselves to the 'beer and pretzels' approach to the hobby.
If you play at my house, we will be using some variant of the 'Fistful of Lead' rules and we know we can complete a skirmish game in a couple of hours. We play at somebody elses house, it could be Blood Bowl or Kill Team etc etc. As long someone knows the rules (complex or not) and can tell me what I need to roll etc, then life is good! :)
Regarding 'over collecting', my personal experience is that the rise of skirmish gaming has driven my collecting. If I want to game in a new era/genre, then I know I'll probably need a maximum of 30 figures to cover two sides and maybe the odd new building.
-
One thing that's been on my mind - related to this - is the steady increase in the quality of technical writing done on miniature wargames. This hobby has always lagged behind the hex-and-counter boys.
Chainmail consists of a nice, easy system with a large amount of optional flavor rules bolted onto it, but you wouldn't know that from reading the rules. The De Bellis Multitudinous/Antiquitatis titles suffer from the same affliction. And don't get me started on 'Tomorrow's War'. These aren't complicated games, they are just presented in a complicated way that leaves the reader wondering what he missed, and wondering if he missed an important step somewhere along the way.
For all my own complaints about the odd structure and "missed it by that much" complaints about Osprey's Blue Book rule sets - QRS's seem to be kryptonite to them - those rules are MUCH easier to read than most of their forebears. The Rampant series of rules is considerably more complex than Chainmail, but they don't feel like it in part because the rulebooks aren't a scattering of thoughts, but rather flow from army-building to set-up to table so well. But the Rampant series feels a lot more streamlined in part because of its presentation in the book.
That's an excellent point.
There's also been an improvement in mainstream published rules at the sentence level, I think. I was browsing through the Kings of War rulebook the other day and was struck by how well written and - significantly - well edited it is. There's none of the slop (run-on sentences, misplaced modifiers, etc.) that you get in so many older rulebooks. The Osprey books are well written and edited too, as is the Ganesha Games line.
-
I will say I love Osprey Blue Books, but I am biased. A relatively easy to digest package that forces the writer to boil the genre down to its core ideas.
To write one, the publisher (Osprey Games) gives you a very tight word-count. Frequently, you can barely get the content you want in, so the idea of using space to add a QRS seems..... not value added. Especially after you just chopped other content to get the game to fit into the book. Not to mention, there is a high chance you will never get to add anymore content beyond the initial book anyway.
QRS can be added online later, built by gamers themselves, or not used at all because the rules are short enough to flip to the page you want.
-
Interesting question but overall I think No and Yes, and it depends.
I think it depends on the time and commitment folks have, its like there are those who play the board and cardboard counter games, some play in hour with only 20 or 30 counters, some 2 or 3 hundreds or more, which can take a day and often as not not finished.
I would also say as complexity can be a barrier to entry, its not a surprise that games and mini companies dance around that 5 minutes to learn a lifetime top master. As an easy to learn and playable in a few hours game will be more popular = more sales.
I would note that many games being skirmish or reinforced platoon are of that kind of upto 50 or 60 figures a side for an evening, even something like Warlords epic count the bases not the cluster of figures are a comparable count.
After all, how many with Black Powder put together enough for a few hours game of an evening, its design brief in the first place, but then can scale up to play in a day like the Waterloo 28000 figures game pre covid in Edinburgh I think it was. Same game but different size and length.
So I think it ultimately depends, what time and space do you have and what rules fit that you've found and can enjoy for that game. So your dark side plays quicker and easier may not be the Jedi way or harder and longer, but more is more.
Also consider these days GW games only get finished half the time and have a terrible rules bloat over time, but the basic game is easy to learn and in many ways as it was for a me a perfect starter game when its smaller...
-
That's a really interesting question Norm, and I have no idea what the answer is. But I suspect time, as lots of others have said, is a big factor.
Also the longer I've gamed the more I've come to appreciate that fun is more important than realism (up to a point - rules that seem so unrealistic as to be silly aren't fun for me).
Personally I really enjoy a game where the basic mechanics are simple and effective, but there is a lot of variation in unit types which I guess is a form of complexity. I know some people hate that stuff, but I used to love 2nd ed. Space Marine like that - it's a genuinely fun challenge when the game begins and you're not quite sure what some of your opponent's units can do. (And you're also not sure your opponent knows what all of your units can do ;) )
-
I own very few sets of commercial wargame rules and have played fewer of them. Ever since I started wargaming in the 1960s we modified the very few sets of rules (Featherstone, Bath, Grant etc) and then wrote our (namely a friend and myself) own rules which we have continued to use. They all use simple systems with the emphasis on being playable, easily remembered and, most of all, fun.
The commercial rules that I own have all (except 1) been given to me or bought second hand. The one full price set was WRG something edition that we used in the club. Oddly these were "retired" by the club in favour of our faster, easier play rules.
One set was a Christmas gift to complement my Roman Legion project - Infamy! Infamy! - these are the most convoluted and difficult to understand ramblings that I have come across. We attempted a few games, some under tutorials on zoom but still could not fathom out the mechanics properly. We spent one game of almost 3 hours and "completed" 2 turns spending more time hunting through the rule book. Gave up. Not used again as it defeated the purpose of a game - FUN. It was no fun searching through pages for a "rule" concealed in a ramble. I have not played WH40K but have read through the Core Rules. They are free to download. They appear well laid out and after a first reading I think I could play a game. Not a fan of having to buy a book for each army though! As grandad I may be expected to contribute on birthdays etc.
It seems that every month there is yet another crop of must have picture books (sorry rule sets) with an ever growing number editions, expansions, scenario books etc etc.
So it is not over collecting that drives me to lower complexity systems it is a desire to play with my toy soldiers in a social setting and have fun doing so. After all I have spent about 60 years amassing armies and terrain. Would I spend £40 of a rule set? Nope, I can get several metal figures or 2 boxes of plastic figures (more if 1/72) for that and hours of fun researching, building, converting and painting them followed by years of enjoyment playing with them.
-
I couldn't claim any special knowledge about why, but I feel like in the past 10 years or so lower complexity systems have caught up with what I've always wanted in gaming rules.
I was into 40k off and on from 94'-09'. Never could get happy with the rules. I just wanted the spectacle of Wargaming that I saw in White Dwarf without so dang many rules.
When I discovered Song of Blades it was a revelation. It was the game I always wanted. Shockforce/Warengine, Wastelands, Kings of War, Dragon Rampant, and most recently Grimdark Future have felt similarly. Simple, fun ways for my club mates and I to easily get a game (or two) in on a weekday evening.
Having large and various collections may indeed make one less interested in complex rules. However I suspect that the proliferation of streamlined games comes more because there are simply more players out there that want to put their toys on the table without having to contend with learning another complex (and often expensive) rules encyclopedia.
-
This is a great discussion!
A question: does anyone have any examples of genuinely complex sets of rules that are also really good?
I've been scratching my head a bit on this one. Havoc, by Brent Spivey/Bombshell, is a great game buried in an overlong and poorly edited rulebook, but I think that if it were rewritten in the style of the same author's much shorter Rogue Planet, it would be a fairly simple and short set of rules.
With RPGs, most of the 'higher-complexity' ones like RuneQuest and Mythras are actually quite fast and intuitive once you play them. And they also tend to be more streamlined and logical than D&D.
GURPS (which kind of straddles skirmish wargames and RPGs) might be an example of a complex yet (apparently) good game - it's certainly significantly more complex than its ancestor Melee.
But what other examples are there of great yet complex wargames?
-
As a tabletop minis gamer, I prefer that the bulk of my game time is facing a table of painted minis. I don't enjoy games that require me to frequently reference unit cards, sideboards, CRTs, rules, etc...things away from the table of minis. The higher percentage I'm looking at minis rather than doo-dads and whatnots, the better. So, it's a combination of simple rules and few bells and whistles to manage to operate a turn which keeps me enthused about a ruleset.
Blood Bowl is like that for me, but it's not a short game. however, once you internalize the risk/reward, the block assists, and the skills, one doesn't need to reference much and can just face minis all game. In my second play of Dragon Rampant, we didn't need to reference the rulebook at all after rolling up leader abilities...I love it.
-
I do prefer simpler rules like The Portable Wargame, Song of Blades and Heroes or Hordes of the Things for the way I can get a game set up and going without needing to remember colossal numbers of rules (or indeed field vast numbers of figures). I think due to pressure on time and space for me.
With board games I found the original Squad Leader was a gem and some of the old Metagaming microgames like Ogre, GEV or Black Hole are among my most played.
-
But what other examples are there of great yet complex wargames?
Well somewhat subjective anwers abounb!
But one of the oldest Wargames still in business is StarFleet Battles, though over the years there has been steps to simplify it. Which is also true of Battletech when playing with more than 4 Mechs a side, Harpoon Modern Naval System think on version IV or V? and faded away but Babylon 5 Wars not to be confused with the faster playable Babylon 5 Fleet Battles. Aside from SFB which I last played about 35 years ago schooled by an expert, using some simplified energy allocation rules, not played the others.
So seems ship combat seems to be home of the last refuge of the crunchy 'granular' wargames. Although saw a post earlier where someone thought Infamy, Infamy from TooFatLardies was overly complex so horses for courses really. Not played that meself so can't really comment if fair observation or not.
-
The Lardography is an interesting case.
Full disclosure: I have never played one of their games. The couple I've read were off putting for their complexity and odd editorial choices. They look like a lot of fun, and in the right hands the right GM can really make them sing. You wouldn't know it from reading the rule books though.
People I trust have explained that they are best learned directly from someone that already knows how to play. Shades of Gygax style D&D there, if you ask me. Regardless, the complexity of a game in play can often be exacerbated by the complexity of a game in presentation.
-
Again, if one has the time needed to dedicate to a system and to nurture and understand it over several games, then no doubt the complexity issue would likely be cracked, but for many of us, before getting that far, we are drawn to playing something else either from our own or others collections.
-
I am an avid 'over' collector of rulesets...I have bunch of medieval minis and I would love to try as many variations of rules. I've got the Rampant games, To The Strongest!. Recently I picked up King of War, and the entire GW Lord of The Rings set of books.
The KoW had me shaking my head a bit...I just couldn't believe how simple and straight forward they were. They are so well written, as someone else said. I'm still yet to have a decently sized game of it.
The Lord of The Rings books...well...those rules seem a bit dated & overcomplicated for a mainstream game. I'll keep the books for the scenarios. Considering that those rules are a mid 2000s set, it is remarkable how far rules have been trimmed down and simplified since.
As I said, I'm collector of rules. This is probably a (bad) habit I developed as a board wargamer years ago. Back then, I dabbled in quite a few tactical Second World War games - ASL starter Kit, Advanced Tobruk System , Lock n' Load, Panzer Grenadier, Conflict of Heroes, Squad Leader...I've probably forgotten a few. I also had a massive collection of Avalon Hill, GMT, Decision etc etc games, courtesy of a board game collecting addiction that had to be managed.
I think I like the idea of more complexity...but the reality for me is that the board wargaming hobby just got so tedious, even with the complex tactical systems I was familiar with.
There were so, so many charts and exceptions and rules to learn. Plus...hardly anyone ever had the time, or even wanted to play those long-winded board war-games. My shelves groaned with well over 200 war-games. It may be different in Europe or the US, but board war-gamers here in OZ are a rare breed, and most of the people I played those games with well...they weren't really the kind of people I liked to hang out with.
To be brutally honest, it was never fun playing those old board wargames. It was as though I was doing my taxes.
I sold off most of my board wargaming collection about ten years ago, but I still have kept my ATS sets for the scenarios & maps. I've adapted some of these to devise Crossfire scenarios.
Being introduced to miniature wargaming really changed my thinking about my hobby time. I stopped trawling Board Game Geek for the latest 'hot' new game. For a few years back then, collecting and hanging out on BGG was my hobby, rather than actual gaming. You still see that a lot over on that site..it's a bit staggering to behold.
Now I spend my time painting and making things that I use in actual games. I've never had a problem roping in friends or colleagues to play a minis game. Not once. People are quite happy to come along and give it a try.
I've realised that I enjoy spending gaming time with people that I like rather than playing a 'system' or 'theatre' or 'scenario' with a stranger.
I started to keep a blog about my gaming because I simply love the spectacle and I just want to have a diary of all the games I play with my friends.
I feel that my time is spent productively and I have things to be kind of proud of, rather than simply a dusty collection of 'shelf queens'.
Plus, I've played games with loads of different people using simple and fun rulesets. I never want to go back to those old, chart driven, rules-heavy games that made my friends eyes glaze over & back away from the table...never to return.
For me, having access to simple rules - Lion Rampant & Dragon Rampant - has meant that I can actually play more face to face games, rather than simply collecting more boxes of unplayed games.
-
I think it's four things:
1) Less time. The world is a faster place than it used to be. Barring blocking out day(s) for conventions or game days, most folks don't have more than 2-3 hours here and there to play.
2) As has been mentioned repeatedly, complex is not the same as strategic or tactical. Game design has been studied far more intensively since the 70s, and the market has a lot more players competing for time and attention.
3) If a game needs to be complex in order to properly simulate something, a video game adaptation will handle it better. I don't play Blood Bowl often enough to keep up with all of the special rules, but the video game versions do all of it for me.
4) The social component. Real-life gaming has a social element that video games (even with chat and voice chat) simply don't have.
So I guess my answer is "mostly no, but a little bit yes".
-
A question: does anyone have any examples of genuinely complex sets of rules that are also really good?
I'm not sure if this is quite the right answer but I always found 2nd ed. Space Marine (the precursor to Epic) a really good set of rules. The core mechanics are streamlined and simple (odd for a GW game, I think), but lots of people talk of the game as being stupidly complex because of the vast amount of special rules that applied to individual units. I actually really like that! It was genuinely fun looking across at your opponent's army after set up and thinking "I know what most of that does, but what is that vehicle squadron over there? How much of a threat is it?" and also knowing that your opponent could well be wondering the same about some of your stuff. The complexity created little in-game puzzles that had to be solved like that, without anyone getting confused about how orders or movement or shooting actually worked.
And if you were an Ork player, given GW's love of randomising Ork effectiveness at the time, you'd look at your own units thinking "I wonder what that will do today?" ... which wasn't so fun lol
-
After reading through these posts I imagine that different people have different parameters for what is a simple game and what is a complex game. One of my regular gaming buddies describes some games as "simulations"; these seem to have more detailed phases or rules or more rolls involved, quite often using charts (several) and my impression is that he feels that these are more accurate representations of warfare because of this. I am not sure that is necessarily so and I think that a lot of gamers feel the same way. I think the general trend in rule writing is recognising this and writers - in general- strive to get an accurate representation of warfare while at the same time keeping the game streamlined, striving to model what is key to a conflict/period/battle on the table top and ignoring what is not, the result being less complexity. That being said, there are enough rules reviews out there showing that authors regularly don't get that balance correct, oversimplifying at the expense of accuracy.
So... no, I do not think that over collecting is responsible for lower complexity systems.
-
Personally, I prefer games that are top down to ones that are bottom up.
For me, top down games look at the end results and attempt to model those. "These things all tend to have the same effect, let's lump 'em all together." DBA, Warmaster, Blitzkreig Commander and the like.
Bottom up games look at rates of fire, penetration charts, time and motion. What a friend calls "rivet counter's games."
I feel the former usually get the right results for all the wrong reasons but I prefer that to the bottom up ones where writers often seem so mired in the minutiae of what they are trying to recreate that they achieve exactly the reverse of the top down game result.
-
Belligerentparrot - that's an interesting case. I'm reminded of a common complaint against Song of Blades and Heroes (etc.): that it has too many special rules. I don't buy that because the special rules are so intuitive (e.g. 'Big' gives you +1 to hit in melee against smaller opponents and your opponents +1 to hit you in missile combat) and memorable. So it remains (for me at least) a simple game. It sounds as though Space Marine may have been similar (I can only dimly remember Adeptus Titanicus, but I recall that it was quite simple and streamlined too ...).
I think one definition of a simple game would be a game in which you rarely have to look at the rulebook during play. Song of Blades exemplifies that for me, along with Hordes of the Things.
That top-down/bottom-up distinction is a good one - and it's the latter that can often lead to multiple rolls for few outcomes. I mentioned Kill Team as an example of this above, but classic Warhammer is even worse: you have three rolls (to hit, to wound, armour save) for just two outcomes: dead or not (heroes and big monsters aside).
That's because it's a game built from the bottom up: how good a fighter is this person? How physically tough are they? How much armour are they wearing? You could get the same outcome from fewer rolls (e.g. Saga or Donnybrook) or even more outcomes from fewer rolls (e.g. Song of Blades).
-
I've never seen the point of that hit - wound - save lark.
-
The hit/wound/save system is more or less about separating weapon abilities and trying to involve the opposing player, I think.
I understand the appeal at the core of it, but it's created an entire younger generation who think Warhammer 40K is how wargames should be, that's been pretty disastrous, lol.
-
I've never seen the point of that hit - wound - save lark.
Not to argue, but I get it. In my mind, the "Hit" represents the attacker's skill, etc. The "Wound" represents the weapon used. And the "Save" represents the defender's skill, etc. It does involve a bit more dice rolling, but it does represent how combat works, at least how I understand it...and I've never played Warhamster 401K :o, so......
That's my two cents, anyway...
-
The hit/wound/save system is more or less about separating weapon abilities and trying to involve the opposing player, I think.
I understand the appeal at the core of it, but it's created an entire younger generation who think Warhammer 40K is how wargames should be, that's been pretty disastrous, lol.
Yes, I think that's right on both counts!
Another aspect of it (maybe fair enough when Warhammer was a small skirmish game and also an RPG in its first edition) is narrative. As a kid, I remember I quite enjoyed thinking "Ah, yes, you've hit my orcs/hobgoblins/Slann, but now you've got to contend with their Toughness of 4 - and that's before we get to their light armour and shields!".
But the problem with this is that it stretches out combat because rolling, counting and regathering dice takes so long. And the game went from six dwarves against a couple of dozen goblins and hobgoblins (in its first scenario) to massed battles with hundreds of figures a side.
More modern "buckets of dice" games (Lion/Dragon Rampant and Kings of War, for example) just have one roll of however many dice to decide things, which is a huge improvement. They still take into account aggressiveness/weaponskill, toughness and armour, but they achieve far more elegantly with target numbers, etc.
-
The hit/wound/save system is more or less about separating weapon abilities and trying to involve the opposing player, I think.
I understand the appeal at the core of it, but it's created an entire younger generation who think Warhammer 40K is how wargames should be, that's been pretty disastrous, lol.
I believe there was an old Rick Priestley interview in which he says much the same - the only reason for the three rolls was they needed a way to involve both players in combat whilst also having granular weapon values.
-
It's odd, though - because the saving throw just delays the lower-initiative side from getting its own attacks. So if you resolved everything with a single roll each for the attackers and defenders, the combat is resolved quicker with each side getting to roll the dice once, rather than having each side roll the dice three times.
-
Sure, but that's the whole new can of worms - the IGOUGO debate, which is similarly awful in games the size of 40K.
Back in 2nd edition Warhammer 40,000...models fighting in close combat both rolled simultaneously, comparing dice and trading successes/fumbles, etc. Later it became "higher initiative goes first" and yeah your entire unit/army is wiped out before you get to fight, short of rolling armour saves.
I'm a huge fan of mitigating IGOUGO in anyway possible.
-
It's odd, though - because the saving throw just delays the lower-initiative side from getting its own attacks. So if you resolved everything with a single roll each for the attackers and defenders, the combat is resolved quicker with each side getting to roll the dice once, rather than having each side roll the dice three times.
You're preching to the choir mate - I'm of the opinion the the rules side of 40k needs a good age of sigmar-ing. The core game at the very heart of all the bloat is so unfit for what GW try to make it do.
-
Not to go off topic, but unfortunately for companies like GW..."poor rules" are part of the business plan. It's how they sell you updated books and FAQ's every 6 months for your army, etc. lol They have no vested interest in efficient or well-written rules...that would actually be bad for business. They need "just good enough" to keep people scraping at every corner for an advantage or better rules, etc.
-
More modern "buckets of dice" games (Lion/Dragon Rampant and Kings of War, for example) just have one roll of however many dice to decide things, which is a huge improvement. They still take into account aggressiveness/weaponskill, toughness and armour, but they achieve far more elegantly with target numbers, etc.
This is exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of.
-
You're preching to the choir mate - I'm of the opinion the the rules side of 40k needs a good age of sigmar-ing. The core game at the very heart of all the bloat is so unfit for what GW try to make it do.
Oh, yes, I know! I was just trying to parse RP's statement. Actually, don't Warhammer rules always have shooting listed and explained before melee?
*Checks rulebook*
Well, they certainly did in the beginning ...
So maybe the design was originally to provide interactivity in the shooting phase (a positive thing) - but it then ended up as clutter in the combat phase.
I'd never noticed before tonight that first-edition Warhammer has a different turn structure to the established game, in that both players shoot in the shooting phase. That seems an altogether better and more engaging sequence - I wonder why they dropped it?
I also wonder if the 'to hit/to wound' thing comes from the early game's foot in the RPG camp; from what I've read, it was in part designed to encourage people to buy more orcs, etc, than they'd need for D&D encounters. After all, many earlier wargames acknowledge only those hits that do damage. But while that was the case in D&D, it introduced variable damage in personal combat - so that there was a 'to hit' roll and a 'how hard' roll too.
So the set-up does make Warhammer more like an RPG (in the level of detail), which is one of the things it was trying to be at the start (alongside the Ziggurat of Doom, the first edition's other scenario is a full-blown RPG adventure).
If memory serves, a lot of the 'classic' Warhammer tropes - champions, musicians, standard-bearers, etc. - didn't appear in Forces of Fantasy. But a lot of the rules were fully formed - including that protracted combat system, which makes much more sense in those early scenarios with their emphasis on single combat.
As you say, the subsequent editions were piling an awful lot on a system that seems to have originally been designed for skirmishes in ruins and dungeons! Mind you, I doubt the authors have many regrets! ;)
-
I don't think it has anything to do with over collecting, but I do find myself leaning towards simpler systems. But I would define simpler as something you can just play without your nose in the book the whole time. I don't mind slogging through an overly think book as long as in plays intuitively on the table. Occasionally I need to get out some units out and roll some dice before a new set of rules really clicks.
-
Oh, yes, I know! I was just trying to parse RP's statement. Actually, don't Warhammer rules always have shooting listed and explained before melee?
I'd never noticed before tonight that first-edition Warhammer has a different turn structure to the established game, in that both players shoot in the shooting phase. That seems an altogether better and more engaging sequence - I wonder why they dropped it?
I used to play 40k with my mates like that for years until I played in an actual GW store and had it pointed out to me that I was doing it wrong. we always did it as I move, you move, I shoot you shoot, I melee you melee.
On the subject of simpler systems and the link between early Warhammer and roleplaying, It is also perhaps possible that as fantasy wargaming has established itself more and drifted away from its roleplaying game influences, so other systems have followed? As many gamers now get into the hobby through fantasy and sci fi in the forms of warhammer, They aren't bringing the same kind of granular attitudes that older gamers who maybe got into things via roleplaying or went directly to the more complex historical board wargames might have been prone too.
I know for myself I never played D&D until I was already a wargamer, And the whole thing seemed like an overly cumbersome mess to me. so when I started designing my own games I wasn't starting from that point, but instead trying to smooth out wargaming itself, not adapt roleplaying to larger encounters.
-
For me i think it is a matter of experience. I have played all sorts of games from hypercomplex almost simulations/reenactments to very simple ones. Very often the very complex games often end up being roundabout longwinded ways where you end up needing to roll 4+ anyways. The simple ones get boring with no flavor and not many options to impact events.
I have come to the conclusion that rules like Hail Ceasar and Lions Rampant. Hit the sweet spot between complexity and simplicity. At least for me. They give me just enough "game" and I can then focus on adding flavor with my miniatures, terrain and scenarios.
-
first-edition Warhammer has a different turn structure to the established game, in that both players shoot in the shooting phase. That seems an altogether better and more engaging sequence - I wonder why they dropped it?
You're making me nostalgic! Not because I played it "back in the day" (I was a literal baby in 1983), but because in 2011 I went on a quest to collect and play the early editions of Warhammer after reading Zhu Baijee's The Oldhammer Contract (http://realmofzhu.blogspot.com/2011/10/oldhammer-contract.html). I have a great fondness for first edition, with its simple structure, complete lack of in-built fantasy world (because why would you play in any world other than Middle-earth?) and quaint black and white illustrations that look like the doodles I populated my high school work books with.
If I'm not mistaken, the simultaneous shooting was very quickly replaced with 'only the active player may shoot', even before 2nd Edition came out the following year. I'm pretty sure the version I bought came with this printed on an errata sheet, and the person I'd bought the copy from had already made the adjustment in the book with a Biro.
There are still some distinctive oddities about first edition, such as the 'countercharge' move which means both charging units meet "somewhere in the middle", but without specifying where exactly in the middle that is, and the optional 'follow on' rule, aptly demonstrated by the example character SOLOMON KLOMP (vs a giant rat), who bears no resemblance whatsoever to a certain Puritan swordsman created by Robert E. Howard.
Personally, I've always found the hit>wound>save sequence a little odd: first you roll to see if you hit (which I interpreted as landing a blow on the target without it being parried) -- so far so good -- then you roll to see if your hit actually caused an injury, as opposed to a glancing blow -- so far, still so good -- THEN your opponent rolls to see if their armour stopped the blow, after it's already been established that a wound has been caused? So a blow is landed and a wound is caused, but then -- surprise -- none of that really happened because the weapon actually hit the armour?! Odd indeed.
One of the more recent systems I've tried -- ACIDSHOCK! (which uses D10s for all rolls) -- simply adds armour as a value to the target's defensive roll, with the added value amount corresponding to the type of armour worn. Example: peasant with spear attacks enemy knight wearing plate armour. Peasant's attack roll = D10 + 2 (peasant skill level) + 2 (spear damage level), Vs Knight's defense roll = D10 + 4 (knight's skill level) + 4 (plate armour value). Seems far more logical than rolling for an armour save after a weapon has already both landed and caused potentially fatal injury!
In answer to the original question: I don't think over-collecting (certainly not in my case) has anything to do with the simplifying of rules. I think it's just a natural evolution of rules-writing: as time has gone by people have found better and more streamlined ways to write rules for wargaming, learning from the ones that came before and making gradual improvements. Everyone having (probably) busier lives with more distractions now, in addition to the widening of the market to younger and less 'grognardy' players, are possible contributing factors.
Some good points have been made about how it's much preferable to play a game without constantly having to refer to the book. I have trouble remembering if I started with Song of Blades & Heroes, or Warhammer Historical: Legends of the High Seas as my first wargaming system (it was one or the other), but I distinctly remember having to constantly flip around the book of LotHS to find out how to handle almost any situation, which became highly annoying, whereas SoBaH I was able to remember the whole thing with relative ease, without having to reference the book at all once I'd picked up the basic system. In my experience, ACIDSHOCK! scores the highest on that front (memorisation of rules), but I concede that it doesn't have the range of potential outcomes that SoBaH offers.
This is also a great point:
The simple ones get boring with no flavor and not many options to impact events.
My initial goal in finding the perfect rule system was one which was dead easy to learn (and remember), could be adapted to any setting, any miniatures, any scale, any table size. A complete sandbox, essentially, without any irritating restrictions (e.g. "this unit only uses this weapon"). But I have observed that some of the simpler sets, while very easy to learn and memorise, do in fact seem to get boring very quickly. It's almost as if the stripping out of elements that appear to make the system too tied down to a particular theme or setting also make it too bland, unless you have a great imagination and a ton of self-motivation.
-
I suspect I am an anomaly - played D&D in the 70's - but thereafter mainly historical. Never played Warhammer, in any of its guises.
For me, I played some of the 'bottom up' sets, thousands of factors, hundred page rulebook, 5 minutes on the battlefield took hours to play, yes 'Empire' and 'Newbury fast-play' (hah!) I'm looking at you. No thanks. There are rules where I am prepared to use bottom up mechanisms, where combat is quite mechanical, eg Naval, but for the most part, I would prefer DBA to WRG 6th, etc.
The Lardy games I find tricky, their older sets are written for a bunch of blokes playing down the club with the author. Holes you could drive a truck through etc. But CoC and SP2 are solid and simple to play.
Currently I'm playing Iron Cross, 7DttRR, CoC, SPII and (occasionally) DBMM. I suspect that says more about me than anything. I also have dabbled with Black Powder, TMWBK, Lion Rampant, WAT, SAGA, Infamy, O Group, various dreadnoughts and aeronef.
Typical wargamer butterfly I suspect.
-
The Lardography is an interesting case.
Full disclosure: I have never played one of their games. The couple I've read were off putting for their complexity and odd editorial choices. They look like a lot of fun, and in the right hands the right GM can really make them sing. You wouldn't know it from reading the rule books though.
People I trust have explained that they are best learned directly from someone that already knows how to play. Shades of Gygax style D&D there, if you ask me. Regardless, the complexity of a game in play can often be exacerbated by the complexity of a game in presentation.
The older Lardy rules are absolutely like that. Developed to play between mates with the rules author present. Sharp Practice II in my view represented a watershed when the Lardies 'went professional' - and the quality, playtesting and support since then has been a quantum leap forward.
-
I'm back into wargaming after a 15 year + absence and I have to admit I feel it's gone backwards in terms of rule systems. I came from background of AD&D, then Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, WFB and finally WAB. I then went off to mod Total War computer games.
I never ever really played vanilla Total War - it became increasingly like a terrible arcade game where the battle was over in 10 minutes. Instead I modded everything about it to improve graphics, script better campaigns, improve battlefield AI etc. I want a battle to last for hours. Every turn to take many hours etc. I want complexity.
I want the same from a wargame. I want a simple system but one that can be scaled into a highly complex one, which can handle big tables, thousands of miniatures, massive variation of troop types etc. So far I've been depressed by recent systems I've bought. My idea of awful is DBA and it seems that everything is now more DBA like and less WAB like.
-
Admittedly there's nothing stopping you from playing the same old games you like. I also believe there are quite a few "old school" style games available, you just won't find them from big companies like GW, etc.
Dig around on Wargame Vault and read some reviews - you'll probably find what you're looking for.
-
The original question was if over-collecting is driving us to simpler game systems, and in my personal case, I think this is partially true.
I came into this hobby, like many in my age bracket I suspect, with the release of both Hero Quest and Star Quest/Space Crusade. I had previously bought some RPG starter boxes, like D&D and Oog des Meesters/Das Schwarze Auge, but they did not come with miniatures, just standees.
I did read the rules over and over though (at the time, I had nobody to play with at any rate), but always got confused with the combat rules; so many (types of) dice and tables!
Then the above board games came along, and those rules were nice and simple. It turned out I vastly preferred the painting and modeling aspect of the hobby over the actual gaming side and for years, I happily hobbied along on my own.
Oh; I did try a game of Battletech at one point with a friend, but it took us an entire afternoon to play through 3 or 4 turns of a Cityfight scenario (infantry versus one mech) and the rules-heaviness of it all was a bit of a let-down.
This changed when I went to live in a different city to go to uni. There was a thriving community of wargamers there, an FLGS, and I finally started playing actual wargames there, even if it was mostly a skirmish game; Necromunda.
Not because I didn't want to play larger games, but money was tight, as was time to paint (time enough to go out drinking though ::) ), so I didn't have the budget to start on larger games.
Fast forward a couple of years, when my then girlfriend and I are living together, both with a steady job, and I decided to take up painting again. And this time, I went for the whole shebang. In many ways, this was when I actually started wargaming.
I joined the local club, housed above the FLGS, and went all in on playing Warhammer 40K. In many ways, 40K formed me as a wargamer. And this means I do not have the negative feelings many appear to have in regards to GW's systems; they were after all the foundation of my wargaming 'career'.
This went on for quite some years. I had joined a Space Marine-centric forum called the Bolter and Chainsword and eventually became a mod there. Basically, I found myself in a tight niche (Space Marines) within a niche (40K) of an already niche hobby (miniature wargaming) and I spent many years happily gaming within those confines.
40K was my wargaming world. Quite literally, because my FLGS only offered GW products, with a (locally hugely impopular) sprinkle of Warzone, plus a tiny bit of Confrontation (which looked nice enough, but was also weird and unknown to us).
Such was the state of the wargaming scene locally, that any other system than GW's was considered strange, scary and unwanted. And I'm sure there were many local groups like that around, especially in the Netherlands, which (certainly back then) was a wargaming desert.
This was thrown into disarray when somehow Warmachine was introduced into the store and me and several other club-members decided to each buy a starter set (I got Khador). The rules were both different, simpler, more difficult and not to my liking at all.
With that I mean the absolute bonkers way one had to build up combo's to finish off the opponent. ('I use this unit to buff up this unit's stats, then I use my caster's feat to improve their attack and this spell to throw them across the board next to your Warcaster. No, you can't interupt that. I now roll... 63 dice, and each 2+ causes a wound.')
In other words; I hugely disliked the whole complex mess the game quickly became, even though I really love the setting and background, and I walked away from it.
But the apple had been bitten into, and I was now curious to see what other systems were out there. By chance, I stumbled onto the Lead Adventures Forum and I was nearly blown away by the insane amount of different systems and miniature ranges out there. Something I had not even been remotely aware of when still ensconced in my Space Marine niche-niche!
Then came a flurry of revelations and discoveries, and I quickly became enamoured by the wealth of different ranges and systems out there. Pandora's box gaped wide and open so to speak...
And then I discovered that there were both better and simpler systems than my trusty 40K (which had progressed three or four editions since I had started out by then), so over the years we picked up Infinity, Dropzone Commander and X-Wing.
But only the latter got any traction. In fact; it was basically the only game we played for several years. Only thinking about it now, I realize that this was mostly due to the rules being intuitive and simple, where the others were as heavy as 40K or even heavier in the rules department.
I now have shelves of rule books, for a plethora of different systems, all of the Osprey blue books, a range of historical games, you name it; occupying about 4 meters of shelving...
But because of ever diminishing energy levels and spare time, very few of those games actually get played; the only ones that see the table are easy and fast games, like skirmish ones. There's simply no opportunity to play them all!
I feel it's a matter of having too many choices. Like a buffet with the best foods available, and your plate only being so big.
Of course gamedesign (and -fashion) has changed dramatically over the years, and things have absolutely become better, more streamlined, more engaging and quicker; there's no denying that.
But the crux here is that demand has changed due to us changing as well. I used to be the biggest fan of the X-Com PC-game from the nineties. I can't recall how many times I played through it back then; I couldn't get enough. I picked it up again several years ago and rage quit halfway through the first tactical mission; I found it to be nigh unplayable!
So yeah; in my case, due to small windows of opportunity to game, and the unending range of games being released, the only ones that stand any real chance of being played are simple systems, which can be played from the book(let). Because knowing all rules by heart like we used to back in the 40K days is impossible when there's so many games to be played...
-
The original question was if over-collecting is driving us to simpler game systems...
This is a good point. I think I misunderstood the original question as being "Is the abundance of rules out there driving the creation of simpler systems?" But, looking back, I am not sure why I thought that's what was being asked...
I would say, in my case, I was on the lookout for a very simple rule system right from the start; I didn't have to collect my way to that point! I have never found learning tabletop game rules particularly easy. In the 90s I struggled -- to an embarrassing degree -- to understand the rules of even quite simple family board games. I think that this must have been some kind of learning difficulty, as I struggled with schoolwork just as much.
As such, I got into this hobby later in life by learning simpler systems and I have generally preferred rules that err in that direction. I have never been much of a collector of rules, though. I have tended to learn one set, try it out, then discard it if I haven't got on with it in some way.
A number of years ago I did take an interest in slightly more complex rule systems (e.g. I transitioned from Song of Blades and Heroes to the combat system from Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay), because I was looking for something that had a bit more "crunch", but when Ravenfeast was launched in 2020, I realised that sort of "entry level" ruleset was actually much more my cup of tea, and I have been pursuing systems of a similar low-complexity ever since.
-
The original question was if over-collecting is driving us to simpler game systems, and in my personal case, I think this is partially true.
...
I had been meaning to answer this eventually, and diligently read all the posts, and Daeothar's says exactly what I would have said! Except the HeroQuest and Space Crusade and RPG bits at the very start, which I did not really experience.
A couple of year back I faced the issues of simplicity and complexity with an evening course of lectures introducing tabletop wargaming. I had to take people with potentially zero familiarity with wargames to potentially far more playing time in recent years than I had, introduce the typology, history and basic concepts of wargames (and that includes hex and card games), and then give them examples, leading up to playing a games. One of my choices was a game based on international aid to an earthquake-stricken country (Aftershock - this one, there are more than one it seems: https://paxsims.wordpress.com/aftershock/#:~:text=AFTERSHOCK%3A%20A%20Humanitarian%20Crisis%20Game,players%20grouped%20into%20larger%20teams (https://paxsims.wordpress.com/aftershock/#:~:text=AFTERSHOCK%3A%20A%20Humanitarian%20Crisis%20Game,players%20grouped%20into%20larger%20teams)))
The second was a home design of a matrix game - this stuff http://www.mapsymbs.com/wdmatrix.html (http://www.mapsymbs.com/wdmatrix.html), not the publisher.
The third was the miniature-based game (we did not have time for a hex -based game, as most were a bit complex to learn rapidly enough for one 2-hour session), and I finally went with Tanks, with Fow and other models.
The reasons for the choice were:
1) relatively few models needed - for a 2 player per side game I used about ten per side, which were more than enough.
2) due to the 15 mm scale, models and scenery were easily transportable
3) rules available online for all to read
4) mainly - and getting to the point at last - they were simple to grasp, but still permitted a fun game, with quick action, even though none of the players had tried it before. It's VERY basic, very fast, but permits some variety which is easily applied. This is included on cards which go with the units, but as the numbers of vehicles are not excessive it's manageable. I also added a couple of vehicles without rules for the game, and got the students to try their hand at it, which was an added bonus.
So far it's the simplest but still fun game I found, and the criteria in four make it worth the while. Although I got to this not through over-collecting, but having to teach the stuff!
It was fun, by the way! And the students insisted on staying late to finish the game :D
-
I'm sure there must be instances of systems taking a lot of complexity to deliver the same gaming conclusion that a simpler system might also deliver - but then we are perhaps looking at the journey as much as the outcome.
I know in my very early years of gaming, I had just a couple of sets of rules. They were not particularly simple, but I knew them very well, I would like to get back to that point.
-
The increasing depth of coverage of my collection has seen me drawn more and more to rule sets that cover more and more specific periods and campaigns ... which I then tinker with to fit other periods/ theatres!
Samurai Strength and Honour anyone? No? How about Sumerian Strength and Honour then? :) :) :)
-
I used to play 40k with my mates like that for years until I played in an actual GW store and had it pointed out to me that I was doing it wrong. we always did it as I move, you move, I shoot you shoot, I melee you melee.
Interestingly enough this is how their Middle-Earth game works. It is the rule set that I like the most out of everything I played so far.
As for the question of the topic, I have a lot of figures but it does not really impact what I rules I like or are looking for. However I always gravitated toward skirmish games with light rpg elements, so I don't mind if a game is more complex if it provides what I'm looking for.
What occurred to me though is with less complex systems which use fewer dice rolls, bad rolls or really good rolls can affect your game more than in games with rules that use more dice rolls for the same thing.
-
Interestingly enough this is how their Middle-Earth game works. It is the rule set that I like the most out of everything I played so far.
that explains it then - I got into the hobby through lord of the rings and must have carried my understanding of those rules over to 40k.
-
Going back to the original question, my collecting has driven me to seek out more generic rulesets that allow me to game a variety of genres - whether they're simple or complex.
I'm very guilty of buying/collecting miniatures and then waiting (potentially years) for a set of rules to be released that would allow me to use them.
-
I'm very guilty of buying/collecting miniatures and then waiting (potentially years) for a set of rules to be released that would allow me to use them.
There can't be many miniatures out there which can't be used in some set of rules these days?
-
There can't be many miniatures out there which can't be used in some set of rules these days?
Yes, nowadays there is. I've been collecting since the early 90s and back then there were fewer rulesets around and it was either a case of massively modify a ruleset or not use those miniatures.
-
Interestingly enough there's a not unrelated article in this months Wargames Soldiers and Strategy, which is more an aspect of are lower complexity/simplistic games diluting the historical flavour.
This is something that's been levelled at Black Powder that is nontheless a very popular ruleset, or that rulesets are doing this for heroic or Hollywood gaming as a get out clause on skipping over Historical grounding of the rules.
But then you do get TooFatLardies games, where there maybe trying to find a balance with this, but very much with an intent that there is an historical feel about the games.
I find the LittleWars TV review of systems to be quite interesting, where historical flavour is a category they assess.
-
I think the post was worth reading, even if I found the whole point a bit off for me. There are several issues at work here, from personal enjoyment to definition of complexity. And any answer will be indeed subjective and personal.
First a bit of background. I am a wargamer first and miniature wargamer second. So I will not agree with anyone who says miniature are somewhat 'superior' and I do no intend to get rid of my hex and counter collection anytime. I also do not find these games slanted toward complexity over miniatures. I will flatly said that I think that they are easier to teach and not that complex, despite bias. Having taught conflict simulation at KCL for years (before the charlatans took over) I did not find the concepts all that difficult to explain or pick up. Having a grid and values on counters also speed up playing a lot. Likewise CRT are often shunned in miniature wargames, but they are quick and easy to use, often much easier and quicker than plenty of dices.
Said that... I game for the period flavor so I tend to shun overly generic games. One of my great complaints about the DBx system was its genericity. It had zero period flavor and in the end you were playing abstract squares and rectangles.
For me complexity is neither good or bad. It is a process. I am willing to accept it if significant results are produced. Classical example, combat. The hit-wound-save approach is mechanically simple but then it become tedious on implementation. In larger actions can become quite annoying. It is one of the reasons I dropped the Blitzkrieg series. I love all in the game except combat. I found O Group approach much more effective even Battlegroup. On the other side there are CRTs, I am used to them, and what they allow you to do is much more flexible and nuanced that raw dice system. The '4x series by GMT is a clear example. In a single table you can condense plenty of variable and also plenty of tactical decision.
And here the idea that complexity appeals only to 'grumpy old white men' appears. I think it is rubbish and basically another of these idiotic categorizations that permeates our society. Personal tastes have nothing to do with age, gender, or skin color. You cannot really use these to address wargaming. It is like the comment in the seventies we were expected to be like computer. You can counterargue that it is just a knee jerk reaction by people who do not like to use their brain. To be quite honest I think some of the mechanically simple systems out of there (bucket of dice for example) are designed to cater to people who seems to be opposed to use their brain. The downside is that then somehow this creates false ideas about complexity. There is also the added argument that maybe it is not so much the public expanding, but wargame elements filtering out to other games that then are bunched up in the same category.
Basically it all boils down to what we want. And not every one wants the same thing. And probably here lays one of the issues. Not every game is made for everyone. One of the product of the increase in the hobby base is the diversification of interests. So not everything has to cater for everyone. The game that appeals to everyone does not exist.
Not a great fan of 'elegance' or 'innovation'. I found the first a buzzword to cloak things we like in a fashionable word. But often it does not mean anything except 'I like it'. The second... innovation for innovation sake. You end up doing different things just for doing different things. Even worse is the 'innovation bandwagon' of people doing things only to follow the trend. Hate the pundits in BGG who always abuse of these words, or the people criticizing games because they are 'old school.'
A clear example of the 'fashionability' (yes I made the word on the spot) are Card Driven Games, I own plenty, like several, but found very few are indeed in necessity of being Card Driven Games. Same with the current fashion of 'COIN' games. I really think only a couple are worth the price, the other are just crap (my favorite target is Fire in the Lake, something that basically fails on all count as an historical game because the game was fit to the system rather than viceversa). You can argue that its miniature counterpart is Bolt Action. The game was indeed designed to fit 'popular' mechanisms to a popular period.
Yet the general bottom line is that we play games we like and gives us what we want. I dislike Advanced Squad Leader and found the complexity there being just for the sake of it. Yet I have friends who swear it is not that complex at all. And I have to agree the basic skeleton is not that complex. And the other bottom line is that by now we have choice. So yes some people gravitates toward simpler rulesets because they have choice by now. In the past they would have been forced to basically shup up and play more 'complex' ones.
-
A strong post Arrigo.
Yes, it boils down to different folks like different things. We have seen this "atomization" in many aspects of our modern culture thanks to Social Media and other more tailored marketing/sales focused approaches.
Now, there are enough Indi publishing arms and publishers to try to appeal to all types of gamers out there.
-
There can't be many miniatures out there which can't be used in some set of rules these days?
These days there are plenty of rulesets with the flexibility to use any miniature.
There's scarcely a fantasy miniature that couldn't find a home in Song of Blades, Dragon Rampant or Kings of War. Plenty of options for SciFi and every historical period had been covered.
Whether you can find a ruleset to your liking is another question entirely, but they should be no such thing as a homeless miniature in today's Wargame world.
-
I've typed out a lengthy reply to this post several times, only to delete it as I found myself rambling. lol
I'll just summarize with this simple point; never before have people had more options for their spare time. Manufacturers know they're competing (generally speaking) for a slimmer and slimmer slice of the pie. In the 90's growing up as a teenager I barely had internet access (the occasional "10 hours" AOL disc, etc.), did not have access to social media, streaming services, nor the budget to buy loads of video games nor movies/TV, etc. No cell phone, etc. etc.
If there were games outside of Warhammer 40K, Necromunda and my intimidating copy of Advanced Squad Leader, I was more or less unaware...and even less able to find/study/purchase other games. Becoming dedicated to a single game, or spending an inordinate amount of time was more due to a lack of options than steadfast adherence.
Today in my 40's, I have access to...everything. An infinite amount of ways to spend my time. I can buy homemade rules written by someone on an iPad in Manchuria with the click of my mouse. I can order bespoke miniatures from 3D printers all across the globe, etc.
I think major manufacturers (not small indie shops) are going to streamline as they're looking for the lowest common denominator to guarantee sales. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but the days of complex games with an intent for the players to invest in an 8-hour wargame, are less common. Fortunately with the internet we have access to both.
I think it's fair to say that "most" people probably have less of an attention span than we did in perhaps the 80's-90's when we did not have access to so much variety in how we spent our spare time. Big game companies know that, they know they're competing against all of those things - not just other wargames.
-
Interesting point Elbows,
but with some caveats... lol
I can agree with your description of the 90s, but I found much easier than you to expand and play my wargame collection. Either I was lucky to have two shops in Bologna at the time but even without the net and social media (that I rarely use for gaming news...) I was able to keep more or least abreast with upcoming games. Avalon Hill (and its sub-division VG), GMT, GDW, The Gamers... I had both access to choice and time to invest on them. Of course the advent of the widespread net improved things a lot, but I would not say we were without choices. I still recall my 18 years old self discussing my experience with Jim Day MBT with my platoon commander at the Military Academy. And remember it was the Italian Army Military academy, so I was far away from the main sources of wargames.
As for the current situation... depends... I would not say that manufacturers in general are going toward the lowest denominator. If not because there are issues with that. I see that in some miniature games and producers (let's name call... Warlord, Flames of War in the Historical Field), but to a certain extent you can argue that they are all people coming out from the GW world so they are following the model... and one has also to wonder hos much the model is successful or how much the model is a myth. For example I have quite large 15mm and 28mm collections with plenty of models from the aforementioned brands. But I do not play their games. So maybe their sales are successful despite their 'model'.
To move to the map and counters field, I have read plenty of people singing praise of the simpler games GMT is putting out. Yes they sell, but these people often forgot that games like the Next War Series, MMP OCS, and even a monster like Summon of the Trumpets sell.
Something that at times we fail to understand is not that the player base is shifting, but that companies that would have been difficult to access to the non initiates, have more exposure and thus they can present products with different targets. Sometimes I look at rating on BGG (oh the horror!) and link these with real people. You can often see that the crowd that sing praise of the WEURO (the new fashionable term, combination of Euro Game and Wargame) often are not wargamers. Even worse/better is in the 80s and 90s you could have argued that the main choice was between Risiko/A&A on one side, and ASL on the other (oversimplifying), nowadays there are plenty of products in the middle.
With miniatures is the same but also different. When I get the new game box the only thing I have to do is remove the shrink-wrap, punch out the counters, clip them, read the rules and set-up. With miniatures you have to paint them (not even talking about terrain!)... of course we all known there are some heretics that use unpainted miniatures and just put boxes on the table to make hills... but still the entry effort is higher. So it opens another question, for people who like to put a lot of effort in the miniature part, is the lowest common denominator applicable? Worth noting that in the two wargame magazines I read, WI and WSS, while there is clearly a strong presence of the two historical 'heavyweights' certainly other rules are in evidence. Battlegroup and CoC probably are even more popular than Bolt Action.
To summarize I do not think that over choice is generally leading to lower complexity. My experience is that lower complexity tends to attract people who have just passing interest in wargaming. Of course there are exceptions.
Also something that had not been really been mentioned is the difference between scope and complexity. Why I am playing Lion Rampant and its offsprings? For the complexity or the scope? I see a big advantage in LR in the scope. I can create a force I am marginally interested with much less effort than for a full size arrayed battle ruleset. Yes there are people that scoff at smaller games (I remember some post on the oldglory UK blog that were literal rants...) but definitely they have their own good points. They also make sense historically (no Leipzig everyday), allow us to 'manage' ( o_o lol :o seriously?) our buid ups and still provide us with interesting games. And some of them are anything but 'simple' or 'simplistic'.
Best,
Arrigo 'the rambling'
-
On the question of investment, yes it is easier to get into one boardgame than paint an army ……. but, the painted army can be used with one set of rules to play multiple battles and scenarios forever, whereas the boardgamer will likely have to buy several games to cover their battles of interest and it is the number of those games with their individual rulebooks that collectively give us our first marker of complexity as we have to read a different rulebook when shifting from game to game, i.e Flying Pig Games Gettysburg to Worthington Publishing Antietam and the to Decision Games Shiloh etc.
-
Norm,
this is not necessarily true. There are systems (usually at tactical level) that allow you to get from one game to another with minimum effort. For example Herman Luttman Blind Swords, or his new Shatter Union, the late Richard Berg Great Battles of the ACW, or even Dave Powell Civil War Brigade/Regimental Series. At the operational level Joe Balkoski Great Campaigns of the ACW also shines. And I have stopped just to ACW (maybe because I have A most Fearful Sacrifice on the Table? lol ). Also plenty of games have plenty of different scenarios.
So probably this is not a factor. And to be quite honest prices between a decent sized army allowing me to play several different battles and a series of games are not that different after all.
I do not see reading another rulebook as a marker of complexity. Yet I can see why some do. And here is one of the primary reason why rules that spans centuries if not millennia have a place. But here I think you are mixing complexity with comfort zone. We all have our comfort zones and I have seen several gamers whose comfort zone is system related. Once they find mechanics/scopes they are happy with they do not change. I fail to see the appeal, but for some this is the appeal. On the other hand there are also gamers who constantly switch from system to system abandoning the previous one because they seems unable to get what they want. Some are indeed just whiny people, but for some is the search of the system fitting their tastes.
But to return to your OP and your blog post, I do not think it is over collecting and choice of miniatures. It is settling on our comfort zone. I understand the appeal of these all encompassing systems, but for me they do nothing. I like flavor and systems that give me the feel of the subject. For example I like Lion Rampant, but I found some of the attempts to replicate it for different periods unsuccessful mainly because they were just face lift. Just renaming Knights Cataphracts is not working for me. Other who tried to use the skeleton but also to create feel of the period worked better (Rebels and Patriots for example). Also I am quite happy to play different systems 'at once' because I am keen to see different approaches. As once Kevin Zucker said (and Phil Sabin misunderstood and overabused... ;D ) a designer can afford to go into detail only in one aspect of a design. Thus in each game you (should) see what the designer thinks is important for the topic. On the other hand you have designer that just wander around (ASL comes to my mind, it tries to do everything and fails everywhere, Empire too) or some that seems to just use such a large paintbrush that the result is bland (Phil Barker? FoW :P ). But also these two extremes have their follower so... well comfort zone.
Best,
Arrigo
-
On the boardgame side of things, I am now deliberately moving my collection to series based systems to gain rule familiarity and a proper grounding in each system.
Though it remains the case that I have some favourite situations and games that each rely on a single (i.e. non-series) rulebook and for many gamers, these one off rulebooks are common amongst their collections. Examples for me would be Guderian’s War by One Small Step and Cobra from Decision Games.
Probably the greatest barrier that I have in putting the next game up on the table is reading or re-reading a ruleset that I have not accessed for months or perhaps years, the less complex that rule set is, the easier that path.
I played A fearful Sacrifice a few weeks ago and there are enough differences from the Blind Swords series to warrant a full rules read and there is a lot going on under that bonnet. Even within the Blind Swords series, the first 4 games carried differences in the main rules between each game, these are the sorts of things that I see as complexities, the sort of things that discourage me getting a game to the table on this lovely Saturday afternoon!
ASL is not complicated if it is one of the few things that you play and you play often - step outside of those parameters and it immediately becomes a complicated game. The bigger the collection and the more diverse its coverage, the higher the complexity of reaching for my Saturday afternoon game … or so it seems to me at least 🙂
-
Back in the '70s I played miniatures games, D&D and board games.
Games played ranged in complexity from SPI's (IIRC) intro game with five soviet and three NATO counters on a map the size of my hand up to Drang Nach Osten. One of the group bought Campaign for North Africa but we only got as far as laying out the map and initial counters and reading the rulebook before deciding life was too short and packing it all back up! But the number of games we had between us was probably in the order of two dozen or so. We played alternate weeks, on a Sunday afternoon, alternating with D&D.
Tabletop wargames were WW2, Napoleonic, ACW or Ancients and, until the advent of the Blessed Barker and WRG, were all variants on Don Featherstones rules. Mainly 25mm with some of us heretics using 15mm Peter Laing figures for Ancients.
These days I play board games three evenings a week, online. All Eurogames - Settlers, Agricola, Carcassonne, Stone Age, Res Arcana, Splendor, et al. I don't know anyone who still plays hex wargames. We have access to literally hundreds of games and almost always start the evening with a new game. Some are simple, fast to play and largely luck, others are complex, take all evening and have little to no chance involved.
Tabletop wargames options range from my 15mm Homo Heidelbergensis tribe for Tribal, through my 2mm Roman army for Strength and Honour, my one page rules 28mm chibi ninja, to my 20mm 5 Parsecs collection and dozens of others besides. I have shelves of rules and switch between them quite happily. Probably because none of us care if we get the rules exactly right so long as everyone has a good time.
"Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools." -Sir Douglas BaderThese days, there is almost literally something for everyone (everyone's a gamer it's just that some don't know it yet lol ).
I have no hankering to go back to '70s style games, where the complexity was in the rules systems rather than the mastery of the game. For me, a good game is easy to learn, hard to master, takes enough skill that I win because I am brilliant, enough luck that I lose because I am unlucky and has a multiplayer option so I can blame my allies! lol lol lol lol lol
-
The main change in my mind is spare time and access to computer games. We played all day D&D sessions because there was sod all else to do on a Sunday. Now I’m older I don’t have loads of free time and youngsters have access to a huge range of computer games to play all day with minimal investment.
-
I think that some here have advanced a point that is the opposite of Norm's original one. They move to simpler system not because they are over-collecting, but because they finally can find what interest them. The existence of simpler rules allow them to over collect.
I don't know anyone who still plays hex wargames.
I always laugh at these statements, often read as absolutists... from the post it was clear that Ithoriel moved away from that genre rather than genre disappearing. I would say that the bulk of my international gaming group is into hex wargames. That is what we play FtF or via Vassal. The fact that I get paid to design them and to write review of them also means there is a market. According to the last inventory on BGG I also own 1329 complete games plus 194 expansions... so choice abounds! Said that Ithoriel perfectly prove my point. It was the dearth of option that force some of us into playing games that probably they would not have played if there was choice.
As for complexity, it is all in our eyes. Like Norm saying reading rules is complexity added and myself enjoying doing that. I would give you an example I had two students in different years in ConSim. Both had no previous exposure to wargames, both were ladies, both were designing a game on the same subject. One had no issue in picking up wargame concepts (we are preparing for a virtual play of Next War Korea...), the other was unable to grasp concepts like ZoC or movement points. I had a friend who picked up Mark Herman's Waterloo in minutes, and another (older, and doing an MA in strategy) who has problem with a simple game like 10 years in the trenches. For her the issue is the idea of all units can move in a turn. And as I once said in Norm's blog while talking of rounding odds, I have an opponent who cannot figure the idea of rounding in the defender favor... so often complexity is also about concepts we get or we do not get.
Best,
Arrigo
-
I think Ithoriel’s statement, was a simple statement of his personal experience with his gaming friends. Not an absolute statement about the genre.
-
I drift back and forth between systems because I'm interested in the rules designs in and of themselves. I like to see how different writers approach things like shooting, movement, cover, whether tactics or leadership have dedicated mechanics, and so on. I feel like I learn a bit about the authors and about people in general based on how they write a game, and I also make mental notes in case I ever decide to take any of my miniatures game ideas past the idea board.
Words like "innovative" and "elegant" have, unfortunately, been run into the ground, much like "premium" has in several aspects of life. They don't really mean much on their own anymore.
As for something that I think actually lives up to the word "innovative," I'd put forth Deadzone's grid-based movement and range mechanic. Based in squares (cubes when the vertical terrain components get involved), there is no need for a measuring tool. The catch, though, is that line-of-sight is still drawn model-to-model, so where a model is placed within a given cube could determine whether it is in cover or not. It fits the theme of the game quite well (fast skirmishes in sci-fi wastelands).
I would say that rulesets being simpler overall means it's easier to go back and forth between them, which, in my case, means I can show people more options and make my habit of ruleset collecting useful to the community.