Gangs of Rome

[Sir Barnaby Hammond-Rye]

Nothing wrong with them using "Gangs of Rome" as a name, IMO.

Definitely not a "hijack". An over-reaction. Do you protest when companies start commercializing other eras? Napoleonics, for example?

 

Well the figures do look very nice.

Obviously though, several LAFers, including NevisFr, rumacara and Poiter50 have been building their own gangs of Rome for a long while now, including much creative converting of figures.
Is it just me, or is it therefore slightly irksome to see an idea which has been the subject of several very creative and original homemade projects, hijacked and commercialised like this, and turned into a 'system'... ?

Appreciate nobody has a monopoly on good ideas, and perhaps the whole 'Gangs of Rome' thing is a well established sub-genre which has been around for a while and had passed me by, except for the guys who have been charting their own excellent projects here on LAF.

But it leaves a bit of a bad taste in the mouth to me 

[huevans]

It's an interesting concept and one that passed me by as well.

I wonder if the idea could be developed for other periods? - A "cour de miracles" set for 1600's Paris; and mid Victorian sets for London or New York?

[Sir Barnaby Hammond-Rye]

Cable Street?

[arget8]

Just me then

I do understand there are lots of points of inspiration for this kind of thing out there. It just feels like another example of someone setting out to 'own' an idea that various other people already had. Happens in wargaming all the time I'm sure. Just my innate, rebellious, freedom-loving attitude I guess...  I always enjoy seeing what wargamers and modellers create out of their own imaginations and talents. I don't enjoy seeing wargamers being spoon-fed packaged products. I appreciate though, that 90% of wargamers seem to LOVE being spoon-fed, judging from the huge popularity of branded 'systems' here and elsewhere... )
For many people, it's a golden age of wargaming where every good idea and setting is turned into a product that can be bought and played without having to do anything more than spend money. Personally, I used to like seeing people creating things for themselves... I understand it's a minority view though...

I will agree with you that a well imagined and well executed project will usually be better than most commercial ventures. This is largely in part due to the love behind the project. It's the same reason that I'm converting my own Salian Franks from Footsore rather than buy the readily available Franks from Gripping Beast or other companies. I prefer Footsore's minis and also want to learn how to sculpt, so it was a perfect project for me. It also allows me to try out some rules writing as well.

That said, there are times that I love being spoon-fed and will happily play straight out of the box with a lot of stuff.

I see nothing wrong with the venture and I'll probably pick it up and try it out. I'm sure that some of these people who have toiled away creating their own projects would love to be able to find more opponents that a strongly supported commercial venture will hopefully bring.

[rumacara]

Richard, thank you for your kind words and point of view.

I´m very curious about this project from Footsore but with some reserves.
Maybe some miniatures will be of my interest, maybe the rules, maybe nothing.
Lets see what they come up with.

[Duke Donald]

I personally like the concept of the game and do not it find particularly derivative, or borrowed from previous projects, commercial or personal, or at least not more so than 99% of commercial miniature ventures. In fact, the theme still feels fresh and largely unexplored to me compared to Arthurian Dark Age, low fantasy, high fantasy, post-apoc, cyberpunk, near future, space opera, ....

Though, I have mixed feelings about the miniatures. The first one displayed had an interesting pose and a wonderful paint job that didn't fully mask the technical limitations of the sculpt. The right leg in particular is quite dodgy. I find the following two average at best, despite again wonderful paint jobs. I feel the level of sculpting would be adequate for mass and large skirmish battle games, but is not ideal for small skirmish or miniature RPG games. To me, the quality of the sculpts needs to be improved if Footsore wants to establish themselves as a serious contender in the very crowded field of low miniature count skirmish games.

[nervisfr]

Richard, thank you for your kind words and point of view.

I´m very curious about this project from Footsore but with some reserves.
Maybe some miniatures will be of my interest, maybe the rules, maybe nothing.
Lets see what they come up with.

I second that , Rui !

I don't think they can go very far in business terms with a so special period . Figurines are only a part of the game but the buildings are the main actor of the game.

Warbase has done the job for the building with their excellent range.

I'm always happy to see some new figurines on this subject. It's so rare to see ancient civilians in a new range. Especially if it's a Footsore quality.
Even if i'm always never satisfied with the manufacturer' ranges which give me some excuses to convert figurines.

Wait and see !

Eric

[Captain Blood]

Definitely not a "hijack". An over-reaction. Do you protest when companies start commercializing other eras? Napoleonics, for example?
 

Well no, because Napoleonics is obviously a long- established wargames period (probably THE established wargames period) which has been commercialised for the past 40 years.

My point is that the idea of Roman street gangs is NOT an established period. It's just a niche idea that some people - either independently, or inspired by each other's projects shared online - have created with homemade projects.
Then a business comes along and tries to make that home-brew idea into an 'official' product. In intent, if not in actuality, trademarking it. It's a minor act of enclosure. Same thing happened with VBCW. Some people have a neat idea for a new setting - perhaps several people at the same time. Then someone comes along and sets out  to 'own' the idea in order to make money out of it.
I understand that wargames businesses will always look for new bandwagons to jump on, and have every right to try to make money. But personally, it saddens me when I see someone trying to 'own' other people's ideas. 

I personally like the concept of the game and do not it find particularly derivative, or borrowed from previous projects, commercial or personal,

Well - as above - I would contend that if, for two or three years, various wargamers, here and elsewhere, have been building their own Roman street gangs - a hitherto unknown wargames genre or setting - and sharing these projects online, and then a business comes along with a branded commercial product called 'Gangs of Rome', that's about as derivative as you can get. It's almost certainly borrowed from the creative ideas and work of those hobbyists.

[Poiter50]

I hear what you are saying but by the same token, Colleen McCullough in her book series and even others before her, raised the same ideas and planted the seed in our ever fertile skulls as we butterfly our way across the gaming life.

[rumacara]

Richard, to a certain point i share your point of view. Its frustrating when we spend years researching, creating and painting for a certain project we think its kind of original and then someone comes and claim its their own creation.
The point stops when we start realising that there is no originality since we took all our ideas from somewhere or someone.

From my part and probably you and a few others, when we create our own figures that is originality and its our own view of them and if someone copies our own creations to commercial ends then that is "stealing other peoples ideas".
Indeed roman street gangs is not a subject/period that exists specifically so yes, probably they took the idea from someone else.

I think what it lacks here is some humility in stating that its other peoples idea and a great idea to make a game.
I´m not complaining for this to happen nor i´m stating i´m the original creator of the idea (witch i´m not at all) and i´m more than happy to share information and pictures if that inspires others to make something similar.

I will continue to create as much original models i can and game with them and if someone wants to copy them, mind as well they make them better than mine.


"To boldly go where no one has gone before..."  

[Irregular Wars Nic]

As the author of Songs of Shadows and Dust, Ganesha's rules set published in 2013, I agree that this is a bit of a niche area, but that is not to say that it can't handle another set of rules.

Hey, look at that plug ---> http://irregularwars.blogspot.co.uk/p/stylefont-style-normal-alignleft.html

Now, I'm certainly interested to see what Footsore come up with. At the end of the day, the genre needs small factions, lots of buildings, and civilian non-combatants. I have no doubt that there will be elements of similarity between SSD and GoR, but hopefully they won't to too close.

From what I can see, GoR looks to be more prescriptive in terms of characters, while SSD is very open world, allowing you to run what ever factions you can imagine. SSD, being based directly on the Song of Blades... mechanics is quite abstracted in character profiles, while GoR looks - from the little I've heard - much more granular.

I would hope that the growing availability of buildings, and appropriate figures, will see a mini boom for this genre, regardless of which rules people are using. Obviously I'd like people to play my rules, but at the end of the day, it's horses for courses.

[Duke Donald]

Well - as above - I would contend that if, for two or three years, various wargamers, here and elsewhere, have been building their own Roman street gangs - a hitherto unknown wargames genre or setting - and sharing these projects online, and then a business comes along with a branded commercial product called 'Gangs of Rome', that's about as derivative as you can get. It's almost certainly borrowed from the creative ideas and work of those hobbyists.

I can understand where you're coming from and appreciate that it can be frustrating for the likes of Rumacara and Poitiers50 who have defined the genre on LAF to see a commercial project in the same vein. That said, I still do not feel this venture is particularly derivative. Specifically, I do not find it more derivative than the many commercial offerings of Victorian Science Fiction miniatures. I've seen wonderful conversions of VSF miniatures on LAF and elsewhere well before I was aware of any commercial offering for this genre. More fundamentally, I do not believe that ideas, genres or styles should be owned or copyrighted.

[Mad Doc Morris]

It's almost certainly borrowed from the creative ideas and work of those hobbyists.

You're overrating the influence of actual hobby projects as presented here on LAF, don't you think? People have converted miniatures and written rules for certain 'under-served' topics for years – and no company has cared to release a range. Reason may be that there is no other factor (movie, TV show, videogame) to potentially draw in actual paying customers. Or it's just down to a manufacturer's genuine interests.

In the early days of LAF I got inspired by both the Sharpe TV series and the movie Master & Commander. Despite Napoleonics being "a long-established wargaming period", there was litterally no dedicated range or ruleset available. So I press-ganged pirates, 1815-French, some awkward-looking British marines, as well as civilians from the 18th century and the Carlist Wars to stage a series of games using Rattrap's 'Gloire'. Nowadays I could choose from a number of excellent ranges, among them sculpts by Paul Hicks and the Perrys, and play a game of 'Forager' or whatnot, which suit the setting perfectly.
A reason to complain about greedy companies stealing 'my idea'? Why, no!
Another example; in 2006 to 2008 I worked on a project portraying a kinghts' tournament set in the early 1500s. Sure, there were Landsknechts by Foundry/Perry and Old Glory (and a couple of others which I didn't like), but very few knights (none in attacking poses) and no civilians. So I started using and less-than-brillantly converting miniatures from a number of sources, like this bishop from Graven Images (now Timeline?):



In no way a game-changer, but it caught on with some people. Years later Pro Gloria (now Warlord) released this pack:



I wasn't asked beforehand to allow this 'commercialisation' of my 'original' idea. And why should they ask? I felt honoured by Stephan's reference, and glad to finally see someone produce the miniatures I always wanted but couldn't get right myself. (A couple more sculpts were explicitly inspired by my project, which in the end didn't take off for the frustrating lack of models.)

In essence, I feel originality is a fake argument in wargaming. At its very heart it's a derivative hobby; on the one hand strongly influenced by pop culture with a few bits of historical reference thrown in, on the other hand driven by companies that provide ready-made miniatures for us to make our own by just collecting, converting, and painting them.

[Antonio J Carrasco]

I, for one, am interested in this game. Truth be told, it never ocurred to me that gang warfare in Rome could be gameable. Yet Footsore has found, apparently, the way to do it. Some of the mechanics they have been explaining in their Facebook page look very original -I like the concept of "disguishing" a fighter into a group of civilians, and while he lose all his coins -a short of activation points, if I have understood the idea- he also can move from group to group, choosing when and where to re-appear. It reminds me, slightly, to one of my favourite TFL rules mechanics, the moveable deployment points.

[Duke Donald]

@Mad Doc Morris Whilst, they were under no legal obligation to do so, I feel it would have been polite to credit you for the inspiration behind the bishop miniature

Mod edit: Don't want to spam this thread with my pics, so removed the image quote.