Is over collecting driving us to lower complexity systems?

[FierceKitty]

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.

[ChrisBBB]

Nice thoughtful post, thanks, Norm. I've added my comments directly to your blog.

[Norm]

Thanks all for comments and thoughts.  Norm.

[Warren Abox]

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.

[vodkafan]

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.

[nozza_uk]

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.

[Hobgoblin]

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.

[Easy E]

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. 

[AdmiralAndy]

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...

[Belligerentparrot]

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 )

[dadlamassu]

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.

[eilif]

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.

[Hobgoblin]

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?

[Mr. White]

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.

[Hummster]

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.