We Don't Need Another Warhammer

[Daeothar]

True.

Also; when I am asked about my hobbies and I tell them I play and paint miniatures for use in tabletop wargames (hey; they asked, right ), I'm usually met with blank stares.

But when I answer the same question with 'Warhammer', just about everyone will at least have heard of it, no matter how obliquely.

No matter that I play games like 'The Drowned Earth' and 'Bushido'; nobody outside of a very select group of gamers will know what the heck I'm on about. But Warhammer...

The same goes for RPG's. I DM a Twilight 2000 campaign right now and most of our campaigns use the World of Darkness system. But when asked, I simply play D&D


The end goal of creating one system to rule them all and cover every single niche, background and escalation level is probably a pipedream, although I might have simply viewed it as the Holy Grail of wargaming a couple of years ago.

In the end I just want a simple system that will work in most situations and some extra systems that can work in very specific situations. But what all of them should offer, is fun.

These are games after all, they're there to pass our (precious) time in an enjoyable way, and I simply do not have the time nor the crayons to explain new rulesets to the people I game with, every time another one is released onto the world.

So if this means I will be falling back onto older versions of the most accessible and known game out there (by a landslide), so be it. I have had tremendous fun with WHFB and WH40k in the past, so I don't see why I should not be reaching back in time every now and then and dig out the old codices.

Or play Grimdark Future instead; same result

Bottom line (for me) though; not every system should attempt to be the new Warhammer; there simply is no need, unless the maker wants to be the latest David versus GW's Goliath. Many have tried, and just as many have failed. And this has nothing to do with the created systems or the lores; I'm sure most of them are objectively better than 40K. Rather, it's the losing battle against the decades of momentum and fame GW has built up and which other companies simply cannot even remotely emulate. Simply because GW were there first.

So using GW's product as a solid base, from which to expand into more obscure territories is perfectly acceptable and probably the way the hobby has developed for most of us. And that's fine. No need to re-invent the wheel, only to find it's just a training wheel next to GW's tractor one: you'll get more mileage out of the tractor wheel for sure...

[eilif]

I can't speak for the motivations of a designer, but for most of my gaming hobby I have absolutely always wanted "another". Around 30 years ago I started with 2nd ed 40k and Battletech. Neither system gave me the game experiences I wanted but I feel head over heels for both universes.

In the intervening decades I dabbled in various 40k versions, several good substitutes (Shockforce/Warengine, ITEN, beta Warpath, etc) and a host of unrelated games, many of which I still play.

Now my current favorites are mostly "another" versions of those first games. Grimdark Future and Space Weirdos top my list for gaming in the 40k universe and Mech Attack (a long time favorite) and Alpha Strike (an official BT universe game but very different) have me gaming in the BT universe.  I'm very satisfied with these games and have been for some time. 

[ced1106]

> Due to this Path A, there is a common Indie Wargamer joke that we all started out trying to build a better Warhammer.

I didn't even get to Path A -- I ended up trying to build a better D&D.

I think it's a fine exercise to build the game you want. Or try something different. I pass the endless dungeoncrawlly KS that have you chuck dice, while I'm interested in card-based mechanics, since this space hasn't been explored much *and* is difficult to implement, aside from "cards that act as randomizers so you might as well just use dice". I'm currently playing Crimson Scales, which uses Gloomhaven. GH's mechanics are card-based, and it plays very differently than the usual dice chucking game.

I'd like to design a set of mechanics that doesn't even explicitly mention numbers (or, ugh, hit points) and functions more like those Lost World books, with hit locations and stuff.

[Easy E]

> Due to this Path A, there is a common Indie Wargamer joke that we all started out trying to build a better Warhammer.

I didn't even get to Path A -- I ended up trying to build a better D&D.

I think it's a fine exercise to build the game you want. Or try something different. I pass the endless dungeoncrawlly KS that have you chuck dice, while I'm interested in card-based mechanics, since this space hasn't been explored much *and* is difficult to implement, aside from "cards that act as randomizers so you might as well just use dice". I'm currently playing Crimson Scales, which uses Gloomhaven. GH's mechanics are card-based, and it plays very differently than the usual dice chucking game.

I'd like to design a set of mechanics that doesn't even explicitly mention numbers (or, ugh, hit points) and functions more like those Lost World books, with hit locations and stuff.

Good luck.  You have chosen the highest difficulty setting for wargame design.   

The problem with a card-based games like you describe is that it is not easy!  Each card has to be considered and designed appropriately.  It is hard enough to do a good card game, but why layer on also making a wargame/board game too!  That is just beyond surplus at that point!

Dice or even cards as randomizers are much easier to build, and hence why they maybe the default we see!  For reference, you may want to look at Longstreet, Maurice, and the Soldiers of Series as well.

[Dice Roller]

I'd like to design a set of mechanics that doesn't even explicitly mention numbers (or, ugh, hit points) and functions more like those Lost World books, with hit locations and stuff.

Harnmaster never had hit points.
Instead you took actual wounds (e.g. a serious slash to the upper leg) which had a negative effect on abilities.

For all those bemoaning the idea of a new Warhammer you'll be pleased to know that you don't have to buy it if you don't like it. More than a little dumbfounded by some on this thread trying to tell gamers what they should and shouldn't enjoy or buy with their own money. Sounds a little like sour grapes. What a truly bizarre thread.

[jon_1066]

Harnmaster never had hit points.
Instead you took actual wounds (e.g. a serious slash to the upper leg) which had a negative effect on abilities.

For all those bemoaning the idea of a new Warhammer you'll be pleased to know that you don't have to buy it if you don't like it. More than a little dumbfounded by some on this thread trying to tell gamers what they should and shouldn't enjoy or buy with their own money. Sounds a little like sour grapes. What a truly bizarre thread.

Are we reading the same thread and article?  The basic point was don't try and reinvent something that already exists just slightly different.  In essence GW are already doing what you are trying to do.

No one I could see has said don't buy the new GW Warhammer rules or told people how to game - just that you might be wasting your time trying to develop a clone of an existing game so go and create something fresh.  It probably won't be a success either but it might.

For a wider gaming audience it's like saying don't try to reinvent Monopoly or don't try to create a new version of Chess.

[Dice Roller]

My apologies then, I may have misunderstood what was being said.

[ced1106]

> Dice or even cards as randomizers are much easier to build, and hence why they maybe the default we see!

Exactly that! (: Since it's such a common mechanic, I'm not interested in creating a game around it.

Gloomhaven's hand management card mechanics are dramatically different from the "roll dice to beat a target number or set of icons" mechanic that's too commonplace.


> Harnmaster never had hit points.

Thanks! Will look into that.

Looks like it even handles fatigue -- another Easy E topic. (:

[Freddy]

I think every game system has 2 layers

1.) the base mechanics. From this point of view, yes, we do not need another Warhammer since Warhammer is perfect. The tohit-Toughness+ArmourSave-Wounds system is intuitive enough and has a lots of space of detailing, many game designs fall when they try to invent warm water and for example introduce some kind of a Defence stat being more streamlined and elegant at first sight, only to go get lost in the Woods of Special Rules at the very moment they want to squeeze more than 3 types of troops into the game. I use 40k stats and units in all of my scifi gaming, I know them and they work perfectly.

2.) the upper level of activation, morale, army composition, missions, etc. This is the part where W40k can and must be reformed, and even tries it from time to time (and usually fails). This is the part where a lot of new things can be introduced to make the game fit a given setting or stlye and new ideas are always welcome.

[Binky]

A ton of GW and D&D players also play exclusively that game - having never even tried other games, so they have an excellent captive audience.  I know a ton of kids locally who have never played another wargame outside of 40K...full stop.  You're likely never going to draw those kids away from 40K even if your game is significantly better.

In short, I think that newer, more interesting game design will absolutely create fans...but I don't think anyone is going to unseat something like Warhammer or D&D.  They're too entrenched in the common gaming culture.

The majority of game players I know exclusively play either GW, D&D or both and when I try mentioning other games, even ones I think they might relate to (suggesting Gaslands to car fanatics or anthropomorphic games like Burrows & Badgers or ACP164 to furries for example) very little interest is shown.

It seems that when a game like 40K has such a huge amount of lore available and requires quite a lot of books and models it's hard to get people to show an interest in other games as they're so emotionally and economically invested. They have everything they need and it's so readily available, a magazine in every large newsagent, a store in every large town, lots of people to play with, real life and online communities with lore based memes etc. So yes any game that's "new" to them is going to struggle to compete with something that is so familiar to them and readily accessible and that they already have the bits for.

To someone who knows only 40k the concept of miniatures agnostic games is sometimes new as well so it could be another hurdle if people think a new game means a second large financial outlay.

Some other games do have thriving communities and social media presences which is great but until a game has magazines, high street stores with life size cut outs, all sorts of merchandise etc (and potentially now it seems a movie on Amazon) it will always be on the back foot when it comes to capturing the interest of a lot of GW players. GW players are fans of the lore as much as the rulesets so are likely to stick with what they know and love regardless of wether a "better" ruleset exists.

[Dubbya]

One thing I've noticed in a few indie (usually skirmish) games recently has been the writers themselves basically saying in the intro or in previews that they're well aware they are making a game that's similar enough to what's out there.

For example, the first page if Space Weirdos begins with:
Space Weirdos is my “Skirmish Heartbreaker.”

More than a little dumbfounded by some on this thread trying to tell gamers what they should and shouldn't enjoy or buy with their own money. Sounds a little like sour grapes. What a truly bizarre thread.

I think you imagined all of this?

[carlos marighela]

Well, I'd argue you didn't need the original version although I'm happy for those that enjoy/ enjoyed it and I will certainly acknowledge that it pumped interest and money into the hobby for good or bad.

Warhammer and all things GDW simply passed me by or rather I passed it by. Neither the concepts, the subject matter, the rules or the toys even remotely interested me. I went from Featherstone as a small lad to WRG before the hiatus of school, the Army, uni, booze and girls. When I came back to gaming it was initially to the TTG stable before settling for a long while on Frank Chadwick's elegant rules systems.

I dallied with the overly complex like Harpoon and was press ganged into playing the unplayable Empire for  a while (euggh a horrid memory). Too many other rules sets to name. Some simple and fun, like On To Richmond, that featured in an annual 'kill and swill' gaming day. Others were elegant constructions like the Todd Kershner sets.  Tinkered with my own rules and saw a lot of fads come and go, played some was cold to most but never felt the urge to play Warhohummer. It just seemed redundant.

I've seen it played, gamed with a big fan who lectured me on its merits but it never caught my imagination.

To each their own but it has never really entered my universe save as mental quick hand for spotty youths in Metallica T-shirts that really listen to Queen when they are doing the air guitar thing in their bedrooms.

In answer to your question we don't need another Warhammer. You might, some others may as well, but I most definitely do not. 

[FierceKitty]

Are we reading the same thread and article?  The basic point was don't try and reinvent something that already exists just slightly different.  In essence GW are already doing what you are trying to do.

No one I could see has said don't buy the new GW Warhammer rules or told people how to game - just that you might be wasting your time trying to develop a clone of an existing game so go and create something fresh.  It probably won't be a success either but it might.

For a wider gaming audience it's like saying don't try to reinvent Monopoly or don't try to create a new version of Chess.

Shogi, xiang-chi, sittuyin, makruk....there are quite a lot of other chesses, very clearly closely related, and excellent games, some of them.

[WorkShy]

Due to this Path A, there is a common Indie Wargamer joke that we all started out trying to build a better Warhammer .... 

I'm no wargame designer or miniature scuplter but what I see is a often a disconnect between the ambition and the willingness to take risk. You clearly don't want to build a clone of Warhammer ("Warhammer++"). You can, however, want to build something with the scale of Warhammer. The fact that GW got their first is not a reason to reject that option. Many companies have had products that got their first, seemed entrenched, and then along came someone else who blew them out of the water or at least took market share.

It just takes a genuine investment of time and money. The disconnect is that many wargames manufacturers/designers don't seem to see it as a business but as a hobby. It's quite literally a hobby business. You see it with all the Kickstarters for very modest sums. If someone doesn't want to risk £10-20k on a new set of rules or some new minis, they have no right to ever complain about GW.

So if you want to flit between designing one game and the next since you find it fun as a hobby then trying to design Warhammer++ is a bad idea. If you actually want to create something long-lasting with impact, then prepare for a decade or two of slog and some serious investment of money. A real business. Not sure there is much room in-between.

[ced1106]

> The majority of game players I know exclusively play either GW, D&D or both and when I try mentioning other games, even ones I think they might relate to (suggesting Gaslands to car fanatics or anthropomorphic games like Burrows & Badgers or ACP164 to furries for example) very little interest is shown.

Lifestyle games. The gamer devotes all of his time -- and his money -- to a particular game system. As an Ameritrash boardgamer who's now becoming tired of learning another complicated ruleset that rehashes the same game mechanics, I understand that some gamers really don't want to learn a new game, even one that's not difficult to learn.

Magic the Gathering is another one of them. I figure lifestyle gamers do keep learning new rules and strategy, it's just that they're building on their existing ruleset, rather than learning a new game system. I guess it's similar to us painters who don't want to buy a new set of paints, or want to paint miniatures that can only be used for a particular game system?