Black Powder. Hmmm...

[Melnibonean]

I started reading an article in Miniature Wargames about the battle of Chotusitz until I came to the end of the first paragraph where it stated the game was played using the Black Powder rules. At this point I completely lost interest in the article. Saying this I also instantly lose interest when I see posts in forums like LAF when I see the same thing.

Why?

Because I just dislike these rules. In my opinion, by trying to make a one-size-fits-all set of rules they fail in capturing the zeitgeist of all the periods represented. If you want your Napoleonic games to play the same as the Zulu Wars or if you want your 7YW to play like ACW then these are the rules for you. Everything becomes Chicken Flavoured.

For me, however, if I'm going to spend my time painting and preparing an army of several hundred figures then I want a set of rules that capture the essence of the period involved. If that means using several sets of rules: So be it.

Now some may say that the Black Powder rules are designed for a "fun" game. But I use to have fun flicking match sticks at my figures back in the 70's. Fun: Yes. Representative of a historical wargame: No.

So why have these rules become so popular? Is it because of the marketing? I think so.
I also believe that there tends to be a tendency to validate rules if they are written by the right person. Good or not, they were written by *Insert Veteran Rules Author*... So they must be good!

Just remember flairs and platform shoes were once very popular. And everybody wore them.

[Steve63]

Since about 1980 the central premises of the author's rules was roll more 4's than your opponent, a simple but potentially enjoyable game mechanic.  He stopped writing rules a long time ago, now his books are how to create movable dioramas while enjoying the social aspect of the hobby.
It depends on what you are looking for in a game, do you want to play a game or have social event.
Personally I found Black Powder to be incredibly self indulgent on the part of the author.

[fitterpete]

Love BP.
For some of us the rules come second and just need to be "fun".Using the figures/terrain I have spent years/months getting together and painted are the number one aspect.
Using a single set for many periods also cuts down on the learning of rules sets,probably the least attractive aspect for me.I,ve learned very few rules sets during my 30 years of wargaming.The rules I use tend to be multi period adaptable.
YMMV and does
Pete

[syrinx0]

Perhaps it is not the most tactical of rules but I have enjoyed playing various Zulu scenarios with Black Powder. I certainly enjoy the social aspect of a game while moving nicely painted figures about.  We have mildly discussed moving into nappies with BP but I am not ready to begin collecting another period at the moment.  

I can't say I ever bought into a game system just based on the author without playing a game or two. Nor can I picture my gaming group following the latest fashion; quite the opposite.  

[CPBelt]

This is why there are 52 flavors of ice cream, because everyone does not like moose tracks even though it is the best.  Know what I mean?  

[jamesmanto]

I also enjoy BP.
My gaming friends meet very infrequently and one of them is older and gets easily confused, so eliminating the learning curve of yet another set of rules is a welcome thing.
And there's chicken and then there's chicken. You can have plain boiled chicken or you can have roast chicken rubbed with herbs, olive oil and stuffed with garlic and onions and lemon, or you can have chicken stir-fry or chicken rissotto, it all depends on what seasonings you use.

The 'special rules' are the seasonings to bring out different flavours.

I also really, really like that I can play it with my army based and organized the way I want it to be. You just have to agree on what is a 'small' 'standard' and a 'large' unit. 6, 12 and 18 figures, or 16, 24 and 36 figures?

But it all depends on what you want from a game.

James

[Pijlie]

Your post isn't really stating a question. Are you seeking likeminded people, or just opinions, or is it just venting your feelings?

Let's assume a question. First I don't need to convince you, but I'd like to share my view on BP with you.

BP was marketed very well. This was what drew my attention. WH40K is also marketed very well and has never succeeded in holding my attention the way BP does. This is because of the game itself.

BP is a toolkit game and has never pretended to be anything else. It covers 200 years of history and does not manage that with the basic rules alone. On top of those, the game produces 24 "Useful Rules" which are special rules that bestow certain strengths and weaknesses on the troops involved. This gives you an enormous amount of variability that easily allows you to specify for a given period and even to balance specific battle scenarios.

This is not for everyone. It requires research and tinkering that you have to enjoy to really like these rules. The basic rules can also benefit from tinkering and this is even encouraged by the authors. But this too is a matter of taste and enjoyment. And enjoyment is what this game is primarily about. It shows from the writing style itself and is particularly stressed upon by the authors.

It has always surprised me that BP may often cause indignance in people and is seen as pretentious while actually it pretends to be very little. This is not a reproach, mind. It just surprises me every time.

[Phyllion]

I find they give an enjoyable game with a nice amount of 'friction' within a club night of 3 hours. The core rules are simple enough for you to lay flavour for the period on top.

But I'm curious - why would the rules used instantly turn you off an article? If they're a ripping yarn, contain useful OOB information or scenario derails, might you be missing out on something that could be used with your rulesets of choice?

[Melnibonean]

Pijlie: Just venting my frustration. 

Phyllion: I see your point re: useful info/orders of battle etc but it's just that I'm getting a bit sick of seeing every second write up deferring to Black Powder as some kind of default setting.

[michaelsbagley]

As someone who is slowly getting back into the hobby after an almost 2 decade absence, and someone whose past experience was mostly with fantasy/sci-fi....

Black Powder is accessible. It is marketed well, glossy and contains all the elements that can and usually does draw beginning folks to historical gaming. It also lines the shelves of many brick and mortar stores so can be found and bought. Handling and browsing a book leads to more purchases than fancy online reviews. Most of the more esoteric rulesets can only be found online, or for purchase at cons. Yeah sure it might be over-exposed, but so is Warhammer.... but sadly Warhammer draws more people to the hobby than any other game out there (despite the fact i could live a long happy life never hearing of it mentioned again)

[IronDuke596]

I tend to agree with Melnibonean. I prefer rules that were made for a specific period so as to realistically replicate the technology and tactics used by soldiers.
My period is Napoleonic/War of 1812 and I prefer to play at the divisional level with a figure ratio of 1:20 and main units being battalions.

So, my preferred rules are General de Brigade. I love the balance between the realistic complexity and the ease of play that GdeB rules provide. However, for some, GdeB may still not play fast enough compared to say Shako.

However, rules choice should depend upon the requirements of the user or users (club) of the rules. IE for large battles/campaigns GdeB is probably not the best set of rules (unless you replicate a portion of a large battle). In this case where the figure ratio is likely 60:1, one should consider Battles for Empire and others.

So, the selection of rules should depend upon your requirements and to each his own.

[jamesmanto]

Pijlie: Just venting my frustration. 

Phyllion: I see your point re: useful info/orders of battle etc but it's just that I'm getting a bit sick of seeing every second write up deferring to Black Powder as some kind of default setting.

I feel your pain. I remember when any ancient gaming article was all DBA! So even the OOB was pretty useless.

But I haven't myself encountered an overabundance of BP articles. But then I only buy a few mags a year. Last one had a Napoleonic article using GdB.

[Conquistador]

<snip>It covers 200 years of history <snip>

This kind of description is always a "yellow flag" to me.   

Never tried them TBH but I would never buy a set of rules, untried, based on author.   

Well, actually "... I would never buy a set of rules, untried..." pretty much covers it, I guess.   

Gracias,

Glenn

[Conquistador]

Inip>

So, the selection of rules should depend upon your requirements and to each his own.

Egg-zactly!

Gracias,

Glenn

[Cubs]

I'm not a fan of the rules as written, because there are way too many loopholes. If we started to list them we'd probably still be here next week, but suffice to say each conflict period seemed to have a crucial element that simply did not work in anything like a realistic fashion. Realism sacrificed for fun indeed, but to a level that removed the fun for me.

When the original 'Black Powder' rules were released they were billed as a 'one size fits all' that wouldn't need supplements.

This turned out to be other than the case.

By all accounts the various supplements do work pretty well for the period they are meant to be representing, which is second-hand reporting on my part, but I won't argue. Fair play, Warlord (eventually) listened to the criticisms and feedback and then got the writers to work on setting up 'patches' in the form of supplements.

But my own preference is for a mid-level game with perhaps a few dozen models per side, with a bit of abstraction and a bit of detailing, to give an historical flavour that is still playable. I don't mind the 'God's eye view' because a smaller action should mean more direct control - most of the time.

BP is about large-scale engagements on at least a brigade level. This level of game does not appeal to me, even if I had an 8ft table and hundreds of painted models spare, and nor does the random nature of movement and reaction. Some troops are able to sprint across the field completely untouched with the enemy merrily watching them, whilst others sit about twiddling their thumbs.

Like I say, it doesn't appeal to me, but I can see that another gamer who enjoys the grand battles might need that sort of simplification in order to keep the game moving along at a decent pace instead of getting bogged down with individual actions and reactions. Each to their own.