Ahhhh yes, it's going to be the new "insert favourite game title of the past"

[mcfonz]

Ok, so yes this is semi-ranty and also a sort of open question as well. And I apologise to the good people of LAF if this descends quickly into a really messy subject in which case I highly recommend purging by fire by one of the mods.

Anyway, so, what seems to be happening a lot at the moment is that a new set of rules appears on the horizon and there seems to be a clamour of people who say "this is the next 'insert old game title here' ". It has to be said that the game titles are typically those from the old GW specialist games range, which is being rolled out again in an altered form it would seem.

There are several reasons this bugs me;
A) If you like the old games - why look so hard for 'new versions' of them when there are free copies of the old rules and plenty of oldhammer type groups that still play and support them?
B) Players who do not know what the game is like see such a post and take it as read and then are greatly disappointed with it when they do get it.

And then there are the various FB groups where a lot of the questions that get fielded effectively read as "why can't you warhammerise this".

Frostgrave is a great example. A great game in it's own run, thoroughly entertaining and wonderfully diverse in it's die results. IT IS NOTHING LIKE MORDHEIM as a game in terms of mechanics, feel or play. There are similarities in the background in that it is warband sized, in a fantasy city - but that is about it. And I for one am glad. I can like it in the knowledge that it is it's own game and not massively trying to be something else.

But I feel a lot of credit due to it is lost because people are saying it is like Mordheim so much people sort of grow to expect it to be more like it. We should use 2d10's for more predictable results, have alternative options to lead warbands. Why no progression for thugs etc?

It does none of those things because it isn't that game.

It worries me because people whip up this expectation of a game which is unfair considering very few people have seen it, and dashes those hopes if that is exactly what they are looking for.

I really do think people should be a bit more careful about likening games, especially with GW refreshing the titles often linked to like Necromunda, Mordheim etc. It could lead to completely innocent games getting the GW C&D nuts firing off again.

That's my rant over, maybe not entirely what this area is for . . . . I won't be offended if one of the good people at he helm slap me round the back of the head and remove this . .  

[Elbows]

For a lot of older games, while there are communities based around the game - the game itself and contents may not be readily available.  Warhammer Quest is a simple example.  Great game, but I lost my copy when I went off to college.

I enjoy playing it with my buddies because one of them luckily has his copy laying around.  If a new player wants to jump into Warhammer Quest they can't without a substantially absurd ebay purchase in the $300-500 range.  Now, having downloaded books and content you can bash together your own version of it (I printed out my own dungeon deck in case I try to run it) but it's not a game you can hop into.

You can easily hop into older games if the miniatures are still around.  Mordheim is in a similar way...sure you can find the downloadable PDFs etc. but a new player can't go and buy a box and have everything he needs for $60-90 and get properly stuck in.  I think people also really enjoy a game when it is current, being supported and you can readily find players.  While communities exist online for older retro-styled games or out-of-print games, if you live in a place with none of those folks you're out of luck (short of convincing friends to humor you).

I see a lot of people excited about Blood Bowl being re-released even though they've stated they won't be re-doing the rules...but I think a lot of people want a new box full of minis/board/dice, etc. (even though the 3rd party support for the game means you can find all of this new without needing the GW box).

It's always easier to buy into a new or current product - particularly when you can expect supplements, support for at least a few years, and some excitement/buzz, etc.  I personally don't enjoy Frostgrave, and I was hoping it would scratch the same itch as Mordheim (hopefully with better mechanics).  If I'm completely honest I thought it was the most over-praised game of 2015.  In the end I didn't find that it did, no worries.  Moved along.

I also think that given the time-span, a lot of GW players of old are now in their 30's-40's (pretty big GW boom in the mid-late 90's) and some people are looking to rekindle that youthful gaming experience, or better yet, pass it on to their kids now.  It's a bit easier to buy a box and throw a game down with your son/daughter than the compile a lot of scraps offline and custom building your own boards/dice etc.  I've seen numerous posts in other threads about people buying up new boxed games and introducing their children to them.  I dove hard on the 25th Anniversary Hero Quest launch because I like the models but I have a 10 year old nephew and that'd be a great introduction - if it ever shows up.

I do not think this is all limited to Games Workshop products, but as a gaming culture it is one of the most prolific entities which we've all experienced so it likely shows up more than other companies.

[joroas]

My view is that it is the figures and not the rules which has caused this.  A lot of us old GW duffers still have lots of Mordheim, Necromunda, LOTR and WHQ figures that have sat waiting for some new rules to come out so that we could retrieve them from our archives and repurpose them.  New rule sets have touched that spot and a Renaiissance has occurred......

[grant]

40k 2nd edition, Orks and Eldar. Lived my best days of gaming with them. Nothing but pure simple fun. My Shokk Attack Gun made it to every game - and never did anything except hit my own orks or blow up. Ah, good times.

[Lowtardog]

My view is that it is the figures and not the rules which has caused this.  A lot of us old GW duffers still have lots of Mordheim, Necromunda, LOTR and WHQ figures that have sat waiting for some new rules to come out so that we could retrieve them from our archives and repurpose them.  New rule sets have touched that spot and a Renaiissance has occurred......

Spot on, thinking of Dragon rampant as a great example too for digging out old lead

[joroas]

How many gamers are using Rohirrim as Saxons, etc, for Saga/Lion Rampant?

[Daeothar]

I think I can agree with most of what mcfonz is saying there, but I do differ a bit in my interpretation of the cries of 'it's going to be the next...'.

Mostly, and looking through the old threads running up to the release of Frostgrave this is true, those cries are not about having a new game that is exactly the same as the 'original' (Mordheim in the case of Frostgrave), but rather, it's about seeing a new game thatr fills the niche formerly taken up by the 'original'.

So when people say 'it's going to be the next Mordheim', I think what they mean is: 'it's going to be the next fantasy skirmish game with a campaign structure'.

It's just easier to say 'Mordheim'...

However; I do agree that those cries will eventually spawn expectations within the community that the game will be Mordheim 2nd ed. And that is just unfair to the game itself, since it will (and does) have its own strengths and weaknesses. Calling it such, will then probably throw off a lot of people who buy into the game with the wrong expectations.

Granted; those disappointed people will obviously be the small minority of players who used to play Mordheim back in the day, so commercially, on the short term, this would not harm the franchise much, but in the long run, the loudly vocal disappointed will have a lasting effect on the popularity and acceptance of the game within the community at large.

Of course we're all taking Mordheim/Frostgrave as an example here, as it is the most recent and visible, but there are also cries of the 'next Necromunda' when referring to the upcoming Rogue Star. Comparissons were immediately made between 40K and Beyond the Gates of Antares, and between Battlefleet Gothic and the upcoming Dropfleet Commander (and also Halo: Fleet Battles).

Also, back in the day, we saw Infinity as the spiritual successor to necromunda, even though the game itself is vastly different. It's just that it was/is a skirmish game set in a SciFi setting. Luckily Infinity rapidly carved out its own place though, and the comparisson was quickly forgotten.

And then there's obviously Mantic with their Kings of War (WHFB), Warpath (40K) and Deadzone (Necromunda). Although in all fairness, it's obvious that they intended the comparissons as they've set up their games as alternatives to GW's offerings.

So; I think it's only natural that people compare games, and in many cases, it's even beneficial, as it will point out which niche the game will be in. But we should be careful that those comparissons do not result in skewed expectations and eventual disappointments; they're all their own games in the end; each will play differently and eventually fill their own nich within a niche.

Some will like the new game, some will not, but hopefully it will be remembered that the 'original' game had its own fans and haters as well...

[Conquistador]

And then there are those who have never played said games, have no interest in them (or GW in general,) and get absolutely nothing (expectations, interests, emotional responses,) from such comparisons.  Why would I or they care about what old game it supposedly replaces?  There a re a lot of games out there (Starguard for example) that back in the day were fun but lost the luster for many that are still played by fans/devotees.  While I no longer play Starguard I admit to planning to drag out the old Perrin and Gygax Chainmail rules for a mass battle con game someday soon.  There are Dungeon crawls of all styles for example that can appeal to players but don't really fit the appellation of "D&D" revived.

As for the wording of such claims, people can read anything into other people's words so such descriptions really convey nothing.

I prefer you describe the games in their actual mechanics and play examples rather than labeling it with another game title as somehow helpfully descriptive.

[Arlequín]

Comparisons boost unit sales. How many times have you seen a book emblazoned with "the next whoever", or a film as "this year's Mama Mia" (oddly they don't tend to use "Sunk without Trace", or "Titanic" for such comparisons).

Of course it might briefly prompt a second glance if a wargame blurb said "This year's Mama Mia", for which I'd have to say "Well played marketing, well played".

 

[Conquistador]

Comparisons boost unit sales. How many times have you seen a book emblazoned with "the next whoever", or a film as "this year's Mama Mia" (oddly they don't tend to use "Sunk without Trace", or "Titanic" for such comparisons).

Of course it might briefly prompt a second glance if a wargame blurb said "This year's Mama Mia", for which I'd have to say "Well played marketing, well played".

 

 

Point acknowledged.

[mcfonz]

Comparisons boost unit sales. How many times have you seen a book emblazoned with "the next whoever", or a film as "this year's Mama Mia" (oddly they don't tend to use "Sunk without Trace", or "Titanic" for such comparisons).

Of course it might briefly prompt a second glance if a wargame blurb said "This year's Mama Mia", for which I'd have to say "Well played marketing, well played".

 

That would be great if it were marketing. It's not with wargames rules generally. And that's really my point.

Typically with movies if they are likened then there is a link such as the director or producers or both. And I'd get that if the rules did the same. In fact I pointed this out in the sci fi Osprey rules where there was already growing momentum that they would be the next necromunda - that the author already has a range of rules that made it unlikely.

[Arlequín]

I beg to differ, there's been no end of movies and books where comparisons have been drawn... often their only connection has been a character's first name.

 

But yes you're right, it is a relatively new phenomenon with wargame rules, albeit marketing is marketing whatever the medium. Before its release I read a few comments that connected Frostgrave with Mordheim (although no such comparison was hinted at officially), but I took it as part of the hype and indeed there was a lot of hype. I do wonder how many people bought it on that basis.

No disrespect intended to those who did buy it. Obviously even if the above were correct then people still like it enough to play it regardless. Potentially therefore, it's one of the few occasions that something lived up to the hype.     

[YPU]

I might be wrong but have you ever seen this happen with anything other then GW products? I think that the Big GeeDouble has been such a central part of many peoples early gaming experience that they still define genres from it. Much like how early first person shooter computer games were known as doom clones.

I completely agree its a bit unfair though, even with horizon wars one of the most asked questions before was "will there be titans" ie, you have a 6mm sci-fi game therefore we want to play with that thing GW's 6mm stuff was known for. It's kind of silly people have to actively anticipate these things when writing rules, how will GW's past reflect on your work?

[Conquistador]

I might be wrong but have you ever seen this happen with anything other then GW products? I think that the Big GeeDouble has been such a central part of many peoples early gaming experience that they still define genres from it. Much like how early first person shooter computer games were known as doom clones.

I completely agree its a bit unfair though, even with horizon wars one of the most asked questions before was "will there be titans" ie, you have a 6mm sci-fi game therefore we want to play with that thing GW's 6mm stuff was known for. It's kind of silly people have to actively anticipate these things when writing rules, how will GW's past reflect on your work?

Thank you.  This says what I, as a non-GW gamer (never, ever,) was thinking.  As a non-GW player if someone intimated a new game was some GW replacement I would strike it off my buying list because I want something that is not a GW knock-off.

Edit: Maybe I can say it this way, if you like a game like Necromunda or Mordheim I don't see why you cannot just play it even if it is not "officially" supported.  Why replace a game if it works.  It is not like a popularity contest, is it?

[mcfonz]

Thank you.  This says what I, as a non-GW gamer (never, ever,) was thinking.  As a non-GW player if someone intimated a new game was some GW replacement I would strike it off my buying list because I want something that is not a GW knock-off.

Edit: Maybe I can say it this way, if you like a game like Necromunda or Mordheim I don't see why you cannot just play it even if it is not "officially" supported.  Why replace a game if it works.  It is not like a popularity contest, is it?

You sir, deserve a beer! 

Also, marketing HAS to be something someone does deliberately, someone suggesting that it sounds a lot like something isn't marketing and is nothing like the deep toned voice over chap in a trailer telling you that it's like this years whatever.

Also, I can firmly put myself in both the horribly underwhelmed AND learned to enjoy frostgrave brackets. I was looking forward to a warband style game with various characters to pick from to lead it and lost of individual progression. However - noooo. After my initial reflection a friend insisted that I persisted with it (I already had models in my collection to make a warband) and after I forgot all of that utter nonsense I enjoyed it for what it is, which is very much its own thing - Frostgrave - and nothing at all like Mordheim.

I also totally agree with the sentiment that those games are not dead. In fact, they are even coming back at some point which makes those sort of statements all the more questionable.