Overstuffed market?

[paulr]

As well as "slow up" you can "slow down" but I've never heard any one say "speed down"

[Last Hussar]

Show me a Welshman who can't speak English and I'll show you a four year old.

Coworkers wife didn't speak English until she was 8, this would have been 45 years ago. Odd thing is she is from Barry and a Thatcherite, from a very Tory family.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Sums is specifically addition

[Leman]

Not when you're five.

[steve_holmes_11]

In whihc a n00b sticks his oar in...

So...ramblingly stumbling to my point, what do you chaps think? 

Are there too many rulesets out there now? 

Can there be too many?
I welcome the variety and depth of current offerings.
I also think that the good rules now leave most offerings form 20 or 30 years ago in their dust.
I do worry that the hobby is getting salami sliced into smaller and smaller incompativle groups.
I then realise that we're all big smart boys and girls who can absorb more than one set of rules.
The fact that some releases attract a big following (Chain of Command anybody?) illustrates that we are a band of connoisseurs.

Do you buy rules only to never play them as they're basically inferior copies to other rules you've already done? 

I've bought one or two and thought, that was; unplayable junk / a poor mash up of several leading sets / different, but inferior.
Now that rules average £20 a pop, I'm a cautious buyer and tend to lurk until a few trusted reviews have been published.

Is it good there are so many rules being published?

Yes and no: Quantity doesn't necessarily equal quantity - through I think we are in a golden age of rules that provide an enjoyable game.


Have you found any truely innovative rules lately?

Studio Tomahawk's Saga and Congo, each for rather different reasons.
Too Fat Lardies Cain of Command for the scouting phase and challenging command options.
Tribal by Mana Press looks quite interesting.

Do you think the current focus on gamist abstraction is good or bad?

Abstraction can be many things to many readers.
If you mean games that can be played without prior reference to 8 volumes of comtemporary drill manuals, or where the shooting modifiers don't stretch over 2 columns of the ironicaly named "Quick reference sheet", then yes.

I like a game where I can make commander decisions, am not constantly reaching for geometry tools, and where playing out combat doesn't induce a migraine.
For me, the gold lies in the questions that the game poses to each commander, the outcome of decisions.
Movement matters, it breathes life into a game.

[d_Guy]

Thoughtful post, Steve, and welcome to the forum.

[paulr]

Seconded

There are some "offerings from 20 or 30 years ago" that still continue to shine, but yes many have been left in the dust

[fsn]

Welcome n00b.
Thoughtful answers, but you've reawakened one of my many betes noires and I may rant - for which I apologise.

Are there too many rulesets out there now?

Can there be too many? Yes.  
I welcome the variety and depth of current offerings.
I also think that the good rules now leave most offerings form 20 or 30 years ago in their dust.I think you're ignoring the appeal of the simplicity and nostaliga for old sets.
I do worry that the hobby is getting salami sliced into smaller and smaller incompativle groups.I won't play against you because my army is June 1944 and yours is obviously September 1944
I then realise that we're all big smart boys and girls who can absorb more than one set of rules.But how many? How many sets do you need? If you play skirmish, division and army levels, that's 3 per period. Multiply that by the number of periods you play thats a lot of rule sets.
The fact that some releases attract a big following (Chain of Command anybody?) illustrates that we are a band of connoisseurs.Discerning, certainly, but is part of that the "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" concept? Years ago, if you did ancients, you did WRG. Everybody did WRG because ... everybody did WRG. If everyone at a club plays BKC, then everyone is on the same page, and everyone is happy. Apart for the rule lawyer who is never happy.

Do you buy rules only to never play them as they're basically inferior copies to other rules you've already done?  

I've bought one or two and thought, that was; unplayable junk / a poor mash up of several leading sets / different, but inferior.
Now that rules average £20 a pop, I'm a cautious buyer and tend to lurk until a few trusted reviews have been published.

Is it good there are so many rules being published?

Yes and no: Quantity doesn't necessarily equal quantity - through I think we are in a golden age of rules that provide an enjoyable game.It's the difference between the human and rat way of reproduction. Humans have one child at a time and look after it, whatever. Rats have many children and eat the weakest. Wargames rules now are a bit ratty.

I would also pick up on the trendy "systems" e.g.  Frostgarve or Gangs of Rome. A manufacturer releases a set of rules and lots of figures and scenery and suppliments. Everyone goes crazy, spends a fortune on them ... then next year a manufacturere releases a set of rules and lots of figures ...  


Have you found any truely innovative rules lately?

Studio Tomahawk's Saga and Congo, each for rather different reasons.
Too Fat Lardies Cain of Command for the scouting phase and challenging command options.
Tribal by Mana Press looks quite interesting.

Do you think the current focus on gamist abstraction is good or bad?

Abstraction can be many things to many readers.
If you mean games that can be played without prior reference to 8 volumes of comtemporary drill manuals, or where the shooting modifiers don't stretch over 2 columns of the ironicaly named "Quick reference sheet", then yes.

I like a game where I can make commander decisions, am not constantly reaching for geometry tools, and where playing out combat doesn't induce a migraine.
For me, the gold lies in the questions that the game poses to each commander, the outcome of decisions.
Movement matters, it breathes life into a game.

[toxicpixie]

I also think that the good rules now leave most offerings form 20 or 30 years ago in their dust. FSN - I think you're ignoring the appeal of the simplicity and nostaliga for old sets.

I don't discount nostalgia, but simplicity? A lot of old rules are horrendously complex with many subsystems and much faff in the name of "accuracy" at every step. Then they produce outcomes that are anything but. Ofc we probably all have rosey tinted "society is always collapsing, the young no longer honour the gods/their fathers, have funny haircuts and every man is writing a book" glasses and only remember the good bits and the good sets

On which note, Tacforce II is being reissued, complete with "mini-supplements" covering every variant of every vehicle in excruciating, redundant and identical detail

FSN - I would also pick up on the trendy "systems" e.g.  Frostgrave or Gangs of Rome. A manufacturer releases a set of rules and lots of figures and scenery and supplements. Everyone goes crazy, spends a fortune on them ... then next year a manufacturer releases a set of rules and lots of figures ... 

Whilst I agree to a fair extent, Frostgrave is a bad example. It's very very strong on player base, has really good output (new supplement released this week with rejigged XP rules and a new campaign!), and has spawned a semi-sequel in Ghost Archipelago which seems to have increased it's market not divided it But you do definitely need a good "hook" as well as good rules, otherwise I agree - a few games "stick" (Frostgrave, Malifaux, Saga), others... sink.

[fsn]

You're thinking of the Silver Age of wargaming, when National Characteristics were the thing, and EEEHLC was available of 15 points but required a sub-General. I'm thinking of the Golden Age; of the Blessed Featherstone, the Immaculate Grant and the Wise Terry; a time when the only die was a d6, but it could be white, sometimes black and rarerly red; when your measuring stick was in inches because, as was properly recognised, the millimeter is an invention of Satan, or worse, the French; a time when a Sherman was equal to a Panther and you couldn't field PzIIIs because Airfix didn't do them. It was a time sculpted in Plasticine and sealed in banana oil; coloured in enamels and mounted on Cornflakes packets. 

It was a time when China was what you drank tea out of and the Franco-Prussian War was Jena and Auerstadt not Spicheren and Sedan; Challengers had 17pdrs and the best tank in the world was the Centurion.

A time of discovery. A time of innocence and innovation. A golden time.

[FierceKitty]

I NEVER willingly did WRG until DBx had its day. And I don't miss that either.

[FierceKitty]

You're thinking of the Silver Age of wargaming, when National Characteristics were the thing, and EEEHLC was available of 15 points but required a sub-General. I'm thinking of the Golden Age; of the Blessed Featherstone, the Immaculate Grant and the Wise Terry; a time when the only die was a d6, but it could be white, sometimes black and rarerly red; when your measuring stick was in inches because, as was properly recognised, the millimeter is an invention of Satan, or worse, the French; a time when a Sherman was equal to a Panther and you couldn't field PzIIIs because Airfix didn't do them. It was a time sculpted in Plasticine and sealed in banana oil; coloured in enamels and mounted on Cornflakes packets. 

It was a time when China was what you drank tea out of and the Franco-Prussian War was Jena and Auerstadt not Spicheren and Sedan; Challengers had 17pdrs and the best tank in the world was the Centurion.

A time of discovery. A time of innocence and innovation. A golden time.

Ugh!

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Having played a set Featherstone's rules when he died, it wern't no golden age....

[FierceKitty]

Having played a set Featherstone's rules when he died, it wern't no golden age....

Uh oh....I agree again.

[toxicpixie]

I agree thrice