Why are Wargames Rules so Complicated ... ?

[steve_holmes_11]

I was lucky enough many years ago to be one of Don Featherstone's Wargaming "Coven" in Southampton: the rules (one one sheet of paper) were typed and stapled to the ceiling for ease of reference.   Any disputes that common sense could not resolve or a dice roll were settled by Don: wargames lawyers were not welcome and everyone had fun!

It sounds brilliant.

I can't imagine many of the hobby's founding fathers sticking around if they weren't having fun.
I'm sure they would have moved on and sailed model yachts, or flown gliders, of built incredible railway sets.

What so many of s newcomers forget is that the gaming alternatives at the time were Featherstone, Ludo, Monopoly or Snakes and Ladders.
And most people found Monopoly too complicated.

[steve_holmes_11]

Suggested reasons.

1. Competition proofing (for the folks who enjoy that sort of thing), to lock out the rules lawyers.

2. There's a small minority who actually enjoy poring over pages of paragraph-free text, tables of tables, and glossaries the length of a Hayes manual. If asked they'll mention the "real world experience".

3. The perception of value: You get 200 pages and 7 supporting codexes (HHrmph! codices). It won't be staying simply with that page count.

4. Badly organised stream of consciousness more worthy of Ginsberg's poetry. Oh yes gentle reader, it is out there.

5. Loss of the focus. "I wrote a manageable set of Napoleonic rules, but then decided to stretch it for everything from 1600 to 1918. It increased the page count ten-fold, but was well worth the effort".

Let me add:

6. Amendments / errata - largely unavoidable. But if they reach half the page count of your rules, you need to re-assess your platesting methods.

7. Fan driven second / third / fourth .... editions where you fix their complaints (and introduce twice as many). Not to be confused with commercially driven second editions, where you change the introduction and pictures.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Rather cynical Mr Holmes.

[steve_holmes_11]

Rather cynical Mr Holmes.

The Cynics are my favourite Later Hoplite Greek force.

Their distinctive abilities include:
* May call on Heracles as a Hero / Champion.
* Added missile saves because they live in barrels.
* Can see right through the ruses of their effete Theban and Athenian opponents.



Meanwhile - Number 8: The aggregated 'special' rules form 36 issues of Pale Elf magazine.

[DecemDave]

You want cynical:

9. You get to issue a "players guide" with explanations and nice pictures at a higher price than the original ruleset

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Mrs B's guide to DBA by any chance.

I will admit that I do try to break a rule set to see if there is anything wrong. There is for instance a major flaw in "Sound of the guns" which means that the British Lt cavalry can always break a square. {No I'm not going to tell you}

[toxicpixie]

Mrs B's guide to DBA by any chance.

I will admit that I do try to break a rule set to see if there is anything wrong. There is for instance a major flaw in "Sound of the guns" which means that the British Lt cavalry can always break a square. {No I'm not going to tell you}

We used to play those at Uni.

Put me off Napoleonics for a decade.

[toxicpixie]

The Cynics are my favourite Later Hoplite Greek force.

Their distinctive abilities include:
* May call on Heracles as a Hero / Champion.
* Added missile saves because they live in barrels.
* Can see right through the ruses of their effete Theban and Athenian opponents.



Meanwhile - Number 8: The aggregated 'special' rules form 36 issues of Pale Elf magazine.

Do all your armies consist of plucked chicken models...

[steve_holmes_11]

Do all your armies consist of plucked chicken models...

Funny you should mention that.
My "other gaming" (D&D) monicker is "Big Chicken Eating Steve".

The Dungeon Master is working on the number of chickens required for a balanced fight with an adult human.

[toxicpixie]

One, as a man is a featherless biped so one plucked chicken = one man.

Now, if the chicken is armed...

[Ithoriel]

My "other gaming" (D&D) monicker is "Big Chicken Eating Steve".

As in "Steve who eats big chickens" or "Big Steve who eats chickens?"

Asking for a feathered friend

[Raider4]

As in "Steve who eats big chickens" or "Big Steve who eats chickens?"

This statement illustrates the OP perfectly.

[DecemDave]

This statement illustrates the OP perfectly.

Well yes. A simple illustration would have made the meaning clearer

[steve_holmes_11]

Well yes. A simple illustration would have made the meaning clearer

Closest living relative to the T-Rex.

[ Warning: above statement liable to be pseudoscientific tosh ].

[Leman]

Yes indeed, its arms look too long.

[FierceKitty]

I've always hated the name anyway; redundant, and an ugly mish-mash of Greek and Latin.

As Calvin would probably say, what's wrong with Terrifying killer dinosaur with huge claws and teeth?

[Raider4]

As Calvin would probably say, what's wrong with Terrifying killer dinosaur with huge claws and teeth?

and teeny-tiny hands and arms

[Ithoriel]

As Calvin would probably say, what's wrong with Terrifying killer dinosaur with huge claws and teeth?

English electric rock band is shorter and easier to say

[Norm]

A few years ago, I was interested in a particular boardgame. i checked out the errata file, which was significant and I backed away from buying.

A few years later, I bought the game, there were few issues that I could see and when I read the errata, it turned out that someone thought it a good idea to put all of the Q&A  into the file, even though some of it was clearly already written in the rules and while accepting the person asking the question may have been stuck on the point, there was no reason to suppose that the wider readership would have been.

In consequence, there was too much stuff in the Q&A file, meaning that the relevant stuff was just drowned out. Whoever authored the Q&A file thought they were doing good service, but that misplaced notion undermined the value of the file itself.

So side A of the coin concerns those who don't do well on the rules reading front

But this, side B of the coin, is balanced in equal measure by whether an author can properly pose and close each segment of the rules and whether enough accurate examples exist to ensure that ambiguity is ironed out. Equal is where the rules have been tested by a small group, where the author is always present and so the group 'know' how to play, but this doesn't translate into coherent rules to serve a wider audience as that group loses all sense of where ambiguity is..

Somewhere between A and B is where most rules seem to sit.

then there is the period expert who assumes that the rule is wrong!

Then there is the competitive player who is liberal with both rules and measurements.

What is one to do, other than to eventually settle with gamers who are closest to ones own gaming style / ethos.

[Raider4]

7. Fan driven second / third / fourth .... editions where you fix their complaints (and introduce twice as many).

Urgh, yes. Seen this. Usually ends up a horrible mish-mash of styles, as bits fans like from other games are pulled in.