Overstuffed market?

[Bernie]

Yep that's the guy! He told me he still has the jumper they all had to wear for the programme!

[Aart Brouwer]

That sound like a game I'd love to try - pity you're not closer.

Likewise. Grossman's game I believe is the one that comes closest to chess on a tabletop. You can play it with the cardboard counters but also with miniatures as long as they conform to the frontage rules and all that - in that respect it's similar to Wooden Ships & Iron Man. Strategically and tactically it's in the same family as Kriegspiel, but much more "wargamey" if you know what I mean.

Dirt cheap as well. Couple of dollars plus P&P. Ah well..

Cheers,
Aart

[mollinary]

So...ramblingly stumbling to my point, what do you chaps think? 
Are there too many rulesets out there now?                                                                                                                         No.
Do you buy rules only to never play them as they're basically inferior copies to other rules you've already done?             No.
Is it good there are so many rules being published?                                                                                                            Yes.
Have you found any truely innovative rules lately?                                                                                                               Yes.
Do you think the current focus on gamist abstraction is good or bad?                                                                                 Yes - and - No.

[Syr Hobbs]

It seems to me that, particularly over the past 3-4 years there's been an absolute glut of rules, for all periods, hitting the market.
. . .

So...ramblingly stumbling to my point, what do you chaps think?  
Are there too many rulesets out there now?      YES
Do you buy rules only to never play them as they're basically inferior copies to other rules you've already done?    SOMETIMES, NOT OFTEN
Is it good there are so many rules being published?    NO
Have you found any truely innovative rules lately?     NO
Do you think the current focus on gamist abstraction is good or bad?   I'M STUCK IN THE MIDDLE ON THIS ONE

Around here, the problem with too many rule sets is that we spread ourselves way too thin.  Everybody has a favorite set, so no one can agree what to play.  (far too many splinter groups or no one plays anything at all.)  

When games do get organized, hardly any one is familiar enough with the rules to get a good game in.  I'm tired of switching to the next "big thing" then a few games later switching again.  There just isn't enough time to between games or players to justify the number of rule sets.  As a result no one gets comfortable enough with the rules to take advantage of the little nuisances that make the rules unique in the first place and games become sloppy as you stumble around the rules like a newbie (which you are).  So I struggle to find a rule set to use for ACW which I've just started because there are just too many choices and folks are bouncing around here like a pinball machine.

In terms of new rule sets coming out, I think the reason figure manufacturers get into the rules business is because they think that having their own dedicated rule's set will sell more figures.  So they create rules that are based on what is tried and true.  It is just easier and faster to come out with some rules after a few tweaks, especially when making figures takes so much time.  Now it maybe everybody's dream to have rules and figures like the big boys and I understand that (it's my dream too, lol)  But based on the large number of figure manufacturers out there, how many different rule sets could we have.

But I think the real culprit is the ease of producing quality rules and getting them printed.  Computer technology is just too easy to use.  So I picked up rule set X and after a few weeks I come up with all these house rules and someone says you really should sell these rules, they're good.  A month later you have a PDF, a forum and version 2.0 in the works.  Hit a few shows running demo games, create a small fan base and your off and running.  

The one thing I am envious of is the clubs that are available across the pond.  We have a few clubs but for the most part games are played at game stores, playing the newest, greatest thing the store wants to sell and the folks who attend change all the time.

Duane

[Last Hussar]

Ah that point half way through a game when someone says "Isn't that in 'xxx' not this?"

[Hertsblue]

Surely there's a point in a game when someone says "that's bloody stupid" and the players, if they're reasonable types, reach a compromise and over-rule the stupidity? This is how "house rules" come about. 

[Luddite]

 
Around here, the problem with too many rule sets is that we spread ourselves way too thin.  Everybody has a favorite set, so no one can agree what to play.  (far too many splinter groups or no one plays anything at all.)  

I heartily agree.  My group plays something different almost every week, which results in this...

When games do get organized, hardly any one is familiar enough with the rules to get a good game in.

Although we do tend to play the same bunch of rules so you sort of vaguely remember what's going on.  Even so its a real problem.  The flipside i suppose is playing the same thing all the time and getting bored?

I'm tired of switching to the next "big thing" then a few games later switching again.

Couldn't agree more!  A few years ago we played DBM pretty much solidly.  Now then, love 'em or  hate 'em (and i do both) DBx gives a good game especially for tournament play and we played them consistently, to tournament standard.  We became 'experts', fully understanding the rules and able to concentrate on the tactical aspects of play.

Since FoG blew that out of the water (with an inferior game in my opinion) we've splintered up a bit and really haven't settled on 'one ruleset' since then.  Its tiring and disengaging to switch rules each week never really getting 'into the groove' of a set of rules.     As you say here...

There just isn't enough time to between games or players to justify the number of rule sets.  As a result no one gets comfortable enough with the rules to take advantage of the little nuisances that make the rules unique in the first place and games become sloppy as you stumble around the rules like a newbie (which you are).

So I struggle to find a rule set to use for ACW which I've just started because there are just too many choices and folks are bouncing around here like a pinball machine.

Oddly though this is one period were are set on.  ACW is pretty much Fire & Fury.  Accept no substitutes!

In terms of new rule sets coming out, I think the reason figure manufacturers get into the rules business is because they think that having their own dedicated rule's set will sell more figures.  So they create rules that are based on what is tried and true.  It is just easier and faster to come out with some rules after a few tweaks, especially when making figures takes so much time.  Now it maybe everybody's dream to have rules and figures like the big boys and I understand that (it's my dream too, lol)

I think you're partially right.  Proprietary rules/figure linking does sometimes work, and indeed make sense.  E.g. i've recently got into Dystopian Wars, and their models (ships) are pretty much the reason we picked this interesting naval game up.

However, in most cases, i'll rarely limit myself to a manufacturer's 'official' figures.  I suspect most of us don't, or hate ourselves and resernt the vendor when we do, which is why the likes of GW and FoW bring out so much rage/hate?!

But based on the large number of figure manufacturers out there, how many different rule sets could we have.

That's an interesting point.  Indeed, how many do we need??

But I think the real culprit is the ease of producing quality rules and getting them printed.  Computer technology is just too easy to use.  So I picked up rule set X and after a few weeks I come up with all these house rules and someone says you really should sell these rules, they're good.  A month later you have a PDF, a forum and version 2.0 in the works.  Hit a few shows running demo games, create a small fan base and your off and running.  

By 'quality' i presume you mean production values and appearance?  There are certainly a lot of rules released now stuffed with what we call 'wargames p0rn'; lots of pretty pictures, nice backgrounds to the pages, etc.  Rules quality seems to be very hit and miss i think.  I've bought some absolute stinkers lately, as well as a lot of mediocre 'filler'.  I can count what i'd consider good rulesets on one hand probably.

The one thing I am envious of is the clubs that are available across the pond.  We have a few clubs but for the most part games are played at game stores, playing the newest, greatest thing the store wants to sell and the folks who attend change all the time.

Duane

Now that would suck hard.  I'm glad i'm not gaming in that sort of environment; regular change plus pressure to buy...rough.


OK, so i guess having posed the questions i should have a stab at answering them!


Are there too many rulesets out there now?

It feels like there are to me, but i'm not sure why.  I suppose 'comsumer choice' is a good thing, but the problem i see with the plethora of rules is which one do you pick? 

For example, we've struggled for years to find a decent set of WWII rules to do what we want it to.  None of the sets we used quite fit the bill and it wasn't until we dug out the old Spearhead rules that we realised what we wanted was already knocking about and years old!  It cost a lot of money and wasted time to find that out though.



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

Goodness me YES!  See the example above! 

But i've got a shelf full of rules that i'm unlikely to ever play (or play again).  Usually that's because they're rubbish (Mr Lincoln's War  ), or more usually they're OK, or 'meh' (XXCommander), but not quite what i'm after. 

This i guess is a symptom of the 'too many rules' issue.  With so much available, their will be good, bad, and ugly, as well as 'stuff i like' and 'stuff i hate'.

Is it good there are so many rules being published?

Well, in some ways i suppose it's good in that shows The Hobby is vibrant enough, especially in these supposedly straightened times, to support new stuff coming out. 

However, to be good, these rules really need to be filling gaps not currently covered, rather than hopping on the bandwagon.  'Oh goody, another WWII rule set'.   

Have you found any truely innovative rules lately?

Not really is the answer. 

I suppose Malifaux's card resolution system comes close, but to be honest i thought that actually damaged the game, turning what could have been a nice little skirmish set into a card game.   

Dystopian Wars uses the 'exploding dice pool' mechanic that i've not seen in a wargame, but is common among roleplaying games, so not really 'innovative'.

Other than that i'm struggling to think of anything truely 'innovative' from any of the current batch of new games.

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

Would anyone really want to return to the simulationist nightmares of the 1970's?

Probably not, and of course all games have a neccessary level of abstraction.  Some, like DBx take abstraction to the extreme. 

But what i guess my question is getting at is the concentration on gamist abstractions and the removal of 'scale'.  When was the last time you bought a modern ruleset that defined a ground scale?  'Proper' ranges and movement distances?  A turn sequence that represented a fixed time period rather than 'an initiative impulse'?

While i think a level of abstraction is very good (penetration vs tank armour, modified by deflection, range, obscurants, etc.etc. is very bad) i do think games lose something by not nailing down these other aspects. 

We all know about 'friction' in the various periods of warfare, and the basic frictions of how far men can move in a given time, how far force can be projected, etc. are vital i think.  Perhaps this is what we're talking about when we say we want 'period flavour' in our rules rather than the vanilla of a generic 'do anything' set?

Abstraction - Good or bad?  I think there needs to be balance, but i'd like to see a bit of a shift towards including scaling.

Aye...

[rexhurley]

Greetings

It really does depend what you want.  I tend to prefer rules that are focused on playing scenarios, are fun to play but are firmly rooted in the history of the particular period.   For example, I was really put off the other day by an article on Warlord's new Bolt Action rules where Rick Priestley set out an example of a British force for the game - this was a mix of normal infantry and Royal Marine Commandos for a platoon level game.   Now obviously that's fixable by making sure you only use consistent forces but it's a bad sign for me and didn't encourage me to spend money on it.

My copy arrived today and wish I hadn't gone there, straight to ebay or trademe here in NZ unfortunately.  presentation, style and the smaller book in the FOG style (fine for FOG but not Warlord) was a major disappointment and yes I didn't need to buy it but I did!.

re the market go Sandinista dead on and on the weekend I was reading Henry Hyde's blog and yup spot on as well, keep it simple, keep it fun as life is too full of sh*t.

As for writing and releasing, could luck if you do leon, been there in the past at the start with FOW and the first three extensions and its not a lot of fun at times as you lead people to change but hey its paid off in the long run for that organisation so why shouldn't with yours.

Onwards and upwards everyone happy gaming :-)

Oh and choice frig each week I change my mind dammit!

Oh and re any innovative rulesets lately, yes:

SAM MUSTAFA MAURICE and dare I say it World of Tanks PC Game 

[Luddite]

Oh and re any innovative rulesets lately, yes:

SAM MUSTAFA MAURICE and dare I say it World of Tanks PC Game 

Interesting.

Why do you say Maurice is 'innovative'?

[rexhurley]

Interesting.

Why do you say Maurice is 'innovative'?

How the game actually plays versus say FOG N, Koenig Krieg, Die Keiungreist, or numerous other H&M Games.  The card driven mechanics for terrain generation, play, events and nobles is certainly different and gives a wonderful feel to the game, the period and the hobby.

its certainly not yet another line em up and a plagarised copy of something else

[DaveH]

A bit of googling, since I'm not at home, has reminded me that is was in fact Arthur Taylor's Rules fro Wargaming and published in 1971.

I've still got my copy of them. Have to give them a try and my brother has the Complete Brigadier box so that may well be worth me having a look at.

[Vulpine]

Up until the last year or so I mainly had Games workshop and a few RPGs but I'm now reborn!!! So ill hopefully have a fresh view.

For me it's the mind set of the game, imagining that hoard of  Vikings, the marching of the Romans, the screaming of Orks, the Drums of Napoleonic regiments, the two rank fire of British against Zulus, the rumble of tanks through ruined fresh villages, the automatic fire of future soldiers or the growl of a 10ft alien!... That doesn't mean that the rules don't matter, infact the opposite, if the rules are bust, the imagination is bust! For example Luddite (in his residual self image) showed me and Dim_Reaper 'Hord of the things' It's nice, it captures my imagination and I can imagine massive regiment doing battle.

So when me and Dim started writing a system for our Doctor who game (as well as a Zombi game and a few more)  we stick to the concept of the 3 Fs...

1) FIT   Dose the system fit with how you imagin? If two units fire at each other, is the aftermath as you imagine? Or do the troops move as you would imagin? It's not based on facts, just what you see as correct given the fiction you are playing and the boundarys of the world your playing in?

2) FUN   Within the system do you enjoy it? Does the game drag, does it have to much detail, or not enough? Is it a mess of counters on the board or too many dice roles?

3) FAIR is the system fair? For both sides?

The point is, as it all is, it's opinion, my 3 Fs are a good concept, but its up to the players to decide if a system lives up to this concepts.

[DaveL]

Hi.  Yes - too many to choose from, very expensive at times, and trying to convince us that THESE ARE THE RULES TO BEAT ALL RULES.

But also NO. Don't you just love reading all those "new" - or not so new - ideas.  And Oh! All that eye candy.

Suppose it sounds like i've got a split personality?

Suppose that's why i posted my enquiry about the "perfect" set of Ancient Rules _ had lots of good feedback.  Thanks guys.

Sets Chad and I have bought and we've had fun with and enjoyed are;

Neil Thomas's Ancient Rules,  Maurice,  March Attack,  Die Fighting  and  Field of Battle -  to name but a few of the many we've bought over the years.

Best Wishes   DaveL

[petercooman]

I must say i don't really care for all those "must-buy" rules. My first foray in historical wargaming  was via some revell figures and a free set of rules i found on freewargamerules.co.uk:

http://www.freewargamesrules.co.uk/


Not all that is on there is good, but some are usable, and it always beats havig to buy a set! Most of these are fairly simple so allow for quick games too!

The last set i was looking at are these:  http://met.open.ac.uk/group/jwl/napoleonic/fprules.pdf

However, when something good comes along, like the first time i played BKC, i can always go out and buy me a copy, as i will have never lost anything but the paper i printed my free rules on

Not to say i don't ask around though, knowing is half the battle

Edit: just a little example of neat stuff you can find: http://www.juniorgeneral.org/waterloo/waterloo.html

[GordonY]

Do I think the market is overstuffed? Well yeah, but here's where I stand up and say "My name is Gordon, and I'm a rules junkie."

I try to restrict myself to only buying 2 rulesets a month, pretty much the only ones I'll avoid like the plague are those that follow the Games Workshop/Battlefront formula, i.e. a rulebook followed by 243 supplements/codexes, the only exception to this being WRG's Ancients and DBM, well a ruleset that spans the globe and covers 5000 years should be cut a little slack. I'll also avoid buying rules that are just released, I'd much rather look at a few AARs (mainly to see if the unit basing gives the 'look' of the period that I want) and read a couple of reviews to see if the mechanics suit me.

Lately I find myself buying rulesets that I had 25 years ago (last one was Irregulars Ancients Rule box) and being amazed that hell yeah these are really good and then wondering why I've spent the last quarter century trying to find a better one.