Surely too much is better than too little? When I look back to when I got interested in wargaming in the mid-sixties there was Featherstone, Grant and who else? WRG were a breath of fresh air when they came along in the early seventies (and I write that in all seriousness). The plethora of rulesets now available reflects the interest in the hobby and nobody forces the wargamer to shell out megabucks for the latest offering. Try the freebies at www.freewargamesrules.co.uk and if nothing floats your boat, have a go at writing your own. 

Interesting topic.

I tend to think that there are far too many rulesets floating about and certainly a lot them seem to be very derivative of what has gone before yet on the other hand this si probably better than the old days when there was just one or two.  When we started playing at school in the 70s, we had a choice Don Featherstone's H&M rules, WRG's and a set written by the history teacher and tweaked so that it was impossible for the French to win;  I also found a set published by Shire books by an Arthur Somebody which did away with dice and for some time my friend and I played these but they never caught on in a big way. Must have a moth-eaten copy somewhere.

Like many of us I buy quite a few rulesets to read and see what's new(ish). My ruleshelf is full of old sets which I've pilfered for ideas or army lists without ever actually using. Anyone remember Shieldwall? Bought it, readt it, never played it  Ditto retinue. I like DBM army list books but not the rules and still tend to play old Armati,; despite having invested in the eye-candy that is FoG. I agree with those who say that whatver the rules, they should be in one book/volume and not used as a revenue driver with lord knows how many supplements for this that and the other.  Piccies are good too; I bought the Warhammer Historical Waterloo set when it was on special offer and while I'm not sure I'll ever the use the rules as is, I've certainly drooled over the pics and made use of illustrations when painting Pendraken's Nappies.

Bascially when it comes down to it I'm with Sandinista. The main thing is to get the painted lead on the table, admire the set up and push them around for a bit while chucking a fair amount of dice (I like that ) and having some fun.

Quote from: Malbork on 10 August 2012, 09:13:18 AM
I also found a set published by Shire books by an Arthur Somebody which did away with dice and for some time my friend and I played these but they never caught on in a big way.

That wouldn't be The Complete Brigadier by J. Grossman, a rare 1982 ruleset for the 1680-1880 period that did away with dice and other traditional trappings? It came in a box with roster sheets, an introductory booklet that contained Grossman's complete philosophy of wargaming, another booklet with battle rules, and a set of cardboard symbols for infantry, cavalry etcetera which you could use on a pre-printed map. I bought two box sets mainly because I was fascinated by his purist theory and mechanisms. They're still on my shelf, awaiting the day when someone in the neighourhood is caught by the same bug.

Probably a vain hope.  

Cheers,
Aart

Greetings

This is a topic I wonder about quite a bit.  There's a very wide range out there and they cater for very different tastes.

I started to list the rules I've bought over the last few years but stopped as it wouln't convey much other than my likes.   Given the price of rulesets I'm generally fairly picky and generaly like to see them first - though I'll get most TFL rules anyway as they are often good at inspiring new periods (as if I need that).   

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.

Regards

Edward

Quote from: Aart Brouwer on 10 August 2012, 11:09:14 AM
That wouldn't be The Complete Brigadier by J. Grossman, a rare 1982 ruleset for the 1680-1880 period that did away with dice and other traditional trappings? It came in a box with roster sheets, an introductory booklet that contained Grossman's complete philosophy of wargaming, another booklet with battle rules, and a set of cardboard symbols for infantry, cavalry etcetera which you could use on a pre-printed map. I bought two box sets mainly because I was fascinated by his purist theory and mechanisms. They're still on my shelf, awaiting the day when someone in the neighourhood is caught by the same bug.

Probably a vain hope.  

Cheers,
Aart

Arthur Harman I seem to recall; I had a copy that disintegrated years ago. Shire also did "Wargames Stationary" Order sheets etc. - very high tech for 1972 or thereabouts...

The other thing is the financial balance between core spending -little lead men; and peripheral spending rules, uniform books yet more paint schemes etc. I have to concentrate spending on the core now...

But always better too many rules than not enough.

QuoteArthur Harman I seem to recall; I had a copy that disintegrated years ago. Shire also did "Wargames Stationary" Order sheets etc. - very high tech for 1972 or thereabouts

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 remember the Wargaming stationery - we could never afford it so tried to copy the sheets with pen and paper and get our dads to "xerox" them at work.  The rules consist of a general set of land warfare rules with period add ons - ECW, Marlborough, Nap, ACW, WWII and naval stuff too. He also sets out his philosophy of wargaming like Aart says Grossman does (have to google him next) - something along the lines that wargaming should be like chess, you learn a few basics for all time and then use them as best you can during the game.

Think I may dust them off and give them a try out for my new ECW venture. One thing I recall is that things seemed predictable in that a bigger unit would always defeat a smaller one no matter what but this could have been partially due to our teenage interpretation of the text, we didn't bother too much with tactics.

Another ruleset that the googling threw up was Shire's English Civil Wargaming, so I should try to find my copy of that too....

Quote from: Aart Brouwer on 10 August 2012, 11:09:14 AM
That wouldn't be The Complete Brigadier by J. Grossman, a rare 1982 ruleset for the 1680-1880 period that did away with dice and other traditional trappings? It came in a box with roster sheets, an introductory booklet that contained Grossman's complete philosophy of wargaming, another booklet with battle rules, and a set of cardboard symbols for infantry, cavalry etcetera which you could use on a pre-printed map. I bought two box sets mainly because I was fascinated by his purist theory and mechanisms. They're still on my shelf, awaiting the day when someone in the neighourhood is caught by the same bug.

Probably a vain hope.  

Cheers,
Aart

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

Just found my equally battered copy of Arthur Taylor's Rules for Wargaming. Packs a punch that in 68 pages you get 8 sets of rules for 40pence.

Arthur Harman was the prolific writer of all things Horse & Musket in wargame mages a few years back and still an afficianado of the Kriegspiel.

The Shire set of wargaming publications were far more easy to understand to a young kid (young once) than the legalise of the mainstream wargame rules of the time which tended to be written for competition games and tended to cover wide historical periods.

Even as a kid I thought rules needed to be specific to a war: ACW, Marlborough, Napoleonic.

Quote from: Bernie on 11 August 2012, 07:21:06 AM

Arthur Harman was the prolific writer of all things Horse & Musket in wargame mages a few years back and still an afficianado of the Kriegspiel.

Wasn't he involved in the "Game of War" TV programme with Paddy Griffith some years ago?

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

Quote from: Last Hussar on 10 August 2012, 01:52:50 PM
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

Quote from: Luddite on 09 August 2012, 09:31:49 AM

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.

Quote from: Luddite on 09 August 2012, 09:31:49 AM
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

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

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. 

Quote from: Syr Hobbs on 12 August 2012, 03:43:47 PM
 
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...

QuoteWhen 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?

QuoteI'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...

QuoteThere 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).

QuoteSo 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!

QuoteIn 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?!

QuoteBut 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??

QuoteBut 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.

Quote
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...

Quote from: kustenjaeger on 10 August 2012, 12:07:06 PM
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 

Quote from: rexhurley on 12 September 2012, 02:30:31 AM

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'?

Quote from: Luddite on 18 September 2012, 10:31:57 AM
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