Perfect rule set: Glossy Color Pictures of Lists?
Bob Jones
sets of rules; attended many shows, and played many a wargame by a
variety of authors.
Two things that continue to astound me are the ability of color
pictures and glossy layout to "sell" a marginal set of rules, and the
popularity of "lists" purporting to supply a recipe for the right
numbers and mix of troops for a specific set of rules.
It isn't that one can't cite the obvious reasons for the above. Basic
Advertising 101 says pretty pictures can sell most anything-including
really bad products. Basic Human Nature 101 says that if you make
something really easy people will appreciate the fact that someone
else has done all the work and all they have to do is follow the
recipe-no thought-no reading-no effort.
What amazes me is the degree to which they are effective.
Probably the most egregious example of the pretty picture school is
the GW product Warhammer and Warhammer 40K. A lot of effort has gone
into the photography, layout, and presentation of what is, by any
measure, one of the most antiquated, simple-minded, and depressingly
ordinary set of quasi-skirmish rules ever published. In most cases of
the pretty pictures school, the ratio of picture column inches to text
column inches can reach 15-20 to 1! And we're not talking about
illustrating aspects of play, or the rules-Just pretty pictures!
Strongly reflective of 1960s English rule design, the Warhammer rules
are slow, reflective of nothing in particular when it comes to tactics
or weaponry, and, other than the brilliant insight by the packagers
that the rather arcane, artificially complicated, and arbitrary,
rating of unit types allowed for an infinite number of new units to be
created and sold, the rules are incredibly DULL in terms of gamer
decisions and choices.
And yet, because of the glossy materials, and some rather
nice,expensive, figures, the gamers who play seem to be absolutely
oblivious to the shortcomings of the very thing that animates their
battles-the rules. Is it that the draconian conditions set by the GW
stores and conventions demanding that the "official" WH rules must be
played leaves little choice?
What then accounts for WHAB? Essentially the same rules gussied up for
historicals-but the same quasi-skirmish-thoughtless-and undemanding
nature of play. Is it a case of the Lowest Common Denominator at work?
Coupled with that are the "lists" found in so many sets since WRG
introduced the concept some 35 years ago. They seem so "historical".
They seem so certain in their import, "Do EXACTLY this and you have an
historical ancient Burmese Army ."
Well, they actually reflect little more than rough approximations,
always with an eye to competitive balance for the "tournament"
crowd(which often expresses their worry in those "competitive"
terms-seldom historical misgivings), and often based, one may
conjecture, on little more than broad guestimation(given the remaining
historical evidence-one could expect little else)-and yet, many
players of such rules seem to believe them inviolate and the only
accurate OB for their armies.
This is, of course, absurd. The lists reflect little or no historical
roots, other than a catalogue of unit types. Trying to fit the lists
into any statement of forces at ancient battles(which varied widely)
is a fools errand. The lists supply a false degree of standardization
in a period quite lacking in that quality. But gamers are seemingly
unquestioning in their acceptance of this very artificial codification
and standardization. It certainly provides an opportunity for the
publisher to make additional revenues from books of never ending lists
of increasingly obscure(and largely undocumented) armies! They want to
sell fish, not teach anyone how to catch fish!
Are the demands of tournaments foremost to "List" lovers? Are they
content to accept any degree of historical "fiction" to structure what
was decidedly unstructured? Once you let two armies from widely
disparate eras or geographic locations fight, is throwing over any
other problems with known facts-easier? Is the only way some rules can
give a decent game is if the forces are very carefully, if
ahistorically, "balanced"? Or is it that they only love ancients to
the degree they don't have to actually read any history? They'd
rather have a recipe for their cookies than learn about baking?
They'd rather have false standards to encourage tournament play than
be left with no tournaments at all?
'Tis a puzzlement!
BJ
Phil Dutre
> And yet, because of the glossy materials, and some rather
> nice,expensive, figures, the gamers who play seem to be absolutely
> oblivious to the shortcomings of the very thing that animates their
> battles-the rules. Is it that the draconian conditions set by the GW
> stores and conventions demanding that the "official" WH rules must be
> played leaves little choice?
Maybe. But the glossy pictures definitely are a plus. One of my
mottos in miniature wargaming is 'Visual Appeal is Everything'. If you
have a nice gaming table with stunning terrain, and beautiful troops,
and everything looks cool, you can get away with a crappy ruleset.
Why? Because it's fun to play on a nice gaming table.
Having glossy pictures in whatever ruleset you're using definitely
helps in this department. Hence the popularity of Rapid Fire.
Ruleswise so-so, but stunning pictures, and lots of inspiration!
> Coupled with that are the "lists" found in so many sets since WRG
> introduced the concept some 35 years ago. They seem so "historical".
> They seem so certain in their import, "Do EXACTLY this and you have an
> historical ancient Burmese Army ."
Yes, and that's exactly why I don't like DBx. The dogma's set in that game
are as bad or even worse as the ones in the GW games. Hell, in the GW
games you might even have some choice! 'But it's historical!'. Who says?
The game designer? Coupled with the crappy visual looks of most
DBx games ('this piece of cardboard is a hill, and this string of
blue wool is a river'), and it's not appealing to me at all.
But the army lists are 'necesarry' for tournament play. I don't play
tournaments, I don't care for them, I even think they embody what
hisotrical wargaming should NOT be about. Give me stunning terrain,
a well-designed scenario, and a OOB based on a plausible historical
setup instead of a line-up with armies based on the inspiration of
a games designer at 4am in the morning.
Anyway, in historical wargaming, I see mostly two schools these days:
1. Tournaments; rigid adherence to the army lists; visual appeal low
2. Free-style games; loose rules; high visual appeal.
Of course, most gamers might fall somewhere in between. I don't mind type
1 gamers, but in general they don't mix very well with my type 2
preference. And that's okay with me. I just consider them different
styles of wargaming. The only thing I see is that when people are talking
about 'recruiting new gamers', type 2 is usually much more succesful
than type 1.
Phil
Ray Trochim
>> nice,expensive, figures, the gamers who play seem to be absolutely
>> oblivious to the shortcomings of the very thing that animates their
>> battles-the rules. Is it that the draconian conditions set by the GW
>> stores and conventions demanding that the "official" WH rules must be
>> played leaves little choice?
>
>Maybe. But the glossy pictures definitely are a plus. One of my
>mottos in miniature wargaming is 'Visual Appeal is Everything'. If you
>have a nice gaming table with stunning terrain, and beautiful troops,
>and everything looks cool, you can get away with a crappy ruleset.
>Why? Because it's fun to play on a nice gaming table.
>Having glossy pictures in whatever ruleset you're using definitely
>helps in this department. Hence the popularity of Rapid Fire.
>Ruleswise so-so, but stunning pictures, and lots of inspiration!
We game for the enjoyment of the hobby and to spend quality time with
friends (well, most of the time that is), so why make compromises.
Instead of trying to get away with a crappy ruleset using stunning terrain
with attractive troops, why not instead settle for a decent or good ruleset
and stunning terrain with attractive troops. I also play miniature gaming
for the "Visual Appeal", but if the rules are not worth playing, then what
is the point of wasting your time when you could be playing in a game (with
attractive figures and terrian) that is worth the time and effort.
Now that is not to say that what might be a crappy ruleset for one group
or individual will be a crappy ruleset for another group or individual.
-Ray
Patrick R. Collins
:> nice,expensive, figures, the gamers who play seem to be absolutely
:> oblivious to the shortcomings of the very thing that animates their
: Maybe. But the glossy pictures definitely are a plus. One of my
Consider it from a consumer's point of view. Or a person without much
exposure to the hobby. Glossy paper, high quality production standards
imply that some care and effort went into production. Therefore, perhaps
the same care went into the rule set.
I know, not always true, but certainly a point to ponder.
:> Coupled with that are the "lists" found in so many sets since WRG
:> introduced the concept some 35 years ago. They seem so "historical".
:> They seem so certain in their import, "Do EXACTLY this and you have an
:> historical ancient Burmese Army ."
Again, think of someone who can't (or perfers not to) research the period.
Or who can't make a scenario, or at least isn't very good at it.
This gives that person everything he needs to start playing, and doing so
quickly. For youngsters, this is really important.
Tony. Yang
snip
>Two things that continue to astound me are the ability of color
>pictures and glossy layout to "sell" a marginal set of rules, and the
>popularity of "lists" purporting to supply a recipe for the right
>numbers and mix of troops for a specific set of rules.
Certainly a pretty product sells. Appearance is important to
miniature gamers. The look of the armies and terrain are a big (some
would say only) advantage that minature wargames have over board
wargames. I think that appearance is especially important to
historical wargamers. I have never seen a historical wargame with
unpainted or primed-only minis.
As for the appeal of army lists, they "provide balance" to the game.
Of course the balance is artificial. "Good" troops are good only if
they are used properly and "Bad" troops are bad only if used
improperly. However, even artificial balance is a sence of balance,
and it allows one to spontaneously set up a game that both players
would consider fair. Scenarios require more work to come up with a
balanced game. It's not a lot of fun playing a game you know you're
going to loose before you even start.
<snip>
tro...@rintintin.colorado.edu (Ray Trochim) wrote:
>We game for the enjoyment of the hobby and to spend quality time with
>friends (well, most of the time that is), so why make compromises.
>Instead of trying to get away with a crappy ruleset using stunning terrain
>with attractive troops, why not instead settle for a decent or good ruleset
The first requirement for a good ruleset is one where you can find an
opponent. Some of us are fortunate in having buddies that like to try
out different rules, but is is always easier to simply use the rules
that everyone else uses. This is what I call the Microsoft Syndrome.
The number of people who love Windows are vastly outnumbered by the
people who hate it, but everone uses it.
Tom Bryant
Bob,
Not having been in the hobby as long as you (not quite 15 years) I
can tell you a couple of the reasons why I think both help sell a game.
For starters, the visual appeal is more than just glossy artwork fancy
drawings or paintings etc. it also includes vital things like
typesetting and layout. I can remember (as I am sure many of you do)
rulesets that were done on somebody's old Remington typewriter and run
off on the old mimeograph machine in the office or a bad photocopier.
With today's digital typesetting, word processing and image handling
characteristics there is no reason for a rules set to look that bad.
Many of our "old favorites" might do with a little facelift. I agree the
glossy photos, atmospheric artwork and "action commentary" all add to
the excitement of reading a ruleset. That has nothing to do with the
ruleset itself however.
The visual aspects of the the rules need to do two things, one get
people to buy the things and two actually help them understand what is
going on in the game. The first can be done by glossy, full color photos
or artwork on the front and back covers or on the box. The second needs
to be accomplished by good text layout, supportive graphics and
understandable examples for the novice to follow. GW has, for better or
worse, managed to do this part pretty well. That I believe is why they
sell so much. As to the appeal of the Lists that is also easy, it
provides an ready made recipe for an army.
True with historical forces an army list can be anything but historical
in many cases (and it can become a major bone of contention at
convention debates on historical accuracy) it is a leveling force and
provides common ground for both players. Is it good? I don't know. In
some cases yes, so long as you understand that there are limitations to
the concept. One of the things that Easy Eight has done is to come up
with a list type system for some of its WWII forces. It has a
stereotypical American, Russian, German, etc soldier for each of the
armies covered. They also have point values for use with their "Battle
Builder" system. Is it historical, no. A close inspection on what some
of the troops are carrying will tell you that they may be more lightly
armed than their historical counterparts, with respect to grenades at
any rate. In the end it provides a starting point for new players to
gather their troops and get going. The rules should also state this and
how to "customize" or modify the lists as well.
Tom Bryant
President, HMGS-GL
Justin Taylor
pictures.
Have you considered the problem of why people pollute even when they know it
is killing them?
Martin J Blow
"Bob Jones" <rjo...@rmi.net> wrote in message
news:f9f5bfca.01071...@posting.google.com...
>
> Two things that continue to astound me are the ability of color
> pictures and glossy layout to "sell" a marginal set of rules, and
the
> popularity of "lists" purporting to supply a recipe for the right
> numbers and mix of troops for a specific set of rules.
Why does it astound you? Since the introduction of Tactica and Fire &
Fury it was discovered that Quantum publishing could make money
selling historical rulesets. And the 'prettier' the rules were made
to look, the more they could charge and the more copies they could
sell. And that raised the bar to what was considered necessary gloss
to 'sell' a ruleset in a general hobby market.
Twenty years ago the only people making serious money selling rules
sets that I was aware of was Scotty Bowden and Phil Barker.
Everything else was basically home-grown. Nowdays, anyone with a word
processor and who's willing to spend between 5K and 10K of their own
money can be a rules publisher.
What's the downside to the new glossy wargaming rulebooks? The
biggest downside is that a lot of people's homegrown designs are never
being seen in public at all. So the best ruleset for a particular
period might never see the light of day because the start-up costs are
just too high.
I write a lot of rules and have done so since my earliest days playing
miniature games - I mostly play rules of my own devising now. And I
do so simply because I enjoy writing and designing a game I would like
to play - not because I think it will sell in the wider world of
wargaming. But it will work just fine in Martin's gaming room among
Martin's friends.
Around 1994 I was approached and agreed to a contract to publish one
of my home-grown rulesets with a pretty big manufacturer and after
doing two years of research and design and playtesting presented him
with the finished product. Ready to be glossed and gussed-up and sold
to the eager masses. Except he did not have the 10k necessary to do
the work - he had been basically blowing blue smoke up my ass for two
long years and I never had a clue. And I was well and truely screwed.
Long-story short. I organized the game into cheap and dirty rulebooks
that I had manufactured at Kinkos. And whenever I run my air combat
game at a convention and someone who plays it then says "This game is
just so freakin' cool. How can I get a copy of the rules?"
I can say:
a) "Sorry, it's 120 loose pages in a binder and it's a bitch to
photo-copy it and mail it out to just one person. You're
out-of-luck."
b) "Let me reach into my backpack and sell you a little Kinkos-bound
booklet for twelve dollars. Sorry if there aren't any color photos or
glossy artwork or slick production values. But you've played the
game, you like it and this is all there is ever going to be."
I'm not making any of this up - my air combat game is titled Confirmed
Kill and it was reviewed in Issue 74 of the Courier magazine. And I'm
going to continue to write new rules for myself and my friends -
whether or not they ever see publication beyond the ugly little
Kinko's booklets is immaterial to me.
I don't have 10k to gratify my ego by self-publishing my game systems
and I don't have any need to pander to someone else's artifical
asthetic requirements. I like to think of my rulesets like I do of
Janis Joplin - an ugly, uncompromising woman who could SING! And a
lot of the latest, slicked-up, high-gloss stuff now being produced
like I do Britney Spears - simply a gorgeous piece of fluff who's
reedy little-girl's voice couldn't carry a tune in a bucket, but is
wayyyyyy too easy on the eyes to fail in the marketplace.
LOL!
>
> Probably the most egregious example of the pretty picture school is
> the GW product Warhammer and Warhammer 40K. A lot of effort has
gone
> into the photography, layout, and presentation of what is, by any
> measure, one of the most antiquated, simple-minded, and depressingly
> ordinary set of quasi-skirmish rules ever published. In most cases
of
> the pretty pictures school, the ratio of picture column inches to
text
> column inches can reach 15-20 to 1! And we're not talking about
> illustrating aspects of play, or the rules-Just pretty pictures!
You're forgetting the facts that GDub is a figure manufacturing
business which sell's rulesets in order to promote their figures and
to hook youngsters into the "Games Workshop Hobby". Not the
science-fiction or fantasy miniatures hobby - the Games Workshop
hobby.
>
> Coupled with that are the "lists" found in so many sets since WRG
> introduced the concept some 35 years ago. They seem so
"historical".
> They seem so certain in their import, "Do EXACTLY this and you have
an
> historical ancient Burmese Army ."
>
> Well, they actually reflect little more than rough approximations,
> always with an eye to competitive balance for the "tournament"
> crowd(which often expresses their worry in those "competitive"
> terms-seldom historical misgivings), and often based, one may
> conjecture, on little more than broad guestimation(given the
remaining
> historical evidence-one could expect little else)-and yet, many
> players of such rules seem to believe them inviolate and the only
> accurate OB for their armies.
I think you're missing the point of lists. I've never played in a
tournament in my life and I've played ancients for twenty years -
starting with WRG 4th or 5th edition. And I'm a firm believer in
lists simply because it frees me from no longer being forced to
perform defensive research in order to refute the organization of some
other fellow's army I'm likely to face.
In the bad old days before army lists you had to accept what someone
placed on the tabletop and either like it or lump it. Or get in a
argument over the historical merit of Livey or Tacitus (sic) or some
else equally obscure to someone just out of college with his first
'real' job - and if your major opponent is fifteen years older than
you, has a master's in ancient history and teaches the same at the
local high school - you are disadvantaged.
Army lists leveled the field in a way that made ancients more
enjoyable - they also allowed a person to look at the various catalogs
of figures being produced and play the wonderful little game of
organizing and window-shopping a potential new army.
You slammed the notion of the 'historical burmese army' - if it wasn't
for the publication of an army list, what figure manufacturer would
have even considered producing actual Burmese figures? The existance
of a list detailing the figures potential armament and morale grades
and proportions meant that someone persusing a list would consider
Burmese instead of the standard Roman, Carthagenian, Greek or
Macedonian army. And that new and exciting variety of figures could
be introduced to a stale world consisting of mostly Rome, Carthage,
Sparta, Athens and Pella and the potential consumer would be partially
informed already of the new armie's gaming potential.
>
> This is, of course, absurd. The lists reflect little or no
historical
> roots, other than a catalogue of unit types. Trying to fit the lists
> into any statement of forces at ancient battles(which varied widely)
> is a fools errand. The lists supply a false degree of
standardization
> in a period quite lacking in that quality. But gamers are seemingly
> unquestioning in their acceptance of this very artificial
codification
> and standardization. It certainly provides an opportunity for the
> publisher to make additional revenues from books of never ending
lists
> of increasingly obscure(and largely undocumented) armies! They want
to
> sell fish, not teach anyone how to catch fish!
Sorry, but I'm not interested in doing enough research for a Master's
thesis and then having to defend the research to a sceptical group of
gamers simply to play an ancient's game. That was the requirement
back in the old days when I started out - I'd give up playing ancients
before I'd ever go back to that again!
I own seven ancients and five pike & shot armies organized to WRG army
list standards - and numerous other armies still in progress. And the
lists give a basic guide to accepted proportions and ratios and
equipment which is accepted among a wide variety of people. It also
makes introducing people to ancients play much more understandable.
And helps the 'newbie' make his inital purchasing decisions with much
more confidence and to paint and organize his army without fear of
being 'dressed-down' by someone more experienced or interested over
his lack of historical research.
While I realize the limitations of lists, I accept it and work within
said limits. Rather like the Windows operating system on my
computer - I might prefer Linux in theory, it's even free and readily
available. But I'll continue to run windows simply because it 'works'
in the world I actually exist in - not because I prefer it in some
theoretically world where I've unlimited time, energy, and money to
devote to customizing an open-code operating system.
And yes, I do only 'love' ancients to the point where I don't have to
actually do any historical reading at all on the subject - at least
beyond the necessary information to paint the figures in an acceptable
manner. If I want to read history for pleasure, I devote myself to
Napoleonics - on that subject matter I do read for the pure joy of it.
But I've never learned to read the original French - I just stick to
English authors or English translations. So I'm well aware of the
limitations of my scholarship!
MJB
--
Mr. Tin's Workshop: http://www.blueskyweb.com/users/mrtinj
Ty Beard
> sets of rules; attended many shows, and played many a wargame by a
> variety of authors.
>
> Two things that continue to astound me are the ability of color
Color sells. That's why book publishers use it. That's why retail products
in the US are almost invariably in color. Why should wargames rules be
different than any other product?
> ...and the
> popularity of "lists" purporting to supply a recipe for the right
> numbers and mix of troops for a specific set of rules.
As for troop lists, I think you're ignoring the point that army lists make
it much easier to play competitive wargames. Assuming of course, that the
lists have been tested themselves.
What's so hard to understand?
> It isn't that one can't cite the obvious reasons for the above. Basic
> Advertising 101 says pretty pictures can sell most anything-including
> really bad products. Basic Human Nature 101 says that if you make
> something really easy people will appreciate the fact that someone
> else has done all the work and all they have to do is follow the
> recipe-no thought-no reading-no effort.
>
> What amazes me is the degree to which they are effective.
Why does this amaze you?
As expensive as color printing is, it would have to be effective to justify
its cost. Since color is *everywhere*, this argues that it is very effective
in selling products. I assume you're wondering why *wargamers* respond so
well to color, rather than why humans do so. I'm not a psychologist, so I
have no idea why. But it does not surprise me one bit that wargamers are no
different than other consumers when making purchasing decisions.
> Probably the most egregious example of the pretty picture school is
> the GW product Warhammer and Warhammer 40K. A lot of effort has gone
> into the photography, layout, and presentation of what is, by any
> measure, one of the most antiquated, simple-minded, and depressingly
> ordinary set of quasi-skirmish rules ever published.
But to be fair, the Warhammer rules are simple to grasp and are even
adequate sometimes. The 2nd edition of Warhammer 40K was actually a pretty
good skirmish game. It even had some concepts (like infiltration and hiding)
that many "serious" skirmish rules lack. And let's not forget the coolness
factor, which is intensified by lavish use of color and photographs.
And if (a) the product is pretty; (b) it's easy to play; and (c) it's cool,
I wouldn't be surprised that it sells very well.
> Strongly reflective of 1960s English rule design, the Warhammer rules
> are slow, reflective of nothing in particular when it comes to tactics
> or weaponry, and, other than the brilliant insight by the packagers
> that the rather arcane, artificially complicated, and arbitrary,
> rating of unit types allowed for an infinite number of new units to be
> created and sold, the rules are incredibly DULL in terms of gamer
> decisions and choices.
Do not overlook the tendency for the latest army to be the best -- another
brilliant marketing stroke.
> And yet, because of the glossy materials, and some rather
> nice,expensive, figures, the gamers who play seem to be absolutely
> oblivious to the shortcomings of the very thing that animates their
> battles-the rules.
A great many GW gamers have never played anything else, so again, why the
surprise? And agin, to be fair, there are plenty of absolute stinkers among
historical games. Yet they're eagerly played by certain individuals.
Given the condescension that many "serious" historical gamers treat GW
products (and by implication the players of those products), I'm not
surprised that we attract few converts to historical games.
> Is it that the draconian conditions set by the GW
> stores and conventions demanding that the "official" WH rules must be
> played leaves little choice?
Nah. I think that GW games look far cooler than historical games. Add to
that the generally higher standard of painting, the prettier product and the
sneering condescension of many historical gamers, the outcome is hardly
surprising.
> What then accounts for WHAB? Essentially the same rules gussied up for
> historicals-but the same quasi-skirmish-thoughtless-and undemanding
> nature of play. Is it a case of the Lowest Common Denominator at work?
Nope. Again, an easy, fast playing set of rules that works okay for skirmish
gaming. The big problems with Warhammer occur with characters.-- not a
problem with WHAB. There's also the added bonus that one could possibly lure
Warhammer players to the new rules. I'll not concede that the game has a
"thoughtless and undemanding nature of play".
> Well, they [lists] actually reflect little more than rough approximations,
> always with an eye to competitive balance for the "tournament"
> crowd(which often expresses their worry in those "competitive"
> terms-seldom historical misgivings), and often based, one may
> conjecture, on little more than broad guestimation(given the remaining
> historical evidence-one could expect little else)-and yet, many
> players of such rules seem to believe them inviolate and the only
> accurate OB for their armies.
>
> This is, of course, absurd. The lists reflect little or no historical
> roots, other than a catalogue of unit types. Trying to fit the lists
> into any statement of forces at ancient battles(which varied widely)
> is a fools errand. The lists supply a false degree of standardization
> in a period quite lacking in that quality. But gamers are seemingly
> unquestioning in their acceptance of this very artificial codification
> and standardization. It certainly provides an opportunity for the
> publisher to make additional revenues from books of never ending lists
> of increasingly obscure(and largely undocumented) armies! They want to
> sell fish, not teach anyone how to catch fish!
I like them okay. But since you find them so objectionable, I'm waiting for
you to suggest an alternative that (a) provides (reasonably) balanced forces
for competitive play; (b) provides a significant variation in what may be
chosen; (c) requires little time from the player; and (d) that in some
significant way is an improvement over lists.
Yes, I suppose we could give the player a book of mathematical formulae to
derive the makeup and game ratings of his chosen army. But many players want
to *play* not do the designer's work for him.
> Are the demands of tournaments foremost to "List" lovers? Are they
> content to accept any degree of historical "fiction" to structure what
> was decidedly unstructured? Once you let two armies from widely
> disparate eras or geographic locations fight, is throwing over any
> other problems with known facts-easier?
I've often been amused by the disdain with which some ancients players treat
fantasy. As though playing Aztecs vs Romans is any less fantastic than Orcs
and Elves. An interesting solution was Tactica's list of historical
opponents and allies...
> Is the only way some rules can
> give a decent game is if the forces are very carefully, if
> ahistorically, "balanced"?
If the players want a competitive game with a winner and a loser, probably
so. I happen to love competitive play, so this does not offend me. Plus, I
like fantasy and sci-fi, so it's easier to overlook the fantastic nature of
some matchups. Actually of all matchups now that I think of it.
> Or is it that they only love ancients to
> the degree they don't have to actually read any history? They'd
> rather have a recipe for their cookies than learn about baking?
Or perhaps they'd rather eat a cookie than cook it?
> They'd rather have false standards to encourage tournament play than
> be left with no tournaments at all?
Sounds good to me.
> 'Tis a puzzlement!
Not to me. I like competive games and you've produced no alternative to army
lists. And those army lists usually work okay. But hey, you may have a
better idea. If so, please bring it forth.
--Ty Beard
Chuck
its cover".
Quid Veritas
1. You need not play the rules for which the lists are published.
Many sets of rules use preexisting frontages and organizations from
other games.
2. If you ever do put a campaign together, the lists can provide an
inexpensive framework for the armies that are placed on the battle
field.
A set of rules can, and often is purchased just for the "lists"
contained therein. I suspect the larger the list or the more
information about each unit would enhance the selling power of any set
of rules.
mjc
Tom Bryant
You've made an excellent case for the homegrown guys. Believe me
I'd like to see more homegrown stuff see the light of day. However I
need to disagree with you on the absolute need for glossy publications.
Nice looking and clearly laid out yes, but I don't think we need glossy
covers and slick magazine style pages for ALL our rule sets. Some of the
important things to consider are clarity, neatness and ease of use. The
first two seem obvious, no old poorly typed, badly photocopied rules
slapped together without playtesting or proofreading. The last one is
less obvious. When the rules are laid out, they need to be done in a way
that will make it easy to follow them and organized in a clean and
understandable format. The same goes for play aids like tables and
charts. Oh make it easy for the poor players and either have them
organized both in the manual and as a separate "Quick Reference" or in a
Quick Reference form only.
With today's word processors there is no excuse for the poorly laid out
rules we had to deal with when many of us started out. That helps lower
the costs considerably. I would be curious to find out just how much it
would cost for some of our nicer homegorwn rules to be printed out in an
"acceptable" format? I mean you've quoted 5 to 10 grand but I wonder if
it isn't possible, on a smaller scale to get away with it for less? I've
worked in the multimedia field for about eight years now and I bet that
if you did the bulk of the "up front" work in a program like Adobe
Acrobat or Pagemaker. Even Microsoft Word allows the ability to import
graphics and integrate it with text and charts. It might be worthwhile
to do a recheck for a rules set that you have done all the critical
layout work on and it just needs to be printed and bound, or punched.
Sure it will be expensive to have a rules set laid out by a print house,
damned expensive. Get a hold of their CREF, or Computer Ready File
information for more ideas and guidance.
Tom Bryant
President, HMGS-GL
Andy O'Neill
<rjo...@rmi.net> writes
>Two things that continue to astound me are the ability of color
>pictures and glossy layout to "sell" a marginal set of rules, and the
>popularity of "lists" purporting to supply a recipe for the right
>numbers and mix of troops for a specific set of rules.
Quite remarkable.
I find myself agreeing with over 90% of your post Bob...
I wrote a review of warmaster as a post a while back.
A couple of people posted saying they loved the game and I was wrong on
several points... particularly multiple combats in a turn ( one unit can
roll an entire line up in a single turn ).
I posted page and paragraph quoting why they were mistaken....
They'd played the game and misunderstood the basics of combat.
But felt capable of putting me right...
Which is one of them things happens on newsgroups, but made me consider
how people own and play a set of rules, whilst not actually
understanding fundamentals of them.
Phil Barkerese being an exception to my line of thinking.
<shrug>
I can't follow why Rapid Fire is popular... or a number of other sets.
But there you go, each to one's own and all that.
I can't see why anyone likes card driven games either <grin>
Andy O'Neill
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Liverpool Wargames Association
www.l-25.demon.co.uk/LWA.htm