Is it time for some more critical analysis of rule sets – OnTableTop – Home of Beasts of War

Is it time for some more critical analysis of rule sets

Supported by (Turn Off)

This topic contains 64 replies, has 25 voices, and was last updated by phaidknott 5 years, 4 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 77 total)

1 2 … 6 →

Author

Posts
August 2, 2019 at 3:37 pm #1421012

torros
23816xp

21

Ok not really a rant but more an extension of Facebook conversation with some friends of SPQR along the the lines of Did they proof read this. Did they even playtest it?

As time goes on it seems that in reviews rulesets seem to be getting forgotten about and as long as the game has some cards, there are some pretty coloured photos and you get a load of miniatures with it then how it actually plays seems of secondary importance

So what I would like to see from sites like this is a bit more critical analysis of the ruleset instead of concentrating on the bling. I for one would rather see 20 minute video discussing the major aspect s of the rules such as C&C ,combat and morale plus anything original they find in the gameplay rather than 4 or 5 videos looking at some figures

Hopefully I’m not alone in thinking this

August 2, 2019 at 3:52 pm #1421024

blinky465
17028xp

9

Interestingly, I caught an old video recently (from about six/seven years ago) of a baby-faced Warren, being talked through how to play a game on Youtube. The game was played with stand-up card tokens and looked like little more than a field with some troops in it. But the focus was on the *game* and how the rules were used to evoke the battle(s) being played out on the tabletop – the minis (when they arrived) would be the finishing touch to the cinematic experience, not the be-all-and-end-all.

Fast-forward to the latest OTT video of Hunger Games:Mockingjay, where Ryan and Gerry both appeared disinterested in both the game and the “fluff” and just went through the motions of opening a box, taking out some miniatures, cooing over them (without fully understanding who they were, what they represented in the game world, how they fit in with the rules etc) and I too thought “I think I preferred the older, less “corporate” style videos that showed us how to play games.”

There’s been a flood of releases recently, which focus solely on the miniatures. Sure, the minis look great, but there seems to be a factory mentality of churning out any old thing, in order to make use of a licence/franchise; the same kind of mentality that results in Doctor Who vacuum flasks and Spiderman travel clocks – the content is almost irrelevant, so long as there’s just something to hook the franchise characters onto, to get a product – any product – to market.

I loved the Beasts of War site and the transition to OTT has been interesting to watch. Something has changed – the site has a very different focus to the early days; I still quite like it, but more indepth review of products, games, the rules and mechanics (why we would enjoy the *game* rather than *look at these cool minis*) in place of disinterested 8-minute unbox-and-forget type snippets for the social media crowd are preferable to me too.

August 2, 2019 at 4:02 pm #1421029

olliep
Member

6011xp

7

I’m inclined to agree with this line of thinking.
I would much rather watch a video that runs through a game picking out pros and cons of the whole package, instead of just a removal of packaging and “shiny shiny shiny” speak for the next 5mins. Given how many games are being fired out into the market place at the moment, it’d be good to know why said game deserves my attention and what I should be focussing spending my money on

August 2, 2019 at 4:29 pm #1421031

oriskany
60771xp

9

The only aspect of this post / thread with which I disagree is the order of the first two words.

Rather than: “Is it time for some more critical analysis of rule sets[?]”

How about: “IT IS time for some more critical analysis of rule sets.”

I haven’t tried it myself, but I have spoken with people I trust who have already tried SPQR and … yeah, not fans.

In everyone’s defense, however, I can say that presenting a rule set “critically” requires presenters to KNOW the rule set and playing it several times. This means time, a commodity in which everyone involved in any kind of internet content creation is always critically short.

Also, having anything but glowing recommendations for rule sets, no matter how mediocre, is a fast way get yourself frozen out on no-contact lists. I can speak from personal experience. For the record and to be clear, OTT has never ever treated me this way. Other companies have, however. For me it’s no big deal, in fact it’s almost a point of pride. But OTT is not in that position.

All my favorite games, miniature-based or not, have major flaws which I have been more than honest about in articles, videos, etc.

That said, shining at least a partial spotlight on rules / system quality might help us all include the 2/3 of the wargame market almost unrecognized in this community … games by designers like Jim Dunnigan, Alan Arvold, Ty Bomba, Joseph Miranda, people who have won award after award after award after award … Designers like Jim Dunnigan who won Designer of the Millenium, and now have a award named after them (probably because they ran out of awards to give designers of this caliber).

August 2, 2019 at 4:59 pm #1421058

chaingun
Participant

1939xp

3

@torros

I feel exactly the same as you do mate. I have always been interested in motor torpedo boats and was delighted when Warlords announcement that they were producing a set of rules with a miniatures line.

I was completely shocked after reading the rules when they were released to find many mistakes in the book. I too thought that surly a company of Warlords standing that they would at least proof read the book and more importantly play test the game. I was even more shocked that they freely admitted there were issues but instead of recalling the poor product, they released a 10 page errata.

I think one of the issues we have in the hobby / industry is that company’s feel the need to produce a set of rules to sell a miniature line and vice versa. I think it’s why I like TooFatLardies games as they are only interested in producing games that they would like play.

@blinky465

I don’t blame OTT as they are only yet another business trying to stay afloat, it is true though that their focus has changed, but this happened before their name change. I would like them to look back at their early videos they done for their YouTube channel before they had a website and made it a business.

August 2, 2019 at 5:29 pm #1421061

captainventanus
Participant

4936xp

2

@torros you are not alone in thinking this, both in terms of the approach to reviewing game systems in general and now SPQR specifically. You are spot on.

By sheer coincidence within the last few days I have read through and played around with both Mortal Gods and SPQR. Cynically I would also say that the sudden arrival of the latter has a lot to do with the former too. For me it was like day and night between the two systems.

Wargaming ancients is not my top priority, but I’ve always wanted to paint up a few Romans so this was a good chance. Once you take away the gloss of SPQR it’s not a finished product and that’s unfortunate. Far from being easy to understand there are lots of consuming elements that require some back and forth in the rule book and it is not laid out as clearly as it could be.

I have no interest in Greek hoplites and warfare, but Mortal Gods is such a compelling package when you look at it and with a bit of patience this will expand into something good.

Sure I’d like to know what’s in a box like anyone else, looking at a pile of plastic though doesn’t say anything about whether the game is good, interesting and worth spending time with.

August 2, 2019 at 6:54 pm #1421096

nogbadthebad
5771xp

2

I echo the comments above!

although I can happily enjoy the plastic porn as much as the next gamer, I do think that it is the rules that make the games (apart from other you are playing with), and that is where the focus should be.

i also accept that while I may think this, and am happy to play on a visually un-exciting table, it does not make for a very good media content, and so you fall in the same traps as the magazines… I prefer the content and style of Miniature Wargames, but it is Wargames Illustrated that draws me in!

Its the curse of the modern world, everything is focused on the superficial and shiny!

August 2, 2019 at 7:35 pm #1421105

jemmy
Participant

2428xp

0

I´d appreciate a shift to more critical analysis of rule sets and I´d also not mind, if I was told a rule set is not good. Best thing to this may be to do this as a separate prequel to a Let´s Play video. Btw, companies should also be grateful for constructive criticism.

What´s in the box videos are just what they are: I don´t expect reflections on rules and rule quality. That is why I think it is not fair to criticize people for the way they recently performed on unboxing videos.

I am absolutely sure that we will see both rule analysis and Let´s Plays for the said games, SPQR and Hunger Games and I am also sure that if the rules are weird, stupid, not stringent or whatever we will be told. It is as the mighty @oriskany said, rule analysis and a Let´s Play video takes time to prepare and produce and I am not reluctant to give OTT this time. As time goes by and staff increases we will see more critical content, I am sure.

Final note. I thought there was something strange about Cruel Seas (MTBs), but I thought I was to dumb to get it. Thank you, @chaingun , you saved me 🙂 .

August 2, 2019 at 7:42 pm #1421106

blinky465
17028xp

2

You’re right, the focus was before the name change. Maybe it’s just a one-off, but I feel like we’re reaching “shiny new stuff” fatigue and it even shows in the reviews. I understand that Gerry makes his pithy “not-my-thing-so-make-a-joke-of-it” comments and in the main, I enjoy them. But in that one particular review (Hunger Games MockingJay) neither presenter had any real enthusiasm for it.

Compare that to, say, the excitement in Sam’s voice when he’s banging on about Hobbits, or Lloyd’s recent big 40k project. Even the general chit-chat on the weekend shows, where everyone is talking with enthusiam about a topic – even if it’s one they don’t really know much about. I know that different presenters have different styles, but this one particular video struck me as two disinterested guys talking about something they weren’t really that bothered about.

From what I gathered from the video, it “plays a bit like Risk”. If it really is a Risk-clone with miniatures that look like characters from another franchise (X-men, although I’m pretty sure that one of the characters in Hunger Games was in a wheelchair after winning an earlier games?) then a review explaining this – how and why – would be useful.

I guess it’s just that I got no information about the game from the video and I wasn’t particularly entertained by the presentation style; it felt like “album filler” content. But then again, there are loads of games recently that are tied to massive franchises (from Lara Croft, Aliens, Batman, Marvel/Avengers? Wolfenstien, Pacific Rim, Judge Dredd, Harry Potter, Dragon BallZ, Jurrasic World, Star Wars, ) and – other than they have a bunch of amazing looking minis – I’m not sure if they’re all different games, the same game, based on similar rules, expansion packs to a core game system or what…..

August 2, 2019 at 7:46 pm #1421107

mage
Participant

20596xp

1

I do not think the name change has anything to do with it. For some time BoW had pitched itself as a ‘Tabletop, Hobby and Gaming News’ platform. Getting too critical of a product, or showing too much favoritism imho goes against ‘reporting just the facts’.

On the flipside, as others have said above, not showing a more balanced approach can make it look like the opposite. Not showing faults or doing enough reviews/digging equates to the same thing kind of.

August 2, 2019 at 8:04 pm #1421114

unclejimmy
Member

9225xp

1

I am with @torros here. A massive box full of new minis is always tempting, but it doen’t mean you are going to be getting a great ‘game’ to go with them. It is difficult as not everyone likes the same things or has the same experience. Some like it complicated and some prefer the abstract.

When it comes to watching videos I have little interest in watching ‘unboxing’ content. I remember xmas quite well. I used to enjoy the videos by John and Justin when they would show some new models…that is different.

August 2, 2019 at 8:05 pm #1421115

piers
Participant

25489xp

3

Sadly there is a focus on churning out games so fast, playtesting and proofing are luxuries they don’t need… as people seem to keep buying the stuff.

I’d like to see historical rules researched a little more properly and a little more respect paid to the historiography of a subject. If its historical rules… get the history correct and the feel of the period correct. A game can be fun, fast and exciting while still being true to its historical setting.

As long as people do keep buying, why would a company change… plus if the rules ain’t right, you can release a second edition… or a third even…

Put the focus on the shiny things that make money and forget the rules that don’t. Throw enough advertising funds at something and it can succeed. Plus with high advertising, and media taken up with that, it pushes the more smaller and independent producers to the side.

It’s a shame, but that’s where it is these days. People like the ease of buying a big box of stuff, but better things might be found if looked for… but that takes time and added effort. But there are lots of good rules out there.

From a producers point of view, it’s a shame when you spend 18 months playtesting before a release to see games without much. But I think for us, it’s because it’s a game we actually play first and foremost. I’d rather not make as much money (not that I do anyway but that’s beside the point!) but release a game I’m proud of and play regularly.

It would be nice to see more varied and independent games being played, but reviewing games is hard… it often takes several plays of a game to get the rules right, even more to discover a games nuances and deeper attractions. It’s a hard thing to put together to be fair.

August 2, 2019 at 9:52 pm #1421149

osbad
4279xp

1

It’s a tricky one isn’t it?

There may or may not be an issue with the quality of current rulesets, however I recall Warhammer 1st edition being full of holes back in the early 80’s and WRG historical rules were always a bit of an unintelligible mess to me, so maybe it’s not just a recent phenomenon.

Ist editions of new games are always going to have problems I think yo a greater or lesser degree.

What I would like to see from the likes of OTT though is follow-up opinion about what’s good and what’s not so good about gameplay 6 months down the line after a new game/supplement/edition has come out.

There will always be a push to punt the new shiney from manufacturers willing to pay for airtime. Thats understood and just business. However I do enjoy those odd moments when “warts and all” opinions are allowed a moment. No game is truly ever the dogs bollocks so getting an unbiased, thoughtful commentary on established games is of interest, at least to *this* gamer (who has probably already bought the game and shoved it on the bookshelf where it lies forgotten under a pile of newer, shinier rulesets!)

August 2, 2019 at 11:39 pm #1421161

mage
Participant

20596xp

1

I concur with @piers with the ‘rush’ culture. I think even if youtubers intend their best (goes for video games too) there is fierce competition to get reviews and videos out while something is fresh and new for ‘monetisation’ purposes. Not in a derogatory way, more in a factual ‘it is what it is’ kinda way.

August 3, 2019 at 1:24 am #1421183

warzan
Keymaster

31125xp

3

interesting topic and one close to my heart these days, as towards the end of last year I was in deep conversations with @lloyd about this very issue and what possibilities are there to enable a narrowing of main focus (as I have a hunch the hobby butterfly effect where we are having to flutter from one thing to the next is detrimental to the hobby at large) so over the next few years I’m hoping we will see some core pillar games establish.

A couple of things about rules though that I haven’t seen discussed yet is

1 the ‘character’ of them and the company behind them.

With the stuff that’s going on I haven’t had the chance to delve into SPQR yet. We have some let’s plays though that should be running out. But the thing in general about Warlord rules is they have a lot in common with the character of the company (or people behind it).

Warlord are very much of the school of ‘pushing toy soldiers around’, they are a toy soldiers company and the rules are very much geared towards a casual push them around the table with mates approach. Meanwhile they continue to create toy soldiers to satisfy the collectors gene.

Bolt action as a rule set struggles to stand up against its peers such as Chain of Command and Battlegroup, but it’s success is not just down to marketing $$. Most hobbyists like to buy into a hobby ecosystem. One where they have choice so they can explore their passions and have a walled garden so they know where the limits are (and can opt to jump the wall or not)

So in warlords case inconsistency or quirkiness in the rules doesn’t strike me as much out of character. The key will be if they are fun to play and is the model colectibility aspect well worked out. And they have some tough competition out there these days like footsore who ‘get’ the hobby ecosystem idea.

2 rules for our type of games have an interesting paradox generally speaking. The tighter they are the more difficult they become for average Joe to ‘get in to’.

Unless you remove a ton of on table actions you find that tight rule sets quickly start to balloon in volume or become difficult to present the easy way in for a new gamer.

And in the above case it once again falls on the collectibility of the models to some degree to drive and retain interest.

Obviously there are exceptions to the above and many folk in this thread will be outliers but on the whole I would say it holds water.

Again I haven’t seen the unboxing @blinky465 has mentioned but having spent a lot of time with @avernos I can imagine lol

Perhaps that one should have been opened by @dignity but I know this week he was filming on a new game that is quite left of field from what we are used to so he had his hands full.

So ultimately it comes down to what is the main success factor for a rule set. How do we say it has hit its mark? Is it well done if it’s historically and or simulation accurate? Is it well done if it’s technically tight with little room for player interpretation? Or is it well done if it’s fun? Or is it well done if it gels the eco system it’s there to support?

Not all the above are mutually exclusive but all come at cost (either capital or complexity)

So ultimately I have some sympathy for companies in our industry. Many are toy soldier companies first and foremost and are trying to sell and support an ecosystem so the equation is a bit bigger than the rule set on it’s own. 🙂
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 77 total)

1 2 … 6 →

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.