Is it time for some more critical analysis of rule sets

[limburger 21704xp 0]

It would be nice to have (more in-depth) reviews of rules/systems.
The problem is that if you’re new to a genre/system then you’re unlikely to understand why certain aspects in a game are ‘bad’ (or ‘good’), so you need something to explain your review system.

Unlike computer games there are no benchmarks to run.
You can’t play a standard battle of team A vs team B on a specific map, because the games themselves are rarely comparable in design goal.
The only reliable metric is an unboxing with a review of components,  layout of  manuals (can we find the things we need?) and accessibility aspects (lots of text to read ? colour blind aspects to consider).

Then there’s the problem that you’d have to match the review with the design goals of the game and/or expected target audience.

A ‘beer&pretzel’ style rule sets prioritize different aspect of a game.
‘Competitive’ rules sets are different beasts that need to be judged not just on what they’re like at release, but also with regard to updates (or lack thereof).

I suspect that a lot of complaints tend to be the result of people having different expectations than the designers of a game.
Bad dice rolls and an opponent that is either too good or too bad at playing the game can also result in a needlessly negative experience … and as we all know the ones that enjoy things rarely have time to post about their experiences, so the internet magnifies the negative even more.

[torros 23816xp 0]

Nice to see so many responses. This wasn’t a particular dig at Warlord but SPQR was game that sparked the discussion this time.

I also agree it does take time to understand  the nuances of a ruleset but as they are the most important part of the game and so more emphasis  should be given to them over the figures if figures actually come with the game

It may not be possible  but maybe reviews and let’s plays without  the people who created the game or bought the air time (if that’s what happens) present would enable  a more accurate assessment of the game

 

[warzanKeymaster 31125xp 0]

@torros another double edged sword mate lol

Here are the reasons we push to do it with the creators.

1) Less mistakes, so you get a more acurate look at the rules (previously unsupported lets plays would be riddled with errors, they still happen but much less which makes them a better frame of reference)

2) Who is the best Judge of a game YOU are going to likely enjoy, someone telling you, or being able to watch it first hand and make your own decision? When it’s laid out completely bare for you to watch (normally over a series of lets plays) what difference is my opinion really going to make, when you can see it first hand?

3) The creators of the game let you get a feel for whos behind it and hopefully some of what drives them, it allows them to frame the game in the manner they developed it, so we are not presenting a beer and pretzels game as some sort of hard core tournament system etc. (It’s not the case all the time that the creator being in the videos provides that, but it does give viewers a better feel for the company more often than not) – I cant imagine Chain of Command being presented any better than by Richard from TFL for example.

So in short, I’d argue that given the time and resources we have available the process we have gives the most accurate presentation on which you could base an assessment (slightly different to your last line, i know lol) 🙂

[nogbadthebad 5771xp 0]

Is making mistakes in a let’s play that big a deal? If they addressed in future vids then, given the volume of new stuff you poor souls have to inflict on yourselves it’s understandable. It also might give an area for a house rule because it makes more sense.

ignoring the double-headedness, is part of the problem with sets in general the expectations have changed? Back when I were a lad (shit am getting to that age now) I bought DBA 2.0 I think for under a £10, and it came with a page of errata that I accepted.

Roll forwards, rule sets are more expensive and shines and have fancy things like colour, but if I have just forked out £30+ for them (dunno how much SPQR is for rules only) I am much more annoyed if there is a mistake as to me if you’re going to tart them up to that degree, my view is why the whatzit did you not get some muppet to read them before hitting print! I mean at uni I got a mate to read my essays- he new nowt about the subject or course and that kept the thing on track

[nogbadthebad 5771xp 0]

sorry for typos, this is pre caffeine!

[warzanKeymaster 31125xp 1]

Yeah mistakes are a pretty big deal unfortunately as our lets plays have a double purpose, for some they are to get a feel for whether they like the game, for others they are a learning resource (and a few watch them for their entertainment value lol)

🙂

[limburger 21704xp 0]

I think the “Let’s play” videos combined with the ‘a round breakdown’ definitely do give a good feel for what the game (can be) like.

Support by developers does help, but at the same time it can be considered advertising instead of a review as there is relation between reviewers (OTT) and producers. Add to  this the webshop activities and things can get a bit tricky.
I know the team is doing their best with the resources available and their heart is definitely in the right place.

It has to be said that some developers/companies have better / more hobby friendly PR persons than others.

Any company worth a damn is going to be updating rules as the game matures, so while it might not be perfect at release (and it certainly won’t be if it is a v1 of a product) there’s always a chance for them to tweak the game afterwards. That’s something that requires a long term approach (like a short review at 6 months intervals after release) and it is an underrated aspect.

@torros I think the problem with SPQR is more one of presentation and management of expectations from their side.
The newletters introducing the game and the website made it feel like they were going through the motions of getting the information out there which is at odds with the release of a starter set for a new product.  That’s not a good thing in a market that has a few skirmish rule sets that manage to target both historical ‘experts’ as well as beginners.

[tankkommanderParticipant 6421xp 2]

You should know by now that the only thing that matters to the gaming media is pretty miniatures. I doubt they ever play most of the games, just after the latest plastic crack to push.

The cult of the new is mostly style over substance.

[piersParticipant 25489xp 0]

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)

 

I’m not sure any of those things have to add cost or complexity frankly, and always seen lack of them, and the thought they add more complexity and cost, as an excuse for why they ain’t present. Why does being more historically accurate in a games feel have to add more complexity and cost? I’m not convinced it has to add more cost or complexity… now adding  more time to design and playtest (and thus adding more development time and cost…) – yes – but that depends if your budget already built in such development.

Games appeal for many reasons, one is  most certainly the style of game. A game designed more for ‘tournament’ use will be more popular as games such as Warhammer and 40k built that as a core expectation of a rule system for those outside historical gaming. Add to that widely placed advertising and it can be a huge success. I agree it’s not solely advertising, but you have to agree it helps focus the minds.of those who the advertising is paid too. I wonder though if most players are those moved from sci fi and fantasy to try out a historical game as its character is more familiar.

Perhaps it’s as simple as appealing to your targeted audience. Perhaps certain audience groups require certain things at the expense of other facets. To some players the historical aspect may be of less importance than the ability to construct tight tournament lists.

I work in the opposite sphere, where historical feel takes precedence over tournament balance or such a requirement, but gameplay always remains a constant first denominator in system design. The game has to play well… otherwise what’s the point. Hence the months of playtesting.

So @warzan is correct a games character and it’s intended audience is indeed important considerations. Bolt Action could be great, but I’ve never played it as its not aimed at me, despite a few of its players moving to Battlegroup lately. I suspect, like most things, some people like multiple things, while others like only one thing…

What we should be grateful for is variety, and that there exists an outlet to see games, in however limited format, on channels such as this site.

[warzanKeymaster 31125xp 2]

@limburger Yup but its the times we live in 🙂

When it comes to media 99% of consumers expect it to be free, some companies expect you to do it for free and one or two companies expect you to pay for the privilege. So the model to fund it has to evolve, and thats what we’re doing 🙂 Because either we find ways to adequately fund the platform and its development, or we close shop and find something else to do. Goodwill and annual funding drives are fine, but there are a handful of folk here who we are responsible for their livelihoods, so a more predictable and robust funding method helps me sleep a bit better at night knowing we are less likely to let them down.

[warzanKeymaster 31125xp 1]

@piers We saw bolt action taking a chuck out of 40K at the time – but again the timing of its release played a big part in that as the landscape was just right at the time for a competitor. And I think its appeal was the commando style (so people didn’t feel they had to come at it with any more than a love of old war movies) and the gritty nature of the conflict. Because during the same period we saw no sci-fi game make the same gains (bar perhaps infinity but its growth started much earlier).

[piersParticipant 25489xp 0]

@warzan

I think you may have hit a nail on the head there. Timing, appeal and style combined with mass plastic product and advertising, with a lack of traditional opposition, to create a perfect storm.

Good luck to them I say, its brought  more people to historicals as such… but how many stay, or try other historical games will be different.

[warzanKeymaster 31125xp 1]

@piers core recruitment games are always a positive for the industry because people will hunt around for new challenges 🙂

[limburger 21704xp 0]

@warzan and all of that is perfectly reasonable.
I think you’ve got a good combination of ‘free’ stuff that is accessible and the bits that require one to be a cultist/backstager.
It also didn’t feel too aggressive/insulting, which is probably the #1 reason people don’t like paying for similar things out there on the web.
That and the simple fact that I think that both the hobby and the industry need to have websites like this.

//

@piers timing is always critical. It’s the one thing that most of the popular products in any market have in common.
They were at the right time at the right place and managed to catch the interest of a critical mass of consumers.
And then there’s websites like this that allow us to stumble upon related games. It’s where I found Battlegroup.
I think the big mistake any company can make is trying to compete with the likes of GW.

[tankkommanderParticipant 6421xp 0]

How many of these massive plastic mountain KS games are actually good? I see massive hype during the project, and then mostly silence after they ship.

[Author]

Posts