Is it time for some more critical analysis of rule sets

[phaidknott 7023xp 1]

My experience with the KS stuff has been mostly good (although I’ve only backed about 5) in longevity. Dreadball is still played (and we much prefer it to Bloodbowl), Deadzone was a bit of a flash in the pan with interest at the club.

But many KS schemes launch with renders of the minis all done, but rules not developed enough so that you COULD make an informed choice on if you might like the game or not (so you have to go with the bling). The Let’s Play for Core Space here on BoW (along with the ones for Dreadball and Legends of Fabled Realms) lead me to purchase, as I felt the rules were laid down and at least play tested. But many rules these days are designed around a quirky mechanic as the “hook” to make you purchase, but these rules usually are a bit generic in flavour and don’t reflect the period they are trying to represent very well (although with Skirmish level games they are always going to be that way such as SPQR).

The fact that such glaring errors appear in the rules these days just points towards the fact they haven’t been play tested extensively (or no-one gave a load of wargamers who had never played the game the rules and we’re told to play the game and give feedback). I DO think that saying a company is a miniatures manufacturer as for them the rules isn’t their focus isn’t a defence. Back in the day before the manufacturers all decided to have rule systems “in house”, many rules were published (even self published) on very restrictive budgets. And although these didn’t have the flashy photography and art work, they did the job that they were meant to do. (do we actually need the “professional” look to our rules, I’ve got the new Necromunda rules, and I can hardly make out the text as they have artwork over every page in the background of the page, yet these still have glaring errors to the point where weapon stats aren’t the same in the SAME book).

Perhaps we need a “Grognard” corner, where we can see rules reviewed WITHOUT reference to miniatures. The Chain of Command Let’s Plays were very informative, because they are only selling the rules (so their focus is purely on the rules them selves).

On the time aspect at BoW central, have they spread themselves too thin by moving from miniature wargames to covering board and card games as well? I know that some staff were taken on to cover this aspect of the site (so wonder why they weren’t doing the Unboxing video for Hunger Games as they would have had the extertise to liken the game to other Boardgames already out there). The thing is if a company takes the time (and expense) to send in a review copy they expect the review to be in depth to an extent. I remember when Colin sent Core Space over to the Dice Tower for a review, and the people there were disinterested, critical comment made about things they clearly hadn’t even done any research about (like some of the card components being “shiny” and they poo poo’d them not realising they were treated for use with dry wipe markers). If I’d have been Colin I would never send them anything to review again. And the same stand true for any review site, if you are critical of a product…then you go on a blacklist and soon have nothing to review.

But I do feel that the Unboxings (particularly for Boardgames) are past their prime these days. Boardgamers aren’t interested in the components more so in the game itself. With miniatures, perhaps they have more relevance as gamers might want to know what options they have to build within the box. So unboxings for things like Bolt Action squad boxes are of interest (to me), but for a boardgame not so much because they need a longer review to explain about the game (or a Lets Play video).

But all in all rules these days are not that good and rely on “hook” unique mechanics, but is that because wargamers have become lazy and don’t want to do the math anymore?

[warzanKeymaster 31125xp 3]

Agreed @phaidknott 🙂

Although equally what some wargames classify as mistakes are maybe just design decisions…. hard crowd to please lol

No doubt the industry got very challenging to cover over the last number of years, and I got to say personally I have grown tired of a lot of the flash in the pan licences and ips.

Our roots are in hobby games (games you collect, paint and play and dedicate time to) and that is a bit part of my slow shit in focus (or a refocus) that we’ve been working towards.

Companies deserve a chance to try and create a new hobby, but it requires commitment and not just a half hearted attempt that is given up on when things move slow. If you get a hobby ecosystem right the rewards are there to be reaped, but no company should think it happens easy or quick.

Personally I think folks find more satisfaction in hobby ecosystems when every step they take builds a bit on the last. So that is at the heart of the core pillars element we have been building over these last few months and from here on.

[limburger 21704xp 1]

@phaidknott I think unboxings are still relevant. Seeing what is in the box is very useful as it kind of shows the attention to detail was paid. It’s little details like quick reference sheets, a cheap but useful ruler, quickstarts (or lack thereof) , size and layout of the rulebook (which the Batman Kickstarter review showed) that sort of works as a mini-review in itself.

(on a related note : I do miss the tank-ramblings by the resident tank god that used to be part of unboxings … )

@tankkommander
Kickstarters have the same problem that all games at retail have : you can’t force the creation of communities.
Such things take time (and luck). Plus not every consumer/backer is going to post their experiences out there on the internet.
Unlike videogames there is no need to have any on-line presence as you need to go to a physical location to play anyway(*).

(*) exception being the kind of games that @oriskany plays which lend themselves to be streamed.
All that’s needed is some kind of fortunate combination of events that allows this to become a viable mode of play for more systems. Maybe we simply need coverage of available on-line tabletop game systems like Vassal (sp?) and Tabletop Simulator ?

The funny thing is that the sort of thing that happens with tabletop games has parallels to multiplayer videogames.
Those too suffer from the need to form a community/eco-system and fighting the top 5 popular games at the same time.
The simple fact is that the vast majority won’t survive more than a few months after launch.

The one advantage that tabletop games have is that (a) we have all the rules and (b) we don’t depend on 3rd parties to play (at least those games that don’t require an app). Historical games have it even better (and conversely publishers need to work harder), because once you have an army it is viable with minimal adjustments in a competing system.
Fictional settings may have trouble sourcing minis and custom tokens, but with 3D printing that might be a thing of the past (if the industry wants to support it that is … )

[phaidknott 7023xp 0]

…or how NOT to do a review/unboxing (go to 46mins in for the Core Space Review)

https://www.dicetower.com/game-video/board-game-breakfast-live-feb-14-0

…and we think we got it bad 😀

So here we’ve got an “unboxing” with no prep, understanding of the game, and stuff just thrown about disinterestedly. After watching that are you any the wiser about what the game is, or how it plays?

Mini’s are easier to review as you just have to “see” the mini to make the call, Boardgames/Rules need a lot longer to review and explain what’s going on (but these take a lot of time beforehand to actually play the game before even pointing a video camera at it all). I do think it would be handy for unboxing/reviewers to operate within their specialty as they can use past experience and knowledge of other products to help inform us about the product. But lets hope we never see a BoW video along the lines of what I posted above from the dice tower, as I would then be going elsewhere for information (rather than bad dress sense and ill fitting hats) 😀

 

[piersParticipant 25489xp 1]

I do wish there was a more professional outlet, like Beasts of War, that was able to focus on the historical side of the hobby.

There are thousands of historical gamers but no one online portal to attract them like here with scifi and fantasy genres.

Osprey rule release approach seems to be to throw as much at the wall as quick as possible and hope some stick… I’ve bought a few, but only managed to get to play one, the cycle of them is so fast… even the newly set up Facebook groups for the rules seem to die as fast as some of the games.

It’s a tricky route to tread and it’s hard work. Just maintaining a community group takes resources and effort so I can see why some companys cant manage it. I think the work done by BoW helps fill that gap left by companies that cant devote time to community building, though I think these days that is the most important aspect to be developed and cultivated.

[phaidknott 7023xp 0]

I just don’t think there’s the demand for a historical site these days, just looking at my local shows the only stuff available that’s historical is Bolt Action and other Warlord games. 15mm and 20mm is a no show and the only traders you see that “doggedly” keep gameing going in other scales is Baccus (6mm) and Pendraken (10mm). Going to my local stores its all fantasy and sci-fi (although it’s always been impossible to stock a local shop with historicals as there’s just too many periods and too many scales). I think the problem is that many of the historical companies are one or two person companies and just don’t have the time (or experience) in how to market their stuff online these days or even how to get the word out there. I’d love to see BoW review some of Pete’s (Baccus) rules and do a lets play, perhaps an unboxing of their starter sets and even a guide by John on how to paint 6mm figs (it’s totally different from doing 28mm figures). But has Pete even reached out to BoW for coverage?

 

[torros 23816xp 0]

@phaidknott. Which shows do you go to? I ask as I was curious  your statement about your local shows. Out of interest I checked which  traders attended Claymore this weekend and nearly every scale was represented  by the traders there

 

I would argue Pete at Baccus and Leon and Dave at Pendraken do very well as can be seen by there ever continuing  release schedules. Pendraken have released I think 2000 new products in the last 5 years which I think shows they  have a big following which allows them to do that and Baccus even  have there own 6mm show which attracts a lot of visitors

[phaidknott 7023xp 0]

Most of the one’s in the NE. Fiasco, York (silly name I can never remember it), Sheffield etc.

My point I’m trying to raise (perhaps badly) is that most of the Historical Manufacturers don’t seem to actively “push” their products online via review websites (like BoW) compared to companies that do the sci-fi/fantasy ranges. It may be a false impression (as Piers stated their is no historicals version of BoW, but if their was I’m not sure it would generate enough traffic for someone to make it a full time job). Any reviews you do see about Pete’s rules (for example) are usually blog entries by someone who’s already bought the product.

 

[limburger 21704xp 0]

I think there is a bit of a chicken&egg paradox for historicals.
The audience may be there, but without (good) marketing and a reliable (independent) source of news/reviews there’s no way to connect. I’ve only seen issues of Wargames illustrated, but they rarely review anything.

Heck, I wouldn’t have discovered Flames of War if it hadn’t been for two things :

• seeing a demo at a local convention (which also was the last time I saw a wargame being promoted 🙁 because the conventions I’ve been to tend to promote boardgames only).
• discovering ‘Flames of War For the Win’ and subsequently BoW.

I think BoW have done a decent job at promoting historical content in a way that is beginner friendly. I’d love to see the coverage expand into proper reviews and more in-depth analysis of rules.
I also suspect that with the exception of Warlord/Battlefront there aren’t any companies out there that can operate at a scale that allows them to be known outside of their niche.

Could it be that historical rules tend to focus a bit too much on specific battles and therefor rarely create an eco-system that has a low barrier to entry ?

Both Bolt-Action and FoW have invested in a good starter set and they have been actively promoting their games.

[bobthegrogParticipant 25xp 1]

I’m really not sure why we are surprised by the lack of proof reading and playtesting on SPQR.  Warlord have previous form with products like Cruel Seas being notoriously full of errors and Black Powder version 2 being little more than version 1 with just half a page of amendments. But we still buy their stuff.  What’s their incentive to change when we just keep throwing cash at them despite huge quality issues. Really, who is playing Cruel Seas anymore?  The rules were so full of holes that a TEN PAGE errata was issued within a week of publication.  For Warlord, half baked rule sets are just the least important part of flogging figures. It’s a ahame as the figures rapidly become redundant as the rules are so simplistic and lacking in replay value.  But we still keep buying them.

[piersParticipant 25489xp 2]

Could it be that historical rules tend to focus a bit too much on specific battles and therefor rarely create an eco-system that has a low barrier to entry ?

 

I cant think of any historical rule systems that are focussed on a specific battle.

[limburger 21704xp 0]

@piers I probably didn’t explain that bit right. Let me try it again how I’ve experienced getting into historicals.

Battlegroup Kursk is kind of focussed on a specific battle. If it hadn’t been for me getting into WW2 era games and history of the eastern front before I wouldn’t have had a clue why it was interesting. I know you’ve got Overlord and other theatres these days. The only reason Market Garden became an option to me is because I just happen to live at ground zero of the operation in terms of activities related to that (there’s a 18 september square … )

I think the various historical eras have a similar problem/challenge.
Historicals appear to make the assumption that you’re already familliar with the specific section of history to know what you’d want. And unless you happen to have some connection already it’s going to be tough to find an entry point.

As an outsider/beginner who may not want the ‘boring’ history but who does want an interesting game you’d need a hook of some kind to reel them in.
WW2 has a few depending on theatre and stage of the war, but the most well known is D-day. It is however close enough to ‘our time’ that most people will have heard of it.

I know there’s Waterloo for Napoleon, but I don’t know if it is beginner friendly unless you play it at hex&counter scale.

Back to SPQR I’ve got nothing that would draw me in. If it hadn’t been for the Asterix & Obelix comics I wouldn’t even have known about the Gauls vs Romans as a starting point. It kind of sucks that they didn’t try to exploit that to be honest (or maybe the license was an issue?), because it would have fit the ‘simplistic’ rules.

hmm … it’s a bit off-topic because we were discussing a need for ‘deeper reviews’ right ?

Maybe this is part of the challenge for outfits like OTT.
A review also has to match the expectations of the audience too.

When I read reviews for computer hardware there is the ‘newbie friendly’ variant (the card works and these top games get X frames per second) and there’s the technical variety which employ high-end analysis tools that reveal statistics (like the average time to render a frame) the average user doesn’t even care about.
Once I learned more about the hardware I felt a need for deeper/more technical reviews. And as a result the unboxings became less interesting.

I see this need in tabletop games as well, because those of us who aren’t beginners have a definite need for more in depth analysis. And even for beginners it can be interesting to read such technical reviews provided they are written with them in mind.
It would be nice to see this style of review once in a while over here at OTT/BoW.

[elessar2590 18207xp 1]

I’d really like to see a lot more critical analysis but I 100% understand why the guys have to be careful.

“Wow this Warlord Game sucks it’s basically just a whole bunch of mechanics stuck together with Zero innovation”
“Hey how come Warlord won’t send us a review copy of their latest product?”

@piers “I’d like to see historical rules researched a little more properly and a little more respect paid to the historiography of a subject.”

Absolutely agree. One of the Roman rules in SPQR is “Testudo”. TESTUDO for a skirmish game! I know it’s not just them doing it but come on rules creators at least look it up on Wikipedia. It’s not even a Open Battlefield Formation let alone a Skirmish one.

I don’t think complexity is even a bad thing. I mean take DarkStar if @oriskany took the complexity out of DarkStar it would suck (I mean that in the nicest way possible Jim 🙂 )

I mean what if you removed the Complex Range Bands and replaced them with just “Short and Long Range” or if you told Jim “Yeah you know what having different types of ship is too complicated just have a generic ‘Light Cruiser’ or ‘Heavy Cruiser’ and we’ll plug Faction Special Rules into them to make it slightly different” or if the Damage Mechanic was changed and instead of rolling for where on the ship you hit and all weapons having fixed values dependent on range you hit where you wanted and did 1 or 2 d6 damage oh and we don’t like these Charts so can we get this down to just a few values rather than half a dozen 15×15 Charts?

Basically Complexity can really Add to something if it’s done for a purpose other than to just make your game different. I feel like a lot of companies out there like to market almost generic rules with unnecessary complexity just to try and stand out rather than adding complexity that actually adds to the game.

Take the Bolt Action Activation process. That was a very complex idea when it came out. Random Activation and you do your moving/shooting/fighting all in one phase? That was very complex compared to 40K and WH Fantasy at the time.

@phaidknott I think you’re on to something there. Fantasy and Sci-Fi Companies have to go out and FIND an audience while a lot of Historical Companies seem to be content with being FOUND BY an Audience. That’s something Warlord and TooFatLardies does very well, they market their products.

I don’t think barriers to entry are that big a deal. I mean the two biggest games on the market are 40K and AoS which both require a huge amount of cash to get started no matter what GW likes to tell everyone with their “Open Play”.

@limburger

“Could it be that historical rules tend to focus a bit too much on specific battles and therefor rarely create an eco-system that has a low barrier to entry ?”

I don’t think so. People don’t really tend to say “I want to get into Historical Wargaming” and leave it there.

If someone says “Yeah I really want to play some Sci-Fi” you can be pretty sure 40K is going to come up but Historical War gaming literally goes back as far as Humans do. So are you into Stone Age Skirmishes or do you want to Replay the Cold War on a global Scale? Most companies create an “Enigne” like Warlord did with Black Powder/Hail Caesar or Osprey did with their books and Bolt on Different Genres/periods to make it more widely appealing anyway.

“I also suspect that with the exception of Warlord/Battlefront there aren’t any companies out there that can operate at a scale that allows them to be known outside of their niche”

I very much disagree. I don’t think it’s about scale but proper marketing and a true passion. If you write rules for a period/style of playing that you don’t love/have a deep interest in you’re not going to get success with that game.

TooFatLardies is just a few guys writing rules yet they’re the Number 2 WWII Skirmish Wargame after Bolt Action. If you want to play Black Powder Skirmishes they’re easily the first choice people will hear about.

It’s all about marketing and getting your rules out to the customers through places like BoW or Facebook. Also supporting your rules after release plays a huge part and so many companies abandon their rules to move on to the next thing right away before the game ever gets a chance to develop a community. I mean look at Warlord. SPQR hadn’t even come out yet and they were already pushing Korea, instead of letting the game develop. It just feels like they’re churning out these things on an assembly line. I know people are impatient and always want the new shiny but if companies ever want to be able to breathe and create a really good game they need a community for it rather than this sort of “Drive By” way of publishing rules we see today.

I understand they’re different but there was easily enough of an overlap that it’s absolutely going to hurt SPQR. Even in my local group at least 5 people would have got into SPQR or something similar but when Korea got announced they decided they’d rather do that instead.

[piersParticipant 25489xp 0]

@limburger

 

All that would seem to apply to any of the rules out there for historicals.

Battlegroup are WW2 rules… each supplement is themed to a campaign within WW2 such as Kursk or Normandy.

It’s the same as FoW army books or Bolt Action equivalent.

The rules are not specific to a particular battle, the campaign books are. It’s the same as FoW army books themed to units of a specific time or place.

The Battlegroup rulebook is generic for WW2 (although the two lists included in it are Canadians and SS for Normandy) but you then choose the theatre of interest. I don’t see much difference in that approach to other WW2 systems to be honest… they all have rulebooks and then expansion books specific for either a nation or theatre, and sometimes both.

[jemmyParticipant 2428xp 0]

I agree with Mr @blinky465 . I was just thinking no further than the tip of my nose, the size of which is astoundingly medium. Better hold my tongue next time.

[Author]

Posts