Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Graphite wrote:
From a "style of rules writing" perspective, coupled with the tiny amount that I know about Warmachine (Mainly from this forum. Everyone has special characters, all the time? That's not a wargame, it's a soap opera), it really does look like Warmachine plays to a hyped-up, ultra-competitive, caffeinated teenager demographic.

As compared to Warhammer etc, which seem to have evolved out of a more "old grognards want to play something a bit silly for a change" aesthetic.

Who actually plays the games is a different kettle of fish, as is how "tightly" the rules are written. If PP ditched the "play like you've got a pair" attitude for a historical game and kept the rules, I wonder how many takers they would get.

Ah yes, sweeping generalizations from the uninitiated. How droll.

On Topic, I will state that WM/H appears to play to those who enjoy games with definitive rules (Chess, Stratego, etc) as opposed to 'cinematic' rulesets. I see the value in both, though it is easier to play a game and have the rules be the same everytime you play, no matter who you play with.

I was going to try and write out something long and draw out that addressed things point for point, but I don't really see getting enough value out of that in this particular context. Instead I'll just try to throw some general bullet points I find to be true as Warmachine player.


-Competitiveness and "Fun" are hardly opposing forces: Getting together an playing a competitive game with clear rules can be very fun. No different than playing Monopoly, 1-on-1 Basketball, Chess, a Video Game, Arm Wrestling or anything else of that nature. It's the same kind of fun that drives those activities, just with miniatures instead of fake money, an orange ball or a controller. People wouldn't do any of those things if they weren't fun, the competitiveness is a vehicle by which the fun is delivered. Same for warmachine.

-Competitiveness and "Sportsmanship" are hardly opposing forces: Sportsmanship is important in Warmachine: Play by the rules, be polite to your opponent, respect their miniatures and the space your playing in. You have to do all these things in Warmachine. It doesn't reward being a jerk, or being a bad winner or sore loser. Every/anything your childhood Baseball or Football coach told you about sportsmanship applies in Warmachine, just as much as it would in any game.

I think the core thing that's being missed here is that often in other games an element of sportsmanship is something along the lines of "Don't try to take advantage of holes in the rules" or "Don't try to interpret things in your favor". This is not an element of Sportsmanship in Warmachine. The rules are clear and lack major holes and don't allow much room for interpret . You don't need any gentleman's agreements on how to resolve things, any more than you need a gentleman's agreement to know when a goal has been scored in football. It's fundamentally inarguable. Granted it's a fairly complex game so there are often times where people won't know the rulings, but you can usually find them fairly quickly.


-"Hyperactive Caffeinated Teens" or Page 5: First off this is a rather rude and dismissive way to frame a discussion with somebody about their hobby, even on the internet. Even if you believe something roughly along these lines, there are far more polite ways to say it, even on the internet. At any rate the whole "Play like you've got a pair thing" is pretty much strictly confined to all of one page in one book: Page 5 of prime. To me it reads more to me like it was intended a tongue-in-cheek-humor way of saying "Be a good sport and find a way to beat your opponent, rather than complaining that game is broken", than it was any serious indicator of the attitude players should assume. I'd likely agree it tends to give the wrong impression, but it's still all of one page and hardly a good way to judge an entire product.

At any rate that sort of writing doesn't carry through at all the rest of the books, which are simply either fairly dry rules presentations or fluff.

I definitely think that part of it is cultural. To an outsider there appears to be a much greater emphasis in US culture as a whole on 'winning' in whatever aspect of life - making more money, dating the hottest cheerleader or being better at toy soldiers. There's a slightly perverse element of 'britishness' which rebels against this - we prefer a graceful loser who tries hard, to a winner who dominates their opposition. We take a strange sort of pride in losing at stuff, and always favour the underdog. Winning is somehow seen as slightly vulgar.

There's also some elements of game design philosophy which seem appropriate to this discussion. There's a principle in RPGs called the GNS triangle (Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist).

Gamist - It's a game first, all about rules & mechanics. May be quite abstract. The emphasis is on the procedures and the outcomes. In-game rules are more important than outside logic, or background.

Narrativist - The story and characters are the most important - the mechanics are merely tools to tell a good story and fuel the imagination.

Simulationist - It's all about attempting to model reality (either real in historical games or the fictional reality of sci-fi and fantasy as accurately as possible). Stuff should behave in the game as closely as possible to how it would behave in 'real' life.

These 3 elements form the points of a triangle, and any game can be described as falling somewhere within it. Some will be more towards one of the points, while others will attempt to be balanced between the 3.

Warmachine is very much on the gamist side of this spectrum - the emphasis is on the letter of the rules, even in situations where this might defy 'common sense'. I suspect Rick is much more interested in the Simulationist and Narrative aspects, and so his games naturally emphasise these.

Koppo wrote:
It may be a cultural thing or a generational thing.

I get the impression (which may be entirely wrong) that the designers within PP are closer to the Playstation generation than Rick P. with the consequent exposure to the very definite outcomes that come with such games.

Rick P I'm pretty sure cites the H.G. Wells Table Wars rules as one of his influences and this is very much the epitome of gentleman's rules. So much in fact that top hats, pipes and port would be considered as important as having the toy soldiers.

Edit:
No top hat, but this would be summer and outdoors so a boater is the proper attire.

Great point. I should amend this to my initial post, but who is reading the original post at this point?

Just rip out page 5, it's stupid. When you cut out the silly wording of it, it basically amounts to "be a good sport." I'm not sure why they decided that being a good sport is a masculine quality, but whatever. Just tear it out of the book and forget it exists, because it doesn't have any impact on anything else in the game.

In my experience, if you translate it as "be hyperaggressive" and try to execute that, you'll just lose. It's not a game of hyperaggression, it's a game of precise positioning and strategy. The mechanics punish recklessness severely.

Anyway, the nice thing about well-written rules is you can play them casually as well. I've had many games of Warmachine where I've peered at the board with my opponent and we've discussed the possible actions whoever was behind could take to either get back in or win the game. At the end of the day, even a "friendly" game is, well, a game. It helps to know the rules to be able to play it. If I just wanted to chuck dice around I could do that without spending hundreds of dollars on rulebooks.

 Easy E wrote:


Great point. I should amend this to my initial post, but who is reading the original post at this point?

What can I say; you're the one that has inadvertently kicked the hornet's nest that is PP v. GW. We'll get another 10 pages of the usual arguments trotted out in no time!

PhantomViper wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My personal opinion is that Warmachine is an exception to the general run of rules, and it is marketed at a teenage audience with more hormones than sociability. Obviously there is a place for that kind of playing style and people who like it should get on and enjoy it.

How can you have that opinion when every promotional photograph released by GW is full of teens and pre-teens with not an adult in sight?

.

I was under the impression that we were discussing the style of rules writing, not promo photography.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Warmachine is an exception to the general run of rules, and it is marketed at a teenage audience

You where the one that started talking about marketing so I gave you examples of marketing. Your entire opinion of PP rules "style" seems to come from a marketing page written 10 years ago.

If you wan't to talk about style of rules writing then you have to compare Mr. Priestley's sloppy style with more modern rule sets like Malifaux and Infinity (to a lesser extent) and not just to PP. All of these modern rule sets approach a much more mechanical way of rules writing with standardized terminology that IMO, really help the players interpret the meaning of the writers and also make it easier to balance the game mechanics.

I don't know how to explain it any better, but if you read a Malifaux or WMH rulebook it almost seems like you are reading a mathematical book with specific ways to solve each problem that the game poses.

If you read one of Mr. Priestley's rulesets its like reading more of a story with allot of "if you aren't sure about how this is supposed to work, just roll a 4+ about it".

We are supposed to be discussing rules, not marketing.

It's not actually possible to discuss the text of a rulebook by reference to marketing photos, however the role of marketing in setting a tone of voice for the text is clearly a legitimate line of enquiry.

If you read any WRG wargame set from 1969 onwards it almost seems like you are reading a mathematical book with specific ways to solve each problem that the game poses. Further, games such as Empire and Stars 'n' Bars even contain flow charts to guide the player through sequences of actions.

Both Rick Priestly and Warmachine can be compared with that large body of work.

Easy E wrote:I like to collect rulebooks for games, and I don’t intend to ever play most of them. I have recently finished reading through Black Powder, Bolt Action, and Warmaster Ancients all of were primarily designed and written by Rick Priestley. I also recently got my hands on the Warmachine Prime-Remix rulebook. Reading through the two books, the differences in philosophy were stark.

Collaboration vs. Competition
Rick’s Style was focused more on a war game being a collaborative event. The books included discussion of the way “gentleman” behave and sportsmanship. In addition, there is a lot of talk about how the game is secondary to having fun, and having fun being the core driver of the rules. The ethos was about how players were to work together to have fun.

Meanwhile, Warmachine was focused on something very different. It was focused on what you DID to an opponent as opposed to what you did together. The focus was on competing against each other to see who the best at playing toy soldiers was.

I have to agree here. GW games in general seem to be a "play with your opponent", whilst more competitively minded games are "playing against your opponent". Gw favour the narrative, almost RPG-esque nature of the games in order to tell a story. with warmachine, its far less of a "kick-about", and far more of a sport. give it your all, and go for the gold. just dont be a douche along the way.

Easy E wrote:
Social vs. Event
Rick’s writing almost treated the game itself as secondary. It was an excuse to get together to “talk shop” about painting, history, and share experience. It was a reason to drink beer and eat junk food. The rules were there to allow someone an excuse to get away from everyday life and spend some time chatting with their buddies.

Warmachine is written where the game is an event. Each one is significant. The purpose of getting together is the game, the playing of it, and the winning of it. You might get together with buddies to “talk Shop” but that was so you could be better at playing the game next time.

again. see above. GW style is beer and pretzels. have the tv on, have some beer and pizza, have an excuse to have some mates over at your gaff, and roll some dice for the evening. laid back and relaxed. which is fine.

Warmachine is more professional than casual. have your mates around and have your beer and snacks, but this is gaming on hard mode.

Easy E wrote:

“Gentleman” vs. “Gamers”
Again, we see Rick’s rules emphasizing gentlemanly conduct, and what should or should not be done. The mechanisms for resolving disputes are straight forward and he writes as if no real disagreement should occur during a game that cannot be resolved quickly and moved past for the sake of the game moving forward.

Warmachine is written in way where the rules matter, a lot. Disagreements should not stop the game in, but the foreword talks a great deal about the “Remix” being put in place to make the rules flow as tightly as possible.

Warmachine has Page5. Give it your all, dont bitch and moan, when you win be magnanimous, when you lose, dont sulk, and dont treat an aggressive game as an excuse to be an arse. warmachine also implies fair play, good conduct, and overall decency between players. we all know why we're here.

Easy E wrote:
Why? Theories that may or may not hold water
So, why the difference sin approach? I have a few theories and I would like to hear your thought sont eh subject as well.

British v. American- Perhaps this is a cultural thing? Americans have a very “competition” focused society, and Warmachine is primarily an American company. Is Britain a more communal place? I honestly don’t know.

brits are as competitive as anyone else. they've also fought wars, and occassionally won them. Its got nothing to do with a national culture. its far more a case of "do you want to kick a ball around in the park, with the dog running around the place as well", or "get a team together, train, enter a league, and do your best to place as well as you can"? both approaches are valid.

Easy E wrote:
Historical vs. Fantasy- Historical games have a different vibe and history to them then Fantasy games. Therefore, it is unfair to compare them to each other. Historical gamers want to recreate and mimic things that have happened in the past. Fantasy gamers have no such restrictions, and therefore can have a “No-Holds Barred” approach to their games.

depends on the game. some games, and gamers enjoy "what if" scenarios, like mid war romanians v early war finns. there are competitive historical games, just like there are narrative fantasy ones.

Easy E wrote:
Niche vs. Niche- Perhaps the creators of Warmachine are just targeting a market differentiation and turning it up to its logic conclusion. It is often said that there are “gamers” and “fluff bunnies” in this hobby. Perhaps, the creators of Warmachine just surveyed the market and decided the one they were going to focus on?

i think this is very much a creation of a GWcentric design approach - one where you can either go for the win, or go for background. warmachine ignores the question entirely, and says play what you want to play. the story will take care of itself.

Kilkrazy wrote:
My personal opinion is that Warmachine is an exception to the general run of rules, and it is marketed at a teenage audience with more hormones than sociability. Obviously there is a place for that kind of playing style and people who like it should get on and enjoy it.
.

One great comment i heard with regard to warmachine was "so thats where 40k players go when they grow up". With respect i think your opinion, in this case is an ill-informed opinion that does not match up in reality. Its not really aimed at a teenager audience, but is definately more aimed at the slightly older veterans of this hobby. most folks i've come across playing it have been in their 20s or 30s.

Kilkrazy wrote:No, of course I'm not, but the style of writing is IMO aimed at that kind of player as a deliberate style choice.

I can't imagine why a sensible middle-aged chap would be excited and impressed to be exhorted to "Play like he had a pair". It's not very mature, is it?

That said, the writing style doesn't control the people who play it or the way they play, so anyone can play the rules if they like them.

There are plenty of "tight" rulesets which are not written like that. It isn't a requirement, it's intended to appeal to a particular audience.

i could. because its cheeky, its tongue in cheek, and its funny. its called trash talking. like wrestlers or boxers do before a match. or fans at a football game. but this is warmachine - its a game where everything is turned up to 11. makes sense that the intro shares the same boisterous over the top style. and thats all it is. most folks enjoy it.

In general, I feel well-written, unambiguous rules do a lot more to encourage good sportsmanship and creative games than page content spent trying to encourage it. If the rules are clear and fun, I'll play more, and be more inclined to tinker.

My personal opinion is that Warmachine is an exception to the general run of rules, and it is marketed at a teenage audience with more hormones than sociability. Obviously there is a place for that kind of playing style and people who like it should get on and enjoy it.

My personal observations are that WM/H gamers tend to be vet wargamers that have tried many systems and like a tight ruleset and the various ways of impacting probability that WM/H offers through adding/subtracting dice, buffs, and finding synergies.

Simply by looking at the game and rule systems, I have no idea how one can come to the conclusion that WM/H is somehow a game for 'immature' gamers. The amount of basic and special rules interaction, the numerous maneuvers available to any single model (especially the battlegroups), and the resource management system of the Warnoun with the Protect-Your-Warnoun-Or-Game-Over mechanic all speak to a high level of gaming sophistication.

In my experience, hormonal asocial smelly kids are almost always playing GW games because they're easier. The game mechanics are easier to grasp, the gameplay is much more forgiving (imagine if the game ended any time your Daemon Prince died), and the ability to download an 'UEBER' netdeck list gives the FOTM crowd something very close to pay2win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Balance wrote:
In general, I feel well-written, unambiguous rules do a lot more to encourage good sportsmanship and creative games than page content spent trying to encourage it. If the rules are clear and fun, I'll play more, and be more inclined to tinker.

And, ultimately, a tighter rules set harms no one while generally providing an obvious benefit. A casual play group is free to play casual games with casual lists. A competitive play group never has to create a 17 page YMDC thread.

Anecdotal as well, but my experience with WM/H is the same...95% of the players I know are over 18.

I think the focus here between RP and WM/H is fairly narrow.

This topic has come up in my play group before and one of the things we sort of centered in on was the fact that level of detail spent on a rules system seemed to be directly tied to how wedded the company was to its own miniatures production.

On one end you have GW, which has made it fairly well known that they are a miniatures company first and foremost and I think most people would agree it shows in the rules systems. The bills are paid at GW based on how many minis sold this week.

Privateer started initially as game company that supported its own with its own miniatures. Initially, the rules were tight, but as more and more minis and their individual rules were integrated into the larger system, the rules became more a case of "damage per second" rather than "I like these, so I will play these as they aren't any worse than anything else."

Admittedly, we are just getting into Infinity and it definately has that starting feel good rules, enough complexity to keep it interesting, and play with whatever unit you want, they are pretty much all the same. Not sure if that opinion will hold as my experience develops, but it seems that way right now.

You can see the same on the historical side. There are many sold rules sets out there, but it certainly seems that those companies that have a huge foot in the minis market (looking at you battlefront) worry less about having their rules fit al situations than those companies that have their own rules and rely on others to supply people with T-34s and Shermans.

That is an inteesting observation.

Essentially, if your sourc eof income is just rules you try to make it tight because all you have to sell is your rules system. If you have a minature line, you are selling more than just rules so you can be a bit more open?

If your argument is the one I outlined above, I think I will have to disagree with you. Warlord games does nto have an extensive line of figures for Black Powder, Pike and Shotte, Hail Ceasar, etc; but they have the distinctly "loosey-goosey" style of a Rick Priestley rules design. The minis came a bit later. Warmachine is much tighter and supports their own minins. Therefore, both of the systems in question tend to refute your arguments.

However, that doesn't meanit wasn't an intersting observation. I can really see this impacting the Historical side more than the Fantasy side; but again I maybe wrong.

I'm also starting to wonder where a "generic" game like Force-on-Force/Tomorrow's War fits into this discussion.

Page 5 is like the Bible it seems. A lot of people see it a lot of different ways.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Page 5 is like the Bible it seems. A lot of people see it a lot of different ways.

Thankfully Page 5 is much shorter.

 Easy E wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Page 5 is like the Bible it seems. A lot of people see it a lot of different ways.

Thankfully Page 5 is much shorter.

Would you rather see a Page 5 length bible, or a bible length Page 5?

 Easy E wrote:
Essentially, if your sourc eof income is just rules you try to make it tight because all you have to sell is your rules system. If you have a minature line, you are selling more than just rules so you can be a bit more open?

I think that's just a touch myopic. Privateer Press' main source of income is their miniatures. The demand driver for their minis is a tabletop game with a tight ruleset and cool robots and warbeasts.

GW's most significant resource is their space-opera IP. Space Marines are cool, and their universe appeals to many gamers. As a result they've got video games, books, models, comics. Their universe is SO good that it's actually not a surprise we gamers have been willing to accept how bad their rules systems and Designer-Gamer interactions have historically been. YMDC forums do not generally exist with the other 'big' game systems, they simply have a rules forum where you go ask 'hey, how does this work?' and somebody important comes along and says 'hey, this is how it works'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Page 5 is like the Bible it seems. A lot of people see it a lot of different ways.

Thankfully Page 5 is much shorter.

Would you rather see a Page 5 length bible, or a bible length Page 5?

The Bible's Page5 is basically the 10 commandments. The bible itself is more like the rulebook.

'Thou shalt not kill'

What if thee is a huge D-bag and wishes harm upon thy?

'Ifst thee is a huge D-bag and follows not thine Commandments, as was Zeb son of Zob of Zubedee, then ... '

 sourclams wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Essentially, if your sourc eof income is just rules you try to make it tight because all you have to sell is your rules system. If you have a minature line, you are selling more than just rules so you can be a bit more open?

I think that's just a touch myopic. Privateer Press' main source of income is their miniatures. The demand driver for their minis is a tabletop game with a tight ruleset and cool robots and warbeasts.

GW's most significant resource is their space-opera IP. Space Marines are cool, and their universe appeals to many gamers. As a result they've got video games, books, models, comics. Their universe is SO good that it's actually not a surprise we gamers have been willing to accept how bad their rules systems and Designer-Gamer interactions have historically been. YMDC forums do not generally exist with the other 'big' game systems, they simply have a rules forum where you go ask 'hey, how does this work?' and somebody important comes along and says 'hey, this is how it works'.

Okay, so extrapolate this out to other systems for me. For example, BlackPowder or other Warlord game lines. I think I get your basic point, but I'm not usr ehow it applies to Rick's more recent works vs. the warmachine model.

 sourclams wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Page 5 is like the Bible it seems. A lot of people see it a lot of different ways.

Thankfully Page 5 is much shorter.

Would you rather see a Page 5 length bible, or a bible length Page 5?

The Bible's Page5 is basically the 10 commandments. The bible itself is more like the rulebook.

'Thou shalt not kill'

What if thee is a huge D-bag and wishes harm upon thy?

'Ifst thee is a huge D-bag and follows not thine Commandments, as was Zeb son of Zob of Zubedee, then ... '

Nice. I think I need the FAQ, why won't God just go ahead and print the FAQ! it is obvious that the Romans were Pharisees were Nerfed!

Essentially there are two game design school of thought.

One champions the viewpoint that a wargame is a collaborative effort between two or more players the rules are laid out in such a way that narrative can happen.

This school of thought may or may not have watertight rules, but definitely its rules are open ended to allow players to incorporate their twists and essentially depend on the players to balance the game.

Rick Priestly is indeed a designer of that school and his rules show that, as is his preference on fluff over rules, its not a bad approach by any means, but even with point costs the games need the players to be aware that they must actively be involved and at least tweak things.

The other is a Philosophy believes that it must give to the players a self contained system, balanced and watertight, it may not be the best for narrative since units and profiles are not really customisable and custom scenarios may need quite some work to function properly, but the players have a game that they can play anywhere against anybody.

Now how well these philosophies are applied is up to the game designer and the company that hires them.

It's definitely different philosophies. One is an actual game, where there is a winner and by definitions not-winners (aka losers), and it is obviously possible to do better or worse.

The other is a re-enactment or a staging moreso than a game, and that's where the commonallity between Historicals can really be seen. One does not necessarily get into a recreation of El Alamein to PWN the British, or equip an AK-47 along with your confederate greys to show the Yankees how OP modern automatics are compared to their blackpowder muskets.

The reason for the difference in philosophies may be partly due to the different generations of Priestley and the Warmachine writers. Priestley grew up in a time of lead soldiers and A5 black-and-white rulebookss. The writers of Warmachine grew up in a time with RPG-style rulebooks for wargames, the beginning of plastic miniatures and the like. For Priestley, there probably weren't that many tournaments for Napoleonics or whatever he played. For Matt Wilson, he'd probably already seen tournaments for the games that he played (one of them probably being Warhammer). As a result of this, you may have had Priestley less inclined to playing tournaments since they weren't around when he was a whippersnapper and Wilson was around.

That may be one reason.

 Easy E wrote:
That is an inteesting observation.

Essentially, if your sourc eof income is just rules you try to make it tight because all you have to sell is your rules system. If you have a minature line, you are selling more than just rules so you can be a bit more open?

If your argument is the one I outlined above, I think I will have to disagree with you. Warlord games does nto have an extensive line of figures for Black Powder, Pike and Shotte, Hail Ceasar, etc; but they have the distinctly "loosey-goosey" style of a Rick Priestley rules design. The minis came a bit later. Warmachine is much tighter and supports their own minins. Therefore, both of the systems in question tend to refute your arguments.

However, that doesn't meanit wasn't an intersting observation. I can really see this impacting the Historical side more than the Fantasy side; but again I maybe wrong.

I'm also starting to wonder where a "generic" game like Force-on-Force/Tomorrow's War fits into this discussion.

I will admit, Warlord is a unique outlyer on my psuedo-hypothesis. Admittedly, most people in my circle lump it into a similar situation as Warhammer Ancients was. Lots of options but everything done half heartedly to the point that no one is very much interested.

Privateer press early on was a company focused on the rules that supplied its own minis. It has since moved on the continum (nothing wrong with that) as it has discovered that by increasing its commitment to its miniatures it can increase its sales volume without effort into improving its rules. They started with 4.5 armies. Went to 5 with pirates, 6 with Ret. and now 7.

Rick, in my opinion, is morphed into the Billy Mays of gaming. His name is on -so- much stuff that he seems to have no commitment to any of it. "You didn't like "X"? But wait! There's more!" Individually maybe something will be stellar, but all of it in aggregrate has the "well if you don't like this, then fix it with your mates."

I have to admit, I am personaly more a fan of a tight rules set. Tight rules typically means I can pick up and play with anyone across the country and both of us know the rules. If you have a club you can typically come to an agreement on how your group will handle gentlemen's disagreements with a RP type game, but there is no gaurentee that will be the case.

@ ExNoctemNacimur
I desperately tried to avoid, old VS new comment, while my wargames rules library is extensive (I do collect them) I am not sure there were not "old" games with tight rules system and balanced forces.

Deadnight wrote:

Easy E wrote:I like to collect rulebooks for games, and I don’t intend to ever play most of them. I have recently finished reading through Black Powder, Bolt Action, and Warmaster Ancients all of were primarily designed and written by Rick Priestley. I also recently got my hands on the Warmachine Prime-Remix rulebook. Reading through the two books, the differences in philosophy were stark.

Collaboration vs. Competition
Rick’s Style was focused more on a war game being a collaborative event. The books included discussion of the way “gentleman” behave and sportsmanship. In addition, there is a lot of talk about how the game is secondary to having fun, and having fun being the core driver of the rules. The ethos was about how players were to work together to have fun.

Meanwhile, Warmachine was focused on something very different. It was focused on what you DID to an opponent as opposed to what you did together. The focus was on competing against each other to see who the best at playing toy soldiers was.

I have to agree here. GW games in general seem to be a "play with your opponent", whilst more competitively minded games are "playing against your opponent". Gw favour the narrative, almost RPG-esque nature of the games in order to tell a story. with warmachine, its far less of a "kick-about", and far more of a sport. give it your all, and go for the gold. just dont be a douche along the way.

And to me, 40k just feels like yet more fistfulls of dice compared to more dramatic abilities in Warmachine or Malifaux. /shrug

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
The reason for the difference in philosophies may be partly due to the different generations of Priestley and the Warmachine writers. Priestley grew up in a time of lead soldiers and A5 black-and-white rulebookss. The writers of Warmachine grew up in a time with RPG-style rulebooks for wargames, the beginning of plastic miniatures and the like. For Priestley, there probably weren't that many tournaments for Napoleonics or whatever he played. For Matt Wilson, he'd probably already seen tournaments for the games that he played (one of them probably being Warhammer). As a result of this, you may have had Priestley less inclined to playing tournaments since they weren't around when he was a whippersnapper and Wilson was around.

That may be one reason.

The time of those A5 B&W books was also the time of WRG Ancients. There were loads of tournaments for several periods including Ancients, Renaissance and Moderns. (In the UK, at least.)

The Warmachine guys are much more likely to have cut their tournament teeth on 40K, a ruleset definitely not designed for tournament play. If Warmachine is a reaction, it reacts against the GW style rather than the old school style, I should think.

I do not think it as a reaction, although I can see what you mean, 40k was pushed as a tournament game and has set up many tournament scenes globally, a game that as you said is simply not designed for that and no attempt has been made for that, I view it as only logical when demand for a tight, balanced tournament friendly game system is so high that several will evolve to fill the demand.

My point is that the background of wargame tournament play shows a consistent history of serious (but fun) competition based on tight mathematical rulesets from the 60s until the present day, but mainly in historical periods.

Younger gamers are often not aware of the long tradition of tournament play in historicals. They are likely to have been brought to tabletop games and tournaments through an encounter with Warhammer and 40K, since that was a heavily popularised by GW tournament scene for much of the 90s and 00s.

Realistically, people were born in the late 70s and grew up through teen years in the era when GW was really starting to boom, in the late 80s, and that could easily be the main influence on them. This is particularly the case in the USA, where while there have been clubs as long as the UK, a lot of gaming among the younger, 40K oriented set, is clearly based on shop venues rather than clubs.

That pattern or experience would also account for the setting of Warmachine being a kind of cross-over steampunk/fantasy scenario, likely to appeal to people who are already familiar with the somewhat similar GW game settings.

I don't know, but have the designers of Warmachine written any articles about their influences and design ideas?

 sourclams wrote:

I think that's just a touch myopic. Privateer Press' main source of income is their miniatures. The demand driver for their minis is a tabletop game with a tight ruleset and cool robots and warbeasts.

The demand driver is the pageantry of the miniatures, within the context of that game. The game helps the minis drive demand, but isn't a demand driver per se.

Put another way, I'm not aware of large groups of people playing Warmachine with cardboard cutouts or representations of the models; the rules are find and distinct but they aren't what draw people to wargaming. The miniatures are.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That pattern or experience would also account for the setting of Warmachine being a kind of cross-over steampunk/fantasy scenario, likely to appeal to people who are already familiar with the somewhat similar GW game settings.

I really hesitate to make this sort of broad connection/evolution. The Iron Kingdoms were created, I believe, as a pen and paper d20 RPG setting first and foremost, indicating that the likelier evolution was DnD-esque high fantasy with a touch of steampunk into the swords&alchemy setting of the IK.

The narrative of the IK also progresses and clearly evolves around a set cast of central figures (influential warcasters/warlocks) that are 'as-is', meaning that PP has already decided what their stats and abilities are and they are 'their' characters, not the players' characters. The tone is generally upbeat and there's almost nothing that speaks of overt evil or Grimdark, even in the material about an empire of undead wizards intent on turning all the living into meat puppets.

That is very clearly different from the Grimdark 40k 'develop your own chapter, choose your own adventure' where very little actually happens from a broader setting standpoint and the universe itself exists more as a sandbox for people to go create models/characters and play around in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IceRaptor wrote:
Put another way, I'm not aware of large groups of people playing Warmachine with cardboard cutouts or representations of the models; the rules are find and distinct but they aren't what draw people to wargaming. The miniatures are.

But, at the same time, almost nobody is buying their models just to paint them up and put them on the shelf. Up until their relatively new releases (which by and large are incredibly good quality), very few of their models were even that impressive relative to other mini companies of the time.

There's threads on their forums (and here, I think) that suggest PP more than doubled in size in the last few years. GW has not, Reaper has not, and both of those are companies whose minis, I think, on average, equaled/exceeded PP quality for this specific time period.

 Easy E wrote:

Collaboration vs. Competition
Rick’s Style was focused more on a war game being a collaborative event. The books included discussion of the way “gentleman” behave and sportsmanship. In addition, there is a lot of talk about how the game is secondary to having fun, and having fun being the core driver of the rules. The ethos was about how players were to work together to have fun.

Meanwhile, Warmachine was focused on something very different. It was focused on what you DID to an opponent as opposed to what you did together. The focus was on competing against each other to see who the best at playing toy soldiers was.

Social vs. Event
Rick’s writing almost treated the game itself as secondary. It was an excuse to get together to “talk shop” about painting, history, and share experience. It was a reason to drink beer and eat junk food. The rules were there to allow someone an excuse to get away from everyday life and spend some time chatting with their buddies.

Warmachine is written where the game is an event. Each one is significant. The purpose of getting together is the game, the playing of it, and the winning of it. You might get together with buddies to “talk Shop” but that was so you could be better at playing the game next time.

There's nothing stopping me from playing Warmachine in a chilled-out, messing-round-with-my-buds environment. Nothing in the game stops me from being friendly to my opponent--had a game against a new player earlier today where I offered advice, suggested things he could try and reminded him of useful things his models could do. Of course, tournament play is expected to be more rigid and competitive, I agree to that when I sign up. But even then, when the game ends, I more often than not shake hands with my opponent and if there's time, have a friendly chat before the next round.

 Easy E wrote:
“Gentleman” vs. “Gamers”
Again, we see Rick’s rules emphasizing gentlemanly conduct, and what should or should not be done. The mechanisms for resolving disputes are straight forward and he writes as if no real disagreement should occur during a game that cannot be resolved quickly and moved past for the sake of the game moving forward.

Warmachine is written in way where the rules matter, a lot. Disagreements should not stop the game in, but the foreword talks a great deal about the “Remix” being put in place to make the rules flow as tightly as possible.

First up, Warmachine has moved onto a full second edition which pretty much rewrote the rules (and is generally considered far superior), so the Remix is a thing of the past.

My impression is that some games that are more casual and "fluffy" are that way largely by necessity. When both you and your opponent have different readings of the same rule and the text could reasonably support them both, you're essentially forced to come to a gentleman's agreement because the alternative is the game grinding to a halt. In WM, checking the rulebook or the description of an ability will resolve the problem 99% of the time.

Strip the hyperbole, and my reading of the "page 5" ideal is that you should do your best. Don't worry about your list being frowned at for being "too good", bring your best skills and game against your opponent (as they will to you), and don't be a sore loser. And those are standards that can be applied equally to competitive or friendly play.

 Easy E wrote:

Why? Theories that may or may not hold water
So, why the difference sin approach? I have a few theories and I would like to hear your thought sont eh subject as well.

British v. American- Perhaps this is a cultural thing? Americans have a very “competition” focused society, and Warmachine is primarily an American company. Is Britain a more communal place? I honestly don’t know.

As a Brit, I don't think the difference is pronounced enough to be applied to individuals with any reliability, especially when you're dealing with a subset of a niche.

I really don't think it's a cultural thing, as IIRC Malifaux was written by americans, and I think that Infinity was originally written in Spanish, by a company from Spain?

Also, games like Hell Dorado along with Malifaux and Infinity have reasonably tight written rules (using 40k and WHFB as benchmarks) but they, IMO, do not have the same competitive aesthetic that a game like Warmahordes does.


I think that Rick Priestly's ideals were intended not to cover up some poorly written rules, but rather a mechanic to say, "we're mates having fun playing a game, let's not ruin the whole thing, or slow down a flow of imaginary cinematic action by squabbling over rules disputes" Even in friendly matches, a rules dispute can carry over multiple games, accusations of cheating, rules lawyering, etc. can significantly damage an otherwise brilliant friendship, and RP viewed the games that he wrote as social events, as they should be.