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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.


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.

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?

Of course, I’m sure it is more of a blending of each of these hypotheses. Rarely is one theory always right and the others always wrong. Neither style is inherently wrong or better. However, I’m interested in seeing what your thoughts are on this topic?

I play a lot of Hail Caesar (also written by Rick P) & completely agree with your comment that the rules promote war games as being a collaborative event. The game can be just as competitive, but the result is more about the decisions made in the game rather than how to apply the rules to the game.

 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.

Yeah, I don't see this. The problem is that you're comparing not Historical and Fantasy rulesets, but Priestly's writing style (very relaxed, with an emphasis on 'gentleman agreements') with that of Warmachine/Hordes which is meant to be a highly competitive and tightly-knit ruleset.

I know of historical rulesets that are meant for tournament/competitive play - Flames of War, Clash of Empires, Field of Glory - and we all know of GW's current design philosophy that is apparently steering away from competitive gaming which is evident in the latest edition of Warhammer Fantasy, and will most likely be even more prevalent in Warhammer 9th.

 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 also disagree with this. You may want to actually dive a little further into Warmachine/Hordes list building, as their 'Tier Lists' literally reward you for taking themed, 'fluffy' lists.

So you have to have fluff forced on you by a game mechanic?

Graphite wrote:
So you have to have fluff forced on you by a game mechanic?

I assume you're responding to me, so...

No, you don't. The lists are optional, and are most of the time lest-then-optimal in their model selection. They offset this by allowing exceptions - allowing you to begin with spells already cast, extra allowances when choosing units, price breaks on certain miniatures, etc., etc.

Anyway, that's getting off the point. I've never played Warmachine, but I have looked at a number of "non Rick Priestly" rules, like Stargrunt, which are highly "uncompetitive".

I think the issue may be partly to do with the UK/USA thing. In the USA, you seem to play almost entirely in stores, for pick up games. Hence a balanced points based game is useful. Clubs and homes seem to be more prevalant over here.

I think originally the Warmachine rules sets were designed to be tight and competitive, to appeal to people who liked to be able to play a competitive game - especially in tournaments and whatnot - without having to rely on dice rolls to determin rules.

However, the thing about a tight rule set is that while it's great for competitve play, you're still able to play a nice and casual game or fluffy game with them if you choose (and indeed certain fun warmachine event types encourage this), whereas the opposite is not true (thus why you got various rules packs like the INAT FAQ were necessary before GW started writing better FAQs to try an tighten it's own rules).

Competition wargaming has deep roots in historicals, such as the WRG Ancients series started in 1969. These kind of games have always aimed at a points balanced, fair competition, using tight rules, but they have never been written with a "Play like you have big balls" attitude. OTOH they don't have screeds about good sportmanship and so on -- it is simply assumed.

Competitive playing is of course collaborative in the sense that an opponent can simply walk away from the table if he gets angry enough. Presumably we actually want to play a game, however much we may want to win, as there is no glory in winning by default.

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.

If it is an American thing, which I'm not convinced, it probably has something to do with the higher level of individuality of Americans, and playing in shops etc rather than clubs, as has been mentioned above.

Judging from the title, I was expecting to learn something about mechanical concepts that RP might like to build into rule systems and how that differs from design in PP's rule sets. Big disappointment!

You basically have ONE single observation, and that is that Mr. Priestley likes to emphasize Fair Play & Fun over Rules rule. Well, hidey-hidey-ho!

I know Black Powder, and that one has fairly tight rules, so Mr. RP might say whatever he wants to say (and I agree with his statements), it does not negate the fact that every tabletop game, including BP, is competitive. AND Fun. Tabletop games are GAMES played with TOYS. It's always for FUN. And there is no distinction between gentlemen and gamers. They are all gamers. Some know how to behave and know exactly why they are doing this, some people don't.

All in all, a pretty uninteresting post, you have defintely not spent much thought on your points, yourself, and so I will neither.

 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.

Seriously, are you implying that warmachine players are all hormonal teenagers? Seriously? No. In my experience, warmachine players are generally older veteran gamers, who like the tighter rules set. Teenage gamers tend to be 40k gamers, which is the market that GW is angling for (not that there isn't a wide age range for people actually playing the game).

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.

treslibras wrote:
Judging from the title, I was expecting to learn something about mechanical concepts that RP might like to build into rule systems and how that differs from design in PP's rule sets. Big disappointment!

You basically have ONE single observation, and that is that Mr. Priestley likes to emphasize Fair Play & Fun over Rules rule. Well, hidey-hidey-ho!

All in all, a pretty uninteresting post, you have defintely not spent much thought on your points, yourself, and so I will neither.

Please educate me.

This is about a difference in rules philospohy, the overlying concepts and design ethos that a game uses to help dictate its design mechancis. Some would say that a design philosophy is more importantt than any one mechanic as the philosophy will dictate your design choices. The other part of the post is pure speculation on why someone might choose one design philosophy over another.

Note, this post does not say one design philospohy is better than another, but they are obviously different.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:

 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.

Yeah, I don't see this. The problem is that you're comparing not Historical and Fantasy rulesets, but Priestly's writing style (very relaxed, with an emphasis on 'gentleman agreements') with that of Warmachine/Hordes which is meant to be a highly competitive and tightly-knit ruleset.

I know of historical rulesets that are meant for tournament/competitive play - Flames of War, Clash of Empires, Field of Glory - and we all know of GW's current design philosophy that is apparently steering away from competitive gaming which is evident in the latest edition of Warhammer Fantasy, and will most likely be even more prevalent in Warhammer 9th.

 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 also disagree with this. You may want to actually dive a little further into Warmachine/Hordes list building, as their 'Tier Lists' literally reward you for taking themed, 'fluffy' lists.

I appreciate this perspectives and thank you for sharing them. As i said, the theories may or may not hold water. I want to find out what others think. I freely admit that Ihave a lot more homework to do on Warmachine as I have only a cursury introduction to the rules.

 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?

How can you have that opinion when GW itself says that their target is the teenage churn & burn market?

How can you have that opinion when according to the apparent majority of Dakkaites every official GW store is akin to a kindergarten filled to the brim with screaming kids and teenagers?

Take a look at the various videos reporting WMH tournaments, you won't find a single person under 18 in them.

Take a listen to the various pod casts covering WMH, you won't find a single person under 18 in them.

In my country there isn't a single person under 20 playing WHM, we have several playing 40K. All of this is anecdotal, sure, but all the anecdotes seem to run contrary to your opinion...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

Please educate me.

Rock Priestley is a lousy rules writer that tries to cover his inability to write a tight and cohesive rules set with all the "gentleman agreement" nonsense that he likes to throw around so much.

He is VERY good at coming up with general game mechanics and ideas, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty work of making sure that there aren't any loopholes and that everything is properly balanced he just fails hard.

What does GW have to do with how PP target their products or this thread for that matter. Only those that are immature are worried about how old they are perceived to be (and women of course /jk).

The comparison was PP and Rick Preistly. I don't think you can dismiss his as a terrible rules writer, his CV is pretty top notch.

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.

PhantomViper wrote:

In my country there isn't a single person under 20 playing WHM, we have several playing 40K. All of this is anecdotal, sure, but all the anecdotes seem to run contrary to your opinion...

.

Not one person under 20 playing the game? Know every player in the country then, do you?

Don't really see what GW has to do with any of this, BTW.

 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.

If that's the case, then, it'd be best to judge Warmachine/Hordes by its current mindset, and not by its past iterations. Yes, there was a lot of that testosterone-fueled mindset in mkI, but that has been cooled-down in mkII. A lot of people cite the 'page 5 mentality' when it seems that they haven't bothered to read the text there, or only read halfway through.

In comparison, I would expect people to find it unfair to judge contemporary 40k by the mindset and style of rules writing in Rogue Trader.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

In my country there isn't a single person under 20 playing WHM, we have several playing 40K. All of this is anecdotal, sure, but all the anecdotes seem to run contrary to your opinion...

.

Not one person under 20 playing the game? Know every player in the country then, do you?

Don't really see what GW has to do with any of this, BTW.

Must've missed the part where he actually said that was anecdotal. I can back him up about the WMH player age bit. I only know one under 18, compared to the masses of 40k players whose age has only just reached double figures.

 infinite_array wrote:
.

In comparison, I would expect people to find it unfair to judge contemporary 40k by the mindset and style of rules writing in Rogue Trader.

That is a good point. Rules systems change as they expand their demographics or move away from the cultural assumptions that helped create them.

I should go back a re-read my Rogue Trader rulebook and compare it to Rick's more "modern" works. I'm sure that would be good for a laugh as the first edition of RT is a mess.

As others have said, the whole "play like you got a pair" marketing slogan is 10 years old, and not really a factor anymore.

I personally prefer my rules tightly written and balanced, rather than the designer sloughing that duty off on the players by just encouraging them to play nice. You can not be a tool in a game with decently written rules as well.

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.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

In my country there isn't a single person under 20 playing WHM, we have several playing 40K. All of this is anecdotal, sure, but all the anecdotes seem to run contrary to your opinion...

.

Not one person under 20 playing the game? Know every player in the country then, do you?

Don't really see what GW has to do with any of this, BTW.

Must've missed the part where he actually said that was anecdotal. I can back him up about the WMH player age bit. I only know one under 18, compared to the masses of 40k players whose age has only just reached double figures.

And that 40K players bit isn't anecdotal?

GW vs PP, gotta love it. Even when the original post isn't really about GW.

 infinite_array 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.

If that's the case, then, it'd be best to judge Warmachine/Hordes by its current mindset, and not by its past iterations. Yes, there was a lot of that testosterone-fueled mindset in mkI, but that has been cooled-down in mkII. A lot of people cite the 'page 5 mentality' when it seems that they haven't bothered to read the text there, or only read halfway through.

In comparison, I would expect people to find it unfair to judge contemporary 40k by the mindset and style of rules writing in Rogue Trader.

I'm not judging, I am merely trying to present some ideas on why different rulesets are written in different ways.

If modern Warmachine has become less testosterone-fuelled, I would call it a good thing, though that of course is merely my personal view. At the same time, that does not preclude us from discussion of why earlier editions were written in the style they were.

I think the key point is that rulesets can be tight without it being associated with a balls to the wall mentality.

Warmaster Ancients is a reasonably tight ruleset though I would say not to the standards of WRG Ancients or Field of Glory, however it was also a first edition and was not widely used for competitions before GW dumped it. WRG went through 7 editions in its lifetime as a major competitive ruleset.

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.

Then you do know very little. That's on the same level as me complaining that my King in chess doesn't have any personality whatsoever, and assuming that certain people on this forum won't play anything that doesn't have a Games Workshop label on it.

Which I would deserve a hard slap on the back of the head for.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

In my country there isn't a single person under 20 playing WHM, we have several playing 40K. All of this is anecdotal, sure, but all the anecdotes seem to run contrary to your opinion...

.

Not one person under 20 playing the game? Know every player in the country then, do you?

Don't really see what GW has to do with any of this, BTW.

Must've missed the part where he actually said that was anecdotal. I can back him up about the WMH player age bit. I only know one under 18, compared to the masses of 40k players whose age has only just reached double figures.

And that 40K players bit isn't anecdotal?

GW vs PP, gotta love it. Even when the original post isn't really about GW.

I never said it wasn't. I would've thought it was implied in the rest of the post, seeing as I was also talking about anecdotal evidence of the player's ages of their chosen games....

Also, whether you like it or not, this has been about GW v. PP from the get-go. Rick Priestley is most well known for his work with WHFB (esp. on this forum) thus people will associate his rules with GW.

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.

You're out of your element Donny...

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.

Graphite wrote:
From a "style of rules writing" perspective, coupled with the tiny amount that I know about Warmachine
.

Ah, I see, you're ignorant of Warmahordes, which explains your attitude towards it. Try it out sometime, meet the wider Warmahordes community, and you'll discover why your attitude towards and assumptions about it's players are so misguided.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the key point is that rulesets can be tight without it being associated with a balls to the wall mentality.

While that is semantically correct to state, rulesets that are designed to be 'tight' (i.e. few loopholes, known interactions, etc) tend to appeal to a competitive gamer. Knowing the interactions before you plan your actions on the table are important if you're approaching the 'wargame' as a 'war' instead of a 'game'. Violations of those conventions - like finding out that you're suddenly horribly exposed because the rules are ambiguous on a point - are antithetical because they provide more chaos than you have prepared for.

The 'balls to the wall' mentality was marketing - which was targeted help Warmachine's appeal to the competitive gamers in the US 40k circuits. Smaller model counts (initially), well defined rules, openly competitive attitude - it was pretty much a perfect storm of marketing and rather shrewd on PP's part. Now that they are another gorilla in the wargaming room they have toned that down somewhat, but the game is still very much a 'war' instead of a 'story'.

My personal opinion is that yes, the differences are very much cultural, and there's nothing wrong with that. Americans have a very competitive culture and that reflects in the kinds of wargames that are gaining traction (strict rule definitions, competitive atmosphere, balanced composition) and those that are losing traction (historical simulations, looser systems, etc).

 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".