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.

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.

@ 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.

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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
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.

Infinity was, is and will be written by Corvus Belli that is a Spanish company.

Clear rules can be "fluffy" that's not the issue here Infinity that is an example I am quite familiar with translates the fluff to the tabletop quite good (and I have the impression WM/H does so as well), while 40k as another example does not, its an issue of whether one wants to make rules that follow the background or background that can happen in the rules or not.

The issue I raised is that in my opinion a clear, balanced game system is more susceptible when players want to do their "own thing" invent their own units and so on, this does not take into account fluff based changes which are irrelevant to the game system (so they are not Sepulchurists knight they are templars in hiding, they are not grey knights they are the X radical Inquisitors experiment ectr) I mean wanting to make their own units, it may seem odd to 40k players because the system already allows big freedom build in it (and this is why its too difficult to balance) fut for a CB/ PP player its obvious to see the difference the units are these and are equipped like this precisely, not spend X points to change this into this or add this ad then buy this from this table ectr. and then figure out item X in unit Z when facing opponent V creates a rules breakdown.

The world has changed quite a lot, but I do not think it has in the way you imagine it to have, especially in such absolute way.

What "the Internet" has done is connect a widely scattered community of like minded individuals and this as a result made a segmented body united, expectations of quality has been risen, this does not mean the reasons one would wargame would change, but the expectations have.

The mentioned "Pristley approach" is one of a sandbox, give a basic frame spend more time on the background and let the players build their own stuff, its not an invalid approach today it was not in the past and will not be in the future, not my preferred one as I view it as a "here are the ingredients now make your own food", but its key selling point is the background and the freedom it gives to players, because of this flexibility, the rules should be extra tight and playtested, the fact that some products reach the market without having tight rules or been properly playtested, does not mean the approach is invalid or a relic f the past, indifferent to modern audience.

The main problem with these games is when they are presented as a complete system, which they are not.

The other approach, my preferred one, is a complete wargame product, it has tight rules a defined background and balanced forces, players do not have much more to do than collect the miniatures and play the game and that is its key selling point its a finished product.

I would never call EVE online a sandbox.

A sandbox is an area clearly defined were you can create your own stuff with the tools provided, I do not really see sandbox style wargames die out, I can see demand for better quality sandbox wargames with finer quality sand, I can see them loose some ground, but not get extinct or be marginalized to old people.

I do however see an increased demand for complete product wargames of high quality.

I played EVE, I went to their fanfests, I quit playing EVE, don't think I will go back.

What CCP defines as "sandbox" is a weak excuse to not work on a proper game system, I personally do not view EVE as a sandbox, you cannot do whatever you want as CCP and EVE supporters proclaim, you can scum people retaliation free though.

For me a sandbox is just that a sandbox, a place were you can with the tools available to you create your own stuff, the games designer job should be twofold, giving you enough tools to create what you may imagine and make sure you will not disrupt everybody else plans or everybody else disrupt yours.

EVE provides tools to hurt and disturb other people without consequences, in my opinion its a badly designed game that is trapped in this stage held hostage to its current player base.

Going more on topic, I am surprised to read what ExNoctemNacimur wrote, people preferring to play an obviously faulted game system over a better written and balanced system because it forces them to be... competitive?

In my opinion a tight balanced rule system does not forces you to be competitive or deprives you from the "beer and pretzels" enjoyment of a game, yes it does deprive you from the excuse that if you loose its the systems fault and its inherit imbalance, but if this is a reason to go hardcore competitive and not enjoy the game, its not a fault of the system.

Again in my opinion the Industry needs not abandon any of the two design philosophies nor one is es valid from the other, but the industry must significantly up its product value and quality, the "Priestly" approach is not an excuse for a bad game system, nor is for imbalanced forces.

I think its a balance between cost, product value and model count, huge model count does not only increase cost, but drives off potential players.

You know there is a misconception that playing to win (or WAAC) is a free pass to be a horrible person, no that's a character flaw in my books, you can play to win and still be a decent person.

And hurting others in EVE is not what makes it fun, its what keeps it at the niche market it is and why I said it is held hostage at that point, in my opinion EVE had it because from the start dealing with such things is a difficult challenge fr the game designer and CCP decided to simply not bother, that's poor unclear undefined rules right there a fact that scammers took to maximum advantage there is no disadvantage being one, horrible game design.

its the freedom to do as you wish without any retaliation as long as you do not wish to do something meaningful like playing the game as advertised.

A person who blackmails, scums, cheats (other players not the game) double crosses, ectr ectr. has virtually nothing to be afraid of, on the other hand a miner, a hauler, anything non pirate has everything to loose and no protection or chance of retaliation.

ToR was a mesh and the falling numbers it has show it, WoW is loosing an insignificant amount of subscriptions (for it) after years and years of going strong, nobody should really be surprised, in my opinion EVE shows the steady growth of players opening more alt accounts, as it was in the past.

While all the above are of topic I will try to steer it halfway on topic, from a game designers perspective, allowing somebody to do something without true or proper risk/ challenge is a bad game design and has no balance.