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.

But ideally, wouldn't rules dispute not exist when the rules are written tightly in the first place?

Hops into the way back machine.....

About 15 years ago I worked with AEG promoting Legend of the Five Rings card game which Matt WIlson was basically a co-creator for. Both He and Brian Snoddy were heavily involved in ccgs and also miniature games. Later when they sepperated themselves from the company and founded Privateer they took a large number of ex-AEG staff wirth them, this was about the time that Wizards aquired the L5R line. Anybody with talent was either moved internally into the Wizards fold or they went to Privateer. L5R was basically left as a shell and the game pretty much went stagnent for a long time as a result of their design team being diced apart.

Anybody that has played CCGs will likely realize that they are very competitive in nature and their rules sets are (ideally) designed to cover every possible qustion regarding timing , play sequence etc. The rules are very tight and defined as it promotes competitive tournamnet play often with very large sums of cash invovled as prizes. "Roll off" to determine a dispute is unheard of in the ccg communities, if a situation is unable to be answered by the rules documents or faq then it is left for the tourney judges to decide and usually those decisions are later incorperated into the offical rules. (after being reviewed by a group) NOBODY playing ccgs would stand for a match deciding conflict to be decided by dice when there might potentially be $10k or even $100k riding on that result.

Warmachine was largely influenced by ccg style play and that's primarily where the differance between Privatter's and Priestly's style come from. Also Privateer's take on story driven rules is there but its minimized into a more formal set of mechanics where often in Priestly's rules they are typically one off type rules.

While I'm not buddy buddy with Matt or Brian I do know them well enough that I can say that they are certainly supporters of games played by gentlemen and good sports, but they also see value in a tightly defined rules set due to their ccg backgrounds. If you have a properly defined system it ideally leads to less personal conflcts when there's a disagreement as it's usually covered in detail by the rules, so the anger should properly be directed at rules and not the opponent.

Now the down side is that we all live in the real world and many gamers aren't particuarly civil individuals who understand sportsmanship, in fact many gamers actively tried not to be included in sports or competitive events that teach society how to be good sports and tollerate a loss, learn to be team players etc. A lot of gamers that I see (and know) take any loss or disagreement extremely poorly. There are plenty of gamers who understand and embrace sportsmanship but unfortunately the ones that don't are the ones are also typically the most obnoxious and leave a very bad impression even though they may be a very small minority. It only takes one d-bag person to ruin an even that might have dozens or even hundreds of decent folks attending. (which as a TO who has helped run hundrreds of AEGs & WOTC events I'm painfully aware of)

Page 5 was a tongue and cheek reference to being a good sport, unfortunately there's players that see it as in print justification to be a jerk. They completely miss the joke and think it's written approval to be a full out douche. But every system has "those people" who just don't get the concept of sportsmanship and proper conduct.

 Easy E wrote:
I
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.

I dont think so. GW used to be very much in favor of competition, see the 4th edition 40k rule book. Within British and US culture there is a broad spectrum of competiveness among gamers. This is very apparent from the forums. Competiveness is a feature of western civilization, you can not really say that Americans are more keen on competition than most other countries, just look at sports and how popular they are and the rabid fanaticism involved. People in Europe break out in brawls over soccer way more often than American football fans do, but then again American fans are lethargic from all the vast quantities of red meat and beer they just consumed.

Privateer has just recognized that there is a demand for tournaments and are capitalizing on it. There are many historical miniature tournaments but they are probably not as well known. They have been going on for a long time as well.

 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.

I know quite a few gamers that play FoW and also play or have played wh40k or whfb. A lot of people are drawn to the miniatures first and the rules second. More and more you are seeing gaming conventions that feature both historical games and scifi/fantasy games. I think the distinction between "historical" gamers and "fantasy" gamers has eroded and will continue to decline.

Also, both historical and fantasy players use no holds barred scenarios and themed scenarios. The only difference is that historical themed scenarios recreate something that really happened. Fantasy themed scenarios are very popular with some people and discussed on the forums regularly.

 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 you are quite wrong here. If you go to the Privateer forums you will find that a lot of people are very much into the background or fluff of the game. Dont neglect the fact that Privateer publishes a role playing book for their fantasy world as well. While privateer is sponsoring many tournaments and develops specific rules for tournaments I am sure tournament players are only a fraction of their customers.

Sorry to be a naysayer but I think your hypotheses are fundamentally flawed by an oversimplification and false partition of the gaming community.

Part of my job is writing procedures.
Ever try to describe something and make it fool-proof?
You either have to live with absolute statements or are forced to pull out the flow-chart.
To promote the ideal of "let it go and play nice" needs to be mentioned when the instructions are not rules-lawyer approved.
Competition is a big thing, many efforts are made to create inclusive competitive video games where skill rather than hardware wins the day.
I can see a need for wargaming to have a more competitive edge. I think we are not there yet with any game system (except chess) to go all hard core.

 paulson games wrote:
Hops into the way back machine.....

About 15 years ago I worked with AEG promoting Legend of the Five Rings card game which Matt WIlson was basically a co-creator for. Both He and Brian Snoddy were heavily involved in ccgs and also miniature games. Later when they sepperated themselves from the company and founded Privateer they took a large number of ex-AEG staff wirth them, this was about the time that Wizards aquired the L5R line. Anybody with talent was either moved internally into the Wizards fold or they went to Privateer. L5R was basically left as a shell and the game pretty much went stagnent for a long time as a result of their design team being diced apart.

Anybody that has played CCGs will likely realize that they are very competitive in nature and their rules sets are (ideally) designed to cover every possible qustion regarding timing , play sequence etc. The rules are very tight and defined as it promotes competitive tournamnet play often with very large sums of cash invovled as prizes. "Roll off" to determine a dispute is unheard of in the ccg communities, if a situation is unable to be answered by the rules documents or faq then it is left for the tourney judges to decide and usually those decisions are later incorperated into the offical rules. (after being reviewed by a group) NOBODY playing ccgs would stand for a match deciding conflict to be decided by dice when there might potentially be $10k or even $100k riding on that result.

Warmachine was largely influenced by ccg style play and that's primarily where the differance between Privatter's and Priestly's style come from. Also Privateer's take on story driven rules is there but its minimized into a more formal set of mechanics where often in Priestly's rules they are typically one off type rules.

While I'm not buddy buddy with Matt or Brian I do know them well enough that I can say that they are certainly supporters of games played by gentlemen and good sports, but they also see value in a tightly defined rules set due to their ccg backgrounds. If you have a properly defined system it ideally leads to less personal conflcts when there's a disagreement as it's usually covered in detail by the rules, so the anger should properly be directed at rules and not the opponent.

Now the down side is that we all live in the real world and many gamers aren't particuarly civil individuals who understand sportsmanship, in fact many gamers actively tried not to be included in sports or competitive events that teach society how to be good sports and tollerate a loss, learn to be team players etc. A lot of gamers that I see (and know) take any loss or disagreement extremely poorly. There are plenty of gamers who understand and embrace sportsmanship but unfortunately the ones that don't are the ones are also typically the most obnoxious and leave a very bad impression even though they may be a very small minority. It only takes one d-bag person to ruin an even that might have dozens or even hundreds of decent folks attending. (which as a TO who has helped run hundrreds of AEGs & WOTC events I'm painfully aware of)

Page 5 was a tongue and cheek reference to being a good sport, unfortunately there's players that see it as in print justification to be a jerk. They completely miss the joke and think it's written approval to be a full out douche. But every system has "those people" who just don't get the concept of sportsmanship and proper conduct.

Very good post!

Hi guys, great discussion. It's an important one, because IMHO, it's KINDA like the spirit of 40k (and GW).

I read all the posts up to this, but I'll use Easy E's framework, but I want to show you just my take.

 Easy E wrote:


Collaboration vs. Competition

Social vs. Event

“Gentleman” vs. “Gamers”

I totally see all of that. But after thinking about it, I would describe those as follows:

ROLEPLAYING-ONLY VS. WARGAMING-ONLY

My 1st exposure to 40k (at the risk of revealing my age) was from White Dwarfs.

40k was like an experimental path at the time, GW just trying something different.

Back then, GW was quite focused on RP-like things. Fantasy RP. Heroquest.

You can see this from how much content the old White Dwarfs was focused on RP.

IIRC, usually a WD was 50% RP stuff (incl. fluff), 25% painting, 25% maybe wargaming/rants.

You also hear Priestley describing 40k as "science fantasy", like a variation on fantasy RP.

You also see the Space Marine minis on their ads like "Brother Angst (with Multi-Melta)".

Like your basic Marine wasn't just a pawn, but a character like in RP, just without special rules.

Now, I'm not saying 40k's a RPG, nonono. But that was the MINDSET GW was coming from.

And even the early 40k games: Space Crusade, Space Hulk, were pretty RP-ish.

Those early games was much more about a joint narrative, storytelling, more than competition.

Like I owned Space Hulk, I usually played Genestealers so my friends can be Marines, but I wanted them to win.

Collaborative, Social, etc. That reminds me of more the RP aspects.

So what changed? Very simply, 25 YEARS AGO VS. TODAY.

40k, like I said, was an experimental path, and it kept going for almost 3 decades.

It started a little more RP-ish, now it's much more competitive Wargame-ish.

 Easy E wrote:


British v. American

Historical vs. Fantasy

Niche vs. Niche

And we recently added GW vs. Privateer Press.

I'm unsure of all those as well, I dunno.

I do think Privateer Press, with their focus on characters and skirmish scale, tried to retain the RP aspect.

But that's just my take. I don't know if you guys agree with me, but I think the RP angle is interesting to consider.

 Talizvar wrote:
Part of my job is writing procedures.
Ever try to describe something and make it fool-proof?
You either have to live with absolute statements or are forced to pull out the flow-chart.
To promote the ideal of "let it go and play nice" needs to be mentioned when the instructions are not rules-lawyer approved.

This can be solved by doing two versions of the rules set: one is the more basic rules set where you can read and understand what you need to know in order to play the game smoothly, and one is a comprehensive rules set that governs any interactions possible. You can see this at work here at MtG's website: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/TCG/Article.aspx?x=magic/rules

Basic Rulebook
For casual play and most ordinary situations, you’ll find what you need in the Magic: The Gathering basic rulebook.
Comprehensive Rules
TXT | DOCX | RTF | PDF (Last updated February 1, 2013)
The "Comp. Rules" are the ultimate authority for the Magic game, but you won’t usually need to refer to them except in specific cases or during competitive games. They're not meant to be read from start to finish.

My opinion on this one is that tightly written rules enable both casual and competitive play. I've never seen a reason for why you'd need the opposite to play casually. If you want to change tightly written rules to enable you to do something not within the current system, there is nothing preventing you from doing go that also exists in more sprawling and untested rules.

 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.

I'm of the opinion I don't need/want a games rules to be written for casual social rules. I want a game written for tight competative kill my opponent rules, because i can still play a casual social game with those much easier than I can play a tight games with the looser rule set. Since Warmachine was brought up, the vast majority of what I see is fun casual stuff. Yes you get the competitive tournament games, but then everyone hangs out and chats and goes out to eat afterward. We don't need the game to tell us to be sportsmen. I don't want to play with people who need the game to tell them that. I've seen far more bad sports and rule benders in the beer and pretzels game of Warhammer.

Perhaps the difference is in simulation vs game. Having missed editions 1, 3, 4 and 5, I always read Warhammer 40k as attempting to simulate a battle. In a simulation game it makes sense that not everything will necessarily be covered in the rules - you might run into some rare situation that you can make up rules for on the spot.

Warmachine, though, is very much a game. It has pieces that move in ways that aren't necessarily realistic and interact in ways that are logical in the game rules, but not from the perspective of simulating a battle.

A battle simulation and a tight game doesn't necessarily have to be opposites: one can exist with the other. Even 40k fails on the simulation department: there are rules that won't make sense in a fluff or common sense perspective (i.e. random charge distances). I wouldn't want to compare it to Warmahordes since i haven't played it (though the rules appeal to me, the models don't), so I'm just going to bring up another game: Infinity.

Infinity's rules are much more tight compared to 40k (although there are still a few remaining rules disputes but they do not occur 99.9% of the time). And the rules really simulate the fast-paced special operations firefights very well: when playing it feels more like playing paintball/a FPS where you can't just go gung-ho on the opponent. You need to hug cover like an old friend. You need to have back-ups to watch your back. Even the most highly trained unit can die from a stray bullet f they're not being careful.

Even with making an army list, there's no such thing as an army being "unfluffy". Every combination of army list you can make will make sense in the fluff.

My point is, one can have both and they're not mutually exclusive. A game with well-written rules can be used as a battle simulator and a casual game, as well as a tournament-worthy game.

 heartserenade wrote:
But ideally, wouldn't rules dispute not exist when the rules are written tightly in the first place?

I think rules disputes arise from the psychology of different players.

Case in point: In 4th edition 40K there was a rule about AP1 weapons shooting at Skimmers Moving Fast, which allowed the AP1 weapon to penetrate the Skimmer armour if it rolled equal but not above the AV. Normally, all penetrating hits were reduced to glancing on a Skimmer Moving Fast.

This situation arose because the rule was expressed (in words) as an algebraic equation. There was a huge amount of argument about this rule, even though it was logically and mathematically precise, partly because a lot of players could not accept that a roll of say 3 should be better than a roll of 4, or 6. In their psychology, the dice did not represent a random number generating system whose results could be used for different functions in a game, they represented a scale of effect from bad to good.

Perhaps that is an extreme example but it expresses part of what I want to convey.

Obviously there are examples where a rule is genuinely unclear, and there are examples where people argue about the meaning of a rule because they can get an advantage from a particular interpretation based on the location of a comma, or logic and so on.

People will argue about a rule just for the sake of arguing. There was a long-running argument on DakkaDakka about whether Terminator Marines are equipped with Terminator armour.

A lot of the old-time wargames had very densely written rules, and there was a reaction away from that style of writing.This started to happen in the early 90s.

That's a fair point about the WRG tournaments. I wasn't aware of them. How popular were they?

As someone else said earlier, could it be due to not age but the differing backgrounds? GW was set up to distribute American roleplaying stuff in the UK and Priestly probably worked a lot on RPG things. White Dwarf was originally a RP magazine, after all. If Matt Wilson did come from CCGs, then there's a very different mindset. When I play RPGs, it seems more of a relaxed thing to do, and they're cooperative (until I spam bugbears at my young party, feel my wrath idiot who decided to play a Halfling Knight!). On the other hand, when I played the Pokemon CCG all those years ago when I was a young whippersnapper (even then! I pissed my friends off so much when playing that game, and they also pissed me off) the games felt a lot more competitive.

 infinite_array wrote:

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.

 gunslingerpro wrote:
Ah yes, sweeping generalizations from the uninitiated. How droll.

 Maddermax wrote:
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.

So, since I realized that since I really do know terribly little about this game, I’d better educate myself. To the website!

Found the game description, and the quickstart rules. I’ll hold up my hands – you’re right. There’s certainly no more “hyped-up, ultra-competitive, caffeinated teenager” vibe than there is to 40k, and the rules do look pretty elegant. I’m getting a false impression from the brief flip through the first edition rulebook that I looked at years ago.

I’ll stand by the soap opera comment. It’s the same reason I don’t like LotR. But that’s a background issue rather than a style of play issue. I really do wonder what these rules would be like if transposed to a different setting. Or even just added generic Warcasters.

In return, can some of those who believe that Rick Priestly’s rules are badly written and unclear have a look at the Warmaster rules, available for free from the GW website? Or, indeed, anything to discourage competitive play? I think that’s more of a fair comparison than Warhammer or 40k, which wasn’t so much designed as gradually evolved over decades. I’m going to have a look at them myself, been ages since I read them.

So, does it come down to the way (not tightness or exactitude, but in ethos) the rules are written, or the mindset of those who play them?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok, it appears you can't get the Warmaster rules from the GW site anymore. Idiots. Never mind....

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

As someone else said earlier, could it be due to not age but the differing backgrounds? GW was set up to distribute American roleplaying stuff in the UK and Priestly probably worked a lot on RPG things. White Dwarf was originally a RP magazine, after all. If Matt Wilson did come from CCGs, then there's a very different mindset.

There may be an element of that, and Rick certainly worked on a lot of RPG stuff in the early years at GW. Then again, Privateer's first products were Iron Kingdoms D20 stuff - the miniatures didn't come until a couple of years later. Matt Wilson was still working at WotC as the art director for Magic when the first couple of Witchfire adventures came out.

So, here ar ethe new wrinkles that I am seeing aarond the theories for the differences....

CCG vs. RP Backgrounds
CCGs had very structured and tight systems for their tournament settings since cash prizes maybe on the line. There were clear winners and losers involved. This mindset was brought by the Warmachine designers because that was their previous experience.

Rick came from a world of RPG which is a collaborative gaming experience. Winners and losers are not clearly defined, and the prupose is to keep the story going. Therefore, Rick may have brought this experience to his game design philosophy.

Interesting takes that i had not considered.

Demographic Shifts
Rick grew up in a time when games were different than Matt Wilson at Warmachine. Therefore, the difference wants and needs of these generations maybe reflected in the rules they wrote.

This seems like it maybe a correlary of the "Cultural" piece, but again I'm not convinvced that Cultural/Demographics have much to do with it.

Battle vs. Game
I find this to be a compelling discussion that I would love to hear more about.

When Rick writes rules such as BlackPowder, Pike and Shotte, Bolt Action, etc. he is tryign to create a simulation, and recreate the logic of events and situations that have all ready occurred in the past.

Matt Wilson is creting unit interactions in the context of the rules and to create a game. He is not interrested in simulating events that may have actually happened in the past.

Simulation needs to start the probelm with the answer and work backwards. For example, at Balaclava X happened, so how do I make sure something similar happens in my rules.

Game can look at the problem from the beginning. What mechanics do I want to use, and how will this create an outcome on the tabletop. The outcome has not been pre-determined.

This take makes a lot of sense to me, and helps shed light on why a game designer might choose to follow one philosophy over another.

That would also work to an extent for Warhammer, which started from a position of "I have all these RPG miniatures, how can I fight a battle with them" rather than "I wish to create a wargame with these characteristics, what rules and miniatures do I need to create to make that happen"

Wouldn't it be nice if someone put out rules that weren't one or the other?
Clear rules =/= unfluffy.

You mean like a rules that also had interesting fluff background?

Historicals.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice if someone put out rules that weren't one or the other?
Clear rules =/= unfluffy.

That isn't the discussion. This is a question of the design philosophies of the designers in question, and why they may have these philosophies.

Contrary to some responders belief, this is not a "which is better?" thread. I think both have their merits and drawbacks. I think both methods have

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.

Graphite wrote:
That's not a wargame, it's a soap opera

Who hears this, and thinks of this:



And then has their train of thought deteriorate from there?

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

Graphite wrote:
That's not a wargame, it's a soap opera

Who hears this, and thinks of this:

And then has their train of thought deteriorate from there?

I've heard Stryker's overcharge can lead to Premature Assassination.

EDIT: In all seriousness the use of Warcasters as cementing points for army play styles pretty much means they have to be discrete entities. Characters are probably the most interesting & flavorful way to approach this, at least given the variety Warmachine has with them. It's probably fair to contrast it with systems that allow more for injection of more personal flavor into armies but probably not fair to call it a "Soap Opera". This seems to continue a trend of people using overly dismissive language here. Why?

 Easy E wrote:


CCG vs. RP Backgrounds
CCGs had very structured and tight systems for their tournament settings since cash prizes maybe on the line. There were clear winners and losers involved. This mindset was brought by the Warmachine designers because that was their previous experience.

Rick came from a world of RPG which is a collaborative gaming experience. Winners and losers are not clearly defined, and the prupose is to keep the story going. Therefore, Rick may have brought this experience to his game design philosophy.

Interesting takes that i had not considered.

I was very excited to see one of our fellow Dakkamates was involved in AEG. That's awesome.

I didn't know the folks involved with the Legend of Five Rings CCG were the founders of Privateer Press.

That explains a lot, especially with Warmachine's focus on special characters and their rules.

The Legend of Five Rings CCG was very fluffy, but characters are cards, defined by their rules.

I absolutely agree with you guys the nature of CCGs wasn't that you rolled a die to resolve arguments.

It's just a different format that lead to a different type of culture

Incidentally, the original Legend of 5 Rings RPG system was my favourite. Very simple, but rich.

(And for those that are familiar with it, I played a member of the Mantis Clan).

---

And here's another point. Rick Priestly didn't just bring that RP experience to 40k...he spread it.

He brought on like-minded people, like Jervis Johnson and Andy Chambers. And you see their impact.

Like Necromunda. IIRC, it came a little after 40k 2nd edition, when it became a mature ruleset for wargames.

(Previously, 40k was a collection of rules gathered over many White Dwarfs, it was all over the place, a mess).

40k was very much supposed to be a new direction for GW. It was deliberately less RP, more big wargame.

Then Necromunda came out, with its experience points and units developing over time.

It's like GW saying, "Man, I know we're more wargame now...but we want to bring some RP back."

It's like that RP mentality was still GW's comfort zone, IMHO something they never really want to let go of.

That gives me a fuzzy feeling. I just wish White Dwarf was a little more like a RP magazine, rather than a brochure.

 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.

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 will give you a good answer to this question.. Privateer Press are in sync with the Gaming world of today. By that i mean they understand that other games that people that play Table-top games might like, are focused towards competitive play. Evrything from video games like World of Warcraft, Starcraft, World of Tanks and league of Legends.. its about E-sports and blanced gameplay. The Poker scene has really exploded the last few years on the Internet and its also about Competitive gamplay. Card games like Magic the gathering and others are also focused on competitive gameplay.

Old school Table-top gaming is not something that the younger generations of our world are interested in, not many of them atleast. If its not competitive you get zero braging rights and then why bother doing it? The fun that many people get out of games is there competitive nature. Take that away and you are left with Toy-soldiers that move around a board... it feels lame and old, more like playing with model trains, with a engineer hat on your head.

Bear and pretzel games have zero future in this technological society we live in. It was fun back in the day (70s-80s) but in 2013 the world has moved on.. To bad that some game designers have stagnated and refused to evolve with the times....

Chongara wrote:
. It's probably fair to contrast it with systems that allow more for injection of more personal flavor into armies but probably not fair to call it a "Soap Opera". This seems to continue a trend of people using overly dismissive language here. Why?

Well, in my case it's because I think it's funny. Because Wargames aren't very important, so why not take the Mickey?

The point is, I find the prescriptive, "this is our universe and things shall be thus" way of doing things offputting. And it does to an extent seem to be linked to very precisely defined rules.

 Easy E wrote:
So, here ar ethe new wrinkles that I am seeing aarond the theories for the differences....

CCG vs. RP Backgrounds
CCGs had very structured and tight systems for their tournament settings since cash prizes maybe on the line. There were clear winners and losers involved. This mindset was brought by the Warmachine designers because that was their previous experience.

Rick came from a world of RPG which is a collaborative gaming experience. Winners and losers are not clearly defined, and the prupose is to keep the story going. Therefore, Rick may have brought this experience to his game design philosophy.

Interesting takes that i had not considered.

Demographic Shifts
Rick grew up in a time when games were different than Matt Wilson at Warmachine. Therefore, the difference wants and needs of these generations maybe reflected in the rules they wrote.

This seems like it maybe a correlary of the "Cultural" piece, but again I'm not convinvced that Cultural/Demographics have much to do with it.

Battle vs. Game
I find this to be a compelling discussion that I would love to hear more about.

When Rick writes rules such as BlackPowder, Pike and Shotte, Bolt Action, etc. he is tryign to create a simulation, and recreate the logic of events and situations that have all ready occurred in the past.

Matt Wilson is creting unit interactions in the context of the rules and to create a game. He is not interrested in simulating events that may have actually happened in the past.

Simulation needs to start the probelm with the answer and work backwards. For example, at Balaclava X happened, so how do I make sure something similar happens in my rules.

Game can look at the problem from the beginning. What mechanics do I want to use, and how will this create an outcome on the tabletop. The outcome has not been pre-determined.

This take makes a lot of sense to me, and helps shed light on why a game designer might choose to follow one philosophy over another.

I know some people who like Flight simulator and other games like that... But I know alot more people who like Battlefield and Call of duty.. Wargames should not be simulators. If you want a simulation go play with Model Trains my friend.... RPGs are dying out.. Childrean these days have alot less imagination. What you have to understand that we are OLD, and time has passed us by... If we want the hobby to survive we have to get new blood into it.. And you wont do that doing it the Rick Priestly style.. The Warmachine style is the way of the future... trust me... People also dress up in civil war uniforms in the united states and play out real battles... But it is not something a broader audience has any interest in participating in......


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Graphite wrote:

Chongara wrote:
. It's probably fair to contrast it with systems that allow more for injection of more personal flavor into armies but probably not fair to call it a "Soap Opera". This seems to continue a trend of people using overly dismissive language here. Why?

Well, in my case it's because I think it's funny. Because Wargames aren't very important, so why not take the Mickey?

The point is, I find the prescriptive, "this is our universe and things shall be thus" way of doing things offputting. And it does to an extent seem to be linked to very precisely defined rules.

People make money off wargames, I would say that makes them Important... if the hobby dies out alot of people would be out of a jobb... and I really do feel that the Old guard of game designers in this industry (GW for example) are doing a piss poor jobb of uppdating the rules for the times we live in. The simulation and bear and Pretzel aproche needs to change.. Competetive and well balanced rules are the future of the hobby....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice if someone put out rules that weren't one or the other?
Clear rules =/= unfluffy.

That isn't the discussion. This is a question of the design philosophies of the designers in question, and why they may have these philosophies.

Contrary to some responders belief, this is not a "which is better?" thread. I think both have their merits and drawbacks. I think both methods have

The philosophie is new school vs old school... Back in the day people who played with Ten-soldiers wanted to recrate historical battles, and it was much closer to the Model Train hobby... These days the hole Fantasy thing has become mainstream.. and Mainstream people do not want to live, feel or recrate anything.. They want a balanced game to play and lore and fluff comes second... But some old game-designers who are well past their prime, and maybe should be thinking about retirement still belive that the Old school play style has a hughe following, it does not....

 Nucflash wrote:
Wargames should not be simulators. If you want a simulation go play with Model Trains my friend.... RPGs are dying out.. Childrean these days have alot less imagination. What you have to understand that we are OLD, and time has passed us by... If we want the hobby to survive we have to get new blood into it.. And you wont do that doing it the Rick Priestly style.. The Warmachine style is the way of the future... trust me... People also dress up in civil war uniforms in the united states and play out real battles... But it is not something a broader audience has any interest in participating in......

I can't... how do you... I mean, what is...

Seriously, there's talking out of your ass, and then there's attaching a heavy-metal sound stage to it and turning the volume to 11.

 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.

Yes if you are Old and gray and like to sit on a bench swapping old warstories with your mates. The kidds of today dont want Social events.. they are bombarded by the social media.. they do not need a Table-top wargame to have a reason to socialize... THE WORLD HAS CHANGED... I'ts hard to understand this as you get old I know.. But please try and understand that "social event" was valid reason back in the day.. before the internet, mobilphones, social media, reality shows and all the other things that have totaly changed the world we live in the past 2 decades...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:

 Nucflash wrote:
Wargames should not be simulators. If you want a simulation go play with Model Trains my friend.... RPGs are dying out.. Childrean these days have alot less imagination. What you have to understand that we are OLD, and time has passed us by... If we want the hobby to survive we have to get new blood into it.. And you wont do that doing it the Rick Priestly style.. The Warmachine style is the way of the future... trust me... People also dress up in civil war uniforms in the united states and play out real battles... But it is not something a broader audience has any interest in participating in......

I can't... how do you... I mean, what is...

Seriously, there's talking out of your ass, and then there's attaching a heavy-metal sound stage to it and turning the volume to 11.

The point is! the WORLD is not the same place as it was back in the day when Old dudes like Rick Priestley was the king of game design... The people that like the Bear and pretzel games are 30+ years.. Little kidds want to "head Shoot" people and laugh in their face... If you dont understand this new breed of "gamers", you should not be writing rules in the 21st century