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 think that there will always be a place for High Fantasy.

What exactly that is defined as is a different story.

A great deal of the problem is that many Gamers have been spoon fed a specific narrative and game-mechanic that limits a great deal of the possibilities, and explorations of the genre.

Currently, there has been a significant move toward skirmish styled games (which WHFB, and Kings of War technically are, given the base assumptions in the games). We see this in Games like SAGA, where Dark Age warfare is reduced to small Viking Raids of a Single or a Couple of Longship crews fighting against the inhabitants of a small settlement. Or the new Conan game, which is largely small groups of Hyborians against other small groups of Hyborians.

In the past few years, there has been little that accurately portrays large scale warfare in High Fantasy Settings, which uses very different assumptions than a skirmish game. There are significant differences in the roles of individuals in a game that focuses upon unit behavior, and a game that focuses upon the roles of individuals.

Much of this looks to be the result of people's desires to see Heroic Actions sway events on the tabletop; where a single hero can save the day.

And there is the difficulty of integrating Magic into these settings.

In Hyboria, in particular, there were/are magicians who can lay waste to entire armies. These are strategic weapons, and not tactical tabletop weapons, which is what most players seem to want to make out of their magicians.

Yet a tactical Magician just turns what should be ancient or medieval warfare into modern, mechanized combat, as a small number of tactical magicians (let us say "20") is pretty much no different than a modern day Platoon of mechanized Soldiers. Both have what you might call "Ammunition" limitations, but both perform essentially the same role.

And a platoon of mechanized soldiers would be the ruin of most ancient or medieval armies. Thus a contradiction arises in the High Fantasy games.

This is probably why we are seeing such a rise in the Steampunk genre, where Magicians are essentially on par with the more advanced weapons available (firearms).

All of the Why's and such are very interesting to explore.

But they do not really get at whether a High Fantasy Setting would be as viable today as it would have been in 1979/80 - 1990.

Look at Ral Partha's Chaos Wars Kickstarter.

It is a line of High Fantasy miniatures, and rules based upon those miniatures, which re-introduces Mass Combat in a High Fantasy setting. And there seems to be a sizable support for it.

This is relevant, because, one thing I have noticed is that almost ANY game will be a success if it is supported at conventions with an attractive table full of miniatures, and if those miniatures are easily available to the public.

This has basically been why GW succeeded so well where many other miniature and game companies have failed. Mantic Games has adopted the same model, with almost equal success.

Putting out rules and attractive miniatures that players see used.

Such a thing requires a substantial investment to get demonstration games put on at as many major Conventions as possible, but when players see table after table, at subsequent conventions, of beautiful miniatures, then they become attracted to the application (the game used) of those miniatures.

High Fantasy will be with us, and hopefully with the return of Ral Partha's Tom Meier centered lines (their most popular lines ever), and with other market players (companies) hoping to piggy-back upon similar lines, I think we will see a rise of High Fantasy games in the future.

MB

There already ARE existing rules sets for Fantasy that provide these things.

They are just not typically looked at by the general gaming population due to the conservative nature of most gamers with regards to rules.

For Fantasy, as has already been pointed out, we can begin with HotT (Hoards of the Things), which is based off of DBA (De Bellis Antiquitatus).

Yes, it is largely abstract, which turns off many players who wish detailed narratives written up for every action and spell in a game, when the effects of that action or spell in the game about to such limited and constrained effects (producing a -1/-2/-3/etc. on the next die roll, or to morale, or to move, etc...).

Then one step above HotT there is DBF (De Bellis Fantasticatus), which is based upon another WRG publication, intended for more detailed play and larger numbers of miniatures on the table, DBMM (De Bellis Magister Millitum). It includes all of the base troops in DBA/HotT, yet includes "Grades" to those troops:

• Superior (S)
• Ordinary (O)
• Inferior (I)
• Fast (F)
• Exception (X)

It also includes a very basic morale system (sort of).

And, then doing up the ladder from there is Hoplon and its French rip-off L'Art de le Guerre. The former I am more familiar with, as one of the playtesters for the historical rules, and as the author of the fantasy supplement(s).

It includes all of the troop types from DBMM/HotT, and it increases the level of detail (decreasing abstraction, so the game is LESS ABSTRACTED) by making "grade" SOLELY "Morale" (Superior (S), Ordinary (O), & Inferior (I)), and then including other qualities or what the original author called "Distinctives" (the Fantasy Version calls them "Characteristics and Qualities"), which describe the amount of armor worn (Extra-Heavy (Hx), Heavy (H), normal (no symbol is used), and Vulnerable (V)), being Faster than normal (F), being Professional or Untrained Troops (Pro or U).

In addition it describes the troops role: solely Melee "Shock," or solely shooting "Missile" troops, or if they are dual-role (double-armed) and primarily shock (shock/missile) or primarily shooting (missile/shock). And if the troops have any additional behavior or equipment (such as additional special weapons, such as Cavalry Lances, Heavy Weapons such as big maces or pole arms, what type of missile-weapons, being able to perform maneuvers such as the Parthian or Skythian Shot, or fighting in wedge, shield wall; spears able to attack in depth on the run like Hoplites; or infantry able to fight like Roman Legionaires swapping ranks to avoid morale reduction).

Oh! And the game uses units, unlike DBMM/HotT/DBA, which tends to be more realistic. And the game has variable quality generals and stratagems.

BUT... Because it is not put out in a glossy, slickly produced format, gamers tend to avoid it. Or, because it doesn't have a big name behind it, gamers tend to avoid it (often buying a complete rip-off of the game instead, simply because it is better produced). Or, because there is not a miniatures line dedicated specifically to it, gamers tend to avoid it.

MB

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Astonishingly the various WRG games (DBA, HoTT, etc.) are written by some of the biggest names in wargaming, only from the historical side which is often a closed book to people who started through GW games.

r

Which is a tragedy.

I BEGAN playing Fantasy Miniatures by using WRG's 3000BC - 1400AD Ancients and Medieval Rules, 5th Ed. in 1979.

I had to fight like a rabid dog against the "king" of the fantasy miniatures gaming crowd in Dallas Texas at the time (a guy by the name of Gordon Griffith, who was an excellent organizer of Conventions - he began the Gaming Convention scene in Texas, pretty much), who refused to consider that Fantasy Miniatures were essentially Ancients and Medieval miniatures with a few additional rules for heroic actions and for magic.

I managed to only get a couple of people involved.

And when Warhammer came out, I could not even get people to play it for a long time.

But, since then, I have discovered how to get people to play games:

Miniatures. Well painted miniatures. And prizes or "gifts" for people who try out the game.

I am determined to get the current rules we are working on (a variant of HotT and DBMM, which re-introduces finer details of moral and organization into the rules, by lifting some of the better parts of Warmaster, and the older WRG games, such as unit organization) to be promoted well enough to see them adopted.

We have made them such that existing Warhammer Armies can easily be used, and older Ancients and Medieval Armies (based for DBMM, or other Ancients rules) can be used (we put a basic 20mm frontage per figure, but use elements as the basis for casualties, so there will be some upwards variation of figure frontage from there). It uses "elements" as the basing standard, and an "element" has an 80mm frontage, to accommodate the traditional WRG element basing standards (4 figures for all Heavy Infantry and Regular Medium Infantry, or for Extra Heavy Cataphract Cavalry/Mounted; 3 figures for Irregular Medium Infantry or Loose Order Heavy Infantry, and for all "normal" Cavalry; and two figures per element for Light Troops of all kinds, foot or mounted) while still using the larger typical 28mm/30mm figures one finds today.

And the rules require very few special rules to accommodate for heroes or magicians. All of the effects of these tend to be accounted for in already existing rules, save for the very rare or very powerful.

One thing I am trying to change is the tendency toward individually mounted figures for mass combat.

People CLAIM they do this so that they can use their mass combat figures individually for RPG's or skirmish gaming, but I have seen VERY FEW PEOPLE ACTUALLY do this; only seeing a few exceptions to the rule in scattered cases here and there.

ALSO, with the figures I am sculpting, I am trying to get skirmish gaming moved to a larger scale than even 30mm (either 40mm or the 58mm that are common among some SAGA players).

The larger scale for Skirmish just looks better and draws in players better.

Ultimately, I am trying to play on basic psychology, where players tend to be drawn toward things that look like what they expect, where Mass Combat looks like mass combat, and a Skrimish Game looks like a skirmish game; the former giving a God's Eye View, and the letter drawing you into the Tabletop itself.

High Fantasy still has a bright future, and historical rules sets are a part of that future. It will just take the proper investment in teaching gamers the distinctions and similarities between the two.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JamesY wrote:
I have tried DBA and really really couldn't get into it. I have played dark ages games with lotr rules which works really well, and I never thought I'd play Napoleonic games until drums and shakos, which is another great ganesha game. I don't mind historical games, but prefer fantasy.

This is not surprising.

DBA itself is a game that is trying to be too many things at once. The same thing with HotT (The Fantasy Variant, named Hoards of the Things).

MOST fantasy players I have found wish for more detail in their games than are present in DBA/HotT.

The basic mechanisms for DBA/HotT are sound, but the author of the basic system is a HUGE SNOB AND STUCK-UP ELITIST, who is a patronizing git when it comes to Fantasy games (or even to Historical).

The games are intended to simulate Mass Combat, but with only 12 elements (playing pieces), most people tend to prefer something with a little more flavor to it. And it really takes a convention setting with a campaign game to really understand what DBA/HotT are intended for.

As for LotR being an excellent Dark Ages game. . . It would be, wouldn't it, since this is essentially what other Dark Ages Skirmish games have done (SAGA, and Dux Brittanorum).

But there is still a gap in a Historical Game that is Mass Combat, that uses the mechanisms of HotT/DBA, yet includes the level of detail (less abstraction) that DBA/HotT discard. A game where players put not just 30 - 48 figures on the table (48 figures is the maximum number of figures in a DBA game) in 12 elements. But, rather. . . . .

They put 60 - 300 elements on the table, representing 150 - 600 figures (my largest army currently being built for a Middle-earth setting is 680 figures total, mostly Moria Goblins, but also with some Mordor Orcs, and Warg-Riders. And it is based upon 280 elements - most of my Hyboria Armies will have about 300 figures in them).

The current trend seems to be toward Skirmish, given that the Mass Combat games have failed so badly (War of the Rings being one example - it is a horrible game, when compared to Warmaster, even), and that the Fantasy Rules writers have known so very little about Historical Warfare in general (when Warmaster Historical came out, I had to communicate to Rick Preistly areas where various troop types did interact and support each other through history, eventually leading to three new rules for troop support. The only one I still recall is Psiloi/Light Infantry being able to support Cavalry as the Ancient Spanish Caetrati did, or the Ancient Greeks did).

Hopefully, we will begin to see more attention given to mass combat rules that more accurately portray the period combat, while giving voice to fantasy elements within them.

MB



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

 theHandofGork wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Grimdark has none of that. It's a relentlessly and brutally dark environment, almost to the point of self satire. Don't get me wrong, a little darkness is a good thing. But GrimDark is something completely other.

GW's Grimdark really was a satire when it started. It was only taken seriously when the "old guard" of authors and designers moved on.

I'm not sure it was completely satire, more of pastiche. There was an element of parody to it, but it was good hearted.

The late 80s were around the time when pop culture got dark. Bronze Age comics got dark with Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, and Sandman. Superhero movies got dark. Star Wars gave way to the Aliens franchise and Blade Runner. so there was probably a bit of a culture backlash in their setting. But.. kind of like Spinal Tap, while it's silly to just "turn it up to 11," it was also really well done and done with love.

Either way, 2nd edition did usher in more of a pure grimdark, compared to Rogue Trader which had more of a fading glory, used universe feel. The tagline even changed. Rogue trader's tagline was "In the nightmare future of the 41st millennium there is no time for peace. No respite, no forgiveness. There is only war." Nightmare became Grim Darkness in 2nd edition.

The Authors of the original 40K were influenced by (and employed) the writers at 2000AD, where comic strips like Torquemada the God, or Nemesis the Warlock, which had a VERY DEEP CONNECTION to the then rising Goth and older Punk Scenes informed 40K's design aesthetic (there are even issues of 2000AD, which had episodes of Torquemada or Nemesis done using people from the Local London Goth Scene - I had friends who were in that issue).

Look at the original Eldar. Their design aesthetic was taken straight from King's Road Punk and Goth.

MB

I was just writing the Introduction to the Fantasy Version of a Historical Set of rules.

And while doing so, was looking at the various Fantasy sets published since the 1970s, and the divide between Fantasy and Historical miniatures.

In the 1970s, the distinction arose between Fantasy Miniatures, and Historical due to Role Playing Games, which focused upon individuals, contrasted to the historical gamers who focused upon Units of men as the agent or actor in the game.

And that the Divide tended to grow through the 1980s, despite the introduction of games like Warhammer Fantasy Battles, or Heritage's abysmal Warlord (Anyone who is curious, Warlord's rules used to be less than one page in length). Chainmail and a few other games did try to make a difference (such as the AD&D Fantasy Battles System, but they largely languished compared to other, later systems.

But, overall, Historical Miniatures players (and rules designers, dominated by ONE author, who largely still dominates that genre) saw Fantasy miniatures games as infantile, and childish, not worthy of serious consideration, while Fantasy Miniatures Players tended to reject Historical Gaming as snobbish and elitist (because that one rules author WAS/IS Snobbish and Elitist, going out of his way to write opaque and convoluted rules, which are now have an eponymous word to refer to any rules writing that is unnecessarily complicated and opaque).

This led to the FEW attempts by Historical Rules Writers to produce Fantasy Sets to be shallow, and lacking in any real detail, or seeming understanding of the Fantasy Worlds involved.

The rules created (such as WRG's first attempt at "Fantasy Rules" as an addendum in the back of 3000BC - 1250AD, 5th Edition, or their later Hoards of the Things treat all fantasy types as being monolithic entities: all dwarves are identical, all elves are identical, all Goblins/Orcs are identical, etc.).

All real flavor was "abstracted away."

Conversely, the Fantasy writers tripped all over themselves to add back in this flavor, but their overall ignorance of WHY certain things were done in Historical Miniatures Games, or the ignorance of History in general, led to games that only minimally represented actual warfare of this type (WHFB and Warmaster being the most notorious instances of this). The former's focus upon individual characters, and individually mounted miniatures led to an over-emphasis upon the behavior of individuals, while paying lip-service to units (which behaved nothing at all like the accounts we find in history), while the latter moved the focus too far back toward units, while removing any differentiation between the units (not all units in armies occupy the same space on the ground). This is important, because it is an aspect of Fantasy Miniature's overall failure to produce a game that accurately incorporated the historical behavior of the different types of troops: the refusal to set a ground and time scale causes aberrations at all levels of play.

Some newer game designers are attempting to confront these issues. Kings of War TRIES to address them, but still suffers from being overly attached to WHFB.

Madan Mitra also made a valiant attempt to create a Fantasy System out of DBM (a larger scale historical rules set that had less "abstraction" - i.e. More detail) with his creation of De Bellis Fantasticus (DBF) in the mid-1990s, but ultimately, even this did not include enough detail.

FINALLY, though, we are seeing Historical Rules Systems that DO contain enough detail to make a decent set of Mass Combat Fantasy rules. And, I am not talking about the Skirmish level stuff, like Hail Caesar, or SAGA. I am talking about games like L'Art de la Guerre (itself a rip-off of a Greek Historical set of rules by the name of Hoplon), which place an emphasis upon the actions of the unit, yet leave open the opportunity for heroic, individual actions, AND contain enough granular detail for the troops to be able to apply the rules, without modification to the majority of all Fantasy Troop types we typically see in Fantasy Worlds. Some modification of these rules will be required to include ALL Fantasy Troop Types, but the work required is minimal.

We are, in other words, finally seeing enough overlap between Historical Miniatures Gamers, and Fantasy Miniatures Gamers to see the development of a set of rules for Fantasy that recognizes that just because it is "fantasy" doesn't mean you can just make everything up (rules for the various fantasy worlds do exist, this is what gives them the internal consistency which makes them attractive), and that just because a set of rules is "Historical" does not mean that it is elitist or snobbish to recognize their applicability to Fantasy Worlds.

I would love to see another division between these two worlds fall:

Basing standards.

Games Workshop went out of their way (I actually had a conversation with Bryan Ansell about this in 1985, about why they were pushing for bases on their miniatures that did not conform to the traditional basing standards for existing games: he said that he wanted to drive a wedge between them, to force the adoption of Citadel's miniatures for a game over other's miniatures) to establish basing standards that deviate from all other existing standards (Warmaster ALMOST being an exception).

With the increased size of 28mm/30mm miniatures, many in the Historical Miniatures community are tiring of the WRG standard for that scale (which forces either a change in miniature frontage, or a change in the standards of miniatures per frontage on a base).

If a game was to come along that established a more common standard, between both Historical and Fantasy miniatures, I think that would be a win.

MB