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.

To ensure fairness, rule checking, balancing has been taken into account, and mediate on silly rules or ones that don’t make sense.

Not on any formal or regular basis - but if opponent & I can't agree, "Fred knows a lot; let's ask him & abide by his opinion".

Nope, only generally play with the one friend!

Yes, as host I will often run games. I enjoy playing but there are times due to the number of people involved or scenario desired it's easier to have a referee. The upside is that it allows for for 'fog of war' elements and unusual set-ups.

mrFickle wrote:
To ensure fairness, rule checking, balancing has been taken into account, and mediate on silly rules or ones that don’t make sense.

Quite often. 2 of the guys in my group have been gaming since the 70s when that was 'the done thing'.

We frequently house rule and home brew too and it's quite often one of us envisions a scenario, sets up the rosters, others roll for sides (often 2 v 2) and we have a go. Umpire can make calls, as required as well as implement/script any chaos elements to the game. One example was a players tanks were ordered to leave the board after a certain number of turns (to pinch a potential german breakthrough elsewhere), leaving him just his infantry to try and seize the objective.

You need an umpire to work 'that kind of stuff' fairly and I find it makes for very interesting games. And for us, 'interesting' is just as important as 'balanced'.

We used to on occasion, as much as to give spectator something to do - setting up the board, having the rulebook to hand to look stuff up, etc.

Worked out fine except for one occasion where the ref was on the same tournament team as one player (and ultimately got told by both players that their shenanigans were not appreciated).

No, not really.
Sometimes a 2nd opinion is sought (or voiced) from people we're BSing with while playing.
Sometimes it's headed, sometimes not....

But in general if we cant quickly find the actual answer we just roll a dice to see who's right for the moment. Then we write down the issue & research it properly later.
Happens more early in an edition.
Also happens for a few weeks every time one of these Balance sheets &/or FAQs arrives.

mrFickle wrote:
To ensure fairness, rule checking, balancing has been taken into account, and mediate on silly rules or ones that don’t make sense.

Are you serious? Tabletop isn´t a RPG.

When I was actively gaming in-store, we usually had a third party setup the terrain, and would get an “umpire’s opinion” on any rule oddities.

Back in the RT days, yes. We played it more as the RPG it really was.

Past that only on a few occasions. The guy running the FLGS did a few narrative events, such as having events occur after certain rounds, 3rd party NPC force drop down and attack the nearest target, etc.

 Strg Alt wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
To ensure fairness, rule checking, balancing has been taken into account, and mediate on silly rules or ones that don’t make sense.

Are you serious? Tabletop isn´t a RPG.

If they're having a good time playing that way, does it matter?

GW have just released an updated Battle at the Farm scenario wth rules for 9th ed, which requires a GM. It seems to have gone largley unoticed.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
To ensure fairness, rule checking, balancing has been taken into account, and mediate on silly rules or ones that don’t make sense.

Are you serious? Tabletop isn´t a RPG.

If they're having a good time playing that way, does it matter?

So two guys wanting to play a game of whatever (Blood Bowl, 40K, Necromunda, etc.) would need to ask another guy to come over and watch how they play? This concept is just unreal.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
To ensure fairness, rule checking, balancing has been taken into account, and mediate on silly rules or ones that don’t make sense.

Are you serious? Tabletop isn´t a RPG.

If they're having a good time playing that way, does it matter?

So two guys wanting to play a game of whatever (Blood Bowl, 40K, Necromunda, etc.) would need to ask another guy to come over and watch how they play? This concept is just unreal.

I do think 40k and other GW Products should be better designed.

But if other people have fun as a trio of players, two competitors and a GM... That's completely fine.

 Strg Alt wrote:
So two guys wanting to play a game of whatever (Blood Bowl, 40K, Necromunda, etc.) would need to ask another guy to come over and watch how they play? This concept is just unreal.

Not required, but there are three of you on the day then why not.

And if you've read any of the oldhammer threads that bring up disagreements over things like vehicle facing, TLoS, and blast markers in older editions a third party can be a great way of increasing game speed.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
To ensure fairness, rule checking, balancing has been taken into account, and mediate on silly rules or ones that don’t make sense.

Are you serious? Tabletop isn´t a RPG.

If they're having a good time playing that way, does it matter?

So two guys wanting to play a game of whatever (Blood Bowl, 40K, Necromunda, etc.) would need to ask another guy to come over and watch how they play? This concept is just unreal.

Nobody tell this guy how 40K started…

Our group often has two playing, one hanging out and watching/adjudicating/advising. It’s not an ‘unreal’ concept to hang out with friends and share your hobby!

not really but a couple of us do happen to read the rules more in depth then the rest of our gaming group so we end up getting roped into mini officiating games. Not out of any type of distrust or people trying to cheat but because both parties want to make sure they are playing the game correctly and they know the members that are better with the rules

Asmodios wrote:
not really but a couple of us do happen to read the rules more in depth then the rest of our gaming group so we end up getting roped into mini officiating games. Not out of any type of distrust or people trying to cheat but because both parties want to make sure they are playing the game correctly and they know the members that are better with the rules

I'm that player at my local GW.

I know the rules real well, and one of the managers (who is an AWESOME GUY) isn't the most rules-savvy, so if I'm there and someone asks him a rules question, he'll usually ask me.

Yeah, for measuring tricky things, ruling on weird rules or setting up terrain.

I think asking the old guys is a terrible idea, my experience has been that they don't have a clue what they're talking about and haven't even read the most recent rulebook, they're just coasting on absorbed knowledge and previous editions. Then they get pissy when they're contradicted.

Of course, some of them are just trying to be nice and sometimes they're kind of forced into the role when someone asks them, but they should just be humble and say they're not sure unless they actually are an expert on the subject.

I try to always say to newbs that it's okay to contradict me and if I correct someone on something they're doing wrong and they say they learned it from someone else I tell them we should look it up to be sure even if I know what that other guy told them was total BS.

The best thing to do in my opinion is to ask in a public forum with lots of people, if someone says something wrong they'll usually be corrected. I've said things that have been wrong or might have been wrong and it's nice to be corrected so you don't misinform people assuming the correction is made without any personal attacks.

 Strg Alt wrote:


So two guys wanting to play a game of whatever (Blood Bowl, 40K, Necromunda, etc.) would need to ask another guy to come over and watch how they play? This concept is just unreal.

Why? Its Not really 'unreal' at all.

Necromunda, and campaign games in particular benefit enormously from having a neutral third party. A neutral player can expand a game - arbitrating a game, controlling the scenarios and 'hidden' elements - adding elements of fog of war as well as game aspects outside the control of the players makes for vert intersting games in my experience etc.

It's more or less still the 'done thing' in an awful lot of historical games and game systems and historically, having an umpire involved in wargames was the done thing. As I've alluded, 2 of the guys I play with have been wargaming since the 70s. It's a perfectly 'normal' thing.

What you are referring to with 2 people playing 'solo' is actually a relatively recent thing in the history of wargames.

Iwas readimg an interesting article in 'wargames illustrated' a few months back - apparently modern rpg's evolved out of historical wargames - hence the games master. Worth a read if you can dig it up.

I have done, both played in such and also acted as the GM, usually for scenarios that require it though - hidden deployment & movement, hidden objectives and similar more than "two armies met and for reasons unspecified had a bad day"

40k started out semi requiring a GM and appeared to be written with one being there in mind, it can still benefit, partly for unclear rules partly to apply the clue bat where needed and mostly because it can add an extra dimension to a game.

several rulesets bring in third parties to the game, the farmer with his rifle, the angry natives etc - its better when such have an actual third party playing them, not trying to win but with their own motivations

worth also noting a GM is not quite the same as a referee, one makes the rules the other only sees them applied properly

most of GWs games are not tightly written enough to avoid the need for a neutral third party to help, my personal take when questions come up the answer to which is unclear is a mix of "which is funnier" and "its a war game, what leads to an explosion?"

leopard wrote:
I have done, both played in such and also acted as the GM, usually for scenarios that require it though - hidden deployment & movement, hidden objectives and similar more than "two armies met and for reasons unspecified had a bad day"

'Only the GM knew where the mines were buried'.

One of our most memorable gm-led games was a monte-casino like game of flames of war. American infantry and armour attacking a german 'castle'.

Both players were given flawed/incomplete intelligence on what the other player was bringing.

The gm controlled the reveal for the 2 hidden tiger tanks and while the defender knew he had them, the attacker didn't.
the gm had also scripted that on a specific turn, unknown to the anerican player, all his armour was to be recalled (to deal with a German breakthrough elsewhere) leaving him to complete the mission only with infantry.

As it was he timed the recall and organised the rostets perfectly and it literqlly came down to a nailbiting final infantry charge to clear the last defenders (cant remember if it succeeded). Hidden elements like this often make for fantastic games. I've learned often the best games are the ones that aren't in a perfectly controllable environment.

Deadnight 808325 11474356 wrote:

As it was he timed the recall and organised the rostets perfectly and it literqlly came down to a nailbiting final infantry charge to clear the last defenders (cant remember if it succeeded). Hidden elements like this often make for fantastic games. I've learned often the best games are the ones that aren't in a perfectly controllable environment.

But that is a thing you can do only one time, and it requires a large model collection , and the opponent to be okey with it. In a normal game where you are expecting to get the same avarge results over a set of 100-150 games, an element where a thing can be depeneded on how well the judge likes or knows one of the players can end in very bad expiriance. It already happens in events, even on highest tables in end of tournaments, where judges allow people to do stuff, they would not allow to people they don't like or don't know.

The more people, the more interactions there are, the more problem there are. There is already enough non game related stuff in 2 players games to intreduced a third person to it.

Plus the changes can be stupid. If the judge decides to remove lets say your anti tank or fast moving unit, and those are the core of your army around which GW as company build your army, why play from turn 2 ownards. I have seen what happens in store events when random effects get added. Sudden battle on a minefield and the infantry army is taking damage each movment and assault phase, while the skimer army is just zipping around the board, because it gets to ignore the whole set of special rules.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
To ensure fairness, rule checking, balancing has been taken into account, and mediate on silly rules or ones that don’t make sense.

Are you serious? Tabletop isn´t a RPG.

If they're having a good time playing that way, does it matter?

So two guys wanting to play a game of whatever (Blood Bowl, 40K, Necromunda, etc.) would need to ask another guy to come over and watch how they play? This concept is just unreal.

For Necromunda, in a campaign? I’d say it’s essential. My preference when running a Necromunda Campaign is to not have a Gang myself, so as well as being focussed on the actual running, I can adjudicate rules oddities without fear nor favour, letting the games continue apace. If I want to roll some bones, I can do NPC stuff (like control a Zombie horde, Beastie infestation or Enforcers), particularly if we’ve an odd number of players, or someone had to drop out of a game at short notice.

Kind of the same for Blood Bowl where you have a League Commissioner.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
To ensure fairness, rule checking, balancing has been taken into account, and mediate on silly rules or ones that don’t make sense.

Are you serious? Tabletop isn´t a RPG.

If they're having a good time playing that way, does it matter?

So two guys wanting to play a game of whatever (Blood Bowl, 40K, Necromunda, etc.) would need to ask another guy to come over and watch how they play? This concept is just unreal.

Nobody tell this guy how 40K started…

Our group often has two playing, one hanging out and watching/adjudicating/advising. It’s not an ‘unreal’ concept to hang out with friends and share your hobby!

And our group deemed it worthwhile to let a potential third player to even JOIN the game instead of merely watching. MIND-BLOWN!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:


So two guys wanting to play a game of whatever (Blood Bowl, 40K, Necromunda, etc.) would need to ask another guy to come over and watch how they play? This concept is just unreal.

Why? Its Not really 'unreal' at all.

Necromunda, and campaign games in particular benefit enormously from having a neutral third party. A neutral player can expand a game - arbitrating a game, controlling the scenarios and 'hidden' elements - adding elements of fog of war as well as game aspects outside the control of the players makes for vert intersting games in my experience etc.

It's more or less still the 'done thing' in an awful lot of historical games and game systems and historically, having an umpire involved in wargames was the done thing. As I've alluded, 2 of the guys I play with have been wargaming since the 70s. It's a perfectly 'normal' thing.

What you are referring to with 2 people playing 'solo' is actually a relatively recent thing in the history of wargames.

Iwas readimg an interesting article in 'wargames illustrated' a few months back - apparently modern rpg's evolved out of historical wargames - hence the games master. Worth a read if you can dig it up.

Recent? We did this in the 90s.

And two players playing against each other is not considered solo-play.

Modern RPGs evolved out of historical wargames? Interesting... So people like Gary Gygax read about the Franco-Prussian (1870-1871) involving two million soldiers and condensed it into a dungeon crawl with just six guys hunting for gold and mugging monsters. Yeah, seems plausible and would involve the same mechanics.

Karol wrote:

But that is a thing you can do only one time,

For each game? Maybe.

But You can play a different scenario every time. And change the rostered forces. We've been doing this for ten years now karol and have always managed to make every game unique.

Karol wrote:

and it requires a large model collection

Not necessarily - Depends on the game. We've done lots of things like this with infinity, for example and while I have 2 factions, p and m have maybe 2 dozen models between them.

Karol wrote:

and the opponent to be okey with it.

Clearly, we were. That's why we choose to play this way.

You'd be surprised how many folks outside of the flgs play this way. Its pretty standard fare for historicals.

Karol wrote:
In a normal game where you are expecting to get the same avarge results over a set of 100-150 games, an element where a thing can be depeneded on how well the judge likes or knows one of the players can end in very bad expiriance. It already happens in events, even on highest tables in end of tournaments, where judges allow people to do stuff, they would not allow to people they don't like or don't know.
.

Good thing we know each other very well then since we've been playing together for 10 years!

And why would I construct a scenario to punish one of my friends? Or play favourites with one at the expense of another? This isn't your thunderdome where we play favourites, we actually value each other and try to be nice to each other and ensure everyone has a good time.

Karol wrote:
The more people, the more interactions there are, the more problem there are. There is already enough non game related stuff in 2 players games to intreduced a third person to it.

Bunk. We've managed it for ten years, often with 2-3 players a side. Historically speaking, this is how wargames operated and even currently its quite common in historicals.

2-plsyer 'pick up and play' games are the lowest common denominator. A third player allows us to expand on what a game can 'do'. More work? Sure. More chat? Sure. More fun? In my experience- absolutely.

If you're interested, there was another article in wargames illustrated recently based on the 1798 battle of New Ross in Ireland. Gm designed the game to be 'free form' in what the players could try and do. Worth a read to see the thinking and psychology behind the game construction.

Karol wrote:
Plus the changes can be stupid. If the judge decides to remove lets say your anti tank or fast moving unit, and those are the core of your army around which GW as company build your army, why play from turn 2 ownards. I have seen what happens in store events when random effects get added. Sudden battle on a minefield and the infantry army is taking damage each movment and assault phase, while the skimer army is just zipping around the board, because it gets to ignore the whole set of special rules.

These are not 'store events'. Part of this kind of 'game building' is constructing suitable forces for the scenario in the first place, karol. And suitable effects for the scenario. Context is key. That's part of the umpire/gm's job- depending on circumstances/experience this can be a collaboration or a gm's call.

We've often done it - sitting around, discussing ideas for a scenario and how it would/could work, come to a consensus and implement it in a scenario down the line.

Strg Alt wrote:
Recent? We did this in the 90s.

Wargames have been played a lot longer than 'the 90s'. Hence 'relatively'.

Strg Alt wrote:
And two players playing against each other is not considered solo-play.

Msybe a poor use of the word - I don't mean solo-play as in 2 people each playing on their lonesomes, I used solo in the context of 2 people playing a game 'independent of other individuals'. Maybe 'stand-alone' is a better term?

Strg Alt wrote:
Modern RPGs evolved out of historical wargames? Interesting... So people like Gary Gygax read about the Franco-Prussian (1870-1871) involving two million soldiers and condensed it into a dungeon crawl with just six guys hunting for gold and mugging monsters. Yeah, seems plausible and would involve the same mechanics.

Hehe, fair. That is a hilarious image. But don't mock, friend. Wargames and rpg's share a hell of a lot of their dna.

Like I said, it was all in the article in wargames illustrated. Worth a read.

It wasn't so much gygax reading about the franco-russian war and turning it into a dungeon crawl as much as it was that he was involved with a wargaming community where he experienced players playing large scale battles, valuing the storytelling/world building, the narrative, how folks were bringing their armies and their worlds 'to life' and 'roleplaying' out as leaders 'in character'. The article specifically brought up examples like 2 players in a mass battle disagreeing over tactics and then 'having a duel' to resolve it as that's what the officers would have done. Can't recall if dress-up was a part of it but I'm sure someone would have worn an officers hat too. All of this supposedly contributed to the idea of what 'roleplaying' was, and what roleplaying could be/should be for gygax and fed into what he later did. Now I doubt it was the only source or contributing element but it played a role.

Like i said- the article was worth a read. I'll ask my mate what the issue number was and you can look it up if you're interested.

Yes please re issue number. I agree with your whole post but the article does sound fascinating!

 Strg Alt wrote:

Modern RPGs evolved out of historical wargames? Interesting... So people like Gary Gygax read about the Franco-Prussian (1870-1871) involving two million soldiers and condensed it into a dungeon crawl with just six guys hunting for gold and mugging monsters. Yeah, seems plausible and would involve the same mechanics.

Short answer? Yes.
In the early 1970s D&D evolved out of Historical (and fantasy - go look up a game called Chainmail) wargaming. And every other RPG then evolved out of D&D as once someone succeeds everyone else tries to get in on the action. So yes.

Long answer? You can Google the history of D&D for the longer version.

 Strg Alt wrote:
Modern RPGs evolved out of historical wargames? Interesting... So people like Gary Gygax read about the Franco-Prussian (1870-1871) involving two million soldiers and condensed it into a dungeon crawl with just six guys hunting for gold and mugging monsters. Yeah, seems plausible and would involve the same mechanics.

Yes, it's literally what happened. Chainmail was the predecessor to D&D and was a supplement to add magic and fantasy heroes to a standard wargame. It then evolved into a separate rule set for just the hero parts, eventually becoming the classic D&D concept.

It's a pretty silly comparison though, with no relevance beyond historical curiosity. Modern wargaming doesn't need or benefit from an additional player standing around "helping" the players, nor are the games designed to account for DM intervention. And I don't think I've ever seen anyone play a game like 40k with a DM or referee. Who is willing to spend their precious gaming time passively watching other people play the game just in case they have a rule question? That seems incredibly boring and I can't imagine anyone ever doing it outside of teaching newbies how to play.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Modern wargaming doesn't need or benefit from an additional player standing around "helping" the players, nor are the games designed to account for DM intervention. And I don't think I've ever seen anyone play a game like 40k with a DM or referee. Who is willing to spend their precious gaming time passively watching other people play the game just in case they have a rule question? That seems incredibly boring and I can't imagine anyone ever doing it outside of teaching newbies how to play.

Hard disagree.

Campaign games like necromunda benefit enormously from having a third party controlling things. Games with an active 'fog of war' hidden elements, or which are more 'free form' often benefit from a third party having a role. I've been involved in all 3. Theres more to gaming than '2000pts, blind-independently conceived lists/competitive list-building-for-advantage' pick-up/tournament games and 'defaulting' to a very narrow expression of game types/missions/scenarios. 'Modern' =/= 'better'. Dont mistake me - These types of games are fine, theres nothing inherently wrong with those games but that kind of gaming is essentially the 'lowest common denominator' for the most part. Its nice to step out of that mode of play. See my previous examples.

You might not have seen them but they're pretty common in other gaming spheres eg historical gaming and the garage scene. Remember, Just because something isn't technically 'needed' doesn't mean there isn't a use for it or an advantage for using it somewhere. You don't need a radio in the car or heated seats for example but it's bloody handy to have them.

As to saying no one would spend their gaming time passively watching other people play - did you skip over or maybe miss what Id written above? (In fairness my walls of text are a thing :p)
see my experience. My group has been playing like this, often with a gm for 10 years now. In my experience, its quite common in the garage scene, historicals and amongst the older generation of wargamers. And for what it's worth I've been in plenty flgs's where folks stood by watching the games (or not!) and chatting - for any number of reasons.

its not 'passively watching other people play'. The gm is involved. Maybe not as a player but They're not passive. And if they're actively playing a side it kind of ruins the notion of impartiality, eh?

it's not boring either. You dont have to be actively 'playing' a game to enjoy it, or to enjoy the company of those actually playing it. Saying this is an entirely subjective pov.youre entitled to your pov, by sll means - but its not a universal 'truth'. Sometimes one of us just doesn't want to play and is happy to 'sit out'. Sometimes one of us wants to run or direct a scenario rather than 'play it out'. Sometimes it's nice to watch a game and sometimes it's nice to see how other people react to 'your' game. None of this is 'badwrongfun' and I'd recommend giving it a go, provided you have the right people.