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.
2013/10/15 22:18:44
Subject: Re:So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
Hmm, no. I cannot in good conscience agree with that.
Lets be clear (ha, pun) on something.
clear rules are just that: clear rules.
Spoiler:
Playing 'competitively', and playing 'casually' are attitudes. Not lists. Funnily enough, i regard the community itself as partially to blame for the misnomer that 'competitive' and 'casual' are lists, or games, rather than the aforementioned attitude. warmachine is for competitive WAACers, powergaming is for WAACers, and 'fun' gaming is somehow seen as something different. Its funny. you can play warmachine casually just as easily as you can competitively. its all in the mindset, and what you want out of it.
However, i think this touches on a deeper issue i don't see many people raise. Sportsmanship. Its funny. In the physical world of sports, the general attitude towards sportsmanship involves (a) playing fair, (b) giving it your absolute all, and (c) after this, may the best man win. winning, and the desire to win, and the act of pushing yourself to be the very best are encouraged, seen as healthy, and lauded. Compare that to wargaming (and the 40k community is particularly guilty of this), and this whole sportsmanship idea goes out the window, to be replaced by "you cant do your best. you need to power down. dont give it your absolute all". Sometimes i get the impression the very act of winning, or even worse, an attitude of wanting to win is at best, frowned upon, and normally seen as something negative and something 'bad'. its almost like you have to apologise to your opponent for beating them, and that too often, sportsmanship is reduced from "do your very best" to "wear kid gloves, be gentle and hold their hand all the way through". Anyone else ever feel that way?
i think its interesting, because ive actually been on both sides of the fence. I think a lot of us would be familiar with being at the bottom of the social ladder in school. few friends, no girlfriends, and the 'popular' crowd look down on us. heck, that was me in school, i'd wager a good bet a large percentage of folks here would be, or would have been in the same boat. We were seen as 'losers', and maybe we still carry that baggage. Part of me often thinks the negative attitude to winning stems from an unconscious desire that if there are no winners, then there cant be any losers, and 'i dont want to be a loser any more'. Anyone ever feel that negative groupthink to stay in line, not rock the boat, and show everyone up like this? I've seen it said before, (and i partially agree), that as a community, we're not very social, or possesed of sportsmanship. we have our cliques, we have those we ourselves look down on. heck, how many 'immature player' or 'cheating player' threads have we come across (and they're funny reads, but really, i would argue it is partially indicative of a community attiude that is not very sporting). But thats me going on a tangent. Back to the original message; looking down on 'winners', and 'winning'. And that was me (however unconsciously i did it back in school). We have fight or flight responses, and i suspect most gamers would rather believe in flight (not necessarily just running away, but also not willing to deal with things, or 'push' to make things better). And university happened, and real life happened. And i went from that guy who refused to do sports in school to a guy who quite happily does this whole sporting malarkey (boxing, gym, half marathons, a 24hour endurance race, 10-20 mile cross country races, and my beloved 10k races) One thing is did for me weirdly was give me a different perspective on things. this whole idea of 'pushing myself' and all that nonsense, having it all 'on me', of wanting to try, and win, and do my damndest to be the absolute best i could be, of having a limit, and breaking past it. I enjoy it immendsely, and its given me a positive, assertive attitude.
And its translated to 40k. and its made me realise some things. playing competitively is fine. there is no need to look down on it, or down on folks who want to push themselves to get there. Sadly though, there are too many folks that see what i see as a positive assertive attitude, and snidely dismiss it as 'powergaming waac' nonsense (same thing, different interpretations). Folks see wargaming as an identity (i see it as a hobby), and their type of gaming to be a flag to stand under. Since i've started playing warmachine as my primary game, i've seen an entirely different attitude from the folks playing it. maybe its because we tend to be a bit on the older side than 40k players (most are 20, or 30 somethings, i tend to see the younger folks being more into 40k). who knows - maybe a bit of life experience is telling here? But the attitude from what was essentially a whiny, moany and more or less miserable 40k crowd (online and real life - lets face it, the 40k boards are always complaining about something - for whatever reasons; x is broken, y is underpowered; matt ward etc) which was essentially defeatist in nature (look at the nature of a lot of the complaints - "how dare they have cool toys. nerf it, nerf it, nerf it, pull everything back to a zero baseline") to one which was more assertive and positive (its less about x being borken/whinewhinewhone, and more how can i smash it). i was quite surprised at the change in the thought process of these two communities - things that i thought were bad, well, really they werent.
The sad part is that those complainers on the 40k boards have a point. there is a reason the competitive spirit is looked down upon in 40k. the appalling balance in the game. only so much is actively viable. So you take a powerbuild, and take it against a far-from-optimal build, and you will steamroll it. And for a lot of 40k players, 40k is their first, and only game (not aware of other games, not aware of other communities etc) and this will be their only experience of what is falsely labelled as "competitive gaming" (its more accurate to term it poor internal, and external balance) and frankly, is it any wonder that what is seen as 'competitive gaming' leaves such a sour taste in your mouth? So we've got those guys going through all those grey areas in the rules and powerbuilding, and netdecking the game. thats competitive gaming, 40k style. (ab)using the rules, taking beardy cheese/cheesy beard etc. Now, you hear about competitive games, or games designed as competitive games, and your first instinct is going to be a game populated by assholery and nastiness. clear, tight rules? reading the rules as is? (as opposed to the intent, and 'fun'?) From a 40k perspective, thats labelled as WAAC, and as being a 'rules lawyer'. And from a 40k perspective, it means one thing: trouble. but is it WAAC? Or is it a failure of perception, based on an extremely narrow POV gained from exclusively playing a certain kind of game?
Honestly? I think the answe is to play more games. Not just that, play different games. Try and see things from a greater perspective. More importanrly, i think its good to try and see games designed from a different perspective. clear and tight rules are not the same thing as douchebaggery and WAAC. competitive games are not the hunting grounds of noobstalking jerks who only want to win, and smash little timmy into the dirt. similarly, narrative, scenario based and house ruled games with a clear "screw balance, lets tell a narrative" approach, a few feer beers etc can be brilliant (we tend to do a lot of flames of war like this). clear and tight rules? If you ask me, they help both approaches.
Even in many professional sports there is such a thing as 'handicapping' - golf, in particular.
Merriam Webster wrote:
Full Definition of SPORTSMANSHIP:
Conduct (as fairness, respect for one's opponent, and graciousness in winning or losing) becoming to one participating in a sport
WAAC is where the problem kicks in - it is abusing the rules for your own advantage. It is, in fact, unsportsmanlike behavior.
Sportsmanship applies to all games, not just GW - but GW's rules are among the most prone to abuse.
Most professional sports are even handed on rules - the same rules apply equally to both sides. It is the players that differ - not the rules.
In WH40K and Fantasy there are rules that only apply to one side of the conflict or to given units within the armies - and those rules are often... ambiguously... worded, or, worse, unbalancing. The WAAC Eldar player was proud to boast that the biggest piece of his strategy was to play Eldar. (This was in 2e... how many official 2e tournaments ended with Eldar vs. Eldar for the final battle? Even White Dwarf started making comments about it....)
Kings of War also has rules that only apply to one side - but has made a real attempt to balance those rules against each other - and every army has a rule that applies to them.
And did a public playtest, rather than only testing in house, if at all.
And Mantic read the comments people made about the rules, and the changes that they made over the various editions.
Games Workshop, back when it used to have any playtesting at all, once boasted in White Dwarf that they had not listened to their playtesters.
*EDIT* To be clear - I agree with your conclusion, but not your argument.
The Auld Grump
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/10/15 22:21:23
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
2013/10/15 22:19:20
Subject: So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
Some small city in nowhere, Illinois,United States
PsychoticStorm wrote: For me the "Fluff" and "friendly games" as well as "fun" are excuses.
Excuses to allow a bad rule set and an imbalanced system to go on forever, from the designer who does not want to commit to the huge time of play testing and number crunching/ tweakign a well written, internally and externally balanced game demands and from the followers of said game systems who do not want to admit their game system is flawed, or who do believe the excuses the developer gives as valid.
I have seen chess been mentioned above, I would dismiss this, a tight game system, when wargaming is considered can never lead to "Chess purity" because the random factors and variables are frankly way to many.
What a tight rule set gives to a gaming system is first and foremost, less or no grey areas that can be taken advantage of, an extended FAQ to cover the rare oddities than may rise because, even with an extended playtesters pool, the released game will be tested to destruction by more people than one can ever have as play testers and second an easy to read rule set that can be referenced and give a conclusive answer with examples, leaving nothing to dispute, after all the players are there to play a game, not dispute how the game should be played.
The balance of the game is in the forces, good balanced forces are internally and externally balanced, internally means that each and every choice is valid and the player will not skip one or more choices because they are "not good" external balance means that each "army" should be a valid option and not have "obviously better and worse" armies.
Recapping the above.
A tight rule set allowes players to play the game and not debate on how the game should be played.
An internally and externally balanced game makes each and every choice a player makes valid.
What is not to like in the above?
A WAAC player will do anything at his disposal to win, a game system that is not tight that also has internally and externally imbalanced forces will only help him maximize his chances to win by giving him access to superior armies than the bulk and allowing him to at least try and enforce the interpretation of how the game should be played that suits him or her better (especially if the game designer says roll it).
For me every type of gamer should seek and demand a game system is as tight and as balanced (internally and externally) as it can be, having a clear ruleset allows not only a nice balanced game, but creates solid foundation for story missions custom units, odd scenarios, because the players only have to deal with the imbalances their custom stuff creates, not the imbalances and inconsistencies of the system and on top of their own creations.
I will say that is damn fine argument you make, and I have to exalt it.
The obligatory non-40K/non-Warmahordes player in the forum.
Hobby Goals and Resolution of 2017: Paint at least 95% of my collection (even if getting new items). Buy small items only at 70% complete.
2013/10/15 22:38:36
Subject: Re:So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
Jimsolo wrote: Personally, I think balance is what is required for a good competitive game. All the best 'casual' games I can think of were unbalanced as hell, or had completely silly rules sets. Fuzzy Heroes, Necromunda, Bang!, Pimp, Are You a Werewolf, Toboggans of Doom; there's scores of games out there that make for great casual gaming encounters, and all the ones I can think of have either hideously unbalanced rules (a set of KISS action figures will decimate a Fuzzy Heroes game) or completely asinine rules sets (Necromunda- the game where I can spend all season carving people up with a chainsword, and the only benefit of my experience will be increased Ballistic Skill!) Don't get me wrong, I love these games, but I'm not going to try to pretend like they have top-notch rules to them.
Which is a fair enough point. If you love playing the games with your group of buddies and you can handwave it a bit, then that is all that matters. My original post was meant to convey games that have tight, clear and concise rulesets can be played casually like those you mentioned above, but it sure as hell does help in the competitive department. Hell, me and my friend love to play a game called Arena Maximus, which has kind of horrible balance between the racers a bit as the game later devolves into going fast...
They can be played casually, you can play any game ever invented casually, that isn't what's at issue, and it's a little depressing to see people who favour competition-focused rulesets still going after that same strawman argument.
There are two issues at play. The first issue is the default assumption behind what make rules "good" - I think rulesets which are broad, open, with some element of randomness are "good" because they enable the kind of games I enjoy, ones focused on telling a story on the tabletop; note that I acknowledge this is a preference not an absolute. But according to fans of competitive rulesets, I'm wrong, factually and objectively, because the only "good" rules by their definition are tight, focused, predictable, with as little room for interpretation as possible. I know, from experience, that things can happen when playing with "loose" rules that are functionally impossible with "tight" rules, but I am just imagining it according to the wisdom of competitive gamers.
The second issue is the kind of attitude a particular style of rules will engender in your average random punter at a local store/club. I play at two clubs, when I get the opportunity these days, one of which is 40K/Specialist Games-heavy with a sprinkling of historicals, the other is focused mostly on Warmachine/Hordes, and the atmosphere is completely different. The 40K club is relaxed, "friendly" games are considered to be the default, nobody tailors lists without prior arrangement and most people build fluffy/themed lists and purposefully avoid "power" builds, the game is viewed as two or more people cooperating to provide everyone involved with a good time, and while people certainly play to achieve victory that isn't the reason they're playing. By contrast, the Warmahordes-focused club is much more serious; they're not holes or anything, but the assumption is always that you're there to "play" the game in a mechanical sense, as a puzzle and with a winner and a loser, rather than just to enjoy the experience of pushing your wee soldiers about and inventing a narrative around what happens during the game; there's also a somewhat elitist undercurrent, with "casual" games just being something "real" players do occasionally when they can't be bothered to play "properly". Those trends hold true everywhere I've played, and while there are always exceptions where you run into a casual player of a competitive game, or someone with a really competitive attitude using casual rules, they're not frequent.
Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with the attitude on display at the more competition-focused club I refer to above, I sometimes enjoy going all "srs bznz" or I wouldn't still go there, but for myself it's not an attitude I want to deal with as the norm, nor is it something I want to have to deal with in the majority of pickup games if I'm playing outside my usual venues, and from my experience of communities both online and off, you DO run into that attitude much more often among players of competition-focused rulesets than you do with "just for fun" rules.
Peregrine provides a perfect example of what's perhaps most annoying about the whole issue from my perspective; the assumption that improving rules necessarily means making them cater more to his personally favoured style of play. There's no room for people to value different things, there's no opinion involved; competitive rules are always better, anyone who disagrees is a mindless GW drone terrified to step outside their obviously foolish groupthink. EDIT: And there it is again from PsychoticStorm. Seriously why do you guys even bother to start threads about this subject if it's just going to be a few pages of you all agreeing how right you are?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/15 22:40:30
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
2013/10/15 23:16:10
Subject: Re:So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
Yodhrin wrote: I know, from experience, that things can happen when playing with "loose" rules that are functionally impossible with "tight" rules, but I am just imagining it according to the wisdom of competitive gamers.
I'd be curious to know what events fall in to this category that you believe are positive.
In my experience, everything that I've seen which would have been impossible in a "tight" ruleset were narrative-breaking and/or game-breaking issues. For example, the ambiguity about Deff Rollas vs. Vehicles. People argued vehemently about this for pages and pages in YMDC. Accusations of being WAAC/Casual were flung around by both sides of the debate. And it was a real problem too. If my mates and I were having a game, and I made a risky move by trying to deff rolla an enemy land raider assuming (in a fluffy, narrative sense) that it's gonna 'kerrunch!' that tank into oblivion, it's gonna be a problem if my opponent's prior movement decisions were made under the assumption that deff rollas didn't work that way. Now we're in a situation where the game might be decided solely in a roll-off to determine whether my or my opponent's interpretation is "correct". This is extremely narrative breaking for me. The story is no longer about outcomes in the game (i.e. rolling for the hits/damage/etc) and more about outcomes outside the game (i.e. arbitrarily deciding how the mechanics function).
This would have been impossible in a "tight" ruleset and there's absolutely no drawback for casual play if it were sorted out before requiring an FAQ. After all, much of the randomness is built into the game (the deff rolla might not do any damage, or only get 1 hit, etc). There's no need to introduce more in an ambiguous, hand-wavy way. I should never have to externally decide to "roll off to see if you can roll", so to speak. The game should handle that on its own.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/15 23:30:40
Jimsolo wrote: Personally, I think balance is what is required for a good competitive game. All the best 'casual' games I can think of were unbalanced as hell, or had completely silly rules sets. Fuzzy Heroes, Necromunda, Bang!, Pimp, Are You a Werewolf, Toboggans of Doom; there's scores of games out there that make for great casual gaming encounters, and all the ones I can think of have either hideously unbalanced rules (a set of KISS action figures will decimate a Fuzzy Heroes game) or completely asinine rules sets (Necromunda- the game where I can spend all season carving people up with a chainsword, and the only benefit of my experience will be increased Ballistic Skill!) Don't get me wrong, I love these games, but I'm not going to try to pretend like they have top-notch rules to them.
Which is a fair enough point. If you love playing the games with your group of buddies and you can handwave it a bit, then that is all that matters. My original post was meant to convey games that have tight, clear and concise rulesets can be played casually like those you mentioned above, but it sure as hell does help in the competitive department. Hell, me and my friend love to play a game called Arena Maximus, which has kind of horrible balance between the racers a bit as the game later devolves into going fast...
They can be played casually, you can play any game ever invented casually, that isn't what's at issue, and it's a little depressing to see people who favour competition-focused rulesets still going after that same strawman argument.
There are two issues at play. The first issue is the default assumption behind what make rules "good" - I think rulesets which are broad, open, with some element of randomness are "good" because they enable the kind of games I enjoy, ones focused on telling a story on the tabletop; note that I acknowledge this is a preference not an absolute. But according to fans of competitive rulesets, I'm wrong, factually and objectively, because the only "good" rules by their definition are tight, focused, predictable, with as little room for interpretation as possible. I know, from experience, that things can happen when playing with "loose" rules that are functionally impossible with "tight" rules, but I am just imagining it according to the wisdom of competitive gamers.
The second issue is the kind of attitude a particular style of rules will engender in your average random punter at a local store/club. I play at two clubs, when I get the opportunity these days, one of which is 40K/Specialist Games-heavy with a sprinkling of historicals, the other is focused mostly on Warmachine/Hordes, and the atmosphere is completely different. The 40K club is relaxed, "friendly" games are considered to be the default, nobody tailors lists without prior arrangement and most people build fluffy/themed lists and purposefully avoid "power" builds, the game is viewed as two or more people cooperating to provide everyone involved with a good time, and while people certainly play to achieve victory that isn't the reason they're playing. By contrast, the Warmahordes-focused club is much more serious; they're not holes or anything, but the assumption is always that you're there to "play" the game in a mechanical sense, as a puzzle and with a winner and a loser, rather than just to enjoy the experience of pushing your wee soldiers about and inventing a narrative around what happens during the game; there's also a somewhat elitist undercurrent, with "casual" games just being something "real" players do occasionally when they can't be bothered to play "properly". Those trends hold true everywhere I've played, and while there are always exceptions where you run into a casual player of a competitive game, or someone with a really competitive attitude using casual rules, they're not frequent.
Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with the attitude on display at the more competition-focused club I refer to above, I sometimes enjoy going all "srs bznz" or I wouldn't still go there, but for myself it's not an attitude I want to deal with as the norm, nor is it something I want to have to deal with in the majority of pickup games if I'm playing outside my usual venues, and from my experience of communities both online and off, you DO run into that attitude much more often among players of competition-focused rulesets than you do with "just for fun" rules.
Peregrine provides a perfect example of what's perhaps most annoying about the whole issue from my perspective; the assumption that improving rules necessarily means making them cater more to his personally favoured style of play. There's no room for people to value different things, there's no opinion involved; competitive rules are always better, anyone who disagrees is a mindless GW drone terrified to step outside their obviously foolish groupthink. EDIT: And there it is again from PsychoticStorm. Seriously why do you guys even bother to start threads about this subject if it's just going to be a few pages of you all agreeing how right you are?
But that is the thing, not all 40K clubs and Warmahordes clubs are like that, so that is anecdotal evidence. Hell, even me saying that I play Warmahordes casually with some competitive edge from time to time can be taken as anecdotal since it is not a trend that is firm. Those people can exist in the 40K gamer base as well
But I do understanding what you are saying to a degree, but I feel a good amount of tightness to it can help make it easier than say 40K, which has a lot of ambiguities that can be possibly interpreted differently from country to country, city to city, store to store unless you just playing in one store with your group of friends who have some house rules and so on so it can get the game. That is fine, but what if you go to another store that you do not usually go to, do not know as well, and they do not have the same interpretation of the rules, and then you can have a clash of differences between people before the game begins.
A game I find that has a good amount of conciseness and tightness a bit with a good amount of the element of randomness is Infinity. You can have the most air-tight list and plan that you can think of, but one can adapt to a change in plan that he loses his best unit or Lieutenant and still be able to win the game with that lost.
The obligatory non-40K/non-Warmahordes player in the forum.
Hobby Goals and Resolution of 2017: Paint at least 95% of my collection (even if getting new items). Buy small items only at 70% complete.
2013/10/15 23:22:19
Subject: Re:So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
Yodhrin wrote:
Peregrine provides a perfect example of what's perhaps most annoying about the whole issue from my perspective; the assumption that improving rules necessarily means making them cater more to his personally favoured style of play. There's no room for people to value different things, there's no opinion involved; competitive rules are always better, anyone who disagrees is a mindless GW drone terrified to step outside their obviously foolish groupthink.
Here's the thing; when I say I would like a tight, balanced ruleset with limited randomness, I am not saying I want a tournament-HARD game. I'm saying that I would like a ruleset where
a) My decisions matter more than the dice- I don't want to lose the game because the trees decided to eat my guys, or my guys decided not to charge or whatever. If I lose due to luck, it should be because of some bizare, rare cornercase, such as a poorly timed snakes eyes which I had no plan B for. Take, for example charging in Warmachine vs. 40k. Warmachine, I charge a fixed distance. Assuming I judged the distances right, I make it. So charging is all player skill. Once I get to melee, I know that my damage output will fall in a statistical range based on the amount of resources that I allocated. Allocation is again player skill, and I can use to adjust luck more in my favour, reducing its impact on the game. 40k, however, there is the charge roll. An immediate succeed/fail based on luck- how far your charge is, how many guys die to overwatch, etc. Melee, while more calculable as a range of expected results, has no "Influence" ability, so it is all luck. While I can calculate the odds, I have no way to change them, and so player skill is irrelevant once the assault is launched.
b) Minimal time wasted figuring out the rules- I simply like knowing how the game works before playing, and don't want to waste time reading the rulebook. In 40k, when a model dies, any effects which activate at that point pile together in a mess. In Warmachine, there is "Boxed" and then "Destroyed". We check which effects trigger on which keyword, and resolve them in order. Sure, we could 4+ it, but see point (a).
c) balance- I'm the kind of player who likes to win with what I like- I find it exceedingly frustrating to have cool units that are actively sabotaging my chances of winning the game. Do I have to win? No, but but I like there to be tension. I really enjoy it when a player can take a themed list and actually stand a chance- that is what "cinematic" is to me. Pre-existing balance also makes it easier to break the game for the scenario- as I said earlier, want one side outnumbered? Double their opponents points.
Note, nowhere do I say "competitive". An imbalanced game with ambiguous rules is better if all I want to do is win. I just take a power army and abuse loopholes.
Yodhrin wrote: EDIT: And there it is again from PsychoticStorm. Seriously why do you guys even bother to start threads about this subject if it's just going to be a few pages of you all agreeing how right you are?
Because it's funny.
Q: What do you call a Dinosaur Handpuppet?
A: A Maniraptor
2013/10/15 23:36:17
Subject: Re:So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
Jimsolo wrote: Personally, I think balance is what is required for a good competitive game. All the best 'casual' games I can think of were unbalanced as hell, or had completely silly rules sets. Fuzzy Heroes, Necromunda, Bang!, Pimp, Are You a Werewolf, Toboggans of Doom; there's scores of games out there that make for great casual gaming encounters, and all the ones I can think of have either hideously unbalanced rules (a set of KISS action figures will decimate a Fuzzy Heroes game) or completely asinine rules sets (Necromunda- the game where I can spend all season carving people up with a chainsword, and the only benefit of my experience will be increased Ballistic Skill!) Don't get me wrong, I love these games, but I'm not going to try to pretend like they have top-notch rules to them.
Which is a fair enough point. If you love playing the games with your group of buddies and you can handwave it a bit, then that is all that matters. My original post was meant to convey games that have tight, clear and concise rulesets can be played casually like those you mentioned above, but it sure as hell does help in the competitive department. Hell, me and my friend love to play a game called Arena Maximus, which has kind of horrible balance between the racers a bit as the game later devolves into going fast...
They can be played casually, you can play any game ever invented casually, that isn't what's at issue, and it's a little depressing to see people who favour competition-focused rulesets still going after that same strawman argument.
There are two issues at play. The first issue is the default assumption behind what make rules "good" - I think rulesets which are broad, open, with some element of randomness are "good" because they enable the kind of games I enjoy, ones focused on telling a story on the tabletop; note that I acknowledge this is a preference not an absolute. But according to fans of competitive rulesets, I'm wrong, factually and objectively, because the only "good" rules by their definition are tight, focused, predictable, with as little room for interpretation as possible. I know, from experience, that things can happen when playing with "loose" rules that are functionally impossible with "tight" rules, but I am just imagining it according to the wisdom of competitive gamers.
The second issue is the kind of attitude a particular style of rules will engender in your average random punter at a local store/club. I play at two clubs, when I get the opportunity these days, one of which is 40K/Specialist Games-heavy with a sprinkling of historicals, the other is focused mostly on Warmachine/Hordes, and the atmosphere is completely different. The 40K club is relaxed, "friendly" games are considered to be the default, nobody tailors lists without prior arrangement and most people build fluffy/themed lists and purposefully avoid "power" builds, the game is viewed as two or more people cooperating to provide everyone involved with a good time, and while people certainly play to achieve victory that isn't the reason they're playing. By contrast, the Warmahordes-focused club is much more serious; they're not holes or anything, but the assumption is always that you're there to "play" the game in a mechanical sense, as a puzzle and with a winner and a loser, rather than just to enjoy the experience of pushing your wee soldiers about and inventing a narrative around what happens during the game; there's also a somewhat elitist undercurrent, with "casual" games just being something "real" players do occasionally when they can't be bothered to play "properly". Those trends hold true everywhere I've played, and while there are always exceptions where you run into a casual player of a competitive game, or someone with a really competitive attitude using casual rules, they're not frequent.
Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with the attitude on display at the more competition-focused club I refer to above, I sometimes enjoy going all "srs bznz" or I wouldn't still go there, but for myself it's not an attitude I want to deal with as the norm, nor is it something I want to have to deal with in the majority of pickup games if I'm playing outside my usual venues, and from my experience of communities both online and off, you DO run into that attitude much more often among players of competition-focused rulesets than you do with "just for fun" rules.
Peregrine provides a perfect example of what's perhaps most annoying about the whole issue from my perspective; the assumption that improving rules necessarily means making them cater more to his personally favoured style of play. There's no room for people to value different things, there's no opinion involved; competitive rules are always better, anyone who disagrees is a mindless GW drone terrified to step outside their obviously foolish groupthink. EDIT: And there it is again from PsychoticStorm. Seriously why do you guys even bother to start threads about this subject if it's just going to be a few pages of you all agreeing how right you are?
All admirable sentiments, well expressed, but doesn't really address why a better written ruleset with less ambiguity that allows players with different attitudes to mix in the same environment with less conflict and a more balanced environment with a less marked difference between "fluffy" lists and "competitive" lists would be a bad thing?
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Yodhrin wrote: There are two issues at play. The first issue is the default assumption behind what make rules "good" - I think rulesets which are broad, open, with some element of randomness are "good" because they enable the kind of games I enjoy, ones focused on telling a story on the tabletop; note that I acknowledge this is a preference not an absolute. But according to fans of competitive rulesets, I'm wrong, factually and objectively, because the only "good" rules by their definition are tight, focused, predictable, with as little room for interpretation as possible. I know, from experience, that things can happen when playing with "loose" rules that are functionally impossible with "tight" rules, but I am just imagining it according to the wisdom of competitive gamers.
Here's the thing, though - When you have a loose ruleset, the casual player who is playing with friends and doesn't mind making stuff up is perfectly at home. The casual player playing pickup games with strangers, or the competitive player... they're going to run into problems.
When you have a tight ruleset, the pickup player or the competitive player have a much better experience, because they don't find themselves having to negotiate with strangers in the middle of the game... and the casual player who likes making up his own rules can still do so.
A tight ruleset doesn't mean that you can't take it and do what you want with it. It just means you have a more stable foundation for the game. The loose ruleset only works properly for that one group of players. The tight ruleset? That works for everybody.
. By contrast, the Warmahordes-focused club is much more serious; they're not holes or anything, but the assumption is always that you're there to "play" the game in a mechanical sense, as a puzzle and with a winner and a loser, rather than just to enjoy the experience of pushing your wee soldiers about and inventing a narrative around what happens during the game; there's also a somewhat elitist undercurrent, with "casual" games just being something "real" players do occasionally when they can't be bothered to play "properly".
That's not intrinsic to the Warmahordes rules being better written, though. It's to do with the overall focus of the game. Warmahordes is written unabashedly for the power gamer. They tell you this in the opening pages of the book. It's a game designed for the player who wants to play hard.
You don't have to play it that way. It's still just a game, you can still take it and modify it, or play with softer lists that you think are fluffy and friendly. But the competitive player has a solid, balls-out ruleset for playing hard when they want to.
40K wouldn't automatically turn into the same game if it had tighter rules, because it wouldn't have to have that same focus. Tighter rules aren't about competitive play... they're just about everybody having a more similar understanding of how the game should work.
2013/10/16 03:51:37
Subject: So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
I agree with some other people, unbalanced games system can be fun to play, if you play against people who know it and cat accordingly.
GW in recent years has thrown balance out of the door in favor of selling figures, that is why some types and charcters are more expensive because they are more powerfull.
It is like an arms race, you have to buy the new units to stay competitive, in a balanced game you could use other things to compensate.
My group plays warmachine casualy, the rules vastly help in this regard. Most players have some form of ability to play a siege game with a keep to defend or attack.
And with the game focusing on combined arms so much most players can handle objectives realy well with what they bring to the table. The set up and play time even for large games are half of what 40k and fantasy are at right now for us.
I just don't see 40k and fantasy as good casual games now, and find its so much the games that are tight and thaght full that are far more easily played casualy.
Thinking a little more, now that 40k has all but died we play far more games now as a group. Every week there are board games and bring new games now allways gets interest. Before it seemed like other games just didn't get a chance due to the way GW hobby dominance.
Evil spellcheck works against me.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/16 04:26:01
2013/10/16 06:39:03
Subject: So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
Peregrine wrote:
And again you miss the fundamental point here: power doesn't shift in 40k because of a carefully planned metagame, it shifts because GW is utterly incompetent at game balance. The whole "perfect imbalance" thing does NOT mean "throw some unbalanced rules on paper, the worse the better".
Being the cynical bastard that I am, I would suggest that this is entirely intentional. After all, the constant swings in balance does succeed in getting people to go out and buy the newest and most powerful units. And thus we see the swing from mechanized armies, to infantry hordes, to flyer spam... And who knows what will be the new über-unit in the next edition?
But then again, this is Games Workshop we're talking about...
2013/10/16 07:42:01
Subject: So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
f2k wrote: And who knows what will be the new über-unit in the next edition?
Swarms.
Imagine entire hordes of Ripper Swarms, all with the killing power of the flying mutant Pirahna from Pirahna 3DD...
Or Necron Scarab Swarms as deadly as the original Replicators from Stargate SG-1...
Inquisition and Imperial Guard armies could have swarms of sword toting flying Cherub babies.
Space Wolves might have swarms of rabid Chihuahuas...
*Shudders*
Its a win-win for GW. The models are tiny, so use less resin/metal, and they could upgrade their "Best miniatures in the world" slogan to "Best miniature miniatures in the world" and slap another 20% price hike on them.
2013/10/16 08:05:33
Subject: So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
f2k wrote: Being the cynical bastard that I am, I would suggest that this is entirely intentional. After all, the constant swings in balance does succeed in getting people to go out and buy the newest and most powerful units. And thus we see the swing from mechanized armies, to infantry hordes, to flyer spam... And who knows what will be the new über-unit in the next edition?
There's an argument for that, and that's just as bad as incompetence. On the other hand the Tau and DA flyers were expensive new kits and had awful rules, so I'm in favor of the "GW are hopeless incompetents" explanation.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2013/10/16 08:26:03
Subject: So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
f2k wrote: Being the cynical bastard that I am, I would suggest that this is entirely intentional. After all, the constant swings in balance does succeed in getting people to go out and buy the newest and most powerful units. And thus we see the swing from mechanized armies, to infantry hordes, to flyer spam... And who knows what will be the new über-unit in the next edition?
There's an argument for that, and that's just as bad as incompetence. On the other hand the Tau and DA flyers were expensive new kits and had awful rules, so I'm in favor of the "GW are hopeless incompetents" explanation.
Hanlons Razor perhaps? Don't attribute to malice if it can be explained by stupidity.
In fairness though the "other" 6ed prodigy child seems to be the MC, with the tau and eldar getting giant sized new toys, SM getting slightly more mini ones with the termitubbies (I'm honestly surprised they didn't just give them access to the dreadknight with updated rules). With 'Nids being the next rumored codex I can see this continuing easily.
- 1250 points
Empire of the Blazing Sun (Combined Theaters)- 1950 points
FUBAR Starship Troopers- Would you like to know more?
GENERATION 9: The first time you see this, copy and paste it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation. Consider it a social experiment.
2013/10/16 08:35:59
Subject: So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
That shows a lack of vision. 7th Edition will be the edition of the Random Troops selection.
Compulsory Troop choices will be chosen randomly from a table, and if you don't have the appropriate models you miss out. If you do have the models, you then roll on another random table for their buffs, which range through various options like 'Shellshocked' (negative modifier to Ld, I and A), 'Hardened' (positive modifiers to BS, WS and LD) and on a double 6 - 'Filled with the Emperor's Vim!' which doubles all of their stats and grants them a 2+ invulnerable save.
It's going to be awesome.
2013/10/16 08:37:08
Subject: Re:So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
Yodhrin wrote: And there it is again from PsychoticStorm. Seriously why do you guys even bother to start threads about this subject if it's just going to be a few pages of you all agreeing how right you are?
So people cannot voice their support towards an idea, only their opposition?
You could have read my post though, it explains why the "casual", "creative" player should aspire to have a clear and tight game system and balanced forces.
Personally, collecting wargame systems is a hobby I have and game design is something I look at least from an amateur perspective, while I acknowledge a system can never predict everything, there is no reason why a system should not be tight and clear with interactions well defined and the designer going the extra length to ensure players play the game he or she designed and not the game they think he or she designed, likewise balance is an important factor mainly for the "fluffy" players, exactly because they and not the competitive edge player are likely to select a variety of different options that should be valid for their recreational gaming.
As I said in my initial post game system and game balance are the foundations on which one builds upon, the firmer the better for everyone.
2013/10/16 08:39:00
Subject: Re:So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
The fact that 40K players feel they need to make a gentlemans agreement to hobble their lists shows how bad the balance is, compared to Warmachine where no such thing is involved. In 40K you have "competitive", "friendly" and "fluffy" lists, whereas (from what I can tell) in Warmachine you just have lists.
At my club, I've never seen anyone play with flyers, because a lot of people seem to regard them as unfair. In the last tournament they ran the only house rule was "no more than 1 Flyer/FMC". Admittedly, in the FoW "Infantry Aces" campaign the club also had house rules against aircraft and armoured vehicles, but I think that was primarily because it was a low points infantry only campaign and so having to take anti aircraft/tank weapons would be too much of a compromise.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/16 09:09:00
2013/10/16 08:59:12
Subject: So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
f2k wrote: Being the cynical bastard that I am, I would suggest that this is entirely intentional. After all, the constant swings in balance does succeed in getting people to go out and buy the newest and most powerful units. And thus we see the swing from mechanized armies, to infantry hordes, to flyer spam... And who knows what will be the new über-unit in the next edition?
There's an argument for that, and that's just as bad as incompetence. On the other hand the Tau and DA flyers were expensive new kits and had awful rules, so I'm in favor of the "GW are hopeless incompetents" explanation.
True.
Even if they do it deliberately (and I'd gladly believe that) they do seem to have some issues. Not a big help either, that they now seem to believe that rolling lots of dice (random terrain, random charges, random skills for Warlords, etc.) is good game design. In fact, as far as I'm concerned it's the exact opposite.
In the end I think most of the issues are coursed by "too much tinkering". Rather than simply evolving the rules slightly from edition to edition, they make big changes that completely throw off all previous balance. Add to that the fact that some codexes are hopelessly obsolete to begin with and you have a recipe for disaster.
2013/10/16 09:24:23
Subject: So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
f2k wrote: Rather than simply evolving the rules slightly from edition to edition, they make big changes that completely throw off all previous balance.
Actually the problem is that they don't make enough changes. What 40k needs is a complete re-write from the beginning, but instead every edition GW just sticks a few more rules on the bloated mess and charges another $75 for it.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2013/10/16 09:32:33
Subject: So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
^That's it, in a nutshell. 40k and Warhammer are bloated legacy rulesets still based on RPG mechanics from the late 80s that are utterly sluggish.
Bolt Action = 40k, as if it was re-written and done right.
Kings of War = Warhammer, as if it was re-written and done right.
If you look at some of GW's newer games without all the baggage, like LotR, WotR and Epic Armageddon what you will find is excellent modern rulesets that are extremely good.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/16 09:34:43
2013/10/16 09:32:36
Subject: Re:So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
I think it's not really helpful to lump together clarity, tightness and balance, as if you cannot have one without the other. I think that they have different qualities, though:
My impression is that even for most of the 'casual' players (I'd say I'm one of those) clarity would be a plus. Proofreading and editing aren't a design choice but part and parcel of a well-done product. As far as that is concerned I think the 40k rules could be improved very much.
'Tightness' on the other hand is - at least to me - a horribly ambiguous quality and very much open to ambiguity and interpretation. Reading this thread I've got the impression that most of the "competitive" players use "tight" almost synonymously with "clear", i.e. simply meaning a system with no ambiguity/contradictions. IMO the term can also mean a system with a high grade of abstraction (say, a system that only differenciates between abstracts like "Light Infantry" or "Heavy Infantry") and a rather limited range of actions/options. I would regard 40k 3rd ed as a far tighter system than 40k 2nd edition - and arguably that's happened at the cost of much flavour. To pick a current example: the Deadzone Beta rules which I've played quite often recently (and enjoy, btw). In order to provide clarity and tightness Jake Thornton decided to use a playing field of 3" squares/boxes instead of movement/shooting ranges. As someone who enjoys scratchbuilding terrain I've found that it's less of a hassle to adapt my buildings to fit the 3"by3"by3" measurements because that would facilitate the playing of the game. But here you have a point at which well-designed rules still more or less restrict the - for lack of a better word - creative aspects of the hobby.
TL/DR: as a more casual player I'd really like to hear what according to the competitive crowd really makes a "tight" system apart from platitudes like "no ambiguities or contradictions". If there isn't anything we should maybe restrict ourselves to "clear rulesets" and find that we're (mostly) on the same side...
As for balance - yeah, it would be nice to find that all units have their place on the gaming table - that's some homework for GW to do. On the other hand - as soon as you start throwing in special units and individual rules into the pot, most ideas of balancing IMO are more or less arbitrary anyway and have to be regularly adjusted. Army lists and points costs do tend to provide a fake sense of objectivity.
Finally, I don't really regard it as 'self-hobbling' if you don't run out and buy 3+ of new unit x as soon as a new codex is published. Most of that kind of netlist has a sort of desperate and pathetic air to it...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/16 09:33:01
2013/10/16 11:25:53
Subject: Re:So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
Clear means that the rules are well written and the designers intention is clearly conveyed, it also extends to the support of the game when FAQ is used to correct or clarify pieces were there can be interpretation.
Tight means that a game system has a clear and well defined cause and effect extending to how intuitive the game is.
The above sentence means that a tight game is consistent and the effects of a cause is well defined and understood by the players, for example, if in a game system been more difficult to shoot is always a modifier on the targets accuracy with varying degrees of difficulty then the game is tight (on that subject) if the game uses 3-4 different rules to interpret how difficult something is to be hit with a ranged weapon, the game is not tight or intuitive.
How predictable a game is is not a subject of clearness or tightness, but lands firmly on the hands of the game designers decision on luck vs skill based game.
On Deadzone, I will have to say that the intention of using a grid is not a design decision of tightness, but because it is a boardgame, Mr. Thorton correctly identified that using the board in a boardgame is essential (its not a sarcastic comment this is an error many novice boardgame designers especially those coming from wargame background do) and utilized it to a great extend, the fact your terrain is designed for wargame use and not the specific boardgame, is not a problem of tightness in the rules of the game.
TL/DR: as a more casual player I'd really like to hear what according to the competitive crowd really makes a "tight" system apart from platitudes like "no ambiguities or contradictions". If there isn't anything we should maybe restrict ourselves to "clear rulesets" and find that we're (mostly) on the same side...
I will try to again demolish this distinction, there is not competitive and casual crowd in game design, a game system is the house in which the players live in and do what they want, the firmer the foundations, the more lit the rooms the better. it does not matter if the outside aesthetic is Gothic, rococo or Bauhaus, the best interest of the inhabitants is the building to be well build on solid foundations and well lit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/16 11:45:28
2013/10/16 13:34:04
Subject: So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
Peregrine wrote:
And again you miss the fundamental point here: power doesn't shift in 40k because of a carefully planned metagame, it shifts because GW is utterly incompetent at game balance. The whole "perfect imbalance" thing does NOT mean "throw some unbalanced rules on paper, the worse the better".
Being the cynical bastard that I am, I would suggest that this is entirely intentional. After all, the constant swings in balance does succeed in getting people to go out and buy the newest and most powerful units.
It also gets people to stop buying GW stuff entirely and move on to other systems.
2013/10/16 13:58:10
Subject: So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
MrMoustaffa wrote: Do I get a ribbon for calling it? Because its Tuesday and we're already on page 3, with literally nothing gained because right now it looks like Dakka vs. xruslanx
To add something to this discussion, I went into my FLGS Sunday and there was a 40k game going on. I knew both the players, and both were pretty nice guys. They could be a bit weird when it came rules, but they weren't trying to cheat, just make sure the rules worked for their armies (I.e. If they were playing an assault army they looked at how to make the most of the assault rules.)
I was off to the side talking to the owner. Over the 2 1/2 hours I was there, there were no less than TWELVE rule disputes, two of which got heated. Almost all were ambiguously worded rules, with both players having fairly reasonable arguments. It made the game unpleasant to me, and I wasn't even playing. Even worse, the first thought I had was "thank goodness I play other games now."
Meanwhile, my other 3 games (X-Wing, Bolt Action, and Flames of War) I can count the number of rule disputes on one hand, with most being Bolt Action, which is barely a year old at this point. Almost all were settled with a quick search online to check the main FAQ, and the ruling made sense to everybody. Check out the X Wing forum here on Dakka for example. There's a single YMDC thread and most of the questions are "can I X?" with a clear yes or no as a reply.
I feel like I should add this as well on seeing this on Dakka...
And even then on the Warmachine one, it is only at most one page long with one or two responses solving it.
That's not entirely fair, since most people with rules questions will post them in the official PP forums. But it largely doesn't make a difference, as in both most questions read like this:
"How does this work?"
"According to the rules, like this."
"Thanks."
And....well, go to the 40KYMDC thread, and choose a thread that's 4 pages or more long. Go in at the end, and prepare to be horrified and amused in equal measure. The vicious nature of the arguing there should put to rest any idea that laxer rules make for a friendly gaming environment.
As for balance - yeah, it would be nice to find that all units have their place on the gaming table - that's some homework for GW to do. On the other hand - as soon as you start throwing in special units and individual rules into the pot, most ideas of balancing IMO are more or less arbitrary anyway and have to be regularly adjusted. Army lists and points costs do tend to provide a fake sense of objectivity.
Finally, I don't really regard it as 'self-hobbling' if you don't run out and buy 3+ of new unit x as soon as a new codex is published. Most of that kind of netlist has a sort of desperate and pathetic air to it...
Trying to claim some sort of moral superiority because you don't get the netlist du jour is one thing, but why on earth would it be necessary? I'd rather just show up with a list and be able to play against someone else with a list without either of us being censured for "netlisting", "bringing a tournament list to a casual event", or otherwise unwittingly breaking a gentleman's agreement not to pass an arbitary threshold of "too good".
And many other game systems actually have succeeded in balancing very different units (at least to a much greater extent than the Warhammers), in not having choices that are "Like X, but strictly better or worse." Infinity immediately springs to mind.
"The 75mm gun is firing. The 37mm gun is firing, but is traversed round the wrong way. The Browning is jammed. I am saying "Driver, advance." and the driver, who can't hear me, is reversing. And as I look over the top of the turret and see twelve enemy tanks fifty yards away, someone hands me a cheese sandwich."
2013/10/16 14:21:04
Subject: So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
MrMoustaffa wrote: Do I get a ribbon for calling it? Because its Tuesday and we're already on page 3, with literally nothing gained because right now it looks like Dakka vs. xruslanx
To add something to this discussion, I went into my FLGS Sunday and there was a 40k game going on. I knew both the players, and both were pretty nice guys. They could be a bit weird when it came rules, but they weren't trying to cheat, just make sure the rules worked for their armies (I.e. If they were playing an assault army they looked at how to make the most of the assault rules.)
I was off to the side talking to the owner. Over the 2 1/2 hours I was there, there were no less than TWELVE rule disputes, two of which got heated. Almost all were ambiguously worded rules, with both players having fairly reasonable arguments. It made the game unpleasant to me, and I wasn't even playing. Even worse, the first thought I had was "thank goodness I play other games now."
Meanwhile, my other 3 games (X-Wing, Bolt Action, and Flames of War) I can count the number of rule disputes on one hand, with most being Bolt Action, which is barely a year old at this point. Almost all were settled with a quick search online to check the main FAQ, and the ruling made sense to everybody. Check out the X Wing forum here on Dakka for example. There's a single YMDC thread and most of the questions are "can I X?" with a clear yes or no as a reply.
I feel like I should add this as well on seeing this on Dakka...
And even then on the Warmachine one, it is only at most one page long with one or two responses solving it.
That's not entirely fair, since most people with rules questions will post them in the official PP forums. But it largely doesn't make a difference, as in both most questions read like this:
"How does this work?"
"According to the rules, like this."
"Thanks."
And....well, go to the 40KYMDC thread, and choose a thread that's 4 pages or more long. Go in at the end, and prepare to be horrified and amused in equal measure. The vicious nature of the arguing there should put to rest any idea that laxer rules make for a friendly gaming environment.
I think that is a good point. I think mine may not be the best example of that, but it works as a general gist of it when comparing the two, but oh well.
That is why I dropped the Warhammers (or at least one of the reasons), since I could not get through a game without it being not fun, or having to look through the book over and over unless you are just playing with friends and have some house/club rules to make it go by faster and go nowhere else to play.
The obligatory non-40K/non-Warmahordes player in the forum.
Hobby Goals and Resolution of 2017: Paint at least 95% of my collection (even if getting new items). Buy small items only at 70% complete.
2013/10/16 14:44:44
Subject: Re:So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
Jimsolo wrote: Personally, I think balance is what is required for a good competitive game. All the best 'casual' games I can think of were unbalanced as hell, or had completely silly rules sets. Fuzzy Heroes, Necromunda, Bang!, Pimp, Are You a Werewolf, Toboggans of Doom; there's scores of games out there that make for great casual gaming encounters, and all the ones I can think of have either hideously unbalanced rules (a set of KISS action figures will decimate a Fuzzy Heroes game) or completely asinine rules sets (Necromunda- the game where I can spend all season carving people up with a chainsword, and the only benefit of my experience will be increased Ballistic Skill!) Don't get me wrong, I love these games, but I'm not going to try to pretend like they have top-notch rules to them.
Which is a fair enough point. If you love playing the games with your group of buddies and you can handwave it a bit, then that is all that matters. My original post was meant to convey games that have tight, clear and concise rulesets can be played casually like those you mentioned above, but it sure as hell does help in the competitive department. Hell, me and my friend love to play a game called Arena Maximus, which has kind of horrible balance between the racers a bit as the game later devolves into going fast...
They can be played casually, you can play any game ever invented casually, that isn't what's at issue, and it's a little depressing to see people who favour competition-focused rulesets still going after that same strawman argument.
There are two issues at play. The first issue is the default assumption behind what make rules "good" - I think rulesets which are broad, open, with some element of randomness are "good" because they enable the kind of games I enjoy, ones focused on telling a story on the tabletop; note that I acknowledge this is a preference not an absolute. But according to fans of competitive rulesets, I'm wrong, factually and objectively, because the only "good" rules by their definition are tight, focused, predictable, with as little room for interpretation as possible. I know, from experience, that things can happen when playing with "loose" rules that are functionally impossible with "tight" rules, but I am just imagining it according to the wisdom of competitive gamers.
The second issue is the kind of attitude a particular style of rules will engender in your average random punter at a local store/club. I play at two clubs, when I get the opportunity these days, one of which is 40K/Specialist Games-heavy with a sprinkling of historicals, the other is focused mostly on Warmachine/Hordes, and the atmosphere is completely different. The 40K club is relaxed, "friendly" games are considered to be the default, nobody tailors lists without prior arrangement and most people build fluffy/themed lists and purposefully avoid "power" builds, the game is viewed as two or more people cooperating to provide everyone involved with a good time, and while people certainly play to achieve victory that isn't the reason they're playing. By contrast, the Warmahordes-focused club is much more serious; they're not holes or anything, but the assumption is always that you're there to "play" the game in a mechanical sense, as a puzzle and with a winner and a loser, rather than just to enjoy the experience of pushing your wee soldiers about and inventing a narrative around what happens during the game; there's also a somewhat elitist undercurrent, with "casual" games just being something "real" players do occasionally when they can't be bothered to play "properly". Those trends hold true everywhere I've played, and while there are always exceptions where you run into a casual player of a competitive game, or someone with a really competitive attitude using casual rules, they're not frequent.
Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with the attitude on display at the more competition-focused club I refer to above, I sometimes enjoy going all "srs bznz" or I wouldn't still go there, but for myself it's not an attitude I want to deal with as the norm, nor is it something I want to have to deal with in the majority of pickup games if I'm playing outside my usual venues, and from my experience of communities both online and off, you DO run into that attitude much more often among players of competition-focused rulesets than you do with "just for fun" rules.
Peregrine provides a perfect example of what's perhaps most annoying about the whole issue from my perspective; the assumption that improving rules necessarily means making them cater more to his personally favoured style of play. There's no room for people to value different things, there's no opinion involved; competitive rules are always better, anyone who disagrees is a mindless GW drone terrified to step outside their obviously foolish groupthink. EDIT: And there it is again from PsychoticStorm. Seriously why do you guys even bother to start threads about this subject if it's just going to be a few pages of you all agreeing how right you are?
All admirable sentiments, well expressed, but doesn't really address why a better written ruleset with less ambiguity that allows players with different attitudes to mix in the same environment with less conflict and a more balanced environment with a less marked difference between "fluffy" lists and "competitive" lists would be a bad thing?
"Tight" and "Clear" rulesets foster a mindset in the players that anything outside of the "norm" is wrong and should never be done. For example, let say I walk into my local Chess club and say, "Hey guys, I have this cool variant scenario where Black has to go firs. Who wants to try that?"
If I wanted a super clear, tight ruleset that challenged me and my opponent for a clear winner and loser I would just play Chess. However, I don;t play Chess because I want something different, and what that is is a slightly chance that the cause and effect algorithm might do something less predictable in some cases.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2013/10/16 14:55:24
Subject: Re:So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
"Tight" and "Clear" rulesets foster a mindset in the players that anything outside of the "norm" is wrong and should never be done. For example, let say I walk into my local Chess club and say, "Hey guys, I have this cool variant scenario where Black has to go firs. Who wants to try that?"
Have you tried? When I was in a chess club we tried out all sorts of variations and scenarios. None of them stuck, but some were a fun one-off.
“Good people are quick to help others in need, without hesitation or requiring proof the need is genuine. The wicked will believe they are fighting for good, but when others are in need they’ll be reluctant to help, withholding compassion until they see proof of that need. And yet Evil is quick to condemn, vilify and attack. For Evil, proof isn’t needed to bring harm, only hatred and a belief in the cause.”
2013/10/16 14:55:48
Subject: Re:So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
Jimsolo wrote: Personally, I think balance is what is required for a good competitive game. All the best 'casual' games I can think of were unbalanced as hell, or had completely silly rules sets. Fuzzy Heroes, Necromunda, Bang!, Pimp, Are You a Werewolf, Toboggans of Doom; there's scores of games out there that make for great casual gaming encounters, and all the ones I can think of have either hideously unbalanced rules (a set of KISS action figures will decimate a Fuzzy Heroes game) or completely asinine rules sets (Necromunda- the game where I can spend all season carving people up with a chainsword, and the only benefit of my experience will be increased Ballistic Skill!) Don't get me wrong, I love these games, but I'm not going to try to pretend like they have top-notch rules to them.
Which is a fair enough point. If you love playing the games with your group of buddies and you can handwave it a bit, then that is all that matters. My original post was meant to convey games that have tight, clear and concise rulesets can be played casually like those you mentioned above, but it sure as hell does help in the competitive department. Hell, me and my friend love to play a game called Arena Maximus, which has kind of horrible balance between the racers a bit as the game later devolves into going fast...
They can be played casually, you can play any game ever invented casually, that isn't what's at issue, and it's a little depressing to see people who favour competition-focused rulesets still going after that same strawman argument.
There are two issues at play. The first issue is the default assumption behind what make rules "good" - I think rulesets which are broad, open, with some element of randomness are "good" because they enable the kind of games I enjoy, ones focused on telling a story on the tabletop; note that I acknowledge this is a preference not an absolute. But according to fans of competitive rulesets, I'm wrong, factually and objectively, because the only "good" rules by their definition are tight, focused, predictable, with as little room for interpretation as possible. I know, from experience, that things can happen when playing with "loose" rules that are functionally impossible with "tight" rules, but I am just imagining it according to the wisdom of competitive gamers.
The second issue is the kind of attitude a particular style of rules will engender in your average random punter at a local store/club. I play at two clubs, when I get the opportunity these days, one of which is 40K/Specialist Games-heavy with a sprinkling of historicals, the other is focused mostly on Warmachine/Hordes, and the atmosphere is completely different. The 40K club is relaxed, "friendly" games are considered to be the default, nobody tailors lists without prior arrangement and most people build fluffy/themed lists and purposefully avoid "power" builds, the game is viewed as two or more people cooperating to provide everyone involved with a good time, and while people certainly play to achieve victory that isn't the reason they're playing. By contrast, the Warmahordes-focused club is much more serious; they're not holes or anything, but the assumption is always that you're there to "play" the game in a mechanical sense, as a puzzle and with a winner and a loser, rather than just to enjoy the experience of pushing your wee soldiers about and inventing a narrative around what happens during the game; there's also a somewhat elitist undercurrent, with "casual" games just being something "real" players do occasionally when they can't be bothered to play "properly". Those trends hold true everywhere I've played, and while there are always exceptions where you run into a casual player of a competitive game, or someone with a really competitive attitude using casual rules, they're not frequent.
Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with the attitude on display at the more competition-focused club I refer to above, I sometimes enjoy going all "srs bznz" or I wouldn't still go there, but for myself it's not an attitude I want to deal with as the norm, nor is it something I want to have to deal with in the majority of pickup games if I'm playing outside my usual venues, and from my experience of communities both online and off, you DO run into that attitude much more often among players of competition-focused rulesets than you do with "just for fun" rules.
Peregrine provides a perfect example of what's perhaps most annoying about the whole issue from my perspective; the assumption that improving rules necessarily means making them cater more to his personally favoured style of play. There's no room for people to value different things, there's no opinion involved; competitive rules are always better, anyone who disagrees is a mindless GW drone terrified to step outside their obviously foolish groupthink. EDIT: And there it is again from PsychoticStorm. Seriously why do you guys even bother to start threads about this subject if it's just going to be a few pages of you all agreeing how right you are?
All admirable sentiments, well expressed, but doesn't really address why a better written ruleset with less ambiguity that allows players with different attitudes to mix in the same environment with less conflict and a more balanced environment with a less marked difference between "fluffy" lists and "competitive" lists would be a bad thing?
"Tight" and "Clear" rulesets foster a mindset in the players that anything outside of the "norm" is wrong and should never be done. For example, let say I walk into my local Chess club and say, "Hey guys, I have this cool variant scenario where Black has to go firs. Who wants to try that?"
If I wanted a super clear, tight ruleset that challenged me and my opponent for a clear winner and loser I would just play Chess. However, I don;t play Chess because I want something different, and what that is is a slightly chance that the cause and effect algorithm might do something less predictable in some cases.
Well, firstly you're assuming in your chess example that not one person would turn around and say "sounds like an interesting idea, let's give it a go" and I believe that there are indeed variations on chess, such as those played in 3D on multiple levels, available?
Secondly, "less predictable" =\= "bad rules"
It is entirely possible to write a ruleset that has some level of variance that doesn't result in both players standing around scratching their heads about what happens next when two random events occur simultaneously that appear to contradict each other.
EDIT Especially when you've had thirty years practice and access to greater resources than any of your peers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/16 14:57:02
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
"Tight" and "Clear" rulesets foster a mindset in the players that anything outside of the "norm" is wrong and should never be done. For example, let say I walk into my local Chess club and say, "Hey guys, I have this cool variant scenario where Black has to go firs. Who wants to try that?"
Have you tried? When I was in a chess club we tried out all sorts of variations and scenarios. None of them stuck, but some were a fun one-off.
Indeed, we used to play with all sorts of variations (allowing multiple queens, more rooks, etc), and I believe Alessio Cavatore has a game out which is a cross between wargaming and chess (using point values for pieces for instance), though I can't think of the name offhand.
2013/10/16 16:20:40
Subject: So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....
holes or anything, but the assumption is always that you're there to "play" the game in a mechanical sense, as a puzzle and with a winner and a loser, rather than just to enjoy the experience of pushing your wee soldiers about and inventing a narrative around what happens during the game; there's also a somewhat elitist undercurrent, with "casual" games just being something "real" players do occasionally when they can't be bothered to play "properly". Those trends hold true everywhere I've played, and while there are always exceptions where you run into a casual player of a competitive game, or someone with a really competitive attitude using casual rules, they're not frequent.
(Gallery)
, 
- 1250 points
