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.

Like the gem of how the AdMech stuff was't originally meant to be two separate Codices in 7th...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Like the gem of how the AdMech stuff was't originally meant to be two separate Codices in 7th...

I just remember that AMA where he blamed everyone and everything but himself for his mistakes.

lol. I highly doubt it.

 Hanskrampf wrote:
Current employers are not allowed a board/social media presence I think.

Nah, that's wrong. Tons of the GW staff are publicly on Facebook and you can interact with them. Twitter, too. They tend to be members of the larger FB groups that are relevant to them.

I think they avoid posting on forums for the very reason that everyone on forums uses aliases. It's much more personal when people are using their real names and pictures on Facebook, so there's significantly less vitriol from anonymous sources. They may lurk, but definitely don't interact at the same quantity and quality as they do on social media.

The GW staff that I personally interact with on Facebook are all pretty good natured, too. Someone posts a pic in a group saying how much a sculpt from Keith Robertson sucks, the designer Likes it and moves on. Someone posts a pic in a group asking about model design choices, and then Keith chimes in and has a great conversation about it (this happened just a week and a half ago, and Rob Alderman joined in the same conversation).

Plus ex-staffers are very active as well. Rick Priestley, Alessio Cavatore, Tuomas Puirinen, Andy Chambers, and so on.

When I was at gw retail in Nottingham, I used to chat a lot with a senior sculptor who had not long returned to the company, and had been running a fairly popular blog whilst freelancing. He was asked to close it, and told that if he wanted to keep doing it, that he was welcome to do something similar from within the company. He didn't, he just stopped blogging altogether. That was in the tail end of the bad days though.

Some of the big reasons why developers don't try to explain intent are:

* "Which version of the rules are we using/did we agree on to publish again?" There can be a lot of different versions of rules during development, and then after it's published you move on to writing the next thing. So it's easier than you might think to have the wrong version of a rule in mind. Especially if you're working on a FAQ/errata to that rule or something related to it.

* "What was that rule, and the six rules that relate to how it works again..." The same way that a judge can make a bad call during a tournament because they remembered a rule wrong, or forgot a relevant citation, even the developers can make mistakes.

* "I'm trying to explain what we meant. Don't take it quite so literally." 'nough said.

For most companies, a FAQ/errata document has the benefit that it gets written, then passed around so that other people can look for mistakes and problems, and then it gets published. That reduces, but doesn't eliminate, the risk of mistakes.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I'm a wargame designer in a real life (though in a WAAAAAAAAAAAAY different field, not recreational games) and would love to talk shop (and the philosophy of game design, especially!) with the designers of frankly the most popular commercial miniatures wargame in the world.

I think you'd find the juice not worth the squeeze/don't meet your heroes and all that. Your type of wargame has little to nothing in common with "miniature tabletop games" like warhammer 40k (which is often called a "wargame", but falls a bit short in a number of key metrics. Having read a couple of former GW design teams books/blogs I think you'd find that their "philosophy of games design" is essentially "move dudes, roll dice, have fun" with little else there in terms of considerations for simulationist/abstractionist approaches, historical/simulated accuracy, modeling parameters, etc. James Hewitts interview with Goonhammer and Reddit AMAs give some insight as to what its like in the design studio, and you can get a palpable sense of his frustration with the lack of process or integrity taken in GWs approach to things.

If nothing else, theres always this: https://www.amazon.com/Tabletop-Wargames-Designers-Writers-Handbook/dp/1783831480

though I can't really say I recommend it if you're looking for a deep study on the topic.

I don't disagree. But I want to talk to them about why they think "move dudes, roll dice, have fun" requires any written rules at all.

I mean surely, someone somewhere must have a sense of the abstractions they want and whatnot. Otherwise, they wouldn't've built a wargame; any old person can "move dudes, roll dice, have fun" without needing a rulebook/app/codex/faq/whatever. It's not even a heartless moneygrab, because they could make a lot more money in ways other than wargaming (e.g. technology). The people clearly have some investment into making a wargame and not just making money - so I want to ask them why they do what they do, basically, and how they truly feel about the "move dudes, roll dice, have fun" philosophy (since that doesn't require a wargame or even structured rules).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't disagree. But I want to talk to them about why they think "move dudes, roll dice, have fun" requires any written rules at all.

We tried that - it was called AoS at launch

It wasn't really very popular en-mass. IT also had no potential as a game to be played between clubs or at the national/regional or even international level because everyone was running around making their own rules. It was messy, lacked unity and a united game system might have taken years to arise and establish itself.

Right, but the philosophy of:
'wanting people to move dudes, roll dice, and have fun'
is inherently incompatible with the philosophy of:
'wanting a game that can be played between clubs, at the national/regional or even international level that isn't messy or lacking unity'.

So clearly their design philosophy is more evolved than "move dudes, roll dice, have fun." The questions are: what actually is the design philosophy? Why is it that way? Do you consider your philosophy when designing games? Do you, Mr. Designer, have a different design philosophy? Does the design philosophy ever clash with Corporate, or is it corporately imposed? Etc.

 solkan wrote:
Some of the big reasons why developers don't try to explain intent are:

I don't think this is true. Even GW talks about design philosophy and intent openly. The AOS and 40k rules design columns (Rules of Engagement and Echoes From the Warp) in White Dwarf for the last year or two are phenomenal in this aspect.

Echoes from the Warp only addresses Apocalypse but I actually have a copy of that WD so I'll take a look.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't disagree. But I want to talk to them about why they think "move dudes, roll dice, have fun" requires any written rules at all.

I mean surely, someone somewhere must have a sense of the abstractions they want and whatnot. Otherwise, they wouldn't've built a wargame; any old person can "move dudes, roll dice, have fun" without needing a rulebook/app/codex/faq/whatever. It's not even a heartless moneygrab, because they could make a lot more money in ways other than wargaming (e.g. technology). The people clearly have some investment into making a wargame and not just making money - so I want to ask them why they do what they do, basically, and how they truly feel about the "move dudes, roll dice, have fun" philosophy (since that doesn't require a wargame or even structured rules).

You have to remember that the genesis of 40k wasn't as a wargame though, it was an RPG that morphed into a narrative skirmish RPG that scope creeped itself into a wargame. The game hasn't changed much since then, its still fundamentally using most of the same mechanical concepts and systems from that era (and in many cases suffering for it), and if anything most of the "process" and rules development to this day seems oriented along the mindset of "forging the narrative" rather than developing a proper wargaming ruleset and mechanical systems. Put in a more straightforward way, their process isn't about rules or mechanics at all, its about interactive storytelling on the tabletop.

I don't disagree with you, but that's part of why I want to talk about it.

Were rules considered based on how good they were at interactive storytelling? Is that their design philosophy? That's a fantastic design philosophy, and triggers so many follow-on questions...

 judgedoug wrote:

 solkan wrote:
Some of the big reasons why developers don't try to explain intent are:

I don't think this is true. Even GW talks about design philosophy and intent openly. The AOS and 40k rules design columns (Rules of Engagement and Echoes From the Warp) in White Dwarf for the last year or two are phenomenal in this aspect.

'phenomenal' is certainly a word...

The rules design articles in White Dwarf are largely gibberish ghoulishly masquerading as something intelligent.

From Jervis explaining that they wanted AoS at launch to have a points system... which is obviously why they didn't include one! to his claim that if you think that a unit is too overcoated to be able to justify taking it in a list that means that it is actually correctly priced.

Or the explanation of how a magical super computer balances Underworlds...

Or how the design of 40K 8th edition flipped completely after the disastrous launch of AoS for completely unrelated reasons...

I don't think Jervis has been involved with the actual rules writing for a while - he's more of an ideas person now.

There's an interview with Andy Chambers where he says that the iconic units for each faction should be under-costed to encourage you take them (trying to find it again - the YouTube link I had doesn't work anymore).

So clearly their design philosophy is more evolved than "move dudes, roll dice, have fun." The questions are: what actually is the design philosophy? Why is it that way? Do you consider your philosophy when designing games? Do you, Mr. Designer, have a different design philosophy? Does the design philosophy ever clash with Corporate, or is it corporately imposed? Etc.

I would love conversations like this as I too write wargames (for both entertainment and simulations).

to his claim that if you think that a unit is too overcoated to be able to justify taking it in a list that means that it is actually correctly priced.

I agree with him because people tend to focus on the things UNDER costed (optimal). Though of course some things can be overpriced as well legit, but a lot of correctly priced things will also seem overpriced since they are not optimal.

where he says that the iconic units for each faction should be under-costed to encourage you take them

From games I've been involved in, this was also a thing. If they wanted to see more of a unit (either on a video game being reprsented, or models moving) the marketing team wanted you to underpoint them to move them / see them more.

And it works. 100%.

And GW games are full of that and always have been.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

From Jervis explaining that they wanted AoS at launch to have a points system... which is obviously why they didn't include one!

Well, that does track with an interview with James Hewitt that explains that their hands were tied by an imposing upper management office who interfered in alot of ways that lead to AoS's launch.

Guys, if you want to talk Game Design, there is a sub-board on Dakka just for that topic.

I would love to talk game design!

Tycho wrote:

Paul Sawyer did sign up under his own name some years back. I don't think he lasted a week, thanks to people being unable to behave themselves.

Who would dare blaspheme the Fat Bloke!?

Seriously though, that's a shame. His era of WD is considered by many to be the golden era.

That is indeed shameful, and a pity as I'm sure he would be a great contributor to some discussions. His White Dwarf articles were some of the best and he had a good sense of humour.

 greatbigtree wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
This is such a weird place for a pissing contest.

Like, how did a yes / no question turn into a pissing contest? The answer seems to be that GW employees, *if* they want to, can’t openly post in connection with being a GW employee.

After that, everyone’s just getting wet and smelly. So to join in, I ate a bunch of asparagus for supper. I’ve probably got the smelliest per here. I’m cocked and loaded, so to speak.

I fed my cats asparagus and they just drank their entire water bowl. Your move.

Whoa! Hold on! Can’t we negotiate before we go to the nuclear option!?!

Dakkacon2 announced.
Mobilise the firebrigades, warn the civilians, It's time to run and hide.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Like the gem of how the AdMech stuff was't originally meant to be two separate Codices in 7th...

I just remember that AMA where he blamed everyone and everything but himself for his mistakes.

Not everyone can take criticism well.
Not everyone get's dark humor . ( i dare you to finish that joke...)

I'm a game designer (I work on Magic the Gathering) and I sometimes participate in small Magic forums. Forums like Dakka are big enough and insufficiently-moderated enough that threads devolve into toxicity too often. The signal-to-noise ratio is simply too low, and the tiresome unpleasantness is too high, to be worth it for someone like me to participate. There are plenty of ways to gather feedback, and there are plenty of ways I can spend my free time. Not wanting to spend hours of my time wading through a cesspool looking for nuggets of gold doesn't make me some sort of coward. Also, I've found that the opinions expressed in toxic online communities don't correspond with sales numbers, so I'd be better served gathering feedback elsewhere.

You raise some salient points, but

Uh.

Edit: perhaps not the best place for a joke about your mother.

I honestly don't think GW designers would post here, maybe lurk once in a while, but why deal with the toxic posters or possible stalkers if they find out who you are.
Recently I posted about what is going on with kill team and how my group feels about it. And one of the responce was "your friends are morons."
In a world of saying anything with no consequences; people can say and post whatever they want online; in a game store, they would not act like that very long.

This thread is a perfect example of why no designer would post here.

I was having a look at the Modiphius/Fallout forum recently and that, even being an official forum, you can see why some companies would choose not to expose their writers and development staff.
There was a lot of good discussion, but also you could see that a couple of posters in particular had turned up with sleeves rolled up looking for a fight. And unfortunately you only need one or two to sour the discourse.

I do think that the vast majority of posters are reasonable and would love the opportunity to ask genuine questions and have their feedback listened to. Similarly, if you've created/developed something then I'm sure you would like feedback on it. Not just "I hate it it sucks" but constructive criticism of why something doesn't work or recommendations. After all (and I think this is the same for any creative pastime) if we stop taking that feedback then how do we ever improve?

The flip-side of this, from the forum users perspective, is that I have seen forums that have tried to cater to developers (or in this case were hoping to get some 'official presence') and they became absolutely awful. I don't know what a North Korean-produced forum about wargaming would like, but this made a pretty good go of it. Posts and threads deleted, warnings issued, for even the slightest criticism (constructive or otherwise) of GW. And this was at a time not long after Finecast was released, so you can imagine what kind of atmosphere was created! I don't think it will be much of a surprise to say that it wasn't very much fun, I left at that time and I don't think the forum itself lasted too much longer.

The forums are what they are. I think Dakka is better than most, pretty lightly moderated and people can generally have some fun talking about their pastime and showing their stuff. There is always going to be some conflict about that and not everyone will like everything that is made, but I'm sure there is some useful feedback in amongst it (not to forget that the designers and creators are themselves fans) so I wouldn't be surprised at all if a number lurk in the background or post under aliases.

I mean for as much Gak we throw BCB's pedantic way of pedantry, He'd make a damn good editor and technical writer.
infact i dare say that putting him in there would atleast improve the technical writing of the rules by about 50%? atleast.
As a playtester? ehh maybee, i do think massed tests as free as possible would overall do a better job for the balancing but technical writing i'd say BCB would be a one man goldmine.

The last forum I remember interacting with GW game designers was portent.net. Andy was also the instigator as he said there would be a plastic Thunderhawk by 2000! In 2020, and we still don't have one! I want to say there were at least 6 names from WD on the forum that would respond with - pick up the WD in 3 months for that or let me see if I can find a picture of that in the office (1-2 days later a picture would surface). Oh the days when the Internet was still new and nobody was clear on their NDAs...