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.

"Almost" because the part about no-conflict or co-op games obviously doesn't apply, but other than that it's almost as if the actual topic of the video was "what does GW ignore about modern design trends".

Cyel wrote:
"Almost" because the part about no-conflict or co-op games obviously doesn't apply, but other than that it's almost as if the actual topic of the video was "what does GW ignore about modern design trends".

I got about halfway through before it was clear that the creator and I have profoundly different views of gaming.

The point of a game is not teaching you how to win, but how to lose gracefully. Player elimination is a crucial social lesson and random, crushing disappointment is indeed a fact of life. Gaming allows one to experience these emotions in what is ultimately no-risk environment. This in turn prepares you for their inevitable impact in real life.

I think it in inarguable that older generations were more resilient and part of that was that they did not expect anything to be fair, ever. I see it in my kids and their peers - losing is the worst thing ever, an unimaginable terror. Growing up playing Risk, Monopoly and (in high school) MB's Shogun, there was a strong motivation just to finish, let alone win. Sometimes that's a victory of sorts and it's another life lesson - if you go big, you could end up on the sidelines. There's also something to be said for just hanging in there. I won a lot of games simply by surviving.

And if you get wiped out, you don't sit on the side with a dunce cap, but cheer or boo other players. The fact that this guy thinks an evening is ruined by getting thumped speaks volumes.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Cyel wrote:
"Almost" because the part about no-conflict or co-op games obviously doesn't apply, but other than that it's almost as if the actual topic of the video was "what does GW ignore about modern design trends".

I got about halfway through before it was clear that the creator and I have profoundly different views of gaming.

Same, but not exactly for the same reasons.

I think some of the 'Ten Things' the creator mentions are just part of the genre conventions of wargames: player elimination, hard losses etc. are just a part of what these games are about, they simulate a real-world or fantasy-world conflict where one side can, in fact, be totally wiped out or enter a state where it's impossible for them to win. Giving that sort of game a strong catch-up mechanism would actually be failing at what this game is trying to be, because the conflict that it tries to emulate does not have such a mechanism. You can do stuff like missions and such so that the side that is losing on the board still can attain an overall victory, but that's not exactly catch-up.

It's all down to what you want and expect from a game: just spending some time with friends, attaining mastery over a ruleset or system, getting better a probabilities and abstract reasoning, living through a lot of whacky and fun situations, improving your knowledge of the world, simulating WW II in the pacific theatre to the maximum possibly accuracy or just getting over a couple of dull hours where there's nothing good on TV are all valid reasons for 'gaming', but would result in vastly different 'optimal' games. A game of Axis and Allies or something like that, where a single turn can take a whole weekend, is obviously 'bad' by the standards of this video, but for some people it's their idea of the absolute peak fun imagineable.

Tsagualsa wrote:
It's all down to what you want and expect from a game: just spending some time with friends, attaining mastery over a ruleset or system, getting better a probabilities and abstract reasoning, living through a lot of whacky and fun situations, improving your knowledge of the world, simulating WW II in the pacific theatre to the maximum possibly accuracy or just getting over a couple of dull hours where there's nothing good on TV are all valid reasons for 'gaming', but would result in vastly different 'optimal' games. A game of Axis and Allies or something like that, where a single turn can take a whole weekend, is obviously 'bad' by the standards of this video, but for some people it's their idea of the absolute peak fun imagineable.

My friends joke that for us, gaming is just an excuse to get together and talk. Honestly, even in my youth when we took winning very seriously, that was also true.

I was actually expecting the video to focus on the fact that after the long debate of "playability vs realism" in the 80s, there's been a general understanding that complexity =/= realism and details, special rules, etc. should be included for a specific, outcome-based reason.

Those games that have survived into the modern era have been reworked with those ideas in mind, and rules designed for rare situations or which produce marginal at best differences, have been stripped out.

Language has also been improved, a far cry from the old board games that read like army field manuals ("case 1.1.3.1"). Online communities have facilitated this by giving the designers real-time feedback, which can be quickly incorporated in either online errata or second printings.

It think it is indisputable that absent GW's near-monopoly position, their design elements (and short product cycle) would result in abysmal sales.

To put it another way, when GW experienced its greatest growth, its main competitors in the fantasy genre were TSR's awful Battlesystem (I saved a copy lest I forget how bad it was) or various mimeographed historicals rules with home-brew add-ons for dragons.

Battletech was the main competitor for sci-fi, but it was at a very different scale and a different concept. Like so many other companies, GW was in the right place at the right time. Those conditions no longer exist.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


It think it is indisputable that absent GW's near-monopoly position, their design elements (and short product cycle) would result in abysmal sales.

To put it another way, when GW experienced its greatest growth, its main competitors in the fantasy genre were TSR's awful Battlesystem (I saved a copy lest I forget how bad it was) or various mimeographed historicals rules with home-brew add-ons for dragons.

Battletech was the main competitor for sci-fi, but it was at a very different scale and a different concept. Like so many other companies, GW was in the right place at the right time. Those conditions no longer exist.

GW also had the enormeous advantage that it started out in the UK and had the good sense or good fortune to offer miniatures for sought-after properties like Judge Dredd / 2000 A.D. and Doctor Who among others under the 'Citadel' label, which gave them a headstart in popularity when they started rolling out their own games. Many people forget that at the very start, White Dwarf, and Owl&Weasel before it, were general-interest roleplaying magazines that had a lot of DnD and other content in it, ran classified ads an so on, GW as a 'closed shop' came later.

Tsagualsa wrote:
GW also had the enormeous advantage that it started out in the UK and had the good sense or good fortune to offer miniatures for sought-after properties like Judge Dredd / 2000 A.D. and Doctor Who among others under the 'Citadel' label, which gave them a headstart in popularity when they started rolling out their own games. Many people forget that at the very start, White Dwarf, and Owl&Weasel before it, were general-interest roleplaying magazines that had a lot of DnD and other content in it, ran classified ads an so on, GW as a 'closed shop' came later.

Let us not forget that GW was TSR's UK licensee, so they were able to use Citadel models to support the growth of DnD as well. As I recall, they were quite price competitive with Ral Partha, and my "gateway drug" to Warhammer was via Citadel models.

Their designs were innovative as far as it went, and their use of specialized dice fit with the general mood.

But if one were to design a fantasy game today, it could be much simpler (obviously I have). The same is true of 40k. There are literally thousands of great suggestions to improve game play, none of which will happen (or if they do, they will be balanced by kludge elsewhere).

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:
GW also had the enormeous advantage that it started out in the UK and had the good sense or good fortune to offer miniatures for sought-after properties like Judge Dredd / 2000 A.D. and Doctor Who among others under the 'Citadel' label, which gave them a headstart in popularity when they started rolling out their own games. Many people forget that at the very start, White Dwarf, and Owl&Weasel before it, were general-interest roleplaying magazines that had a lot of DnD and other content in it, ran classified ads an so on, GW as a 'closed shop' came later.

Let us not forget that GW was TSR's UK licensee, so they were able to use Citadel models to support the growth of DnD as well. As I recall, they were quite price competitive with Ral Partha, and my "gateway drug" to Warhammer was via Citadel models.

Their designs were innovative as far as it went, and their use of specialized dice fit with the general mood.

But if one were to design a fantasy game today, it could be much simpler (obviously I have). The same is true of 40k. There are literally thousands of great suggestions to improve game play, none of which will happen (or if they do, they will be balanced by kludge elsewhere).

Agreed - especially 40k is still bound to and bound by its roots as ultimately, and offshoot of a game with a roleplaying mindset. If you designed an actual 40k wargame from the ground up, you'd probably do away with a lot of things on a fundamental basis, like single infantry models and their placement on the table mattering that much, and so on. But as you said, this is not going to happen because in the corporate mind, a 'bad' game with proven sales records and ever-growing revenues in the hand is worth dozens of potentially 'great' games that you'd have to take substantial risks for on the roof/in the bush/whatever your local variant of that folk wisdom is.

40k is a bunch of things above and beyond the wargaming part. That it retains the wargaming part is because of why it originally existed, to give people something to do with their collections. You see army-building happening in hobbies like Transformers collectibles and such. It's like complaining that platypuses still lay eggs.

Nomeny wrote:
40k is a bunch of things above and beyond the wargaming part. That it retains the wargaming part is because of why it originally existed, to give people something to do with their collections. You see army-building happening in hobbies like Transformers collectibles and such. It's like complaining that platypuses still lay eggs.

That's a different category though. If you collect models for the purpose of collecting them, that's not a game.

While I disagree with much of the video's premises, I think I can safely say that as a game design, Warhammer is pretty bad.

As I've gotten older, I've developed less patience with "special rules," particularly detailed ones that break core mechanics. I think the system should operate seamlessly and intuitively, and the stat lines should speak for themselves. If the stat lines don't, then change the system.

For example, in WHFB, elves were supposedly much better fighters than goblins, but the stats didn't reflect this. Take away the special rules, and elves were only marginally better. The special rules were a cheat, a crutch to force the system to be consistent with the fluff. So why not change the core rules? That's what I did in my game, allowing me to eliminate mithral armor, goblins fear elves, spears in three ranks, and so on.

I think GW is still stuck in an 80s mentality that says special rules are cool and add realism and flavor. No, they don't, they're just one more thing for rules lawyers to manipulate.

I mean that's what a lot of complexity really comes down to - not superior tactical ability, simply a way to juggle processes.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


For example, in WHFB, elves were supposedly much better fighters than goblins, but the stats didn't reflect this. Take away the special rules, and elves were only marginally better. The special rules were a cheat, a crutch to force the system to be consistent with the fluff. So why not change the core rules? That's what I did in my game, allowing me to eliminate mithral armor, goblins fear elves, spears in three ranks, and so on.

How do you simulate "Goblins fear elves" by altering core rules? It's a rather specific interaction. Also, WS4 vs WS2 and I5 vs I2 are quite substantial differences that will manifest in most interactions, as striking first and hitting more reliably are quite relevant factors. Then there's better movement, leadership and ballistic skill for their respective archers, too. Even taking away special rules, elven soldiers are tangibly more capable than goblins across most dimensions.

 BertBert wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


For example, in WHFB, elves were supposedly much better fighters than goblins, but the stats didn't reflect this. Take away the special rules, and elves were only marginally better. The special rules were a cheat, a crutch to force the system to be consistent with the fluff. So why not change the core rules? That's what I did in my game, allowing me to eliminate mithral armor, goblins fear elves, spears in three ranks, and so on.

How do you simulate "Goblins fear elves" by altering core rules? It's a rather specific interaction. Also, WS4 vs WS2 and I5 vs I2 are quite substantial differences that will manifest in most interactions, as striking first and hitting more reliably are quite relevant factors. Then there's better movement, leadership and ballistic skill for their respective archers, too. Even taking away special rules, elven soldiers are tangibly more capable than goblins across most dimensions.

well you could do it but your core rules would have to take training, leadership and courage into account and not try to allow players to ignore them as much as possible in the name of MORE FUN! (aka dice rolling). you probably also need to move away from a d6 based system to maybe a d10 or d12 (or a system where different troops use different dice etc) to reflect that one side are better fighter while the others have greater numbers. Very likely also requires you to move away from "models have one or more attacks" to "units have a number of attacks" to move away from "yes you need a 2+ and I need a 5+, I have ten times the dice you have so I don't care" stuff

you would end up with something much closer to a lot of the better historical games, but with an expanded stat system to reflect that some troops are significantly better than their opponents in ways that human v human historical combat has very seldom seen.

that said the thing that really bugged me with the warhammer "special rules" is when a model has special rule X, whciuh from its name alone means nothing, so you look it up, this means you have special rules Y & Z (so should be a case of you have them, not another that means you have those two) so you go and look those up, one says "gains +1 attack" which really should just be in the stat line and the other provides a reroll which could also be in the stat line with say A: 2* instead of A:1 and two special rules

leopard wrote:
well you could do it but your core rules would have to take training, leadership and courage into account and not try to allow players to ignore them as much as possible in the name of MORE FUN! (aka dice rolling). you probably also need to move away from a d6 based system to maybe a d10 or d12 (or a system where different troops use different dice etc) to reflect that one side are better fighter while the others have greater numbers. Very likely also requires you to move away from "models have one or more attacks" to "units have a number of attacks" to move away from "yes you need a 2+ and I need a 5+, I have ten times the dice you have so I don't care" stuff.

That's basically the approach I used, though I retained the D6. By combining Toughness with the armor save, I boosted the kill probability, so elves kill goblins in heaps.

you would end up with something much closer to a lot of the better historical games, but with an expanded stat system to reflect that some troops are significantly better than their opponents in ways that human v human historical combat has very seldom seen.

Yes, it's a historical rules set that includes fantasy elements and allows for monsters and things.

that said the thing that really bugged me with the warhammer "special rules" is when a model has special rule X, whciuh from its name alone means nothing, so you look it up, this means you have special rules Y & Z (so should be a case of you have them, not another that means you have those two) so you go and look those up, one says "gains +1 attack" which really should just be in the stat line and the other provides a reroll which could also be in the stat line with say A: 2* instead of A:1 and two special rules

I have a handful of special rules to reflect things that can't be in a stat line, like being undead, flying, etc. The name usually tells you what it is. "Unbreakable" units don't break. "Unshakeable" units don't get shaken.

Is that the ruleset linked in your signature? I'm always looking for good homebrews

 BertBert wrote:
Is that the ruleset linked in your signature? I'm always looking for good homebrews

Yep. I try not to be too much into shameless self-promotion, but when discussing game design concepts and especially Warhammer's problems, pointing out my solutions to them seems relevant.

One of the features that I use (and that GW continues to shun) is an integrated turn sequence. Conqueror is still basically IGO-UGO, but there are reactions built into the flow of game so you don't have one player remaining absolutely passive. Specifically, during each shooting phase, both players get to fire missile weapons (though reload times do limit this). It allowed me to strip out any need for overwatch or reaction fire rules.

For a while I considered a "Conqueror 40k" but I find 2nd ed. still scratches the old itch.

Sounds very interesting. I'll definitely give it a read!

Yes, it must be the £100M business that's wrong. Which isn't to say Asmodee, which makes even more money isn't less wrong, but that we conspicuously lack the tools to evaluate what they're doing wrong (or right) as product designers.

Nomeny wrote:
Yes, it must be the £100M business that's wrong. Which isn't to say Asmodee, which makes even more money isn't less wrong, but that we conspicuously lack the tools to evaluate what they're doing wrong (or right) as product designers.

Success and quality rarely go hand in hand. You can make the best game ever and no one buys it any way. Success is more connected to awareness so marketing is most tied to Success.

Maybe its because I'm a tcg player and a fantasy gamer over historical but I massively disagree with special rules being lazy. I think they're essential to giving models personality. One page rules does basically what is suggested and its hard to recognise factions within it. I would much rather have special rules able to show personality over better stats. A model shouldn't have an entire notepad of them, but they should be present on most elite units and special characters should break the rules. If your system limits 1 spellcast per turn I see no problem with Dave the great casting 2 or 3 a turn because he's the best goddamn wizard ever! It doesn't even have to be properly balanced either. Scenario play and mucking around matter as much if not more than competitive play. Let Dave mop the floor with an army all by himself. He's a tool in the box for players looking for variety or a balance for skill gaps. That's more fun than strict balancing where skill gaps matter massively. It's all about moderation on special rules but that doesn't mean you can't include some well designed broken as he'll models warping the rules but say they're for casual play only and not allowed in tournament play. Balance things to be fun and interesting not cut throat half a point arguments for days.

Player elimination is not a problem.

It was slightly before my time, but I understood that in the 60s-70s people played D&D (technically the precursor of all wargaming, right?) with the understanding that all events were random and shaping of your experience rather than that they wanted to have their character survive at all odds.
It was a sort of historycrafting and roguelike in the sense that characters could end up as a legend to the next.

I think that is a way better approach to wargaming of today aswell, that you allow yourself to say "well that army will go down in the annals as one that simply had no chance and was destroyed no contest' and not feel too identified with whatever you played with losing.

But hey,... competition and all.. yeah..

 Leopold Helveine wrote:
D&D (technically the precursor of all wargaming, right?)

Nah, off by like 100 years, if we understand 'wargaming' as the modern sort, played on a table or map, with miniatures or markers representing troops, and using dice or other randomizers to account for luck and unpredictable vagaries. Military wargames used all of these in the mid-19th century, and that itself was developed from earlier systems that were closer to e.g. Chess. The most famous is probably the Kriegsspiel of Prussia, introduced in 1824:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsspiel

Player elimination is not a problem (and arguably is a feature) in competitive games.

But in roleplaying games and "beer and pretzel" games it is an issue.

Depends on what atmosphere and feel you want your game to have.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Nomeny wrote:
40k is a bunch of things above and beyond the wargaming part. That it retains the wargaming part is because of why it originally existed, to give people something to do with their collections. You see army-building happening in hobbies like Transformers collectibles and such. It's like complaining that platypuses still lay eggs.

That's a different category though. If you collect models for the purpose of collecting them, that's not a game.

While I disagree with much of the video's premises, I think I can safely say that as a game design, Warhammer is pretty bad.

As I've gotten older, I've developed less patience with "special rules," particularly detailed ones that break core mechanics. I think the system should operate seamlessly and intuitively, and the stat lines should speak for themselves. If the stat lines don't, then change the system.

For example, in WHFB, elves were supposedly much better fighters than goblins, but the stats didn't reflect this. Take away the special rules, and elves were only marginally better. The special rules were a cheat, a crutch to force the system to be consistent with the fluff. So why not change the core rules? That's what I did in my game, allowing me to eliminate mithral armor, goblins fear elves, spears in three ranks, and so on.

I think GW is still stuck in an 80s mentality that says special rules are cool and add realism and flavor. No, they don't, they're just one more thing for rules lawyers to manipulate.

I mean that's what a lot of complexity really comes down to - not superior tactical ability, simply a way to juggle processes.

Just to bootstrap somewhere, as this post is aimed at the entire thread, not solely at you.

The evolution of game design stems mostly from the desire to broaden the playerbase beyond "nerds" and onto "normal" population and an absurd level of competition for user attention. This is why modern games are so streamlined. In case of 40k this is one of the most important reasons for all sorts of discontent amongst the playerbase and hate towards GW. And I don't mean this in an "old times were better times" discontent of veteran players, but in a "40k tries to be all sorts of different games for different people all at once and fails miserably". Just two major focus points of this problem - you have players, who play a game or two a year, and at the same time you have players, who play multiple games a week. You also have players, who play in a small, even only single friend large "groups", against a known opponent(s), with limited collection of a single faction, so need "bloat" within each faction and mission set to achieve enough replayability. On the other end you have sworn tournament players, who expect and are expected to know the entire game, with all faction rules by heart, so the same amount of "bloat" should be evenly distributed amongst all 30 factions. Those are so wildly different play experiences, that trying to create a single game for both ends of this spectrum is insane. Life example - I have played 200+ games of 7th. I also played only a handful games of 2nd and 3rd back in those times, despite a similar year count in those editions and a similar time spent on the hobby, just with different focus and gaming opportunities. And I played those 200+ games of 7th in a small group, so I have welcomed the very same mission generation randomness and additional missions/campaign rules tournament players disregarded/hated so much. Index era of 3rd, often praised by tournament/pick-up players, was intolerably bland and limited for my taste. The result of all this is that there will always be a vocal minority, from one side or the other, that will try to bully the other end of the spectrum into "the only true way" of playing 40k.

Now about "special rules" vs "statlines and core rules only". I'm a fan of a careful mix of both, that is where special rules are actually special. Not by rarity, but by adding expanded interactions to the game, that could not otherwise be represented by the core rules. So no "+1/-1/reroll" not-so-special rules, which are the mainstay of modern 40k, but things like displacement field or d-cannon rules of 2nd ed, Instintive Behaviour/Synapse or some of the more interesting 10th ed detachment/faction rules. For me personally, pure core+statline games, focussed on being games first and foremost, have very generic feel to them, with limited lore representation and immersion possible.

And the last point - 40k was never a wargame really, or in a very limited sense. Last three editions are way closer to miniatures equivalent of a combo-driven CCG. The main problem is that pre-built "synnergies" and combo stacking have bigger impact on probability of success, than board interactions. Terrain being reduced to binary can-can't see and no real positioning bonusses other than being within range can be perfectly represented by a line-based card game. Neuroshima Hex has more (all of them really) traditional wargame elements than 40k has, albeit in a very abstracted form.

I don't understand the opposition to special rules as a concept. Sure, they have probably been overused over the last few editions, but that is a use case issue, not a conceptual one.

Grey Knights should specifically perform better against Daemons than anyone else. The only way to account for this is a special rule for GK v Daemon or Daemon v GK.

nou wrote:
And the last point - 40k was never a wargame really, or in a very limited sense. Last three editions are way closer to miniatures equivalent of a combo-driven CCG. The main problem is that pre-built "synnergies" and combo stacking have bigger impact on probability of success, than board interactions. Terrain being reduced to binary can-can't see and no real positioning bonusses other than being within range can be perfectly represented by a line-based card game. Neuroshima Hex has more (all of them really) traditional wargame elements than 40k has, albeit in a very abstracted form.

It was a wargame, it just had poor design choices.

There are ways to design a mass combat system that emphasizes quality over quantity. GW did not do that, and so added special rules to ensure that the fluff imperative of elves > goblins was sustained.

The problem was that they had to resort to this on such a widespread scale as to render the core system almost irrelevant.

To give a counter-example, consider Stratego. This venerable "two-handed strategy game" is very straightforward on how it works: lower rating wins. Ties result in mutual destruction.

But there are some special rules. Bombs blow up everyone but miners (sappers), who neutralize them.

Scouts can move two squares instead of one.

The spy loses to every unit but the field marshal if it attacks first. If it attacks first, it is the only one who can take the highest-ranked piece without loss. Successfully using the spy was always a source of pride.

Wow, that's a really short list. Obviously only two armies, fixed board, fixed setup, but there you are.

But if every single rating has a special rule, and you have 20 armies rather than two, the design bloat becomes very obvious. I believe the stats should be determinative, and that special rules should merely provide decorative edging. If they overrule the core mechanics, they aren't really special rules, they are a one-off core rule that is as out of place as a reinforcing bar run horizontally through a grocery store.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

nou wrote:
And the last point - 40k was never a wargame really, or in a very limited sense. Last three editions are way closer to miniatures equivalent of a combo-driven CCG. The main problem is that pre-built "synnergies" and combo stacking have bigger impact on probability of success, than board interactions. Terrain being reduced to binary can-can't see and no real positioning bonusses other than being within range can be perfectly represented by a line-based card game. Neuroshima Hex has more (all of them really) traditional wargame elements than 40k has, albeit in a very abstracted form.

It was a wargame, it just had poor design choices.

There are ways to design a mass combat system that emphasizes quality over quantity. GW did not do that, and so added special rules to ensure that the fluff imperative of elves > goblins was sustained.

The problem was that they had to resort to this on such a widespread scale as to render the core system almost irrelevant.

To give a counter-example, consider Stratego. This venerable "two-handed strategy game" is very straightforward on how it works: lower rating wins. Ties result in mutual destruction.

But there are some special rules. Bombs blow up everyone but miners (sappers), who neutralize them.

Scouts can move two squares instead of one.

The spy loses to every unit but the field marshal if it attacks first. If it attacks first, it is the only one who can take the highest-ranked piece without loss. Successfully using the spy was always a source of pride.

Wow, that's a really short list. Obviously only two armies, fixed board, fixed setup, but there you are.

But if every single rating has a special rule, and you have 20 armies rather than two, the design bloat becomes very obvious. I believe the stats should be determinative, and that special rules should merely provide decorative edging. If they overrule the core mechanics, they aren't really special rules, they are a one-off core rule that is as out of place as a reinforcing bar run horizontally through a grocery store.

Oh, but I agree, that the most weight of the system should rest on the core rules. Basically the whole "this is a proper wargame" engine. But going beyond historicals, I find that games where factions are differentiated only by differing access to various unit types and their stats, are uninspiring. The game may be great mechanically speaking, but will feel detached from the story it was created for. And this is where special rules come into play. There might only be one significant per faction, but should not be just a mere nudge of some core mechanic. Again, an example form Neuroshima Hex. This game has four core factions and many more expansions. Core factions are differentiated by the focus on one fundamental mechanic each - one melee, one ranged, one initiative, and one "double tap". Then there are secondary traits like durability or mobility also distributed univenly, and of course all factions have different composition. And this core part of the game is already very good. But I don't see how you could build more than perhaps two more interesting factions out of core rules. Merely shifting unit composition around would be repetitive. Where Neuroshima Hex shines the most, are expansions. Each new army has some unique focus, many unique units that go beyond core mechanics, or even faction that works in an entirely different way. And the resulting game is still mechanically very coherent.

nou wrote:
Oh, but I agree, that the most weight of the system should rest on the core rules. Basically the whole "this is a proper wargame" engine. But going beyond historicals, I find that games where factions are differentiated only by differing access to various unit types and their stats, are uninspiring. The game may be great mechanically speaking, but will feel detached from the story it was created for. And this is where special rules come into play. There might only be one significant per faction, but should not be just a mere nudge of some core mechanic. Again, an example form Neuroshima Hex. This game has four core factions and many more expansions. Core factions are differentiated by the focus on one fundamental mechanic each - one melee, one ranged, one initiative, and one "double tap". Then there are secondary traits like durability or mobility also distributed univenly, and of course all factions have different composition. And this core part of the game is already very good. But I don't see how you could build more than perhaps two more interesting factions out of core rules. Merely shifting unit composition around would be repetitive. Where Neuroshima Hex shines the most, are expansions. Each new army has some unique focus, many unique units that go beyond core mechanics, or even faction that works in an entirely different way. And the resulting game is still mechanically very coherent.

What you are talking about used to be called "chrome," a little bit of flair to keep the game interesting. The thing is, if your game is entirely made of it, it doesn't have a real structure.

The thing is, you can use stats to build chrome. In Conqueror, dwarf units have a bonus on their save stat, which represents their great toughness and peerless armor. No special rule needed there.

But human units do need them, because they can reflect unique doctrines or cultural element. Otherworldly things like undead also need special rules, but these need not be complex and can generally be simply ignoring morale and/or forcing units fighting them to have lower morale.

There are in fact board games that get just as lost in the special rules forest as GW.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

nou wrote:
Oh, but I agree, that the most weight of the system should rest on the core rules. Basically the whole "this is a proper wargame" engine. But going beyond historicals, I find that games where factions are differentiated only by differing access to various unit types and their stats, are uninspiring. The game may be great mechanically speaking, but will feel detached from the story it was created for. And this is where special rules come into play. There might only be one significant per faction, but should not be just a mere nudge of some core mechanic. Again, an example form Neuroshima Hex. This game has four core factions and many more expansions. Core factions are differentiated by the focus on one fundamental mechanic each - one melee, one ranged, one initiative, and one "double tap". Then there are secondary traits like durability or mobility also distributed univenly, and of course all factions have different composition. And this core part of the game is already very good. But I don't see how you could build more than perhaps two more interesting factions out of core rules. Merely shifting unit composition around would be repetitive. Where Neuroshima Hex shines the most, are expansions. Each new army has some unique focus, many unique units that go beyond core mechanics, or even faction that works in an entirely different way. And the resulting game is still mechanically very coherent.

What you are talking about used to be called "chrome," a little bit of flair to keep the game interesting. The thing is, if your game is entirely made of it, it doesn't have a real structure.

The thing is, you can use stats to build chrome. In Conqueror, dwarf units have a bonus on their save stat, which represents their great toughness and peerless armor. No special rule needed there.

But human units do need them, because they can reflect unique doctrines or cultural element. Otherworldly things like undead also need special rules, but these need not be complex and can generally be simply ignoring morale and/or forcing units fighting them to have lower morale.

There are in fact board games that get just as lost in the special rules forest as GW.

Agreed. I think when it comes to actual specific games and specific implementations we might not be that far apart from eachother. It’s just that we’re approaching the „perfect equilibrium” from two different ends - yours is „how many special rules are strictly necessary”, mine „how many are just enough”.

From what I gather Infinty is a special rules mess, and Dystopian Wars spinoffs as well. The thing is, I think this is kind of inevitable consequence of „living” games. You can’t futureproof a closed, stat+core system enough for it to handle years of expansions. So, from the dev standpoint it is understandable to go the other way: bare minimum core rules, gradually expanded by ‚plugins’ and when the system becomes unwieldy just do a hard reset. Nobody outside of independent historicals authors aims at a „good game” anymore. Instead, they aim at a „good service”, where good means addictive and sustainable.

nou wrote:
Nobody outside of independent historicals authors aims at a „good game” anymore. Instead, they aim at a „good service”, where good means addictive and sustainable.

In many ways I am the ideal game designer/self-publisher. I just like playing and groove to people using my system. I don't expect to get rich, I just like playing.

If I did find more success, I would do the Old School approach to game design, which is create more products, not just milk the one to death.

That's how it used to be: companies didn't just back a single RPG or rule set, they had a menu of offerings over a variety of topics. I'm old enough to remember GW getting into strategy board games. These were in their settings, but that was an obvious attempt to appeal to people who for whatever reason didn't get into miniatures.

Now the goal seeks to be to turn your game into a subscription service, with renewals every three years or so. I'm not interested in that, either as a designer or player.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

nou wrote:
Nobody outside of independent historicals authors aims at a „good game” anymore. Instead, they aim at a „good service”, where good means addictive and sustainable.

In many ways I am the ideal game designer/self-publisher. I just like playing and groove to people using my system. I don't expect to get rich, I just like playing.

If I did find more success, I would do the Old School approach to game design, which is create more products, not just milk the one to death.

That's how it used to be: companies didn't just back a single RPG or rule set, they had a menu of offerings over a variety of topics. I'm old enough to remember GW getting into strategy board games. These were in their settings, but that was an obvious attempt to appeal to people who for whatever reason didn't get into miniatures.

Now the goal seeks to be to turn your game into a subscription service, with renewals every three years or so. I'm not interested in that, either as a designer or player.

Exactly why neither of us will get rich At least not by writing wargames.

nou wrote:
[Exactly why neither of us will get rich At least not by writing wargames.

Yes, that and my crippling modesty about my work.

The subscription model doesn't seem to be very successful overall. GW is something of a unicorn in that respect and that's because of the strength (and length) of its brand.

I think the old model can work, but it requires more outreach to the community. We don't seem to have game publishers, we have game studios. That's likely a function of print-on-demand/digital distribution, but I think it misses that even with those improvements, there is value to having a publisher serve as a clearing house for disparate designs.