An Old Interview with a Young Jervis

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.

**MongooseMatt**

Here's fun - thought this might be of interest for the 40k Historians amongst you...

A long, long time ago (well, 20-ish years), I went up to GW HQ to interview Jervis Johnson about 40k and other bits and bobs. I recently dug the interview up, and thought it might be interesting to see the thought processes behind their games design (3rd edition back then, the Dark Angels Codex had recently come out), as well as the changes GW has been through since.

https://ttgamingdiary.wordpress.com/2018/09/20/an-old-interview-with-a-young-jervis/

**tneva82**

Ah the time when GW still remembered how 40k was set up as a backdrop.

**Stux**

I like how he acknowledges that other games exist. That's a nice touch.

**pgmason**

Rally interesting Matt, thanks for posting it here.

**Galas**

tneva82 wrote:
Ah the time when GW still remembered how 40k was set up as a backdrop.

Yeah but even back then many people wanted the setting to advance. I don't like it, but we can't say that GW hasn't give many people what they wanted. Don't let internet fool you, in my store, from a group of 20 people, I'm the only that does not like the history moving forward. The rest, that are much less into the fluff than I'm, are like "Yeah, at least now things will get interesting to read, and new things will happen".

Also, I really like this part. Is very true:

There was a bigger out cry about streamlining the rules for Epic than there was for 40k but I must admit that was the most subtle set of rules I have ever come across – there is a lot in just a few pages.

It does a lot with a little. Now, there was a lesson we learnt. To be honest of all the things I have designed, I said Blood Bowl was the best game ever I believe I ever designed, but when Epic came out we were so proud of it , really pleased with it. It is a game that we still love to play. We were very disappointed with the attitude of older players and it taught us a lot, that our tastes were more sophisticated than the big bulk of the market that the game was going to reach who were players who sometimes perceive complexity as sophistication, so we learnt that we have to throw a bit of grit into the games systems that players can catch on to – because they are not Games Designers like us they don’t, say, see this beautiful elegant machine, they like a bit of detail. So what you can say when we add in bits of clutter and grit with the Codexes coming, that is dumbing the system down in many ways. If the truth be known the Games Development team would probably play 40k with the lists in the rulebook, maybe stream them down a bit more. But you don’t because you know people want more than that and so you have to learn to split your own desires – I am 40 years old, I have been playing games since I was 11, 30 years – what I want from a wargame is very different from someone who has been playing for 5 years so I have to think back to that time, and say my job is to give people what they want.

**tneva82**

Lack of new things was never issue...It's harder to come up with new things NOW than it was then. Backdrop is what you want for new stuff. With new style you are stuck with what GW comes up with.

**Galas**

tneva82 wrote:
Lack of new things was never issue...It's harder to come up with new things NOW than it was then. Backdrop is what you want for new stuff. With new style you are stuck with what GW comes up with.

I agree with you. But we are in the minority.

Also, I love this. What would he have tought about jink in 7th edition?

Is exactly what he said it shouldn't have happened

Just to take one example, I don’t want to go through all the rules decisions you had to make whilst building up the Dark Angels Codex, but the Ravenwing have a 6+ invulnerable save. How would you actually arrive at that figure? Why not 5+, or 4+?

OK, well, one of the things that actually developed with Blood Bowl is what I call the rule of 2, 4 and 6, which is if you are going to have a dice roll, it should either be a 2+, 4+ or 6+, and 3+ and 5+ are wimpy cop outs. It’s for people who think well 4+ seems to good, 6+ seems to difficult, I know, I’ll go for 5+. And for me that is just wimping out, you have to decide. For the Ravenwing, I knew it had to be either 4+ or 6+, because 2+ would have been outrageous, jinking is just not that good! So I looked at it and weighed them up and decided that a 4+ save was too much. A 6+ save gives them a bit of a saving throw, occasionally, they will just jink the bike out of the way, it is not something you are going to rely on, it is not game dominating. And therefore, it was clearly the choice I had to take. With 4+ I would have had to double their points value near as damnit. They would have been too good. All they are doing is zigzagging their bikes, they are better at it than other marines, but not that much.

**Karol**

Jervis Johnson talking about the elegant machine that is w40k design, makes as much sense as planned economy in the 50s in my country.

**Bremon**

3rd seems pretty elegant to me compared to what I’m playing every week or two.

**Stux**

Bremon wrote:
3rd seems pretty elegant to me compared to what I’m playing every week or two.

Right. He's saying they had to make their design less elegant as time went on because people want complexity, even at the detriment of the consistency of the system.

**amanita**

Galas wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Lack of new things was never issue...It's harder to come up with new things NOW than it was then. Backdrop is what you want for new stuff. With new style you are stuck with what GW comes up with.

I agree with you. But we are in the minority.

Also, I love this. What would he have tought about jink in 7th edition? Is exactly what he said it shouldn't have happened

Just to take one example, I don’t want to go through all the rules decisions you had to make whilst building up the Dark Angels Codex, but the Ravenwing have a 6+ invulnerable save. How would you actually arrive at that figure? Why not 5+, or 4+?

OK, well, one of the things that actually developed with Blood Bowl is what I call the rule of 2, 4 and 6, which is if you are going to have a dice roll, it should either be a 2+, 4+ or 6+, and 3+ and 5+ are wimpy cop outs. It’s for people who think well 4+ seems to good, 6+ seems to difficult, I know, I’ll go for 5+. And for me that is just wimping out, you have to decide. For the Ravenwing, I knew it had to be either 4+ or 6+, because 2+ would have been outrageous, jinking is just not that good! So I looked at it and weighed them up and decided that a 4+ save was too much. A 6+ save gives them a bit of a saving throw, occasionally, they will just jink the bike out of the way, it is not something you are going to rely on, it is not game dominating. And therefore, it was clearly the choice I had to take. With 4+ I would have had to double their points value near as damnit. They would have been too good. All they are doing is zigzagging their bikes, they are better at it than other marines, but not that much.

Rule of 2, 4 and 6? What a complete load of bollocks! No wonder Jervis was always behind the curve when it came to having a clue about game balance.
Instead of dice maybe GW should have just flipped coins for all in game results?

**Dai**

People who weren't into gw games in the 90s just won't get it. Jarvis is right in that the way the game was viewed by most back then was hugely different. The words balance, meta and tournament really weren't used regularly. I don't want to tell people how to have fun but I miss that attitude amongst the player base these days. Just an old man feeling nostalgic I guess.

Amazing interview Matt made me want to check if my mum's thrown all those old white dwarfs out or not....I'd have thought so

**Karol**

I talked to people that played w40k in Poland in the late 80s and early 90s, there was zero difference between how the game was played back then and is played now other, then back then a marine army was like 20 models and 2 tanks for max army. But I could imagine the mr Johnson thinks and feels the same way about the game as he did back then.

I mean he says that in his opinion the structure of an army list has no influence on game playtesting. I have no right to not trust his own words. But this means one of two things. GW knows what the problem rules are or what the problem units are, but decide to ignore them and sell them in the form their are knowing full well stuff does not work. Or the other option his understanding of words like playtesting, influence etc are drastically different from what normal people think those mean. And to be honest I have no idea which one of the two is better.

The first one is like selling merch you know does not work, the second means GW hide incompetence behind word sophistry.

**JohnnyHell**

Fantastic interview. A nice, candid accompaniment to some of the other articles I’ve read.

**TangoTwoBravo**

Thanks for posting this! Jervis offers some insights into design that might cause a meltdown with YMDC RAW-fanatics.

I've enjoyed Jervis' musings through the years. I spoke with him at a GT 20 some years ago, and have corresponded with him regarding things like Epic. A down to earth guy and a true gamer.

**Blastaar**

amanita wrote:
Galas wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Lack of new things was never issue...It's harder to come up with new things NOW than it was then. Backdrop is what you want for new stuff. With new style you are stuck with what GW comes up with.

I agree with you. But we are in the minority.

Also, I love this. What would he have tought about jink in 7th edition? Is exactly what he said it shouldn't have happened

Just to take one example, I don’t want to go through all the rules decisions you had to make whilst building up the Dark Angels Codex, but the Ravenwing have a 6+ invulnerable save. How would you actually arrive at that figure? Why not 5+, or 4+?

OK, well, one of the things that actually developed with Blood Bowl is what I call the rule of 2, 4 and 6, which is if you are going to have a dice roll, it should either be a 2+, 4+ or 6+, and 3+ and 5+ are wimpy cop outs. It’s for people who think well 4+ seems to good, 6+ seems to difficult, I know, I’ll go for 5+. And for me that is just wimping out, you have to decide. For the Ravenwing, I knew it had to be either 4+ or 6+, because 2+ would have been outrageous, jinking is just not that good! So I looked at it and weighed them up and decided that a 4+ save was too much. A 6+ save gives them a bit of a saving throw, occasionally, they will just jink the bike out of the way, it is not something you are going to rely on, it is not game dominating. And therefore, it was clearly the choice I had to take. With 4+ I would have had to double their points value near as damnit. They would have been too good. All they are doing is zigzagging their bikes, they are better at it than other marines, but not that much.

Rule of 2, 4 and 6? What a complete load of bollocks! No wonder Jervis was always behind the curve when it came to having a clue about game balance.
Instead of dice maybe GW should have just flipped coins for all in game results?

Jus as egregious, intentionally overcosting elite units to discourage players from using them. As opposed to, say, hard limits on them like the FOC (which I guess came later) or core mechanics that encourage you to use basic infantry in whatever number is deemed appropriate.

**Either/Or**

Karol wrote:
Jervis Johnson talking about the elegant machine that is w40k design, makes as much sense as planned economy in the 50s in my country.

He wasn't talking about 40k, he was talking about epic. Epic 40k was abstract and innovative (and not what epic spacemarine players wanted, but I digress).

**Karol**

He could be talking about new ways to play chess, and the result would be the same. Also the idea that people aren't just sofisticated enough to enjoy real GW rules seems rather strange for the times, I mean nowadays it is the norm for designer to tell their fans they are stupid for not liking something, but I don't think it was the norm back then. But then again who knows, I have not played or designed games games in the 70-80s in UK.

Thanks for posting this! Jervis offers some insights into design that might cause a meltdown with YMDC RAW-fanatics.

my dad always told that GW was trying to sell a game they advertised as a product made by engineers for engineers, while it actually was done by a group of guys who were in to writing, philosphy and acting. And punk rock for all the strange and unexplainable reason.

**AndrewGPaul**

He said sophisticated, not stupid. The context of the article is that after playing games for decades, Jervis (and a lot of people, really) prefers a game where it really focuses on the important decisions to be made, rather than adding layers of cruft. In Epic, for instance, you're playing a regimental commander or a higher rank, so it's irrelevant what heavy weapons the 3rd squad of 19th platoon has, or whether one Leman Russ in the 12th squadron has plasma sponsons rather than heavy bolters. So take that out the rules, and leave it for a smaller-scale game where you do need to worry about that. Or with 40k; with a squad-level game it shouldn't matter which particular trooper has the heavy weapon, so just say that if the squad as a whole moves, then it doesn't matter if you physically moved every miniature, and assume that the special weapons will be picked up by other members of the squad so just let the unit's owner remove casualties, rather than having unrealistic manipulations of the game rules to arrange so that he's the only possible target.

**Dai**

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Thanks for posting this! Jervis offers some insights into design that might cause a meltdown with YMDC RAW-fanatics.

I've enjoyed Jervis' musings through the years. I spoke with him at a GT 20 some years ago, and have corresponded with him regarding things like Epic. A down to earth guy and a true gamer.

He's a true gent. This snotty 11 year old asked him and Rick about Spyrers back in Games Day...95 I think (they were hinted at in the Necromunda book). They gave a long and passionate answer even tellling me that they'd be getting rules in the Outlanders supplement a few months down the line along with cool elite models. Went more into their background than the supplement did! I felt so in the know and special

**Stux**

I was interviewed by him once for a Rules Writer job. Didn't get it, but yeah he seemed like a real good guy

**Galef**

I'll have to disagree with the rule of 2, 4 or 6 though.
3+ and 5+ seem to be hugely common for the last decade or more and I feel it fairly represents opposite ends of chance, but not the extremes.

3+ is great for rolls that should succeed often, but leaves roll for more "elite" things to have 2+ rolls
5+ is great for rolls that have the opposite chance as 3+, while leaving room for rolls that have the least chance of success to be 6+

2+ and 6s are meant to be the absolute extremes of chance and therefore shouldn't be as common as 3+ or 5+.
And of course, 4+ is meant to be for 50/50 rolls.

-