Okay, so it's probably high time I kicked this blog into gear a bit. I have had some large distractions that to be fair, I am still wrestling with. But I am keen to make a go of this without having to resort to recycling previously written articles so early in my run. I'm going to aim for 4 articles a month. When in that month, I can't say, but after this one I have another in mind.
Anyway...
I would say if there's a subject that will recur particularly often in The Hobgit, it will be the subject of rules design. I write rules systems myself, and I say with some considerable arrogance (mostly I'd say it's confidence, but I know which accusation is more likely) that a large proportion of the rules writing for most of the big names in Wargaming is exceptionally lacklustre (with special mention to the Evil Empire Games Workshop, who manage a large helping of godawful). So I'm sure it will fuel many rants, and two have been swilling recently. This beith the first.
One thing that I tend to come across in RL, on internet forums, blogs and websites with tiresome regularity, is this insistence upon simplicity in rulesets. It is becoming a bit of an internet cliché, and rightly so. Now, much like the cliché, simplicity isn't bad in and of itself, but I have a lot of problems with the simple flat decision that simple is always best. It isn't just because most of the people who say it are the same kinds of idiots who think short posts are always better than long ones (as if all important information can fit on the back of a postage stamp, and thus is about the same size as their cranial capacity can handle in a week), but it does help a bit.
My main objection is simply one of logic. Why is it so obvious, or indeed correct that simplicity is always better than complexity? The question can even be simplified: why is simplicity better? The answer is very straightforward: it isn't. People just like to think it is, in the same way as shortening a post doesn't actually make it any better. It might be easier to read, but it says less. Can the same amount of information that is in 6 paragraphs or more always be conferred in one sentence? The answer obviously depends, and the same is true here.
The importance of logic and what works best in context is far more important than making sure something is as simple as possible. Making something simple doesn't mean it is consistent. For instance, I've seen a lot of discussion about how current Warhammer 40,000 is superior to Necromunda because 40k is "modern" and more "streamlined". Now, I could rant for pages on how this is complete rubbish. But the simpler point is to refer to the most important word I highlighted at the start of the paragraph: the contexts of 40k and Necromunda are different: 40k is a cyclejerk of bullshit, and Necromunda isn't. Or to put it in more technical terms: 40k thinks it is a skirmish game, when it's really a small scale wargame that tracks "units" and uses oversimplified abstracts to speed up gameplay. Whereas Necromunda is a true skirmish game that tracks individuals, and uses additionally detailed rules to make games with a handful of models last longer and feel more intricate.
Necromunda is a better game, because it understands what it is, and is crafted to exploit what works, and not what makes money that month. Necromunda is "dying" because GW have made it a policy that they don't bother making good games work when they can peddle shit games that rely on shifting tension and offering easy wins for people with cash-stuffed wallets. Necromunda is not without its power-factions, but any experienced player knows that most SGs will take a powerful gang/warband/force and make or break it with the cruel will of unforgiving randomness. Whilst 40k is a little bit like that now, Necromunda is a game that rewards skills and tactics. 40k doesn't offer those things anywhere near as often as Necromunda does.
It isn't just about the issue of what works, but often you encounter arguments about how simpler rules are easier to understand and don't require degrees in mathematics or semiotics. People will refer to the target audience as children as justification for the "dumbing down" or removal of maths elements. The sad truth is that any good rule requires no special understanding, and the even sadder truth is that most kids are way way better at maths than you are and likely brighter than you are as well. They may lack your experience, or your abilities (or as I like to call it prolonged apathy lessons) in social settings, but most kids aren't dumb, and the ones that are, you don't see them wargaming. Face it people, we're all geeks, and most geeks like science or maths, and both are areas where you're better at it the more you use it. Kids are still at school or college, and even if they're done with it, it'll be fresh in their heads. Anyway, I've never encountered any mathematical concepts in any wargame that I would consider hard, and I'm rubbish at maths.
So, if we work on the premise that simplicity isn't always good, why isn't it? There are many reasons, but the one that concerns me most is it can potentially remove gamers from the logic behind the games they play. Simple rulesets have the highest potential to be consistent, but if they fail (looking at you, 40k!) lacking detailed explanations, or in-depth comparisons makes most of a ruleset dislodged from the core and arbitrary. 40k is a good example of this, because it will quickly use Codexes to undermine Core rules. They do it to such a blasé extent that already 40k fans are calling for additions to their Codexes that get around newly imposed restrictions by the new core. People want and expect ways to get into combat out of reserve, to charge more reliably, to avoid overwatch, easy counters to flyers, etc.
But 40k isn't really simple in the sense of a truly simple ruleset. A truly simple ruleset would be more something along the lines of Hordes of the Things, where virtually everything is a simplified abstract, and rules in entirety run into about a mere dozen pages. I do think that simplicity is the way forward for most rules systems, but if the solution to any problem is one that some may consider complex, then so be it. Far rather one adds the thing that works, than simplify it on the assumption that the reader is a moron. Granted they often are, but that's partly because some wargaming rulesets are a self-fulfilling prophesy. By removing the gamer from an understanding of what the ruleset actually is, what logic it uses, and what point it serves, they begin to believe there isn't one (and if you are in a GW to be honest finding a point in anything is rather optimistic), and they may actually be right.
Does complexity always work? No, an extreme equally as worthless. By far the worst rulesets I have played have either been needlessly complex (Confrontation 3), laid out in such a way that understanding much of anything becomes a needless chore (Confrontation 3 again, Tomorrow's War and Force on Force) or just a completely stupid idea, blot on all humanity, and an entirely unintuitive system (so far it's just Inquisitor, but other GW games are getting there). But simple rulesets are just as rife with problems. Simple rulesets don't guarantee balance, or indeed savvy (look at War of the Ring for instance).
So can one typify what works? Usually, but it isn't always easy to arrive at. Perhaps Wargaming companies have a necessary cross to bear, given production deadlines and whatnot. The trouble is many profess to be moving towards refining a ruleset, when really they are just changing it for the sake of re-sale and to maintain control over what the game actually is. There is no money in good rulesets, it seems, at least not going by most of the big hitters out there. If time is necessary for refinement, and I'm sure there aren't many gamers who aren't willing to accept that, I am yet to understand why any wargaming company doesn't just update rulesets with appropriate tweaks. I'm not going to pay for another GW ruleset, but I'd be willing to pay if I felt the intention was to hone in on what makes the ruleset actually work. Warhammer Fantasy is the only one that might be heading in that direction, but sadly they let Ward write a big chunk of it, and that was a massive mistake, which could have been rectified by replacing Ward with a writer of any form.
The simple fallacy of wargaming is that radical change is needed. The sad truth is that gamers are very, very easy to please. Fanboys, the currency GW has single-handedly lived off like a fecking parasite for the past 7 or so years will like it anyway. The trick is satisfying an audience with taste, but it seems we are a dying breed. The breed of people who still give a smeg. But nevertheless, it is a complete disservice to assume there is only one way to do things, and that's the simple way. The truth is simpler, there's only the right way. Do something different to the leading company and chances are you're on a better track to a decent ruleset than they are. The ability to stand upright and work a keyboard without making a fist shape is your starter for ten...
I may have implied that the Hobgit wasn't just ranting. If that was the case it was unfortunate.
