Factionism: Wargaming Bread and Butter or Burnt Toast?

There isn't enough vomit in the world...

The intention is to hopefully avoid the next 3 or so articles descending into GW bashes, but I can't make any promises. It just so happens that the 3 things I'd like to talk about over the course of these few days (week, month or however long) are examples of how not to needlessly damage the appeal of a wargame, and GW just so happen to be a fantastic example of how this can go disastrously wrong. Especially since the really bad writers of the GW Dev Team got on board (Ward and Cruddace particularly), GW are hitting meme-tastic levels of awfulness.

This particular one has a few aspects, so it's worth discussing these before moving onto the examples. Wargames revolve (obviously) around conflict. Conflict on such a scale requires two or more factions who cannot at that point possibly resolve their issues through any other means, in order to sustain the concept. You could play one off battles, the Historical bunch sometimes do, but nothing beats a setting where a large amount of conflict, if not infinite, takes place. In such circumstances, it is a given that the factions involved will have their differences. Perhaps they fight in different ways, perhaps the nature of each is in flux. One thing is certain: most Wargames play up the differences for all they're worth.

To an extent, that is expected. Most people are glued to the allure of stereotypes, clichés, and abstractions. Often, general attitudes are attributed to factions, rather than particular details, which may be mentioned as fluff. This is pretty much the only sane way to do it, because adding in additional detail to something that largely needs to be visceral is often counter-productive. Thus most fantasy/sci-fi wargames have factions that inhibit a particular aspect of personality/ethos/attitude and usually particular preferences to wargear. This is usually a good thing, because people can enjoy the different experiences, and can feel the difference when playing different factions.

Done badly however, this concept can easily become more or less the point of the game. Whilst most players will want a particular faction to be "their" faction for playing the game, the motivations often revolve around sales of new miniatures, or emphasis on new gimmicks, encouraging trends or fads, and generally getting people to feel empowered or inadequate. This seems to be a potent business model if anything else, but is it?

I'd argue that it actually isn't.

In the short run, perhaps this encourages the well-known pack instincts, brutal indifference and arrogant pride of gamers, but it really just breeds a culture of insecurity. Games Workshop, for instance, consider themselves "sellers of miniatures" and try to underplay the importance of the horribly shit rules that accompany them as secondary, and this does show incredibly well. They seem to have no idea how to make an actual wargame these days. They bring out a core system, which they proceed to completely undermine with Codex releases. Encouraging shifting faction combinations, only acerbated by the blatant and overly emphasised inclusion of allies. 40k in particular is a case in point. How much thought went into the allies system? Well, Ward invariably made sure all of his Codexes were more or less allies of convenience. The rest he took from the WHFB allies system, which itself was likely largely nabbed from some Grand Tournament material.

Warhammer 40,000 and Warhammer Fantasy Battle have both gone from games with extreme faction isolation (even within groups that should really be fighting together) to a clunky, exploitable and largely pointless system of faction interbreeding, overcomplicated by the inconsistent, badly written, and completely imbalanced Codexes. With the new Rulebook, there was potential to standardise a large portion of the rules, and take things such as special rules, weapons, and alliances into a consistent and thoughtful framework. It would be generous of me to say that this was attempted. To be more accurate would be to say a small portion of this might have been realised, very likely by accident.

That is not to say that Warmachine and Hordes are much better for this, although they do try to address the differences in factions with much greater attention than GW even bothers with. Warmahordes are far more loyal to their core ruleset, and more consistent towards it, aside of the GW-like anti-upping, and faction difference that is equally inevitable. Some rules are standardised, and readily available, but many arent.

Faction difference is inevitable, but is it a problem? Well, it depends. On a how to mess this up example, the best one without doubt would be 40k. That game is a total mess, and was worse in 5th Edition. Given enough time 6th Edition will likely be just as bad, if not worse. It's turning into a mongolian clusterf*** of positively epic proportions.

As far as I'm concerned, if a wargame hasn't got a consistent core, or loses one because of emphasis upon faction difference, then you really have a problem. A core ruleset is far, far more important than making a faction feel more different than the next one. Within a core ruleset, this can even be done. Most rulesets, even offending ones in this case, manage to standardise some difference by including it in the core. It isn't just a matter of it being there so you can see it though, it gets right to the heart of the matter. If you need to change the way your game plays by making faction change massive, then your wargame is a waste of time.

Good faction writing is all about utilising the core ruleset to offer difference in a way that works. Sticking it closer to the core makes balance more likely, and regulates what can be done. Sure, anti-upping is reduced, but is that a bad thing? Besides, new ideas can be introduced, but they must work within the logic of the Core and not undermine the point of it. Necromunda, for instance has House Gangs, where difference is tracked through in-game mechanics. It's not perfect, but it shows the idea's potential. Whereas the real bugbear is the Outlanders gangs (Skavvies, Redemptionists, Spyrers, Ratskin Renegades, Pit Slaves and Enforcers), where factions start getting special rules. Most of these come with heavy downsides, which is more effort to balance than GW has bothered with since the late 90s.

Still, the true secret to making factions is to stick as rigidly as possible to a pre-determined set of guidelines. If factions are going to get special rules, all factions should. All benefits should be relative: it's hard for some benefits to not be more useful than others, but they should be of equal value in some way. If new equipment and rules are brought in, they should be considerate of all factions. Never, ever, update the core via the rules of a single, or more up to date factions. If your core needs updating mid-way, you're doing it wrong.

Above all else, difference shouldn't exist for the sake of it. Have logical reasons why they are worth including. Difference impacting rules is fine, but don't overdo it. Wearing woolly hats isn't enough to make your faction any better in cold conditions automatically, unless your faction is actually used to cold. Good factions will provide ying to another's yang, but make sure that other factions don't get advantages because some factions are over-specialised towards a specific enemy. Make sure all factions stand a fair and even chance against any faction.

Use the core ruleset wisely. Make sure rules set up a logic that you are always loyal to (that way rules issues are easier to resolve), and that is always consistent. Only include universal weapons and upgrades if they actually are universal to all factions (or at least parts of each combined means they are universal to all factions). Make sure that factions are not undermined by certain battle types, unless there is good reason for it. Encourage players to get the feel for factions. If some factions are more difficult to master than others, provide incentives or options that allow those factions tactical flexibility, even if they appear weaker.

Always remember that no faction is bigger than a setting. All factions are interesting if done well, and a good faction will sell itself. There is no need to oversell something that is obviously cool already when other factions deserve equal attention if not more because they are less obvious. Why do GW still, for instance, exert so much effort to push Space Marines, when they are so cool anyway that they sell themselves? The more they waste their time beating a dead horse, the less time can be spent on development that is actually useful. Not that I want to encourage the current Dev team to do much development to other factions. Other factions are actually still interesting, and it would be nice if they stayed that way.