The Hobgit: The Simple Fallacy of Simplicity

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.

There and Back Again: A Hobgit’s Tale

To celebrate my new Blog, I figured I’d start by launching a new series of articles: The Hobgit. These articles are about a 20something git, and his relationship with the hobby. I hope it will offer much advice, important lessons, and useful ideas. At the very least, I hope it provides amusing reading. This is a new article format for me, as I’m planning to restrict each article to a set word length of 1000 words. There will also be a mix of articles, as well as Top X lists, most likely various miniatures from different systems. Obviously by “the hobby”, I mean wargaming, and all its attached baggage…

Wargaming isn’t exactly the worst hobby in the world.  It has its bonuses: it’s slightly better than meeting strangers in pubs; it can fool you into thinking you’re being creative, even if you haven’t got a creative bone in your body; it offers an opportunity to realise how utterly impossible it is to take losing well; and it shows you the value of money, although not necessarily value for money. Wargaming also teaches you valuable lessons in life: such as you’ll never have enough money; your socks stink from all the standing around; you’re more boring than you imagined but at least you know people more boring than you are; and pointless, useless information about something made up (or that is embedded in history) is definitely more interesting and indeed more worth falling out over than that [insert important thing] you should be doing.

My relationship with the hobby could be described as tumultuous. It has been a part of my life for nearly 20 years. There have been countless ups, downs, falling outs, nerdrages, system swaps, threats to quit, and rolls of dice. Certain parts of the hobby can feel like an actual job, one that you pay someone else for the pleasure of getting stressed out about it. When I started, I actually only wanted some miniatures so that I could make a board game. However, I quickly got sucked into the wider world of wargaming, and I’ve been stuck in that maelstrom ever since.

For the large part of my gaming life, I have mostly played Warhammer 40,000 by Games Workshop. However, in later years I have moved away from it, and indeed GW, due to, in a large part, the replacement of the writing talent that worked for them with a bunch of semi-literate morons with the writing capacity of egotistical fan-fiction writers; stuck in literary ruts created by overuse of marty stu’s, clichés, and an attitude to balance akin to an elephant on a unicycle. As I have always prided myself upon being honest (and pride is definitely the important word there), I have lived my views on my sleeves, and so much of the crappy writing (which as a writer myself makes my skin boil) has increasingly affected my enjoyment of the hobby.

My overt (some would say constant) criticism of GW hasn’t exactly done me many favours. Whilst I have trouble with the idea of putting down my critic hat, I certainly have learned that some people find my critical attitude damages my credibility. I find it rather silly, but I cannot deny that the barrage of criticism makes me look like a total hater. Arguing contrary using logic doesn’t really seem to shift this. Trying to convince people that moaning about something means you care deeply about it and thus want it to improve is more fraught with danger than going on CMON and making an argument that using inks is for pussies.

I suppose the wider problem is that I’ve always had a hard time striking a balance. It’s tough when the good things about the hobby are so easy to take for granted. Why would I use up valuable discussion time talking about something that everybody already agrees with? Why discuss the reasons why we are all there in the first place? Besides, there are larger concerns, such as spending money on a luxury to such a blind, and impulsive extent, that it removes any impetus for improvement on the part of those who supply it. Doth the cynic protest too much? Perhaps. But the worry is that too many people are satisfied when the cynic protests too little.

How to influence people into action, however, is not through moaning. If there’s one thing that is important, is that it is more worthy to show what you know, than what you think. Experience, action, and knowledge are far better motivators. If you’re going to knock at a foundation, you need to show you know how to build one yourself. But ultimately, it’s worth giving up on trying to prove a point. If you’re motivated by the need to show others what for, rather than doing it for your own sake, then the likelihood is you’re doing it for all the wrong reasons.

It’s a hard act to break out of, being a cynic. In fact, personal change is a difficult thing in general. But recently I have been trying to do just that. Besides, I didn’t get to where I was without picking up a lot of advice and learning hard lessons. That’s more worth sharing than how much of a total prick Matt Ward is, even though he is a total prick. I’ve actually realised that I’ve been piecing my hobby back together. For a few years, I had lost it, lost what it was, what I loved about it. I had made myself numb to its charms. I can’t say my outlook has changed overly, but I’m certainly enjoying it again.

The biggest problem with any outlook is the knowing. When you know how something ticks, it kind of loses some of the magic. But it makes you so much better at helping others, that it’s usually a good idea to lose a bit of that self-centredness and make yourself useful. Hopefully through the course of this series, I can do just that.

A (Re)Introduction

Greetings, TWC here.

I welcome you all to my new blog! My previous blog, The Wargaming Cynic was, I thought, a good little blog, and I rather miss it. Sadly, it was a colossal faff, and I decided to draw a line over it and start afresh. The primary issue was google accounts, as I ended up having two, one for each of my emails. The email I used for my blog was my old Hotmail, which was hacked. Even before then, having to sign in and out of different accounts to use different things grew tiresome quickly, and the blog suffered as a result. It turns out it was just easier to start again, and as my readership seemed rather small anyway, I'm hoping my previous audience will find me again if they're still around.

For those of you who liked my old blog: have no fear!  This blog is more or less the same, but significantly better. I will, obviously, be harvesting much of my older material that I deem worth bringing back, and I will also be mixing up the content, so there wont just be articles, but I'll be posting up pictures of my miniatures (and hopefully gaming), and I plan to experiment with a few other visual ideas. I may add a few comic strips, motivators or memetastic pictures if I can come up with any worth sharing.

So, what can you expect from this blog? Well, wordiness for one. I'm not one for mincing words, but I'm also one for using a lot of them. Articles will be a common feature on this blog. I'm a writer: I write stories, and rules of my own devising, and for existing systems and settings. Given my hefty investment in writing, I'm quite an ardent critic of writing in wargames, particularly Games Workshop's, as it is so frequently awful.

There will be a lot of articles on gaming and rules writing, as these are topics I can talk endlessly upon. As I don't quite know what I'll be doing through the weeks, I'll be relying on my views on these to keep the articles and content flowing. I will endeavour to add more hobby-based content this time, however. So not every post will necessarily be waffle.

There will be a large amount of content towards specific topics. 40k Orks, for instance, is a subject that particularly interests me. I have been writing a series of articles on misconceptions about Orks, called Orkish Misconceptions for a forum I frequent, and I will be posting the articles here as well. I will also post my Orky fluff up on here, and, once I see what I can do with this thing, I'll see what I can do about showing the kinds of rules writing I get up to for Orks and 40k.

I'm also writing a number of my own systems, and I will be at the very least showing pictures of the models I'm using, and the games I'm playing. I may talk about rules writing as a subject, but unless I intend to post up the rules for free, I will likely avoid giving away details; for now at least.

I also have other interests that distract me from my Lead Mountain (and the term isn't used lightly, I do have a fairly large one), so I may also discuss computer games, books, music, things I've seen on the internet, and occasionally real life, but I'd prefer to stray away from real life. I like to keep things trivial. Real life sends me towards apathy. If I stick to trivialities I have lots to wind me up about, and that makes much better reading.

Last, but by no means least, I am looking forward to hearing from you. My last blog was low on discussions with other people (and I myself was rather elusive), so I'm hoping to fix that this time. I will warn readers that I do write a lot of material, so this blog is one to follow if you like a good read. I will be pretty merciless with TL:DR comments. If you're here to discuss the wonders of gaming with me, I really want to talk to you. If you're here to remind me how lazy and illiterate the internet is making people, well, the Next Blog tab is not difficult to miss.

Thanks for reading,