With WSS' 2022 Great Wargaming Survey wrapped up, time to begin digging into the survey responses.
While many of the questions remain the same from 2021, the 2022 survey saw a few, new questions added into the mix. One of these new questions is the topic for today's installment.
The question of interest is,
What is your primary source for rules.
The available choices were:
Having been in the wargaming hobby for a very long time, a quick glance over to my bookcase of rules shows rulebooks from a variety of sources. By raw numbers, commercial rulesets seem to dominate shelf space. However, there are many binders containing free and homegrown rules as well as rules clipped from magazines. A number of the classic rulesets are embedded within books on wargaming. A selection of self-published rules take up shelf space as well. What is my primary source for rules? Well, that is an answer that seems to never remain at rest. In the early days, rules in magazines and books offered inspiration when I had access to little else. With the arrival of the internet, I found much of value online. I am an avid commercial rules' collector too.
Inspiration comes from many sources. The period under study often drives primary rules source too. Some periods are only addressed by one source. For me, the answer seems to settle upon the notion that I find inspiration and value in all of the sources listed in the survey. By linear feet of shelf space, I suppose Dedicated, commercially published rules may take the First Place ribbon. Being a confirmed rules tinkerer, many of the commercial rules have a tendency to see a house rule or two to satisfy my tastes. Actually, I tend to tinker with house rules for all of the primary rules sources.
What does the survey have to say on such matters?
Counts by Source for Rules
From the survey counts, more than 50% of respondents choose commercial rules as written. Add in those that may supplement commercial rules with house rules and the percentage climbs to almost 80%. Is this result surprising? Perhaps not. The advertising and visibility in the hobby press likely drives demand. The remaining 20% of the market is splintered among four categories. Self-published commercials rules make up only about 2% of the responses. I know some self-publishers produce outstanding products, many of which are comparable to dedicated commercially published rules. I wonder if this niche will grow over time?Given the dominance of dedicated, commercially published rules, are there any tendencies that can be teased out of the data? I examine a few attributes.
Source for Rules by Age Group
When examined by Age Group, do any broad generalizations emerge? Yes. Younger cohorts tend to rely upon free or magazine/book rules more so than do the older cohorts. Older cohorts are more likely to explore homegrown rules. These older groups are also more likely to add house rules into a commercial ruleset.Source for Rules by Primary Wargaming Interest
When survey results are stratified by Primary Interest (primary wargaming interest, that is, between historicals, fantasy/sci-fi, or a mix of the two), a big distinction between Fantasy/Sci-Fi and Historical gamers surfaces. Fantasy/Sci-Fi wargamers tend to stick to the rules as written (RAW). There seems little place for house rules, homegrown rules, or tinkering. Why is that? Perfect rules, focus on tournament play, or something else? The survey suggests that historical wargamers are more rules tinkerers than other groups. If you are an historical wargamer, is this your experience too? Are you a rules tinkerer?
Source for Rules by Years Spent Wargaming
As seen in tendencies from past survey analyses and the results for age and primary interest above, years spent in the wargaming hobby (Duration) offers no surprising results. In fact, duration confirms what has been presented. That is, newer wargamers tend toward free and magazine/book rules more so than do the old veterans of the hobby. These seasoned vets are more comfortable adopting house rules and homegrown rules than those with less time in grade. In whichever category you find yourself, whether by age group, primary interest, or years spent wargaming, I am always interested to read your thoughts on your sources for rules.
I tend towards free/magazine rules in part because I find them easier to obtain, and in part because they're shorter. I gave up Warhammer in large part because the rules were long, complex and (most importantly) kept changing. My favorite wargames are relatively simple ones either written decades ago or influenced by them.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to wargaming, I don't do that much houseruling or ruleswriting of my own. I simply hop from set to set, because the ones I read are generally quick to read and understand. RPG-wise, I also go for "lite" games, but as gamemaster I lean more strongly towards running off the top of my head. This may be because I'm playing with newbies and kids, and in a hurry. My solo wargames can be a little more leisurely, as long as a certain cat isn't in the room...
Excellent start to the discussion, Jennifer!
DeleteHaving a shorter ruleset does not necessary lead to clarity. As an example, One Hour Wargames has openings one could march a battalion through.
Fair enough. My go-to RPG at the moment is so barebones that I consider it to have one basic rule: "The gamemaster tells you what to roll." When I tried this method out in a simple wargame even my rookie teen players complained about the lack of structure.
DeleteFeatherstone's rules, while charming, I find most frustrating in this vein, because so much is left out or to the imagination of the player. I have switched largely to what I call "Featherstonesque" rules that have codified the basic principles of his games - Natholeon's blog comes to mind.
I understand your frustration with Featherstone rules. I find similar situations with other "classics" rules' writers.
DeleteCompletely agree. Wargaming with you lot means my rules tend to be more detailed, because you ask the questions.
DeletePerhaps that is one reason I never see any errata with your rules?
DeleteNo substitute for playtesting. Plus I had to do technical writing when I worked full time.
DeleteA fascinating view of the data and summary. Interesting how SciFi/Fantasy tend to stick with the rules, perhaps Historical games tinker more with rules to reflect their reading and period research.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Peter! That finding was a revelation to me too.
DeleteI should think it's because SF/Fantasy overwhelmingly means Games Workshop, and GW games (despite support for "open" and "narrative" play) are almost entirely played according to points totals by the community, and there's a laser focus on rules changes and FAQs that can change the "meta." There's also the strong support for tournament play, which of course also requires a tighter ruleset.
DeleteThanks for the insight! I discovered last week that there actually is a GW Warhammer shop in town. complete surprise to me. Never been in one until last week
DeleteMaybe SF/Fantasy gamers are less inclined to tweak rules (or even question them) because there isn't the opportunity to challenge the plausibility of rules/outcomes. There's no equivalent to reducing the effectiveness of cavalry frontally charging musket-armed infantry in line, because in your opinion the historical evidence points to cavalry charging frontally as being ineffective.
DeleteChris, your answer makes perfect sense to me. With no historical benchmark to gauge against and a regimented rulesbook geared toward competitive play, making modifications might encounter a lot of resistance.
DeleteA very thought provoking and insight post JF. An interesting observation that I have noticed over the years- all my gamer friends are in their 50s and 60s...but our sons are now, in their 20s, joining. We have tended to go of VERY simple rules as we get older- we all played WRG 6th and 7th Ed once upon a time- but The Men Who Would Be Kings is as complex as we like. Our sons enjoy the simplicity and speed of the 'one pagers' that we use- but will go back to their GW complexities regardless. It must be an age thing.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the simpler the rules..the bigger some of the gaps BUT we spend less time agonising over this than we do with more complex sets where the rules seem inconsistent or attempting to work out the complexity. It is expected that a one pager will have gaps....so a die roll sorts it out....rather than a debate over what the rules intend in a more complex set. And then the game plays faster because of the lack of continued consultancy of the rules...
Thanks, John! Good to hear from you. I followed a similar path in rules’ preference. I began wanting lots of detail and complexity. Later in life I realized that combat can b modeled with much more abstraction for similar outcomes for more satisfaction.
DeleteRather than modeling a process or feature explicitly, let the die do the work to determine if the event was successful or not.
Well I am in the grizzled veteran (turned sixty a couple of weeks ago....I know, I was dismayed too!) Been only a historical gamer since my teens, and, as mentioned in similar discussions, I think I have only ever bought one set of commercial rules....so I am not typical in this question, that's for sure! This probably explains my surprise at the low % for home grown rules. Since I made contact with the Auckland based group I game with about thirty years ago, the vast majority of our large multi player games have used rules designed by one or more of the group...for the last ten years or so, these have been based on a gaming engine designed by Mark S of 1866 & All That blog fame. Even I have created some rules of my own, pinching a lot of ideas I like from other sets ( isn't that how all rules are created anyway?) When playing at Julan's on a Friday evening, we invariably use a commercial/ free set but these change with bewildering frequency....we must have played thirty sets in the last twenty years! Current favourites are TtS, FK&P, Iron Cross and 1914, with occasional dips into Sharpe Practice. Then I have the two page rules my mate Andrew created that I have been using for the Pulp solo games recently. I also crave simplicity...I NEVER liked the WRG style rules...they seemed more like exercises in arithmetic to me and not a hell of a lot of fun, to be honest....and I am not really trying to create a mathematically accurate representation of warfare in various ages when I wargame...I just want to have some fun with like minded looneys on a nicely dressed table with lovely looking toy soldiers!
ReplyDeleteKeith, you are a grizzled veteran, no doubt but "like minded looneys"? C'mon. We are all consenting adults here who just happend to enjoy playing with toy soldiers.
DeleteI am a bit surprised that more commercial rules to do not see action on your table.
Happy belated 60th!
DeleteI was an avid rulebook collector. Now I tend to rely more on house rules and homegrown sets which I can evolve
ReplyDeleteNeil, you fit the tendency to tinker with rules as you age. Perhaps over time, we realize exactly what we want and do not want in a game and set of rules?
DeleteMy now limited interest span has commercial + support (RFR), commercial + tweaks (Neil Thomas) and magazine (Loose Files & ACW). The unifying factor is simplicity, mainly because I’m getting old and patience/time limited. You could say because I don’t play they could be hideously complex anyway, but then I couldn’t be bothered to read them! I think this is due in part to the era I started gaming in, when rules were gaining in complexity but losing playability. I went through that loop of thinking detailed rules were grown up and discarding my Wise/Featherstone sets in favour of Newbury etc. That’s entirely possible when you are single and live with your parents, but rapidly loses its lustre as you advance through work, family, DIY, etc.
ReplyDeleteJeffers, I think you may have summarized the life cycle perfectly. You must really get a game on the table so that you can put the "gamer" back into "wargamer".
DeleteExcellent piece and some interesting stats in the Survey. I'm definitely a tinkerer rather than writer of rules. I will, more often than not, start with a commercial set I enjoy and add a few house rules as I go along. One of the benefits of having a dedicated gaming room is solo play games and this means I can experiment without upsetting anyone!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Lee! I think many of us, historical wargamers, have our own perspectives on how battle ough to be fought and simulated. Very difficult to find a ruleset that precidely fits that individual model.
DeleteHaving a dedicated wargaming table is requirement for many, myself included. A large room that could be pressed into service as a dedicated wargaming space was a requirement for my last two home purchases.
I think it is an interesting question how much the pattern of more tinkering/home growing of rules reflects years in the hobby and how much it reflects the gaming history of players. I would echo many things said here (the move from Old School rules to the new "grown up" style of WRG - we really did think like that because we were teenagers - for example). Will younger gamers now, who grew up with a different style of rules and gaming environment, follow the same pattern. Time will tell. I'd hate to lose the creativity and freedom of rules writing and tinkering though. I can see the attraction of RAW for competitive play (you don't need ambiguity) but slavishly following rules in more "historically themed entertainments" seems discordant somehow.
ReplyDeleteAnthony, it is interesting how the survey results continue to confirm and validate our own notions on gaming and reinforce our own experience.
DeleteFor wargamers of a certain age group, ther appears to be a definite life cycle to preference in wargaming rules.
The creativity and freedom (and let's not dismiss joy and education) in rules writing and tinkering is an important part of the hobby. To me, it certainly is.
Thanks for your comments!
I'm definitely in the commercial rulesets with house rules category. I have no interest nor the energy and inclination to write my own. Nowadays I stick with a few core rulesets that have very similar mechanics (think BKCII, BPII, HoW) so that I can concentrate on the game, rather than the rules themselves. Where I think there are gaps or things need tweaking, I do that solo or in common with my friends. I too do not always find simple rules work well, with the OHW being a case in point.
ReplyDeleteSteve, you may be a commercial ruleset guy but I have seen you dive into make your own modifications and tweaks to get them just right.
DeleteConcentrating on a few, core rulesets is a reasonable way forward. In my own gaming, I try to use rules that have a similar Game Engine so that the mechanisms and processes become second nature. I have three (maybe four) core Game Engines that I return to regularly. This is doubly important when hosting games as part of a regular routine.
Its probably not surpising that people with only a few years are less likely to develop their own rules (even ignoring that a 24 year can't have 30 years of experience....) when there is so much on offer and easily available over the internet if there are no local shops, and when opponents are easier to find than before the days of the internet and so many publications.
ReplyDeleteLeaving out the 30+ grognards, the variation isn't huge across the range of experiences. The biggest variation (over the internet) is probably due to the increased familiarity with the internet and the rise of availablity of things in general. Passing typed copies of a set of homegrown didn't have the penetration of posting links on social media. Publishing in magazines was better but still pretty limited.
Hi Ross, it may not be surprising but one of the first commercial rulesets I bought as a lad through Wargamer's Digest was missing a few crucial pages when collated, bound, and shipped. Trying to make do, I made up what I thought were reasonable morale rules. Necessity was the Mother of Invention for me.
DeleteGreat insights, Ross!
I suffered from the same progression through simple, role a dice to hit, to the 'more realistic' complicated rules, on to slightly simpler rules, then back to simple again. First rules were sort of made up (I had been told of some basic rule principles, but hadn't seen a commercial set), to playing commercial rules, to tweaking rules, then writing my own, before landing back on mainly commercial rules. Probably similar journey to lots of other old campaigners.
ReplyDeleteSuffered? It appears that this life cycle may be a natural evolution and experienced by many. Thanks for your insights!
DeleteI’m probably 90% commercial rules but I do tinker with them slightly to fit my biases of what a period ought to be like. I also prefer rules that take the tool kit approach; so I can or subtract things to build the forces as I see fit. 😀
ReplyDeleteStew, with your work load and busy family life, perhaps, you have no time to explore full-on rules' tinkering?
DeleteVery interesting topic and analysis, I have lots of sets of rules, commercial and other (exclusive of my own creations), but I tend to only play a few. Much depends on what is trending in my gaming group, which I think is a variable that is unexamined in this survey--probably worth a study of its own as far as how it influences collection and use.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Ed! Yes, I suspect gaming environment plays a role in rules' selection, for sure. I know, for me, there are many rules I would have never tried (or even heard about!) without outside influences from gaming buddies.
DeleteI have always preferred commercial published rules as there are usually lots of pages of errata plus rules clarifications available online. The groups I game with are all fairly easygoing and not overly competitive, but it is nice to be able to fall back on rules clarification when required. The downside of commercial rules can sometimes be the new editions which are not always an improvement.
ReplyDeleteGood and comprehensive support is one reason to prefer commercial rules. Some offer better support than others, though. New editions are not always a step forward. There are rules that have completely transformed themselves between 1st and 2nd edition. So much so that the 2nd edition is an entirely different game.
DeleteHmmm, interestingly much of what is drawn out in the survey reflects life here. We, that is my small group, tend to play commercial rules for the tactical table, but almost free kriegspiel for campaigns. We tend to pick up a rule set and play a few sessions by the book, then decide to keep or discard for our use. We have a mix of simpler ( Chosen Men) to complex (Piquet Le Grogs) for most games in our imagination campaign, while for the ColdWar we are trying out GHQ's Modern Micro rules as well as the 7 Days to the Rhine River. Both provide interesting games and personally I enjoy both.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your feedback, Joe! Encouraging to see that your experience is reflected in the survey summaries and results.
DeleteExcellent post Jonathan.
ReplyDeleteI guess that I'm lucky, easy-going or dull as when I find a set of commercial rules that I think does the job then I still with them regardless. When I can't find a commercial set I end up writing my own. My French Revolutionary Wars rules, and now in the process for the French Wars of Religion, are examples. Have I tinkered in the past? Of course. But I realised that, for me, if I needed to change a set of rules maybe the issue was more fundamental about my perception of the conflict/period. Plus, I have found that little house rules can, if not carefully conceived, sometimes unintentionally skew or unbalance other aspects. However, I do love hearing about what gamers have done to resolve issues with commercial sets and how they have worked.
Thanks, Richard! Very pleased to see you enjoyed the post.
DeleteYou make a very good point about the hazards of tacking on house rules to commercial rulesets without careful consideration to any potential consequences. Sometimes a well-intentioned house rule improves play; sometimes it breaks the whole system. With care and practice, one learns which change will produce which outcome. Mostly.
Good luck in your rules' writing!
Always interesting, I know in the world of Games Workshop there is little room for tinkering, it would border on heresy, whereas in historical fames we all have our own views on how Republican Roman maniples were deployed against a Phalanx or the effectiveness of the longbow in the 100 years war, occasionally we agree with each other!
ReplyDeleteBest Iain
You nailed it, Iain!
DeleteI can only echo what most have already written. To me that older, historical gamers tend to tinker with commercial rules comes as no surprise. I think we all tend to be unhappy with those aspects of a ruleset that we feel do not give a historically accurate picture because we have historical accounts to compare to. On the other hand, what can sci-fi gamers compare their rules to?
ReplyDeletePerspectives change over time. As I have grown older I too feel that excessively detailed rules are not necessarily the best to play when my view differed earlier in life. Today I see historically accurate results as more important than detail and intricate mechanics. If I can arrive at an acceptable result in a simple and direct way, what is the point of going through myriad tables and procedures to arrive at the same result? Or is it that the older one gets, the shorter the attention span and patience to read through complex rulesets (at least in my case)?
Amen, brother! Do you think our attention spans/patience are getting shorter as we age?
DeleteI know mine is!
DeleteThat makes two of us Jennifer!
DeleteUntil the past 20(1) years, it would have almost all been house rules, often inspired by concepts borrowed from elsewhere, whether in wargames magazines, books, or commercial sets. . Now I've written a few sets, and mostly use commercial rules with house modifications. But that isn't stopping me from seeing if I can do a decent job of simple Napoleonic rules for my HMGS Next Gen games.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Peter! You fit the demographic profile handsomely.
Delete