In the latest issue of Wargames Soldiers & Strategy (issue 136), Rich Clarke of Too Fat Lardies has some interesting thoughts to share on playtesting wargaming rules. I will not repeat the entire column here (buy the magazine!), but one thing struck me in his opening paragraph.
He describes the setup in which rules dynamically evolve over many gaming sessions, and the master document after each game is updated to reflect the experience and insights from the last game. As such, the rules are a "living document", slightly morphing each time.
It struck a chord with me because that's precisely how I develop my own house rules. I've always been a fan of developing one's own rules, rather than using commercially published rules (although I of course also do the latter!). But it's an approach that only works in a closed gaming group, with one person clearly in control of the rules.
After each game in which our house rules are used, we usually have a short debriefing session. What worked? What didn't work? What's unnecessary chrome? What is missing? Etc. Over the years, we have evolved towards rulesets that fit our preferred playing style perfectly. But it is a moving target ... rules we were in favour of let's say 5 years ago might not work anymore due to changes in gaming preference, influence from other rules, changing types of scenarios, etc.
Nevertheless, it's an approach that works well. Rather than casting the rules in stone, wargaming rules should be a dynamic. It's completely in sync with the DIY ethos in miniature wargaming.
An excellent point. The very "moving target" nature of home brew rules is a huge part of the fun of drafting and revising a set. After reading your post, I feel much better about my own (very) slowly evolving WAS & SYW rules, which have unit morale as their primary focus more than anything else. The answer? I need to play more games. That might help nail down and clarify a few points, but the dynamism you describe is nevertheless a highly attractive feature.
ReplyDeleteKind Regards,
Stokes (Michigan, USA)
Stokes,
DeleteOver the years, we even have flipflopped over some of our rule mechanics. But that's ok. As I said, sometimes insights and preferences change (again), and we go back to something we had before. But I feel perfectely ok with that. It's of course a different situation when one would want to publish a ruleset for a wider audience, but I'll keep that for when I'm retired ;-)